@blade4638
unsa na version sa everest![]()
@blade4638
unsa na version sa everest![]()
i'm using version 4.2 ultimate edition c",) also good for benchmarking your PC(s) and comparing your results with others'.Originally Posted by HanzoHattori
okOriginally Posted by blade4638
Software readings have a very large error margin, upto 15% its better to use an actual multimeter. My software readings are different from the multimeter and i trust my multimeter over the software anytime.
Synthetic benchmarks show a lot of number increase but real world applications barely benefit from those said increase.Originally Posted by blade4638
for apps that do not demand much from a processor or video card, i agree benchmarks don't mean anything (e.g. surfing, desktop publishing, email, and similar tasks). but if you're a gamer playing fast-paced games or one who enjoys a game's eye-candy, benchmarks give an idea of how your system will do.Originally Posted by EarlZ
and about using a multi-meter, not everyone is willing to take that approach. the accuracy depends on how accurately the meter is calibrated (at the factory). but i agree it will give the most accurate readings.
That is one example of real world app.but if you're a gamer playing fast-paced games or one who enjoys a game's eye-candy, benchmarks give an idea of how your system will do.
For the multimeter, i used a digital w/c is very accurate upto 0.02v tested on a 7900GT and 8800GTS 320mb for vcore,vmem voltages. so im pretty confident about the results i get
Similar Threads |
|