PC Gaming Simulator Accuracy

[Jtalk4456]

I know it's a video game, but it's very detailed in many respects and I'm curious with rankings about the brands. In the Part Ranking program used in the game, it has certain 900 series graphics cards placing well above some 10xx series cards. This seems a bit wierd to me. And then on the processors it has ryzen holding the top 3 spots. Keeping in mind that I'm up to lvl 8 and haven't unlocked all parts yet so the list might change it still seems strange. Also I'm not sure what the numbers are referencing as the game uses often specific benchmark goals, but the numbers don't match these numbers. I'm just curious if the lists are ranked well or if there's an underlying bias here skewing numbers

Examples

[Crunchy Dragon]

You talking PC Building Sim?

8 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

In the Part Ranking program used in the game, it has certain 900 series graphics cards placing well above some 10xx series cards.

You have to remember, the 980Ti performs about the same as a 1070, so it makes sense that it would be above a 1060. The 980 performs about the same as the 1060 6Gb.

[Jtalk4456]

6 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

You talking PC Building Sim?

You have to remember, the 980Ti performs about the same as a 1070, so it makes sense that it would be above a 1060. The 980 performs about the same as the 1060 6Gb.

so that's a pretty accurate ranking then? I don't know much about the 900 series performance vs 10xx

[Christophe Corazza]

4 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

so that's a pretty accurate ranking then? I don't know much about the 900 series performance vs 10xx

 

I use as a very general rule of thumb that the previous generation is about equivalent as the next generation but one step down the ladder.

[Jtalk4456]

5 hours ago, Christophe Corazza said:

 

I use as a very general rule of thumb that the previous generation is about equivalent as the next generation but one step down the ladder.

interesting, so a 970=1060?

[Christophe Corazza]

14 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

interesting, so a 970=1060?

 

That’s perhaps a little bit far-fetched :-D

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

interesting, so a 970=1060?

 

49 minutes ago, Christophe Corazza said:

That’s perhaps a little bit far-fetched :-D

970 performs about the same as a 1060 3Gb, same as the 780.

 

I wouldn't say the ranking is exactly on point, but it's pretty close.

[Jtalk4456]

what about the cpu ranking? I like AMD, but that ranking seems a bit off to me

[Crunchy Dragon]

12 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

what about the cpu ranking? I like AMD, but that ranking seems a bit off to me

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3502vs3919

 

The Ryzen 5 1600 and i7-6700K are somewhat close in performance. It varies by task, the 1600 would be better for workstation uses.

 

There's a 1% difference between the 1700x and 6700K: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X/3502vs3915

 

Ranking is definitely off by a bit.

EDIT: also, from what I recall, the 980 was better than the 390/390X except for high resolutions and VR.