![]() Several separate encryptions and hash functions are measured in a series of more general measures. ![]() The tests are referred to as “integer” and “floating point” in Novabench the former uses standard arithmetic instructions, while the latter uses SSE for broad compatibility. In the 圆4 assembly, there are two key checks. The test runs under a few layers of shared memory coordination and localities with multi-core tests. CPU: Novabench performs a number of CPU evaluations, each with single and multi-core versions.An OpenCL test, a single-precision matrix multiplication kernel, provides a more direct measurement of GPU efficiency (in GFLOPS). GPU: Novabench evaluates the accuracy of drawing calls on a scene made using various shader techniques.The FPU, general-purpose instructions, and other instruction set extensions are examples of these. CPU Targeted TestsĪ collection of multi-core tests that each focus on a different part of the CPU’s instruction pipeline. Novabench may use this test to assess general CPU efficiency when adjusting for memory performance and other factors. Factors For Getting Good Novabench Scoreįollowing are the reasons for Good Novabench Score. With version 3.0.4, Windows XP and earlier are no longer supported, and in Novabench 4.0, only Windows 7 and higher will be supported. It also doesn’t measure secondary, third, fourth, or fifth hard drives it just tests the machine (primary) drive right now. Other tests for memory and storage are just as generic.On Windows, Novabench does not currently support AMD CrossFireX or SLI for graphics testing, though dual-GPU testing is supported on the Mac. It's only testing OpenCL and single-precision? What about CUDA for Nvidia GPUs and any calculations other than single? This OpenCL-based test evaluates the GPU's single-precision performance in general-purpose computing." GPU compute tasks include video rendering, machine learning, and various scientific applications. Why is it only 720P resolution? What about DX9, DX12 or Vulkan on Windows? They don't even mention Linux at all?Ĭompute Test "GPUs are now commonly used for general-purpose tasks beyond video games, or in video game tasks previously done on the CPU. The scene is rendered internally at a fixed 1280x720 resolution." On Windows the test uses Direct3D 11, while macOS uses Metal. Graphics Test "This test renders a 3D scene, measuring frame drawing performance. According the the score results it tests: Floating Ops, Integer Ops and Hash Ops. Kind of a generic explanation so hard to say what the test is actually doing from this written explanation. General Purpose Test "This test allows Novabench to evaluate general CPU performance while controlling for memory performance and other variables." These include general-purpose instructions, the FPU, and other instruction set extensions." Targeted Tests "A series of muti-core tests that each target specific instruction pipelines of the CPU. It's a real application that is used for rendering and the time to complete the render is a real measurement. Then compare the time to complete the render. If you truly wanted to compare something like render performance you would install a commonly used application like Blender on multiple systems and render the same project out. People look at UserDumpMark because they want to see "which has a bigger number" without trying to understand why it's better, what the tests are actually testing for, and the accuracy of the information they are looking at. It was given a CPU(3970X) score of "5428" what score would you expect a 64-core 3990X would get? Double that maybe or a little less than double? Same CPU generation with double the cores and it gets "5319", a lower score by 109 points? That doesn't really seem to make sense to me and with so little information about the test or the system reporting the score nobody will ever know. For example the top system is a 32-core Threadripper, Dual titan RTX and 128GB of memory. If the tests don't relate to some real world application and they mostly seem like they don't then all you are comparing is how good a particular system is at this benchmark. ![]() It's largely kind of worthless except for people who want a "single score" comparison to see which one is better. ![]() No method is explained on how they came to a decision to make each test do whatever it does. You can see very little of it is truly explained or explained well. Look at what each test is actually doing. Here is why in my opinion the majority of "single score" benchmarks are not very useful. It's probably not as skewed as UDM intentionally is but it just doesn't seem very useful from my short time looking at it. Tests are vague and very simple, they don't make much sense in some cases and the overall results represented by the single number don't always seem to make sense either. TLDR: Looks like just as poor of a "benchmark" as UserDumpMark in some ways. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |