Core i9 CORRECTION - Performance Per Dollar graph

[Knowbody]

6 minutes ago, Enderman said:

A lot of people did, ever since linus made that video about a cheap xeon gaming rig.

 

Anyway, let's do a different example.

$200 i5 with 700 points vs $350 i7 with 1000 points.

 

Before:

i5 = 700/200 = 3.5

i7 = 1000/350 = 2.86

The i5 is 22% better price performance (or that's what you think).

 

With $500 system:

i5 = 700/(200+500) = 1

i7 = 1000/(350+500) = 1.17

The i7 is 17% better price performance.

 

With $1500 system:

i5 = 700/(200+1500) = .411

i7 = 1000/(350+1500) = .541

The i7 is 30% better price performance.

 

As you can see, the price performance of the build will change depending on how much you spend on your build, not just the CPU.

 

Do you get it yet?

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.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, Knowbody said:

But then what if somebody cares about CPU performance and doesn't care about GPU performance, 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.

Cinebench is a CPU only stress test.

That's why I used it for comparing these CPUs.

[Knowbody]

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Cinebench is a CPU only stress test.

That's why I used it for comparing these CPUs.

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?

[Enderman]

Just now, Knowbody said:

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 end-up spending, wouldn't the results be useless regardless?

Yes, that's why I said they need to make a video explaining to people how to calculate it themselves because everyone buys a PC with a different cost.

 

Putting a chart in the video that shows only for a $1000 system will only be useful to a handful of people (although it will still be more correct than doing what they currently are doing).

 

Personally I would remove the "price/performance" graph from the video entirely and link to a techquickie video where linus teaches you how to properly calculate price performance.

[Kirosha]

 

@Enderman

I had an old computer that started with a Pentium D that managed to survive ten years of gaming usage due to upgrading the gpu, psu and ram.

 

I prefer to see a cost/performance comparison on the individual component and not a whole system. I understand that the system cost will change during the lifetime of the cpu/motherboard as I rarely upgrade either, preferring to upgrade the RAM/GPU and build a new system when the cpu/motherboard is lagging behind in my usage.

 

People who aren't researching compatibility or future proofing and buying ten dollar CPUs...beyond that, most, if not all, reviews are direct comparisons between the current lineup of future proof components and giving a cost per direct comparison isn't he same as LTT encouraging a straight "get the cheapest cost/performance Ever!" There is no need, IMHO, to muddy the waters here.

[croppy]

@Enderman my point is, that a reasonable person is only going to be comparing parts that they actually plan to put in their system. If they plan to consider every part in existence across all parts in a system and just blindly choose the best price to performance... then good on em, but I would not, and by proxy would definitely not expect LTT to cater the information on this channel to that market... As it is my opinion that the vast majority of the audience knows better than that.

 

Creating a video explaining why this would be a bad idea for that small portion of their audience in attempt to educate them however... extremely good idea.