[Aurornis]

The trick with GeekBench is to scroll down and look at the specific sub-benchmarks that are most relevant to you.

[AnthonyMouse]

I attempted to do this and discovered an irregularity.

Many of the systems claiming to have that CPU were actually VMs assigned random numbers of cores less than all of them. Moreover, VMs can list any CPU they want as long as the underlying hardware supports the same set of instructions, so unknown numbers of them could have been running on different physical hardware, including on systems that e.g. use Zen4c instead of Zen4 since they provide the same set of instructions.

If they're just taking all of those submissions and averaging them to get a combined score it's no wonder the results are nonsense. And VMs can claim to be non-server CPUs too:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q...

Are they actually averaging these into the results they show everyone?

[aurareturn]

Relax. No one worth their salt uses the average. They tend to pick the highest or near highest to compare.

[AnthonyMouse]

The multi-core score listed in the main results page for EPYC 9534 is 15433, but if you look at the individual results, the ones that aren't VMs with fewer than all the cores typically get a multi-core score in the 20k-25k range, e.g.:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/6807094

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/9507365

The ones on actual hardware with lower scores typically have comments like "Core Performance Boost Off":

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/1809232

And that's still a higher score than the one listed on the main page.

[aurareturn]

No one is using Geekbench 6 for Epyc evaluation. It’s a consumer benchmark.

[AnthonyMouse]

What does that have to do with the scores being wrong? As mentioned, virtual machines can claim to be consumer CPUs too, while running on hardware with slower cores than the ones in the claimed CPU.