Jump to content

Knowbody

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    19

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

Knowbody's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

5

Reputation

  1. Knowbody
    That's not the issue. If you're saying the total cost of the system is relevant and that reviewers should therefore include it, and yet the total cost of the system could be wildly different to what users reading the review actually end-up spending (eg, reviewer uses a $700 graphics card, user reading the review uses $0 onboard graphics), wouldn't the results be useless regardless?
  2. Knowbody
    But then what if somebody cares about CPU performance and doesn't care about GPU performance and uses integrated graphics that costs them $0, and the total cost of the system is much less than that? The review figures that used an expensive, high-end GPU included in the cost would then be incorrect anyway.
  3. Knowbody
    How many times is a $10 CPU going to be put in a system that otherwise costs $1500? That's just idiotic.
  4. Knowbody
    I didn't say it stayed the same, the magnitude just shrinks, but the relative positions stay the same. In other words, all you're doing is watering down the difference.
  5. Knowbody
    No, you divide by the cost of the individual component, because that's the component in question. But also, when a reviewer reviews CPU's, they're going to make the rest of the system the same in each test wherever possible to make sure they aren't a factor affecting the results. So, the total cost of the system is only going to change based on the cost of the CPU anyway, and maybe to a degree, the motherboard. And maybe in specific cases, the RAM, if the CPU's aren't compatible with the same type of RAM. But if they are compatible with the same type of RAM, the same type of RAM is used. But things like power supplies, graphics cards, hard drives, etc aren't relevant at all to the price:performance of the CPU.
  6. Knowbody
    And the price:performance is different depending on your particular use case. Like I said, maybe someone doesn't care about GPU performance at all, because it doesn't benefit them. Maybe they benefit from much higher hard drive speeds, or RAM (if they're building a database or something). If you understand your particular use case and what each product actually does, then you should know which reviews to read. It shouldn't be up to the review to include information on other types of products that may or may not be relevant to people reading the reviews. Because like I said, then it just becomes a slippery slope, with an enormous amount more work, and potentially annoying to people reading the review who don't actually care about those other products anyway. If you care about CPU performance, you read reviews on CPU's. If you care about GPU performance, you read reviews on GPU's. If you care about SSD speed, you read reviews about SSD's. You don't need to include GPU information in a review on CPU's; people who care about both CPU's and GPU's can still find information on both by reading multiple different articles.
  7. Knowbody
    Or, maybe they would still only spend $100 on them, because for their particular use case, it's more than enough. The real questions should be: Do you understand what the products you're potentially purchasing actually do? Do you understand your own particular use cases? Because if you do, you should then know which types of products you should read reviews on, and work out for yourself some sort of appropriate balance based on the benefits each particular product has.
  8. Knowbody
    I read it. It's not relevant. That's the point. You're not telling me anything I don't know. The issue is that the information is not relevant to this particular case.
  9. Knowbody
    RAM and SSD's could provide enormous performance benefits in particular use cases. Gaming FPS isn't the only kind of performance people might care about. GPU's can provide enormous benefits in particular use cases, or absolutely none in others, such as many CPU-bound use cases. And maybe people reading a review about CPU's don't care about GPU performance, or hard drive read/write speeds. Or maybe they care much more about hard drive read/write speeds than GPU performance. They can look at multiple different articles that address their own particular use cases. It shouldn't be up to the article to include all sorts of other hardware that may or may not be relevant to people. At best, you could argue that perhaps the article should outline all of the particular use cases that are relevant to the products being reviewed, and the person reading the article should be able to decide if those use cases are relevant to them.
  10. Knowbody
    No, GPU performance may or may not matter to the people reading the article. And if it does, they can read other articles that review GPU's. CPU review articles should be about comparing the CPU's in question to other CPU's. If you start introducing price:performance of GPU's alongside CPU's, you have to take into account all sorts of different use cases, because the price:performance ratio changes with different types of usage, and that magnifies the amount of testing you need to do. And it also becomes a slippery slope, too. I mean, if you include GPU's, why not include RAM? Or SSD's? Or all sorts of other hardware? And then to take into account all the different use cases again, you test test all of the different possible combinations of CPU/GPU/RAM/SSD, and suddenly there are 500 times more tests you have to run.
  11. Knowbody
    Nothing, I know what point you're making. You need to explain its relevance to this particular article. The value of a faster CPU verses a faster GPU is outside the scope of the article, to the point where the same GPU is being used in all of the tests to eliminate it being a factor affecting the results. It makes no sense to include the cost of components that are not relevant and are not being compared. This is why having a price:performance graph where price and performance are separate axes on the graph is better; you don't lose information. You can see if a CPU has a "good price:performance ratio" but has low performance. And to make it easier to tell the price:performance ratio, you can add a line showing the mean price:performance. CPU's above the line have a better than average ratio, and the further above it they are, the better the ratio.
  12. Knowbody
    Your GPU example is not addressing the same question that's being addressed in the article. It's a separate question that should really be its own article.
  13. Knowbody
    The question of how much to spend on your CPU vs how much to spend on your GPU is a separate question to the performance per dollar value of an individual component, and should be treated separately, such as in its own article that deals with that question specifically. The only thing you'll actually do when you include the cost of the other components is to reduce the scale of the difference. Because when a reviewer is making a performance per dollar comparison of CPU's, they're going to use the same components such as graphics cards, power supply, etc anyway. There is zero point to including them. The only time it would really make sense to include other components is if, for example, they're not compatible with the same type of RAM, or if there is a real difference in the cost of equivalent motherboards. Graphics cards, power supplies, hard drives, etc should not be included in any case.
  14. Knowbody
    Micro USB 2.0 is not too bad. Micro USB 3.0 is terrible. USB type C is nice even if it's only about as durable as Micro B 2.0, because it enables USB 3.x speeds. And the fact that it's reversible is nice too. You can actually buy reversible micro-B 2.0 cables. I have a few.
  15. Knowbody
    AM4 will last until DDR5 comes out.
×