this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1 points (66.7% liked)

Hardware

33 readers
1 users here now

A place for quality hardware news, reviews, and intelligent discussion.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (10 children)

https://youtu.be/yDEUOoWTzGw?t=731

> The 7970X required 3.6 min making the 7980X [2.2 min] 39% faster for about 100% more money. You're never getting value for those top of the line parts though.

Except that's not it. The 7980X speed is 1/2.2 = 0.45 render/minute, which is 64% faster than the 7970X (1/3.6=0.28 render/minute). An faster way to do the math is 3.6/2.2 = 1.64 --> 64% faster. What Steve did is 2.2/3.6=0.61 --> 1-0.61=0.39 ~~--> 39% faster.~~

It's not the first time I see GN stumble on percentages when talking inverse performance metrics (think graphs where "lower is better"). Sometimes it doesn't matter much because the percentage is small. Like with 1/0.90=1.11, 11%~10%. But on bigger margins it gets very inaccurate.

Another way to see this is by pushing the example to the extreme. Take the R7 2700 at the bottom of the chart completing the test in 26.9 minutes. Using the erroneous formula (2.2/26.9=0.08 --> 1-0.08=0.92) we get that the 7980x is 92% faster than the 2700, which is obviously silly, in reality it's 12x faster.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

How are they making such basic rate of change errors?

load more comments (9 replies)