Userbenchmark Thread

File: speccy.png (39KB, 839x673px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 839x673px

>>55968539
http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1478602

>>55968700
> 146%

They really need to change that ..

File: SPECKER.png (47KB, 869x544px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 869x544px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1434413

>>55968983
That RAM rekts everyone's shit.

>>55969059
ya its not bad. should read @ 2390mhz though, its a bug cause of bclk overclock.

File: superspeccy.png (39KB, 674x532px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 674x532px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1478799
No idea why the benchmark is so bad.

I usually use Userbenchmarks site to compare GPUs and CPUs, how accurate of a comparison tool is it for real-world scenarios?

File: Screenshot_2016-08-07_18-22-30.png (108KB, 621x560px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 621x560px

>>55968539

>>55969330
Seems ok to me, might want to look at that background CPU usage though.

>>55969364
I've found it to be fairly accurate for GPUs. For CPUs, Geekbench might be better as it tests more thoroughly.

>>55968539
nice try NSA

File: cpu.png (51KB, 804x670px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 804x670px

>>55969413
seems kinda ok...?

>>55969413
What about passmark? I usually just watch reviews but when buying or coming across older hardware this becomes quite difficult.

>>55969456
I don't have much experience with Passmark because they bug you to buy the software, and I don't even feel like installing it. The one time I did, I beat the average score for my GPU by like 300 points.

File: ayymd.png (41KB, 733x492px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 733x492px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1478861

File: spec.png (40KB, 661x526px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 661x526px

>>55968539
http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1478836

File: 1352402025402.gif (2MB, 200x151px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x151px

>>55969531
>12'c

File: 1459643779085.png (199KB, 438x544px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 438x544px

>>55968539
Ghettobuild http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1384782

File: temp.png (2KB, 351x38px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 351x38px

>>55969572
AyyMD's on-chip sensors don't read accurately below ~40'C.
Here's the socket temperature from the motherboard.

>>55969603
Your software is probably not even calibrated to translate the sensor output to a temperature.
Happens with Intel too, but it's less of a problem there.

>>55969603
Is there even any accurate way to measire temperature on an AMD chip? I had an Athlon X4 860K and that shit frustrated me. Every program showed it as 80°C on full load and not a degree more, while AMD OverDrive showed not the package temp but the core temps somwhere around 50°C.

File: Spooky.png (48KB, 936x671px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 936x671px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1478905

Says me 980ti is performing Way under average. Odd. Maybe the 1070 and 1080 are more popular now thus skewing the average?

File: sensors.png (59KB, 1373x756px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1373x756px

>>55969649
Here's the System under load.
Blue - CPU sensor
Purple - Motherboard socket
Green - GPU

As you can see, the CPU doesn't provide accurate readings at idle, but as soon as it gets a load on it, the temperature goes up to sensible readings.

File: specs.png (54KB, 687x541px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 687x541px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1478898

No idea why it's saying my CPU's turbo clock is lower than the base clock. Should be 3.6 GHz.

File: speccy.png (37KB, 700x424px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 700x424px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1478930

Only recently started breathing new life into this old thing. Planning on dropping 40 bucks on an X5650 and a bit more on RAM

>>55969669
No, you should be seeing better results. Check your temps, drivers, etc.

>>55969669
>Odd. Maybe the 1070 and 1080 are more popular now thus skewing the average?
Percentile is only compared against the same type of hardware.

>>55969669
i think ur card might be throttling during the benchmark. either that or you have it underclocked.

>>55969715
Does your mobo even have SATA 3 ports?

File: temps.gif (11KB, 387x233px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 387x233px

>>55969627
I'm using OpenHardwareMonitor.
Here's what the temperature does when it's idling.

>>55969757
When I ran the bench I was watching a movie and browsing the web.

And I ran it again and now it's saying that one of my SSDs is slower than average. The same SSD that just performed fine.

Meh I don't care. Ran it out of curiosity. Listed 2/3 of the listings as "UFO" and now one is "nuclear sub". Seems like the test isn't consistent.

>>55969822
That motherboard doesn't.

>>55969822
No, shes pretty old. I actually have a SATA 3 card on the way.

>>55969854
It is fairly consistent if you run it from a fresh restart and don't launch all your shit.

>>55969854
>19% background cpu usagw
no shit. obv the benchmark results will be degraded if you're doing other shit in the background.

>>55970084
>>55970072
Lol this test is shit. Checked temps, voltages, and looked for speed/voltage droop resulting in any throttling. Before I restarted my PC, the sphere graphics test kept failing.

After a fresh restart with nothing running but the benchmark, here is another run. 980ti is good now, but now my CPU is performing worse with less running?....

Shit bench is shit.

http://www.userbenchmark.com/userrun/1479038?redirFrom=userbenchmark.com&

Everything stock too.

>>55970198
That's odd. My Ayymd rig ran it flawlessly.

>>55970231
yea I have no idea. Card would hit its stock 1450mhz boost clock and barely even hit 50C. CPU would hits its 4.2ghz clock and hit only 65C. No throttling.

And my CPU tested higher when I had 19% CPU usage in the background compared to the 3% of the fresh run. The test is inconsistent.

>>55969442

>He fell for the 16GB Arbeitsspeicher meme.

File: speccy 6-27-16.png (370KB, 591x696px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 591x696px

would probably score a bit better if i stopped running my background tasks, but can't be bothered.
http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1479090

File: speccy.png (22KB, 459x417px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 459x417px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1479096

File: asd.jpg (36KB, 493x390px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 493x390px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1479172

File: 1437233573075.png (138KB, 457x645px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 457x645px

>>55970459
>STD HDMI TV

File: Captura.png (41KB, 790x590px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 790x590px

>>55968539
god I love winter

File: Capture.png (82KB, 735x563px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 735x563px

Should I just end it here and now?

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1479623

>>55972837
overclock the CPU and add 4GB of RAM, and that's a very reasonable machine.

File: speccy.png (18KB, 580x449px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 580x449px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1479764

File: Capture1.png (41KB, 759x581px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 759x581px

>>55968539
waiting for my 1080 to come in though

File: speccy.jpg (264KB, 1517x1212px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1517x1212px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1479774

That old WD blue dings my score a bit

File: 096987.png (21KB, 541x320px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 541x320px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1479832
Going to treat myself and upgrade to 1151 this christmas.

>Windows 10
Just testing it out on the new SSD
The 2tb drive has win7.

File: speccy.png (83KB, 1536x864px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1536x864px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1479825

Ran a second test afterwards which put me at 88th percentile. Not sure what to believe.

>>55972837
I've seen worse.

>>55973620
>That old WD blue dings my score a bit
Yeah get rid of that shit IMO

File: speccerino.png (37KB, 667x534px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 667x534px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1479854

I'll have you know I am quite the PC gangster.

>>55973797
Even small variations can raise the percentile significantly because most results are clustered around the same range.

File: 1498-cheap-pc-case.jpg (58KB, 500x666px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x666px

>>55973885
Cunt destroyer PC, and one shitty USB stick.

>>55973914
I've experienced in several occasions now that running a benchmark a second time yields better results than the first time. I'm not sure if it's because the hardware at that point is "warmed up" for it or whatnot, but I'm unsure if one should always take the first or second one to heart the most.

>>55973885
>1080p

>>55974004
you better believe it boi

also, you forgot
>60hz

ill probably get a korean 1440p high refresh rate monitor the next paycheck or two

File: IMG_20160722_204322073.jpg (2MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4320x2432px

>>55974016
if anyone's interested, i got my cpu into the 96th percentile on a noctua nh-d15 because AIO's are a meme.

File: 2016-08-08-071755_1920x1080_scrot.png (404KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1920x1080px

>>55969402
Thanks for the MAC address. You're supposed to run it with the -z option as well.

File: speccy722.png (44KB, 747x583px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 747x583px

There is a reason why my SSDs perform pretty bad. Well, the Intel one anyway. I'm performing a random read every 500ms.

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1480000

>>55974140
Watercooling is for silence, and stability, unless you're running an 8-core FX at 5GHz.

File: speccy 7 -16.png (47KB, 703x493px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 703x493px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1480069

File: spec.png (33KB, 893x463px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 893x463px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1480113

File: speedfanPNG.png (17KB, 411x478px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 411x478px

>>55969649
speedfan

File: speccy.png (40KB, 781x525px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 781x525px

>>55968539
Something something http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1480160

>>55969649
>>55969603
>>55969572
>>55969531

There are two different sensors being read. The low idle on >>55969531 is the AMD core temp. The >>55969603 temp is reading the amd socket temp.

Hence the discrepancies. Core temp is more accurate, while socket is more "relevant". However on load, they both equal out on load so, in the end it doesn't really matter.

File: t60s.png (82KB, 761x608px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 761x608px

Potato

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1480287

>>55975134
...
Yes.. but the core temp does not provide accurate readings at low temperatures (<~35'C).
The socket temp is always precise, but not accurate to measuring the core temp.
The sensors are in different locations, so will usually give different reading.
Speccy reads the core temp, not the socket temp, so the speccy reading goes whacky when the system is idling as the core temp is not accurate when cold.

File: C1.png (43KB, 1130x854px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1130x854px

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1480356

File: ayy.png (43KB, 915x720px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 915x720px

best computer coming through

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1480386

>>55975752
>6GB
YEAHHH

>>55975774
2x2GB + 2x1GB sticks in the machine, works fine and more is better since i had those sticks i just put them into this

>>55975781
I ran on a 2+4 Phenom II build for 3 years because a 2GB module died and I replaced it with 4.
That was good to replace.

>>55975798
6GB is enough for me in this machine i just use for general use, originally this machine had 2GB of RAM and it was painfully slow to use due to lack of RAM

File: b4.gif (1MB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 680x680px

>>55968539
>>55968700
>>55968983
>>55969531
>>55969544
>>55969669
>>55969707
>>55970407
>>55970459
>>55972166
>>55973429
>>55973620
>>55973751
>>55973885
>>55974511
>>55974662
>>55974882
>>55975058
>>55975747
>>55975752

>botnet 10

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

NORMIES LEAVE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!