3700X vs 9900K, that is the question...

[cucker tarlson]

What in the world does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter if your 5775c gets hammered at a specific location. If the runs are exactly the same, then any CPU will have to do the exact same calculations that your 5775c did, and therefore would be "hammered" the exact same amount. So in Phokis, the results would be 50% lower... so what?? They'd be 50% lower across ALL CPUs, so the ratios would be maintained. The delta between the processors listed would be identical. Benchmarks are never about what the raw fps number is. It's about COMPARISON of the processors tested. You're completely misunderstanding the point of benchmarks here. It's not to give you a reliable indication of a specific performance target. That's not how that works, because your setup will ALWAYS be slightly different, and you'll always have slightly different numbers. The fact that the framerates would be lower in a specific location across the board is entirely irrelevant. The point of doing 720p tests is to provide an accurate comparison between the chips, while taking the GPU effectively out of the comparison.

you don't understand still.
testing at 720p does not always equate to cpu testing.
see this post and look at what I said about the difference between the slowest (ryzen 1st gen) and fastest (9900k).even though they're testing 720p,it clearly not that cpu bound as another location is at higher resolution

3700X vs 9900K, that is the question...

Yeah but single threaded performance is what you should look at,what is an ipc benchmark Well I thought we have covered that and Ryzens are better with the IPC at the moment. IPC measurement is not certain games benchmark or even suite of games which can be coded and performing better for a top...

www.techpowerup.com

in that,a game is not really limited by a resolution but by a scenario (location)

 

[biffzinker]

I plan on getting a cheap AMD B450 motherboard, a Ryzen 2600 (last generation), and some RAM for less than $250.

Interested in buying a used 2600X? There's a couple of circular marks up on top of the heatspreader from the AMD OEM cooler. Otherwise the chip hasn't been abused due to excessive voltage, this mobo didn't allow anything past 1.4v or overclocking besides PBO.

 

[Papahyooie]

you don't understand still.
testing at 720p does not always equate to cpu testing.
see this post and look at what I said about the difference between the slowest (ryzen 1st gen) and fastest (9900k).even though they're testing 720p,it clearly not that cpu bound as another location is at higher resolution

3700X vs 9900K, that is the question...

Yeah but single threaded performance is what you should look at,what is an ipc benchmark Well I thought we have covered that and Ryzens are better with the IPC at the moment. IPC measurement is not certain games benchmark or even suite of games which can be coded and performing better for a top...

www.techpowerup.com

in that,a game is not really limited by a resolution but by a scenario (location)

When comparing the same two processors at the same clockspeeds (i.e, 9900k vs R7 2700 because those are the top and bottom on the TPU chart), between your chart and mine, the % difference is negligible. They basically say the same thing. You can't just take the top and bottom from each chart and compare those, because the top and bottom chips aren't the same chip on each chart lol.

 

[cucker tarlson]

When comparing the same two processors at the same clockspeeds (i.e, 9900k vs R7 2700 because those are the top and bottom on the TPU chart), between your chart and mine, the % difference is negligible. They basically say the same thing. You can't just take the top and bottom from each chart and compare those, because the top and bottom chips aren't the same chip on each chart lol.

no,but take 1800x and 990k.9% on 720p and 43% in the other test.

 

[Papahyooie]

That just says to me that your data isn't consistent lol. Why would two processors' delta be almost identical in both tests, but two other processors have a huge difference?

Who's more likely to blame? An unscientific test that uses unknown and unreplicatable data? Or one that uses known and defined degrees of freedom?

 

[cucker tarlson]

That just says to me that your data isn't consistent lol. Why would two processors' delta be almost identical in both tests, but two other processors have a huge difference?

Who's more likely to blame? An unscientific test that uses unknown and unreplicatable data? Or one that uses known and defined degrees of freedom?

why do you insist it's unreplicatable ?

 

[Papahyooie]

why do you insist it's unreplicatable ?

Because you're relying on data that cannot be defined. Prove to me that looking at the same city each time provides a consistent load on the processor. You can't, because you're not defining the contents of memory reliably. You're making an assumption. Using 720p at least provides a stable and known factor, whereas "game location" cannot be said to equate to any defineable factor.

 

[EarthDog]

why do you insist it's unreplicatable ?

this is the problem with manual run throughs of games.... it's never the same and increases the variability between runs. Regardless of the resolution, a canned benchmark is exactly repeatable scene and minimizes run variance, whereas a manual run through from a given location adds variance.

 

[Papahyooie]

To be clear, the TPU runs are subject to the same possible problems, because each run may be slightly different. But the difference is, TPU is depending on that CPU load to gather data, but it is NOT relying on that consistent CPU load to be the primary indicator for comparison, but rather relying on the repeatable known factor of a low resolution. If such an anomalous result were found in the TPU results, the benchmarker should retry the run multiple times to try to shake out the anomoly, or smooth it over with an average. If such anomaly continues to be repeatable, it would behoove the tester to investigate why.

 

[cucker tarlson]

so you're saying if those tests were carrier out in a more consistent way,the 40% difference during the in-game run would be 9% again ? I don't think you believe that.
and isn't a very specific choice of location a repeatable factor as you called it too?

 

[Papahyooie]

so you're saying if those tests were carrier out in a more consistent way,the 40% difference during the in-game run would be 9% again ? I don't think you believe that.

You're the one claiming that game location causes such a huge difference in the test data. So you tell me... Could a change in the test that resulted in more or less CPU load on a specific run cause that much of a difference?

If so, then your data is not reliable.

If not, then your claim that in game location is a better indicator of performance is false, and therefore your entire premise is flawed.

You tell me.

 

[cucker tarlson]

You're the one claiming that game location causes such a huge difference in the test data. So you tell me... Could a change in the test that resulted in more or less CPU load on a specific run cause that much of a difference?

If so, then your data is not reliable.

If not, then your claim that in game location is a better indicator of performance is false, and therefore your entire premise is flawed.

You tell me.

you're confusing the very thing you're arguing about.
your point was about replicablility factor,the consistency in carrying out the tests.not the location vs resolution difference that I'm trying to get across.just cause your data with 720p could be more consistent does not mean it's any more relevant than location testing.I mean it could be for a reviewer maybe,but not for the end user of a cpu.

Please don't think I don't get your point.I do,though I think you exagerrate things.I just think that more consistent methodology (720p benchmark) does not matter for me as much as testing a cpu heavy location at more standard resolution would.You end up with a consitent bag of nothing.Which result will the end user ever be closer to seeing with their own eyes while playing?

 

[trparky]

What’s this about SSD performance?

 

[cucker tarlson]

What’s this about SSD performance?

nothing you need to worry about really if that ryzen system is gonna end up in your dad's office.just nerds comparing score points.

 

[Papahyooie]

you're confusing the very thing you're arguing about.
your point was about replicablility factor,the consistency in carrying out the tests.not the location vs resolution difference that I'm trying to get across.just cause your data with 720p could be more consistent does not mean it's any more relevant than location testing.I mean it could be for a reviewer maybe,but not for the end user of a cpu.

Please don't think I don't get your point.I do,though I think you exagerrate things.I just think that more consistent methodology (720p benchmark) does not matter for me as much as testing a cpu heavy location at more standard resolution would.You end up with a consitent bag of nothing.Which result will the end user ever be closer to seeing with their own eyes while playing?

That's fine if you want an indicator of what FPS you will get from a particular chip in a particular situation, but that's not what these benchmarks are for! They are for comparing processors against each other. And your data shows an anomaly, ostensibly because the "particular situation" that was tested, was changed somehow across runs. This invalidates the result. Two processors show identical performance deltas over the two testing methodologies, and two others show hugely different deltas. So there is something wrong with SOMEONE'S tests. I contend that the 720p tests are more accurate and reliable. If I am correct, then your fps numbers are objectively wrong, and therefore not even a good indicator for what you want. Something has skewed your numbers, so for whatever purpose you may want, your numbers are wrong! Even if you deem such a test more "useful" to you, it doesn't matter because the results are flawed, so your "more useful" results are inherently useless.

 

[cucker tarlson]

That's fine if you want an indicator of what FPS you will get from a particular chip in a particular situation, but that's not what these benchmarks are for! They are for comparing processors against each other. And your data shows an anomaly. Two processors show identical performance deltas over the two testing methodologies, and two others show hugely different deltas. So there is something wrong with SOMEONE'S tests. I contend that the 720p tests are more accurate and reliable. If I am correct, then your fps numbers are objectively wrong, and therefore not even a good indicator for what you want. Something has skewed your numbers, so for whatever purpose you may want, your numbers are wrong! Even if you deem such a test more "useful" to you, it doesn't matter because the results are flawed, so your "more useful" results are inherently useless.

please,just cause 720p benchmark may be more consistent does not imply all the other things you claim.wrong results? yeah,sure.
two different deltas does not imply either number is wrong,I don't know why you'd think that.wouldn't having identical deltas imply that?

 

[Papahyooie]

I'll copy/paste something I edited into the reply above that you probably didn't see:

"your data shows an anomaly, ostensibly because the "particular situation" that was tested, was changed somehow across runs. This invalidates the result."

Yes. Incorrect results. If you change the test across runs, which obviously did happen somehow, you invalidate that result. This is basic testing method.

 

[cucker tarlson]

I'll copy/paste something I edited into the reply above that you probably didn't see:

"your data shows an anomaly, ostensibly because the "particular situation" that was tested, was changed somehow across runs. This invalidates the result."

Yes. Incorrect results. If you change the test across runs, which obviously did happen somehow, you invalidate that result. This is basic testingmethod.

but the fact is you don't change it.

you can't really think that a game that doesn't have an in-built benchmark is actually impossible to test,do you?

 

[Papahyooie]

but the fact is you don't change it.

Something obviously was changed, or you wouldn't have such disparity in the deltas between the two separate testing methodologies. You'd have different numbers, sure. But you SHOULD have consistent deltas, at least in percentage. So something changed, there IS anomaly in SOMEONE's testing methodology. You can argue all you want that TPU's testing methodology is the less consistent, but that's laughable considering the fact that TPU's methodology has repeatable factors, whereas yours doesn't. So I maintain that it's the one you shared that has anomaly. I'm not going to spend the time to prove it, because it's common sense, and any reasonable person would agree.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Something obviously was changed, or you wouldn't have such disparity in the deltas between the two separate testing methodologies. You'd have different numbers, sure. But you SHOULD have consistent deltas, at least in percentage. So something changed, there IS anomaly in SOMEONE's testing methodology. You can argue all you want that TPU's testing methodology is the less consistent, but that's laughable considering the fact that TPU's methodology has repeatable factors, whereas yours doesn't. So I maintain that it's the one you shared that has anomaly. I'm not going to spend the time to prove it, because it's common sense, and any reasonable person would agree.

is it even possible to have a minor change skew results by such margins? not really.you're looking for answers in picking on details while it lies elsewhere,in plain sight.

 

[Papahyooie]

is it even possible to have a minor change skew results by such margins? not really.you're looking for answers in picking on details while it lies elsewhere,in plain sight.

We've already been through this lol.

You're the one claiming that game location causes such a huge difference in the test data. So you tell me... Could a change in the test that resulted in more or less CPU load on a specific run cause that much of a difference?

If so, then your data is not reliable.

If not, then your claim that in game location is a better indicator of performance is false, and therefore your entire premise is flawed.

You tell me.

 

[cucker tarlson]

We've already been through this lol.

I tell you that reviewer must have been hit in the head with the hammer in the middle of each run to obtain such skewed results.

it's a change between two tests,not runs of each tests for Christ's sake

we are so dead when the moderator sees it.

 

[Papahyooie]

I tell you that reviewer must have been hit in the head with the hammer in the middle of each run to obtain such skewed results.

That's the problem with your claims... You can't say why. The anomaly is obviously there, when compared to other tests. And yet, you can't explain why. Which is why I contend that your methodology is unreliable.

 

[cucker tarlson]

That's the problem with your claims... You can't say why. The anomaly is obviously there, when compared to other tests. And yet, you can't explain why. Which is why I contend that your methodology is unreliable.

it's not an anomaly though.you call it that.

hey,look,testing a cpu heavy location in game shows other results than in-game benchmark at other resolution.must be an anomaly.

 

[Papahyooie]

it's not an anomaly though.you call it that.

It is. Other tests show consistent deltas between two sets of two processors. Yours show consistent deltas between two processors, but wildly different deltas for two other processors, of the same set of four. This is an anomaly.