Jump to content

new benchmarks that are more self-explaining


Recommended Posts

With new Geekbench 4, users can benchmark tablets, phones and computers and results can be compared to each other so you can see whether your phone or your notebook is faster.

A few months after that program has been released, over a million results of benchmarked devices is online - including upcoming tech like Kaby Lake.

I have the fear that AIDA64 cannot compete with that and it cannot compete with the more self-explaining benchmarks there so I want to suggest using

new benchmarks like LZMA, HTML5 parsing, PDF rendering, Speech recognition.. perhaps instead of Julia, SinJulia and Mandel benchmarks.

Even more important (from my point of view) are (GPU) Compute-Benchmarks, preferably in benchmark menu (where all other benchmarks are) rather than in Tools/GPGPU-benchmark window.

Those benchmarks could use OpenCL and could calculate histogram equalization, face detection, physics or camera raw developments/conversions instead of Julia and Mandel.

As people can cope better with 2 scores than many, I would suggest AIDA to report 2 scores after all benchmarks are done: one for CPU and one for GPU.

This is just brainstorming - please don't take that personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) We do not really compete with Geekbench or other similar benchmark software, mainly because AIDA64 has no online database where users could submit their scores. Until we have that, we don't really see the type of benchmarks we've got an issue.

2) We haven't added the OpenCL benchmarks to the regular page tree simply because those scores can vary greatly across not only different hardware, but different drivers with the same hardware too. So for example, by simply upgrading your video drivers may cause the scores to jump up or down 20 or 50 percent. Such inconsistency would never happen with native (x86/x64) CPU or FPU benchmarks. OpenCL is a very different beast, and so we have to treat it as a different beast too :) 

3) As for producing a single benchmark score, from time to time we reconsider that idea, but then we always get to the point of dropping the idea. It's because even though producing a single score may sound quite convenient, but it would represent basically nothing about the actual performance of the system or CPU. It's also very difficult to come up with reasonable weighting of scores. If you take all our existing benchmarks, add all the scores up as a percentage to a certain hardware (let's take Core 2 Extreme X6800 as a rererence of 100% performance for example), then it may sound a great solution ... as long as hardware accelerated AES, AVX and FMA don't distort the picture :) Not to mention what AVX-512 and hardware accelerated SHA would mean for next-generation processors...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By blkwzrd
      Hi there. If this isn't the right place to be posting something like this I completely understand. Apologies!   My memory is posting terrible speeds from the Aida64 Cache & Memory benchmark which has sent me on a wild goose hunt!   I then checked CPU Queen and that test seemed correct.
      I then checked CPU Photoworxx and that gave me results near the bottom of the list at 1200 MPixel/s when I should be getting around 26000+ MPixel/s.   I'm using Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 DRAM 2400MHz (PC4-19200) C14 (CMK32GX4M4A2400C14)) Quad channel configured in A1 B1 C1 D1. I have done a BIOS flash to the latest version (2101). I was using 1901 before.   On both BIOS versions I have tried default factory RAM setup (2133) in BIOS as well as the auto & manually configuring XMP 2400 profile @ 14, 16, 16, 31 2T @ 1.200v that it was sold and packaged as.   I've tried removing all overclocks and reverting to the original "Optimised defaults" in BIOS.   My FPS in games has been about 50% of what it should be. Initially I thought it was GPU but I noticed in Firestrike my CPU Physics test was very poor and so then I thought it was CPU. But now that I've seen this stuff going on with the RAM it looks like it could be the culprit?   Any help would be greatly appreciated!!!   I've attached CPUID MSR dump to this post too.     AIDA64 Memory benchmark result >>    .   CPU-Z screenshots of Memory & SPD tabs can be seen here >>      I then wondered if memtest86+ would see anything but it ran for 10hrs. 11/11 tests completed with 0 errors. You can see the memory is top left is going at 1924 mb/s without overclocks.   Memtest86+ results:          PC Specs: **CPU** Intel Core i7 5820k (OC 4.4ghz @ 1.22v) Latest BIOS 2101 **CPU COOLER** Corsair H110i GTX  **MOTHERBOARD** Asus X99-A/USB 3.1 ATX LGA2011-3  **MEMORY** Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB DDR4-2400  **VIDEO CARD** EVGA GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB HYBRID **STORAGE** Samsung 850 EVO-Series 500GB SSD  **PSU** EVGA SuperNOVA 1000G2 1000W   ------------------ System Information ------------------       Time of this report: 4/12/2016, 02:01:09              Machine name: XXXXXXX          Operating System: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 10586) (10586.th2_release_sec.160223-1728)                  Language: English (Regional Setting: English)       System Manufacturer: ASUS              System Model: All Series                      BIOS: 2101                 Processor: Intel® Core i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30GHz (12 CPUs), ~3.3GHz                    Memory: 32768MB RAM       Available OS Memory: 32668MB RAM                 Page File: 2739MB used, 34793MB available               Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS           DirectX Version: 12       DX Setup Parameters: Not found          User DPI Setting: Using System DPI        System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)           DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled                  Miracast: Available, with HDCP Microsoft Graphics Hybrid: Not Supported            DxDiag Version: 10.00.10586.0000 64bit Unicode   ------------ DxDiag Notes ------------       Display Tab 1: No problems found.         Sound Tab 1: No problems found.         Sound Tab 2: No problems found.         Sound Tab 3: No problems found.           Input Tab: No problems found. cpuidmsrdump.txt
  • Create New...