Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

FireKillerGR

Members
  • Posts

    1753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by FireKillerGR

  1. yes but my take was more of aiming to have heavier tests (in general) whenever we add something new from now on. Super 1080p does ok at the moment but afraid it might turn into 3D11, 3DV etc that are heavily bottlenecked by the cpu even on their respective graphic tests. Even TS has started showing this with dual gpu setups which will potentially turn into a single gpu issue as well in a couple generations.
  2. was thinking about a potential swap between super 1080p and tsx (re globals). Thats based on the fact that tsx is not maxed out (both gpu and cpu) yet so it would be more of a futureproof solution (?) to avoid having massive changes in an anual base.
  3. 01 getting globals while being "oldschool" is a bit meh imo since it will still scale with newer cpus running at higher freq. Wanna compensate hw (aka oldschool) guys for running it? Increase the hw point cap on 01. For globals, would like 03/05 instead (mostly 03 as it still kinda scales with gpu/clocks + more tuning vs 05) and maybe revisit it in the future if needed (?). Rest of them I think make sense except the stupid cat. Benchmark with probably 0 support from its author. Had issues for which I dont think I ever heard from them + we saw more buggy runs vs any other 3DMark (while 100x times less popular). Also cant comment on VRMark. Suggestion -> kill the cat and add FSU or TSX instead. TSX with the more demanding physics will be probably more futureproof (as an overall benchmark) than anything else from the list. 3D sucks for being more demanding than most if not all 2D benchmarks? Also what Tobias said re multi-GPU support vs all the sub-categories on the 2D side
  4. use thermspy instead; same thing pretty much and it also reads down to -42C on the die (similar to what precision does)
×
×
  • Create New...