Database Users

SGX 540: SGS vs LG Optimus 3d

I just read an article here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4179/ti-omap4-and-lg-optimus-3d-tested
The LG Optimus 3d uses the same SGX 540 graphics that our SGS uses. BUT it is clocked at 300mhz vs our 200mhz AND it uses an updated driver. With these improvements, early benchmarks show it beats the tegra 2 and the quad-gpu in the SGS II. Of course these benchmarks don't tell the whole story, but I still find it interesting. I hope Samsung can make sure android can take advantage of the gpu in the SGS II.
Most PowerVR SGX 540 designs run the GPU core at up to 200MHz. OMAP 4's implementation is another 50% faster. LG's software build also uses a newer version of Imagination Technologies' driver (1.6 instead of 1.5) which fixes some rendering issues (specifically in the Egypt test) and improves performance considerably (likely between 10 - 30% in GLBenchmark2). You can see that the image quality issues are fixed in the video showing the Egypt demo running on the LG Optimus 3D below:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Taking the performance improvement due to the driver out of the equation, we're still looking at a nearly 20% increase in performance over the SGX 540 in Hummingbird. The 4430 holds a similar advantage over NVIDIA's Tegra 2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Hey, I want this driver! Maybe, devs could be able to port it to SGS somehow.
By the way, GPU in Desire HD and Desire Z (adreno 205) beats SGS one in benchmarks and goes head-to-head with Tegra.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

if it causes the same battery drain, i want that driver too...

Id love to see how the Sony NGP with ARM Cortex-A9 quad-core processor & SGX543MP4+ GPU stacks up....just for fun of course.

The SGX540 is indeed a very good GPU. Still not outdated, even at 200 MHz.

zorxd said:
The SGX540 is indeed a very good GPU. Still not outdated, even at 200 MHz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can change it the kernel also to 300MHz if you have te skils. Our SGS has stil many potentional
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

I hope skilled devs like Supercurio and Hardcore are reading this thread and get some inspiration

F**king apple
I hope everyone is realizing how dumb it was to let apple buy imaginetech.
And how come nvidia (a company i know for gpus) seems to be behind in gpu tech?

SamHaLeKe said:
You can change it the kernel also to 300MHz if you have te skils. Our SGS has stil many potentional
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unlikely when you mess with the gpu clock there's an increase in instability, as well as putting other devices out of sync. I believe omap4 is using a different nm process to fabricate it probably smaller than the galaxys so they can put the clock higher.
The driver upgrade is the only possibility.

I think Hummingbird (A8) and Omap4 (A9) are based on same 45 nm architecture.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

Guys, look at that:
http://glbenchmark.com/subtest_results_of_device.jsp?D=Google+Nexus+S&id=405
There are 12 tests of Nexus S in GLBenchmark, and 11 of them are below 2400 points (more or less like our SGS), but the most recent one (uploaded at 2011.02.11) scored 3025 points, more than Tegra 2. This result's is made by someone from GLBenchmark, and shows at "GLBenchmark team tested" page of the results. How is that possible?

Just commenting to keep this going. I don't want to put my hopes up too much, but you never know

I'm beginning to believe that it was a bad move from Samsung to switch from PowerVR to the Mali-400. I have the money ready to spend on a new device and I hope it's the SGS2 but I will wait first for the final product and drivers and see some benchmarks before I buy. If the SGX540 keeps the lead maybe I'll stick with my SGS.

samsung got tegra 2 also for I9103 phone
but SGX543 was good a option

Samsung pr overhyped their processor capabilities. But I guess there not confident in there own soc. If they decided to make a tegra 2 version.

MarlowXim said:
Samsung pr overhyped their processor capabilities. But I guess there not confident in there own soc. If they decided to make a tegra 2 version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i'm pretty sure they are only making a tegra 2 version because they wont be able to manufacture enough orion cores to meet the demand.

i think that the galaxy tab gpu is clocked at higher speed than galaxy s as it gives same score at neocore on (1024x600) resolution , am i wrong

Give an App for gpu oc please Dev's
And of course DRIVER update please

Interesting. I did see GPU overclock to 247mhz in some kernels, but any driver upgrade or OC is awesome

oswade said:
Interesting. I did see GPU overclock to 247mhz in some kernels, but any driver upgrade or OC is awesome
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you show us where
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App

Benchmarks vs Transformer Prime (and other tabs)

I was looking into buying either the TF / Prime this past week, and have been looking into the benchmarks I see on the net. I've seen a few reviews, one from AnandTech, and the other one from Slashgear and random Antutu benches across the web.
If I'm understanding correctly, it seems the Prime obviously does have an edge, however for general non-gaming use it seems the differences are minimal? Can anyone confirm or if you own both to test it out?
In a javascript benchmark (AnandTech.com), I'd only see a 0.4-0.5 second difference loading JS heavy webpages?
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
The BrowserMark comparison at slashgear shows a 0.5-0.6 second gain by the Prime:
So are the benches really showing the difference is this minimal or are there more to talk about that I'm not seeing? (Not referring to game benches, not too interested in gaming)

From what I understand the main difference is in the GPU so for games and such it will matter... Also more hardware support for video making 1080p a feature now.
The cpu itself is clocked higher so I wonder what the differences would be with an equally clocked TF101. I guess barely noticable...
Off course there's the quadcore vs dualcore but I wonder if that really matters in day to day use. I don't expect a huge difference in user experience so in that regards I don't think there's a big reason to upgrade from TF101 to TF201.
I still will though, because the size decrease (and weight decrease) combined with the other factors still make it a nice upgrade. But looking at just performance, meh...

i overclock my Tf101 to 1.5ghz and its very fast now. i would argue an overclocked Tf101 would perform the same if not better than a prime in most of these tests.

But then again, the prime might have just as much overclocking room... Giving it the lead again.

The problem is that benchmarks generally mean absolutely nothing. Having a good benchmark doesn't mean you are going to get great real world use.

pside15 said:
The problem is that benchmarks generally mean absolutely nothing. Having a good benchmark doesn't mean you are going to get great real world use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the thing, having a machine that benchmarks 26% faster (TF201 vs TF 101) does not mean that it is going to necessarily be faster in real life depending on the software and how it uses it.

Benchmarks should prove the Prime to be a better machine, singularly. Dual/quad-core, it’s all about apps utilization and user functionality.
Then there’s price/performance, (in my case) a $250 101 beats the 201.

That's the part of what I've been trying to say. If I'm only going to see a split second of differences (0.5 second) in browsing around heavy javascript or just general web browsing performance, is there more than this?
Seems like so far the only argument I can see about getting a Prime is a GPU and CPU boost to gaming fps by 20-30 fps.
What about outside of gaming, in respect to general tasks that can take some time, like compressing a zip of a nand backup or large rom files, general encryption, etc.
The price per performance of the TF101 definitely seems to be taking the lead if we aren't talking about gaming apps.

dagrim1 said:
But then again, the prime might have just as much overclocking room... Giving it the lead again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My impression is that quad core performance vs dual core does not follow a linear scale.. If the way the architecture of 4x ARM CPU's (TF201) vs 2x (TF101) is any similar to how Intel Quad vs Duo started getting popularity a few years ago, I feel that there are going to be relatively few noticeable differences, when the dual can suit an average user without noticeably seeing any changes using a quad for their tasks... Mainly it will have to wait until which apps can utilize the multiple cores efficiently. Crysis for android?
Course I might be off base with this, that's why I wanted to ask you guys who have owned it.

Unless you are using high end games specifically designed for the Quad core/GPU, you should not notice a real difference. Much of what you do with any tablet or computer is speed dependent on outside sources ie network speed, ( both on your end and the other end) input speed etc. If you are using or rendering high end graphics, you will notice the difference, but then why use a tablet for that in the first place.

The first benchmark for Prime is done is slowest, power saving mode.

Asus TF201 Prime is the best

GasGuzz said:
Benchmarks should prove the Prime to be a better machine, singularly. Dual/quad-core, it’s all about apps utilization and user functionality.
Then there’s price/performance, (in my case) a $250 101 beats the 201.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 201 actually has a 5th core that is for normal usage, so most of the time you will be running a single core. I have seen in benchmarks that the internal flash on the 201 is slower than the 101. The 201 also has only a mono speaker compared to the stereo 101. The 101 right now has overclocking and custom ROMs. Add in price and that is the reason I just bought a 101 instead of a 201.
Cheers!
-M
Xda member since 2007

iPhone 5 catches up to flagship droids in first Geekbench scores

Look like my S3 is going to be down..someone explain and what you think about this ?
It has its crown
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
There was plenty of speculation what kind of CPU powered the new iPhone 5 and in the end it turned out to be a custom Apple design. So, how well did the Cupertino-based company did? According to an unverified Geekbench results, A6more than meets the 2x performance increase Apple promised.
The results are nothing short of amazing - the Apple A6 chipset has two custom cores rated at 1GHz with 1GB of RAM and it easily stands up to quad-core Cortex-A9 and dual-core Krait designs running at 1.5GHz.
The iPhone 5 has more than double the CPU performance of the 4S, beating it in every category that Geekbench tests. The RAM has gotten faster too. Even the A5X in the new iPad can't compete (understandable as A5X only improves GPU performance over the A5).
As for high-end Androids, Exynos 4 Quad and Tegra 3 based phones like the Samsung Galaxy S III and the HTC One X manage to outperform the iPhone 5 if they are running Android Jelly Bean. Under Ice Cream Sandwich, the performance of the One X drops down to the levels of the iPhone.
The HTC One S and its two Krait cores manage to match the iPhone 5 under Ice Cream Sandwich, so it should come out slightly ahead.
Just for fun, here's a dual-core Pentium 4 541 (Prescott architecture) downclocked to 2.4GHz matching the performance of the iPhone 5. This CPU came out in Q3 of 2004.
If these benchmark results do turn out to be from the iPhone 5 (results can be faked, so take it with a grain of salt) then Apple must have worked some serious magic. The Apple A6 chipset makes even Krait cores look slow (again, it's 1GHz vs. 1.5GHz).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1030202

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?q=samsung+galaxy+s+III
See... How many S III scored lower than 1601...
All with JB leaks beats iPhone 5 score...
i think the benchmarking tool is a bit of weird. The One S also scored 1.5k... Not X but S.... S4 processor. Maybe it does not really use all the 4 cores?

the benchmark tool is useless... its more OS based then anything... change your launcher that u use and u'll get a different score every time...

I think you need to learn how to read geek bench the majority of iPhone 5 score is in fast memory the processor is still pretty slow by itself. Also mod please close this thread all iPhone threads crash and burn.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app

why people open everyday same **** again again(@OP : Is apple marketing team has ordered open new thread everyday?). the iphone 5 have nothing new. just to say thinnest and tallest (but these kind of models already available years ago. ). If you want compare iphone 5 to galaxy line you have to compare it with galaxy s, sII or galaxy sIII mini. It's not worth it to compare to with sIII.
(By the way iphone5 cpu and memory provided by Samsung.)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1891076

©®™

I got a 1741 on mine with stock 1.4ghz and jellybean. No sweat!!
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium

I think they used the US S3 which is dual cored, instead of the international S3. That's why the scores are lower.

1.Why post this on here?
2.A newer phone that is somehow faster....really? is that how technology works, well if it is then I guess the SGS4 to be even faster, and the SGS5, and I will go as far to say that the SGS24 will be greater still.

i think a lot of you who post Samsung s3 vs. whatever is insecure and are those who always want to have the best or be the best. People are competitive by nature but being obsessive, wasting your time and energy on products that serve the same purpose is a bit overkill. My advise is to find a cure for the disease you have. Just enjoy your phone.

swift2fly said:
i think a lot of you who post Samsung s3 vs. whatever is insecure and are those who always want to have the best or be the best. People are competitive by nature but being obsessive, wasting your time and energy on products that serve the same purpose is a bit overkill. My advise is to find a cure for the disease you have. Just enjoy your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very well said! the other word " BIASED"

hero000 said:
Very well said! the other word " BIASED"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get over 2000 with the jelly bean and the processor overclocked to 1.6

thread closed

Mate 8 Antutu Benchmark

Hi guys here we will discuss about antutu benchmark
So i bought mate 8 64gb 4gb...can.u please post some antutu benchmark

I got 92kish in performance mode. 32/3gb

including geekbench just for fun
NXT-AL10 4/64 GB mocha brown running B133 L29 international rom decrypted rooted system partition debloated and nova launcher
benchmarks were run on performance mode
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Sent from my Huawei Mate 8 NXT-AL10 using Tapatalk

jbmc83 said:
including geekbench just for fun
NXT-AL10 4/64 GB mocha brown running B133 L29 international rom decrypted rooted system partition debloated and nova launcher
benchmarks were run on performance mode
Sent from my Huawei Mate 8 NXT-AL10 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Performance mod with performance with kernel
Makes this phone flyes

indeed! lets see if anyone can break 100k in antutu somewhere down the line... would be nice to see
Sent from my Huawei Mate 8 NXT-AL10 using Tapatalk

Re:
Stock firmware, performance mode, 64gb, 4gb ram, stock english/international rom.

nice score did some benches today on B162 international firmware, unfortunately i couldnt reach my previous high scores in geekbench (6560) and antutu (97200). maybe i could make a completely naked / debloated firmware version just for benching purposes, so as not to take up ANY ram or cpu cycles for background stuff
btw, looking at geekbench scores, the S7 seems to be on par if not only a tad faster (less than 100 points) than the Kirin 950. good stuff

jbmc83 said:
nice score did some benches today on B162 international firmware, unfortunately i couldnt reach my previous high scores in geekbench (6560) and antutu (97200). maybe i could make a completely naked / debloated firmware version just for benching purposes, so as not to take up ANY ram or cpu cycles for background stuff
btw, looking at geekbench scores, the S7 seems to be on par if not only a tad faster (less than 100 points) than the Kirin 950. good stuff
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
kirin 950 is a beast
but emiui is ugly and not very smooth it is ****
we need stock based google rom like cm:laugh:

I got a 94500 score with AL10 device but L29 B162 firmware. I'm not sure the antutu score clearly shows how quick this phone is. I am eager to see it opening same apps with S7 and G5. My score was just with performance mode @ battery. @rowihel2012 "Performance mod with performance with kernel " with performance mod i guess you mean the battery setting. The other part with kernel what exactly do you mean? Thank you.

download and install trickster mod, there u can change the cpu governor under general settings to performance
it also helps u save battery when changing it to powersave. thats what i do while sticking to smart battery profile
Sent from my Huawei Mate 8 NXT-AL10 using Tapatalk

icy20 said:
I got a 94500 score with AL10 device but L29 B162 firmware. I'm not sure the antutu score clearly shows how quick this phone is. I am eager to see it opening same apps with S7 and G5. My score was just with performance mode @ battery. @rowihel2012 "Performance mod with performance with kernel " with performance mod i guess you mean the battery setting. The other part with kernel what exactly do you mean? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea performance mode from battery manager
And using kernel app to force cpu in performance mode

rowihel2012 said:
Yea performance mode from battery manager
And using kernel app to force cpu in performance mode
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
U mean trickster mod @ performance?

icy20 said:
U mean trickster mod @ performance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea or kernel adiutor apk form google play

i cant believe antutu developers anymore
look at iphone 6s and even iphone 6 in the previous antutu
i mean version 5
you can clearly see those junks fall behind even galaxy s6
and look at them now in version 6
.........
After that you want from me to believe what i saw in the new version
........
Ok then please keep up with me and lets have a nerds conversation ....
first ... open your mind ... and let us see what hardware that mate 8 has
its four cortex a72 and four cortex a53 and the last mali gpu model
and what you have got is just 90k scores
while HTC M9 has more less power CPU which is
cortex 57 and cortex 53
even it has less power GPU which is
adreno 430
all of those more less power hardware
has got score more than 110k in the antutu
comeon guys give me a break from this junk benchmark

sameeer_45 said:
i cant believe antutu developers anymore
look at iphone 6s and even iphone 6 in the previous antutu
i mean version 5
you can clearly see those junks fall behind even galaxy s6
and look at them now in version 6
.........
After that you want from me to believe what i saw in the new version
........
Ok then please keep up with me and lets have a nerds conversation ....
first ... open your mind ... and let us see what hardware that mate 8 has
its four cortex a72 and four cortex a53 and the last mali gpu model
and what you have got is just 9k scores
while HTC M9 has more less power CPU which is
cortex 57 and cortex 53
even it has less power GPU which is
adreno 430
all of those more less power hardware
has got score more than 110k in the antutu
comeon guys give me a break from this junk benchmark
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you see M9 get 110K????? WTF that cannot be real...It should get something in the range of 70-80k i think...

My friend has M9 and said : M9 with Marshmallow is quite brilliant!

Latest Antutu V6.0 benchmarks:
http://www.antutu.com/en/view.shtml?id=8200

themissionimpossible said:
..........
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i dont believe their website either
what i believe is what i saw
a lot of people with m9 got 110k like this man here
youtu.be /LADBMwHJRsc
also dont deny differences between apple product scores in version 5 and version 6
also .... why is snapdragon 810 has more scores than kirin 950
because kirin is far superior than snapdragon 810

We already discussed here on XDA about the 950 overall chip performance score.
While the pure processor performance is on par with 820 and Exynos, what actually impairs the overall score is the GPU performance which is 1/3 of the 820's, half of the Exynos's and about 2/3 of the old 810's.

the one week boint for the 950 is the gpu
but working great with all games

Upgraded after 7 years

New Build just finished this weekend
MB: ASUS ROG Strix B550-F
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
Cooler: ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 240
RAM: Crucial Ballistix RGB 3600 MHz DDR4 8GB (4 sticks) = 32GB
HD: M.2 Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB SSD 2x in RAID 1
Power Supply: COOLMAX ZU Series ZU-1000B 1000 W (reused from last build)
Case: NZXT - H510i Compact ATX Mid-Tower Case
GPU: GeForce GT 640 (reused from last build waiting for prices to drop)
WAY faster than my old build loving it so far. Just need a better GPU and then time to upgrade the monitors. Looking at dual curved 25 inch.

RRiVEN said:
New Build just finished this weekend
MB: ASUS ROG Strix B550-F
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
Cooler: ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 240
RAM: Crucial Ballistix RGB 3600 MHz DDR4 8GB (4 sticks) = 32GB
HD: M.2 Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB SSD 2x in RAID 1
Power Supply: COOLMAX ZU Series ZU-1000B 1000 W (reused from last build)
Case: NZXT - H510i Compact ATX Mid-Tower Case
GPU: GeForce GT 640 (reused from last build waiting for prices to drop)
WAY faster than my old build loving it so far. Just need a better GPU and then time to upgrade the monitors. Looking at dual curved 25 inch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What temperature are in benchmarks do you have for the cpu?
I'm asking cause the CPU has a high tdp and the hot spot isn't in the middle of the die

strongst said:
What temperature are in benchmarks do you have for the cpu?
I'm asking cause the CPU has a high tdp and the hot spot isn't in the middle of the die
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't run any benchmarks yet, which one should I run? Also the cooler has you set it up with an offset, it specifically mentions the CPUs hotspot is offset so you offset the cooler to cover it better

RRiVEN said:
I haven't run any benchmarks yet, which one should I run? Also the cooler has you set it up with an offset, it specifically mentions the CPUs hotspot is offset so you offset the cooler to cover it better
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm using an offset as mentioned which gives the center of the heat better to the center of the AIO plate, but not all AIO plates are the same, that's why I'm asking and cause the TDP and power consumption is 105 instead if 65 compared to the Ryzen 7 3700X so you have to deal with higher temps when load neads to be handled.

My GPU is trash so I need a good CPU stress test and I will let you know. Any recommendations?
Also it has been YEARS since I have applied thermal paste, you still put a little on and spread it around making a thin coat over the CPU, or is there a better way?

strongst said:
I'm using an offset as mentioned which gives the center of the heat better to the center of the AIO plate, but not all AIO plates are the same, that's why I'm asking and cause the TDP and power consumption is 105 instead if 65 compared to the Ryzen 7 3700X so you have to deal with higher temps when load neads to be handled.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It appears I need to tweak my system as the CPU is WAY below where it should be.
The Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe has a bad score because I am using Windows RAID 1 and not hardware RAID 1, but the numbers it posted are good for what I use this for, programming.
Not sure why the CPU is trash, the Armoury Crate app (came with MB) the CPU temps never got above 60
UserBenchmarks:
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X - 98.7%
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GT 640 - 6.1%
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB - 255.6%
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB - 95.9%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2018) - 103.3%
HDD: WD Green 500GB (2009) - 45.1%
HDD: WD Green 3TB (2011) - 57.6%
USB: WD My Passport 0837 2TB - 38%
RAM: Crucial BL8G36C16U4RL.M8FE1 4x8GB - 93.8%
MBD: Asus ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
CPU package never went higher than 62, and 'CPU' peaked at 51

RRiVEN said:
It appears I need to tweak my system as the CPU is WAY below where it should be.
The Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe has a bad score because I am using Windows RAID 1 and not hardware RAID 1, but the numbers it posted are good for what I use this for, programming.
Not sure why the CPU is trash, the Armoury Crate app (came with MB) the CPU temps never got above 60
UserBenchmarks:
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X - 98.7%
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GT 640 - 6.1%
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB - 255.6%
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB - 95.9%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2018) - 103.3%
HDD: WD Green 500GB (2009) - 45.1%
HDD: WD Green 3TB (2011) - 57.6%
USB: WD My Passport 0837 2TB - 38%
RAM: Crucial BL8G36C16U4RL.M8FE1 4x8GB - 93.8%
MBD: Asus ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING
View attachment 5472711
View attachment 5472719
CPU package never went higher than 62, and 'CPU' peaked at 51
View attachment 5472723
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did the benchmark test, but it's not reliable since there's lot of missing or incomplete tests: https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/48368072
UserBenchmarks:
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X - 88.4%
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB - 240.6%
SSD: Corsair Force NVMe PCIe M.2 240GB - 195.8%
SSD: Samsung 840 120GB - 60%
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 500GB - 112%
HDD: WD Red 1TB (2012) - 78.1%
HDD: WD VelociRaptor 2.5" 500GB - 107.3%
RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws V DDR4 3200 C16 2x16GB - 93%
MBD: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS (MS-7C37)
Have you tried with TimeSpy like i did?