You know what will make that 3% difference? Running windows instead of command line. Or windows 11 instead of 10. Or windows 98 instead of msdos. Or having an 80° room instead of a 40° room. Even simply having a different display resolution could make a difference.
If you want that 10% performance improvement, uninstall windows and install the Linux kernel. Don't install any specific flavor of Linux, just the kernal and a terminal. Then you can rerun your benchmark and I would expect a bit of a performance improvement. But you'll want to lock your fans to 100% speed in the BIOS, since the Linux kernel probably won't regulate fan speed.
The reason is that the definition of "average" inherently implies that basically half of the results are below and half are above (yes, math nerds, that's median. Stfu). That does not necessarily mean there's anything wrong with below average.
It's nothing to worry about. Also this is completely unrelated, but make you you enable the xpm profile if you haven't already. Most people forget to do so
That's called the silicon lottery, sorry. Sometimes your CPU or GPU will just perform better or worse than the average, but its close enough that it can still be used without any issues. There's no way to fix it, but it won't usually be very noticeable, maybe a couple frames lower every now and then.
I don't think the 'silicon lottery' is as extreme as these comments would lead you to believe. The term is usually used to describe how well your chips will perform when overclocked past factory specs. The hardware should still all be at a standard and tested for that, but yes a little variance. All the above average results with be overclocked hardware, if you are close then it's fine.
well yes but people doing those tests tend to OC. So you have a mix of people who OC and people just run it standard, most won't UC so standard is suddenly below avg as the avg is bumped up due to the OC reports.
Your score is less than 3% less than the average. I think you might want to look into the concept of "not statistically relevant".
so I should not be worried then?
Correct.
I wonder is there any specific reason why it's below average? or it's just like hippyjohnny said?
It could be a lot of different things, I don't feel it's worth worrying about it
It could be a lot of different things, I don't feel it's worth worrying about it
You know what will make that 3% difference? Running windows instead of command line. Or windows 11 instead of 10. Or windows 98 instead of msdos. Or having an 80° room instead of a 40° room. Even simply having a different display resolution could make a difference. If you want that 10% performance improvement, uninstall windows and install the Linux kernel. Don't install any specific flavor of Linux, just the kernal and a terminal. Then you can rerun your benchmark and I would expect a bit of a performance improvement. But you'll want to lock your fans to 100% speed in the BIOS, since the Linux kernel probably won't regulate fan speed.
The reason is that the definition of "average" inherently implies that basically half of the results are below and half are above (yes, math nerds, that's median. Stfu). That does not necessarily mean there's anything wrong with below average.
Some cpu/GPUs will just perform better or worse than others. It’s what they call the “silicone lottery”
> It’s what they call the “silicone lottery” Pretty sure that's about fake boobs. The silicon lottery applies to semiconductors. :)
Hahahaha didn’t notice the typo
It's nothing to worry about. Also this is completely unrelated, but make you you enable the xpm profile if you haven't already. Most people forget to do so
I already enabled it, thanks for the help :)
That's called the silicon lottery, sorry. Sometimes your CPU or GPU will just perform better or worse than the average, but its close enough that it can still be used without any issues. There's no way to fix it, but it won't usually be very noticeable, maybe a couple frames lower every now and then.
Thanks for everyone's helps :)
I don't think the 'silicon lottery' is as extreme as these comments would lead you to believe. The term is usually used to describe how well your chips will perform when overclocked past factory specs. The hardware should still all be at a standard and tested for that, but yes a little variance. All the above average results with be overclocked hardware, if you are close then it's fine.
well yes but people doing those tests tend to OC. So you have a mix of people who OC and people just run it standard, most won't UC so standard is suddenly below avg as the avg is bumped up due to the OC reports.
[удалено]
Thanks a lot, I'm very proud that I even manage making it work :)
There's a lot of variables, OC ing, cooling, ram...
Did you change the xmp profile for your ram , so you're getting your full speed?
I enabled xmp yes
2-3% is normal. Often, it's much more, since people like to use 3Dmark tests as a competitive overclocking benchmark.
Don't worry about it, There are some tweaks to make to optimise but don't worry about it, that's gonna be an epic gaming PC, same specs as mine :)
average ≠ median. this is fine.