picomon! AMD GPU Monitoring made easyuvx picomon and behold:┌──────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ GPU 0 GFX 42% UMC 21% │ │ GPU 1 GFX 78% UMC 66% │
│ PWR 135/250W (54%) VRAM 10.0/16.0GB 62% │ │ PWR 210/250W (84%) VRAM 14.5/16.0GB 90% │
│ │ │ │
│ GFX ▁▂▂▃▄▄▅▆▆▇█▇▆▅▄▃▂▁ │ │ GFX ▂▃▄▅▆▇██▇▆▅▄▂▂▃▅▆ │
│ PWR ▁▁▂▂▃▄▄▅▆▇██▇▆▅▄▂▁ │ │ PWR ▂▂▃▄▅▆▇██▇▆▅▄▃▂▂▃ │
│ VRM ▁▁▂▂▃▄▄▅▆▇███▇▆▅▄▂ │ │ VRM ▂▃▄▅▆▆▇███▇▆▅▄▃▂▂ │
└──────────────────────────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────────────────────────┘
Hmmm... i'd prefer a factual answer over personal bias; At least when factual answers are possible.
But for writing and ERP and the like, i can see this being interesting to know how we affect the models. Understanding something is the best way to fine-tune them.
I remember letting my computer run protein/gene folding back in 2010-2016... free spare cycles...
Sorry, probably slightly off topic.
Interesting and curious.
In my limited experience, asking for flaws in something i would only get surface level identification of flaws of why something wouldn't work.
This potentially may improve that a lot. Yeah wanting to build tower out of gold is a silly example, but i see a lot of movies and books where events happen 'so the plot can move forward', and making idiotic choices is one thing that has turned me off from a lot of media including books; Writers using something to identify and remove the braindead stupidities would certainly be a huge improvement in the long run.
for a logo... top on, 12th over (or 3rd from the right), the depth steam-punk like 3D look seems to stand out for me the most.
Otherwise any of them will work, but a lot of them look rather generic.