I’ve recently been ramming the Framework with benchmarks, and I’ve come across – a perhaps not startling – finding. Whenever the latest firmware is available, it usually gives a great benefit to performance for the hardware that its on.
Yet, when I installed the Framework driver package, everything worked. I ran a benchmark, with the results here and I noticed stellar cpu performance (100th percentile). I might have gotten a golden chip for CPU and garbage for integrated graphics, but I don’t know.
What did concern me, was the fact that anything beyond DX9 was completely unwatchable, with much of it getting below 1FPS.
Other than echoing that Userbenchmark is fairly useless, a major reason for under-performing integrated graphics could be running RAM in single-channel or flex-mode (2 mismatched capacities).
Could anyone explain as to why it is considered useless? I’d like to know the reason, and what other alternatives are there? Haven’t seen one that tests graphics performance yet.
Run a Passmark benchmark and post up your numbers.
The heaven benchmark is pretty quick to do too.
To be honest lots of GPU benches on the Framework are not going to show you that much. Most will show a certain score ±10% for those with the bigger Iris and faster RAM and then its up to the rest to get near/work out they might have a config optimisation to do or not be bothered.
I think @feesh was speeking mismatch in term of speeds… are they both 3200?
I think several video of HardwareUnboxed / LinusTechTips showed that this is not a good source of performance data. Notably when ryzen was out, and they were still praising Intel…
Thing is this will all be for nothing as it’s likely we will all be getting a performance crippling BIOS soon fixing the latest Spectre MK2 (or 3) vulnerabilities.
