Jump to content
AIDA64 Discussion Forum

chumanga

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About chumanga

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. Thanks, im using win 8.1 like you point, now with 5.0 it's reading same numbers like other software.
  2. Hello, i was monitoring gpu dynamic memory in AIDA64 and with hwinfo64, this gpu dynamic memory is supposed to be the system shared memory to GPU right? I'm just curious with new games which use lot of Vram and my card got only 2gb, and the results using same game Assassins Creed Unity AIDA64 reports shared memory of 2400-2900mb oscilation during playing while hwinfo64 reports 800-1100mb reading at same time. What can be the differences in monitoring method of AIDA64 to the other to get different results for the same reading.
  3. Starting, i wasted your time, sorry for that. While i make a lot of bench in differents ways like memory clocks, timmings, nb clock, cpu clock to benchmark winrar and aida64 memory somedays ago in windows 7, i tested too in dual channel 2 sticks i have 2gb same models, and i see the memory bench of aida64 got more stable values without vary so much like 3 sticks. So testing in windows 8 with only 2 sticks of 2gb that make same stable values like windows 7 make with 2x2gb. Thats a solved problem, but strange win7 can make best values with 3 sticks and windows 8 cannot. Dual channel 2x2gb windows 7: http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/2240/biqr.png Dual channel 2x2gb windows 8: http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6018/extv.png Thanks for help.
  4. Let me say something, im not expertise but i understand about overclocking and hardware setup like cpu frequency, Northbridge frequency, memory frequency/latency make difference in this benchmark of aida64 memory and winrar bench.I say that because i was addicted to overclock my hardware these last days benchmarking in winrar and aida64 memory in windows 7. So i know that, i make a fair comparison, and checked the hardware configuration, and make both benchs over same config specs: Cpu: 3.4ghz, nb: 2000mhz, memoryy: 8gb 3 sticks 1333mhz 9-9-924-33 1t. I gonna show you both win7 and win8 aida64 memory bench first. I used hdd's in AHCi mode in both hdd OS systems with AMD ahci chipset installed. win8 result: http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/4159/vozc.png win7 result: http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2562/x8at.png
  5. Hello, yes i used same version, aida64 3.20.2600. I just installed windows 8 x64 to test battlefield 4 beta, because dont run well in windows 7. Beyond aida64 i tested winrar performance, and there too i got worse performance compared to windows 7. Winrar performance decrease from 4000-4100 kb/s in windows 7 x64 to 3600-3700 kb/s in windows 8 x64. Using same version 4.20 x64 winrar. I dont know if matters, but i installed each OS in differente HDD, but them have same 7200rpm, windows 7 in 500gb segate and 100gb for OS partition, and windows 8 2tb seagate 200gb for OS partition So im confused, maybe windows 8 is a heavy OS?
  6. Hi there, so im have a little doubt about the true value of memory benchmark, i have a phenom x4 965 and in windows 7 x64 it got some faster results in memory read and copy over windows 8 pro x64. The results is this: Windows 7 result Memory Read: 14500 mb/s memory write: 8000 mb/s Memory Copy: 12540 mb/s latency:67.9 Windows 8 results Memory Read: 10095 mb/s Memory Write: 7566 mb/s Memory Copy: 7963 mb/s latency: 69.6 So im in doubt what making this different results, maybe windows 7 showing it wrong, or windows 8 is the problem, or because my cpu is too old for the new benchmark. The L1,L2,L3 cache got some few variation only in some points. I make the test many times and the average is what show up. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...