RTJam

Thanks for response. I get what your are trying to tell me and yes, I am taking those marketing statements with a grain of salt. What's bothering me is, I found zero material with quantifiable results online, so I guess no one came up with this idea. I am not interested in which games/benchmars under utilize (or don't ) their core count in accordance to resolution. But I do want to know by how much exactly a gpu of yesteryesteryear does better than it's almost identical bigger brother with more cores and less clockspeed. That's why I pointed out the benchmark idea with a constant 100% gpu utilization, so effects like with the 3080 test would not occur. I also think 3080 dances around being cpu bottlenecked, so generally this could be easier done with older/lower spec gpus.

Hi everyone. I saw Sony's PS5 keynote presentation a while ago and I want to discuss one particular statement that was made there: higher clocked gpus are better than lower clocked gpus with more cores. They were referring to the then fresh revelation, that the new xbox actually will have 2 tflops more raw gpu performance. This is thanks to the having around 50% more streaming processors than the otherwise similar PS5 SOC. However due to the PS5s 400mhz higher gpu clock, the tflops difference is only 20%. Sony actually claimed, that due to the overall higher clock speeds, other factors beyond raw floating point calculations should benefit enough to actually catch up to the, on paper, more "powerful" xbox SOC. Now I understand that older games, designed with less parallelism within the rendering engine, would straight up solidify Sony's claim, but upcoming game engines might actually benifit more from having 50% more cores and not being 50% slower. The only thing that's annoying me is by how much are both philosophys true, so I came up with a benchmark idea that I can't pull off myself due to lack of gpus. Anyway, this is the idea: you need 2 similar gpus, same architecture, ideally one tier apart. however they have to fullfill some specific specs in order for this to work: 1.something that can be easily pushed to constant 100% utilization within random gpu bound benchmarking. this concerns both gpus. 2. both gpus need to be able to achieve the same theoretical tflops while having a different amount of streaming processors / cuda cores. you can actually achieve this by over and underclocking the gpus. in order to hit the same tflops, you can use this formular for both amd and nvidia 1core can do 2flops each clock or more easier for the calc app: coreCount*2*frequency in ghz=gflops in case of the xbox, that would be 3328x2x1.825=12,147gflops the reason for capping the utilization for benchmarking is to make those other components like ROPs and TMUs shine, giving a more countable side to Sony's claims. If anyone has the means to test this out, please do this and share the results! For further information, I use the Android apps CPU-L and GPU-L to check on hardware specs. It's also where I noticed the formula for calculating the tflops. This by the way works for most of the latest(if not all) amd and nvidia gpus. Intel gpus have actully a similar formula, but with 4 or 8 flops per clock. Also I am mainly curious about this "basically same" console gpu comparison, but this test should also be possible between different generations, architectures or even between amd/nvidia/intel gpus. As long as the math shows the same theoretical flops, any comparison should bring more light into the "flops does not equal performance" argument. Edit: Almost forgot a rather major requirement for this test: constant gpu clock. even if you set both gpus to clockspeeds, that would give them the same theoretical flops/second, any kind of thermal throtteling, or even automatic downclocking due to lack of utilization, would turn a comparison pointless. I actually thought of a way to calcute the actual flops achieved per frame, by multiplying the core count with the percentage of utilization , but that wouldg generate more data to crawl through.