Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Suggestions & Feedback (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/suggestions-feedback/)
-   -   Upcoming CPU reviews (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/suggestions-feedback/55403-upcoming-cpu-reviews.html)

MARSTG July 10, 2012 05:01 PM

Upcoming CPU reviews
Hello to all
For the upcoming CPU reviews that will happen here on HWC, probably the next big thing will be AMD's Trinity and Phenom FX based on the Piledriver core, is it possible guys when you make the charts to have a chart that compares the CPUs at the same speed? Bring all CPUs thrown in the comparison to the same speed (either by downclocking or overclocking them lightly) and draw a chart for us the rest of the commoners to clearly see the difference between them? And maybe even have a percentage to the bars showing the advantage or the disadvantage compared to a baseline. And some folding numbers also please? For example, I have seen on Toms Hardware the review of the upcoming AMD Trinity for the desktop here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pu,3241-7.html
I don't want to stay and calculate the difference in performance/MHz in between a SKU at 3.9GHz and one at 2.9 GHz or 3.0 GHz. Do you think this is doable? Thank you!

sswilson July 10, 2012 05:42 PM

I'd vote no as you never really know what other processes (memory, NB, SB speeds as one example) are going to be affected by a clock speed change. As a bargain cpu purchaser (not cheap, but bargain... there's a difference) I'm a lot more interested in how a new CPU performs against similarly priced items than a clock-for-clock comparison.

BlueByte July 10, 2012 06:00 PM

I vote No as well, its pretty easy to fig out rough numbers once you have a base line for a cpu so this would only take away from other benchmarks that might show a CPU strengths or weaknesses... or just needlessly add another graph for what takes 10 seconds to get you within 95% accuracy on a calculator.

rommelrommel July 10, 2012 06:01 PM

The results might be interesting in an abstract sense but I agree that price points vs performance is more useful to me.

Bond007 July 10, 2012 06:29 PM

While it would be an interesting point, I don't know if it would really have much value added. Personally I care about performance/$ and performance/watt and that's about it.

Arinoth July 10, 2012 06:51 PM

I voted no, what should be compared is what each device is at stock and their price point (there you can figure out performance per dollar) and that whatever their max stable overclock results.

Intel and AMD don't say "our product at exactly the same speed beats our competitors", they just go along the lines that their cpu is better because of its performance and it's price.

Dzzope July 10, 2012 10:56 PM

I'd have to say no as well.. With the exception of if you are comparing an updated processor.. see sandy vs ivy or BD to PD

What would be goo would be to see side-by-side what the chip being reviewed does in oc's vs others in oc..
perhaps even just use the results from old tests (unless a driver update has skewed those results),
I know we can do this ourselves but I think it would add to the review if you could see the review item at stock - oc and then the competitors at oc(to keep the charts cleaner just drop the stock ones as oc only matters vs oc)

GT7R July 11, 2012 02:22 AM

There is no point in that, as different architectures are designed to operate at different clocks. Same as comparing say a HD7970 & GTX680 clock per clock... pointless.

LarkStarr July 11, 2012 04:50 AM

Doesn't make sense to compare clock speeds across chipset lines. If all the other hardware remained the same or similar I could see the usefulness of this, or to predict benefits of overclocking via extrapolation. But otherwise, nah!

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:58 PM.