Does anyone understand Linus' "relative value" concept?

[IAmAndre]

Hi,

 

I was expecting the video in which Linus elaborates on this concept but it hasn't come yet, unless I missed you. Can anyone explain what the attached graph means?

 

Thanks

[Sychic]

I think it's price to performance at that price point within those budgets. I.E. it's equally worth it vs a 1070 in a $1,000 budget and a $1,500 budget and an even better value over the RX 590 in every budget. IDK exactly though lol. They probably said it somewhere in that video

[SolarNova]

From what i understand this graph is showing that, compared to a 1660ti, on a total system budget of 750, 1000, and 1500, The GTX 1070 when on a 750,1000, or 1500 budget has the same value in regards to price performance as the 1660ti, however for the cost of the card vs total system budget, and its performance given, the RX 590 is a better choice.

 

At least thats how it looks to me, though im sure in the vid he explains it better, it could be the opposite way around tbh.

 

EDIT: if he said the 2060 is the better buy then it is indeed to be taken the opposite way around.

[IAmAndre]

5 minutes ago, Sychic said:

I think it's price to performance at that price point within those budgets. I.E. it's equally worth it vs a 1070 in a $1,000 budget and a $1,500 budget and an even better value over the RX 590 in every budget. IDK exactly though lol. They probably said it somewhere in that video

In the video he actually says that the RTX 2060 is the better buy.

[Tamesh16]

9 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

In the video he actually says that the RTX 2060 is the better buy.

i think its in context to the rest of the 20 series cards, because based on graph its just showing similar performing cards, so he basically saying out of 20 series the 2060 is best value, but at that performance level there are better cards with even better value 

but i understand the general confusion, not sure what the premise of 'performance' used to weight the value is 

[IAmAndre]

7 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

• the 1660ti has 5% (etc) more value than an RX 590
• the 1660ti has 1% (etc) more value than a GTX 1070
• the 1660ti has 7% (etc) less value than an RTX 2060

thus:

 

Interesting. I'd be curious to know how they came up with those values.

[steelo]

1 hour ago, IAmAndre said:

Hi,

 

I was expecting the video in which Linus elaborates on this concept but it hasn't come yet, unless I missed you. Can anyone explain what the attached graph means?

 

Thanks

I believe it's a comparison of performance per dollar. For example, if one card performs 10% better than another but costs twice as much, it's not going to be considered to be a good value.

[IAmAndre]

1 hour ago, VegetableStu said:

probably explained in the video? might be just 99-percentile FPS per dollar on average over a few games (or scores over a few workstation benchmarks)

above comment also mentions fuzzy comparisons so yeah see if it says in the video

Also why would a 1070 be considered similar value while it usually costs more?

[Jayl0cked]

I think the point they're making here Is the same One JayzTwocents was trying to make the other day but failed massively at lol. Based on your price point for your rig. what you're doing with your rig there's certain things that make more sense at a cheaper point and certain things that make more sense at a higher price point. 

For example, If you're going to play some games at 1080p on an 7100 I3 the price to performance for a RX590 is probably the card because they're dirt cheap and they provide excellent value gaming at 1080. Vice versa you're not going to toss a RTX2080ti on here because you wont even use it the RTX2080ti is gonna be waiting for CPU to preprocess everything anyhow and it's a waste of money. 

on the other hand if you're gonna spend some money 1500-2000 do a bunch of multi threaded tasks on a i9 9900k or a Ryzen 2700x play some games in 1440 and maybe even 4k, Youre not going to pair that system with a GTX 1060 anymore. The price to performance makes no sense. You're gonna wanna go RTX 2060-2080/ti (Because the price to performance makes more sense here to spend more on the graphics card. 

 

This is what they're getting at with these value propositions. It's all relative to what you're doing and what you wanna spend. 

[IAmAndre]

2 minutes ago, Jayl0cked said:

I think the point they're making here Is the same One JayzTwocents was trying to make the other day but failed massively at lol. Based on your price point for your rig. what you're doing with your rig there's certain things that make more sense at a cheaper point and certain things that make more sense at a higher price point. 

For example, If you're going to play some games at 1080p on an 7100 I3 the price to performance for a RX590 is probably the card because they're dirt cheap and they provide excellent value gaming at 1080. Vice versa you're not going to toss a RTX2080ti on here because you wont even use it the RTX2080ti is gonna be waiting for CPU to preprocess everything anyhow and it's a waste of money. 

on the other hand if you're gonna spend some money 1500-2000 do a bunch of multi threaded tasks on a i9 9900k or a Ryzen 2700x play some games in 1440 and maybe even 4k, Youre not going to pair that system with a GTX 1060 anymore. The price to performance makes no sense. You're gonna wanna go RTX 2060-2080/ti (Because the price to performance makes more sense here to spend more on the graphics card. 

 

This is what they're getting at with these value propositions. It's all relative to what you're doing and what you wanna spend. 

But this approach is like saying "try not to bottleneck your CPU or your GPU". Now the problem is that when you have a 8400 or a 2600, it's not easy to bottleneck it, so you can easily spend $500+, which isn't necessarily the best value.

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 hours ago, IAmAndre said:

But this approach is like saying "try not to bottleneck your CPU or your GPU". Now the problem is that when you have a 8400 or a 2600, it's not easy to bottleneck it, so you can easily spend $500+, which isn't necessarily the best value.

The problem is some people focus too much on end results and numbers that they stop seeing the actual picture: what they want from the system. But I think some people would rather have the answer presented to them than having to either think or do any actual work to figure out what they want. And then they can go brag about how they built a computer or something.

[poochyena]

I understand the concept, but the graph really is confusing.

[mr moose]

Clearly if you pick a card (any card) and then deduct it's value from the number of spanners in a snappon tool set divided by the average income of the retail staff at walmart, then you have the best value GPU for your budget.