First time posting to the forum, indeed it is my first time viewing the forum. Ive been using the Engineer version of Aida64 (registered) for about 3 months now, and overall Im impressed with the software. Its nice to just throw together a few different benchmarks and have them run how and when I want in the order I want. I was doing all this with macros before
Ive recently gotten back into building PCs, took a long hiatus back in the late 90s my last system having been assembled was a 440BX based chipset on an Abit motherboard, both of which no longer exist at least in a meaningful way lol. I was an OC neophyte back then, as I am now, although I do enjoy the hobby/sport(?)
I decided to wade into the dark and murky waters of RAM OCing, and went down that rabbit hole for a few weeks. Long story short, I bought 2 x 16GB sticks of G.Skill 3600mhz XMP mem. Stock timings sucked at 19-20-20-40-500 but I didnt know or care much about timings at the point I bought and assembled the system and so didnt realize their huge impact (relatively speaking) on ram performance.
I was able to get them to post at 4000mhz 17-22-22-36-485 and ran that for a few months, then last night got the idea to try and tweak them some more, thinking maybe all these on off cycles might have trained them to do better (i dont know if that logic is incorrect or not in regards to training, but its how I justified another sweaty night of swearing out loud and smashing keys to my wife)
Im now resting at 4000mhz 16-22-22-40-500 but I can feel they have more to give in the timings department. Frankly, im already amazed at how well these Hynix CJR chips are doing on the OC. My question is basically, Aida shows me as being first place in Latency, and near top tier in every memory bench, with only quad channel or server boards (mostly) beating me. Are these results typical for these chips and my rig? What can I do to push it further if anybody has any recommendations? And am I correct in feeling a sense of accomplishment at being in the top spot for latency, or is my joy tragically misplaced?
Thanks a lot guys, and to the Devs, great product and I will continue to use and support you!
Relevant Screens attached.
Is it possible with Aida64 Pro to send selected (or all) benchmarking information to a channel like a txt file, a database or serial port?
I'm asking because I would like to create my own sensor panel with a Raspberry Pi for a home project. For this, I would need to send the Aida64 data somewhere, then the Raspberry Pi could grab all the info and parse it to:
-Log past data
-Send on my server for remote viewing
-insert in a database for custom statistics
i'd like to see simple GPU benchmark for testing basic values of graphic cards like:
Pixel Fillrate (MPixel/s) - think can be found in some 3Dmarks
Texel Fillrate (MTexel/s) - think can be found in some 3Dmarks
Triangle/Vertices Rate (M/s) - don't know how gpu makers measure this, cant remember any benchmark for this one...
Best will be based on Opengl 1.1 so also very old profi cards can be tested (3DLabs, Intergpraph and similar stuff) and test won't be tied to some version of DirectX.
Fillrates can be measured by really old, outdated and no longer supported SPECglperf - https://www.spec.org/gwpg/pastissues/Feb2_02/opc.static/glperf.htm , but results have too many variants of results (see attached result file as warning how it should not look) and wont work on modern systems.
This kind of benchmark would be usefull for diagnostics between theoretical values of cards and real scenario. Also for detecting of number texture units and ROPS on cards with unknown specs - getting often mixed info from various sources about these at mobile chips or OEM cards (GPU makers ignoring them mostly and won't release any closer info).
Due to the enermous number of requests we've been receiving since the Ryzen market launch, concerning various confusions about AIDA64 and Ryzen, hereby we post a clarification. AIDA64 is currently not 100% compatible with the recently unveiled AMD Ryzen high-performance x86 processors. It's because AIDA64 still has a few issues that we need to fix. However, in order to fix those issues, we first need to run a series of very long benchmark tests on Ryzen, and that -- among with the bug fixes themselves -- will take several days to complete.
As for the bugs and limitations we so far discovered:
UPDATE: We have fixed #3, #4, #5 and #7 in the latest AIDA64 v5.90.4200 stable update, which is now 100% compatible with AMD Ryzen processors:
1) A number of minor hardware detection issues were already fixed in the latest AIDA64 beta update.
2) The list of Turbo and XFR PStates are invisible on Ryzen, so it's not possible to properly enumerate or track them using a software. When a core of the AMD Ryzen processor goes into idle, the core will report the clockspeed of the P2 power state (e.g. 2200MHz on the Ryzen 7 1800X) and enter into the core-c1 (CC1) or core-c6 (CC6) sleep state. While the VID remains detectable in these states, the states are power gated and the true frequency is not known to the OS or monitoring utilities. As indicated from the “fine-grained Pstate” commentary released at Ryzen Tech Day, the AMD Ryzen’s processor true frequencies in these modes are significantly lower than reported via the “last known” P2 reading. AMD engineering tells us that V/f changes can be executed at 1ms intervals, indicating that the act of monitoring the states with the resolution necessary to accurately capture this behavior would also prevent cores from entering into the ultra low-power CC1 or CC6 states.
3) L1 cache bandwidth and latency scores, as well as memory bandwidth and latency scores are already accurately measured.
4) L2 cache and L3 cache scores indicate a lower performance than the peak performance of Ryzen. The scores AIDA64 measure are actually not incorrect, they just show the average performance of the L2 and L3 caches rather than the peak performance. It will of course be fixed soon.
5) Even though AIDA64 warns about a potential lack of optimization, the CPU and FPU benchmarks should be indicative of the full potential of Ryzen. We may be able to tweak e.g. the FPU Julia benchmark to squeeze even more performance out of Ryzen, but we don't expect the improvement to be substantial.
6) The CPU Hash benchmark provides an exceptionally great score on Ryzen due to the hardware accelerated SHA instructions capability of Ryzen. It's absolutely normal that hardware acceleration boosts CPU computing performance by such a margin.
7) AM4 motherboards are not yet supported by the latest AIDA64 stable build of v5.80.4000. Make sure to use the latest AIDA64 beta build to have accurate sensor measurements on ASRock, Asus, Biostar, Gigabyte, and MSI AM4 motherboards.
We will post further updates to this topic as we progress with our bug fixing efforts on our Ryzen test systems.