Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
MalwareTips Giveaways
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Operating Systems
Windows 11
Windows 11 - First look
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rain2reign" data-source="post: 960452" data-attributes="member: 88069"><p>That video from around the timeline at 2:30, pretty much sums up why I don't trust many hardware tests from any source, reputable or not, unless there is a proper reason too. Sample of #1 IS NOT A (public sample) PERFORMANCE TEST! If there are multiple, that's when it starts to get interesting. Then further research will be required for questions such as .... (just to put a few examples out there):</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Same or different architecture of effected samples?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Across how many samples?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Affected samples AMD, Intel, Qualcomm or all of the above?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">L3 cache limit?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">etc...</li> </ul><p>Does it affect the performance? Yes, definitely. Do the numbers add up, however? Hell no, because you stopped at a sample of 1! A 25% of a specific architecture does not have to be the same % at another. Especially when there is no clear documentation on how and what the methodology entails. PCGamer and a lot of other sources not derived from them, many had those flaws on top off that they clearly (authors of said article) don't know how hardware works. Let alone what certain features whether they be CMD or GUI do in OS. I can keep ranting on this for decades. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite115" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rain2reign, post: 960452, member: 88069"] That video from around the timeline at 2:30, pretty much sums up why I don't trust many hardware tests from any source, reputable or not, unless there is a proper reason too. Sample of #1 IS NOT A (public sample) PERFORMANCE TEST! If there are multiple, that's when it starts to get interesting. Then further research will be required for questions such as .... (just to put a few examples out there): [LIST] [*]Same or different architecture of effected samples? [*]Across how many samples? [*]Affected samples AMD, Intel, Qualcomm or all of the above? [*]L3 cache limit? [*]etc... [/LIST] Does it affect the performance? Yes, definitely. Do the numbers add up, however? Hell no, because you stopped at a sample of 1! A 25% of a specific architecture does not have to be the same % at another. Especially when there is no clear documentation on how and what the methodology entails. PCGamer and a lot of other sources not derived from them, many had those flaws on top off that they clearly (authors of said article) don't know how hardware works. Let alone what certain features whether they be CMD or GUI do in OS. I can keep ranting on this for decades. :p [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
Bottom
