F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Need guidance? Here’s some reference material.

Need guidance? Here’s some reference material.

Need guidance? Here’s some reference material.

K
kingpie64
Member
144
02-03-2016, 11:09 AM
#1
No one does, but you should check your settings and hardware compatibility.
K
kingpie64
02-03-2016, 11:09 AM #1

No one does, but you should check your settings and hardware compatibility.

H
Henrywonderful
Junior Member
22
02-03-2016, 03:52 PM
#2
Userbenchmark is of poor quality.
H
Henrywonderful
02-03-2016, 03:52 PM #2

Userbenchmark is of poor quality.

M
Misterjaws77
Member
215
02-05-2016, 07:37 AM
#3
Disregard Userbenchmark. Focus on performance that meets your needs in games and apps.
M
Misterjaws77
02-05-2016, 07:37 AM #3

Disregard Userbenchmark. Focus on performance that meets your needs in games and apps.

S
Sky319
Member
86
02-05-2016, 08:49 AM
#4
Clear and easy to grasp.
S
Sky319
02-05-2016, 08:49 AM #4

Clear and easy to grasp.

L
Luki7489
Member
74
02-06-2016, 03:32 AM
#5
Did you push the clock speed too high? I’d rather let PBO handle things for everyday tasks.
L
Luki7489
02-06-2016, 03:32 AM #5

Did you push the clock speed too high? I’d rather let PBO handle things for everyday tasks.

E
228
02-06-2016, 03:20 PM
#6
Notice the slight second bump in the curve to the right of the first one. That's a result of users overclocking, which is commonly done when running the UserBenchmark suite, because people like to see how awesome they are compared to other people. So if you aren't running PBO or overclocking, your result is going to look worse relative to those users. It's one of the pitfalls of using UserBenchmark - they lump OC and non-OC results together without a way to separate out the data. Here's a great example of a chip where it is plain as day that there are two separate curves for OC vs non-OC, yet it's all grouped together: Xeon X5660 Yes, they technically have OC and non-OC results for individual parts, but without any sort of transparency to know how they determine when a result is OC or non-OC, such a distinction is meaningless, because you, as a user, have no way of knowing what the numbers actually mean. If you really want to benchmark your chip, I'd run something more consistent, like Cinebench, and compare online against that.
E
EliteChicagoan
02-06-2016, 03:20 PM #6

Notice the slight second bump in the curve to the right of the first one. That's a result of users overclocking, which is commonly done when running the UserBenchmark suite, because people like to see how awesome they are compared to other people. So if you aren't running PBO or overclocking, your result is going to look worse relative to those users. It's one of the pitfalls of using UserBenchmark - they lump OC and non-OC results together without a way to separate out the data. Here's a great example of a chip where it is plain as day that there are two separate curves for OC vs non-OC, yet it's all grouped together: Xeon X5660 Yes, they technically have OC and non-OC results for individual parts, but without any sort of transparency to know how they determine when a result is OC or non-OC, such a distinction is meaningless, because you, as a user, have no way of knowing what the numbers actually mean. If you really want to benchmark your chip, I'd run something more consistent, like Cinebench, and compare online against that.