4 ms·

This is that page: https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/apps/cpu/compare?ids%5B%5D=AMD+Ryzen+9+3900X&ids%5B%5D=AMD+Ryzen+7+2700X https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/b

by zrm 6y ago

This is that page: https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/apps/cpu/compare?ids%5B%5D=AMD+Ryzen+9+3900X&ids%5B%5D=AMD+Ryzen+7+2700X https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/apps/cpu/compare?ids%5... This is the Anandtech benchmark that it links to from the first Blender graph (you can click on the graph): https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 The numbers on that page for the 3900X and 2700X bear no resemblance to the ones in the graph that links to it. Compare to their first 7zip graph which links here and contains the actual numbers for the 3900X and 2700X, because they evidently scraped that one correctly: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2240 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2240 This is the page they link for the second Blender graph: https://www.computerbase.de/2019-11/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3960x-3970x-test/2/#diagramm-test-blender-benchmark https://www.computerbase.de/2019-11/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3... The numbers in their graph don't match what that page has for the 3900X and the 2700X doesn't appear on that page at all.

onli 6y ago
Computerbase hides some benchmark results by default. Click at the top right "+29 Einträge" to see 29 processors more, including the 2700X. I understand that the number in that specific benchmarks is confusing right now. Again, that's from the conversion done for the "lower is better" benchmarks. That's why it's not the same number, just the same distance. I hope a better solution can be used soon.
- zrm 6y ago
  It's not the same distance though. The way to convert "lower is better" to "higher is better" is to invert the results, e.g. convert seconds per render to renders per second. You take 1/X where the original number was X. Or do renders per day if you don't want results as small fractions, which just means multiplying the inverted results by a constant, e.g. the number of seconds per day. For both the Anandtech and Computerbase Blender results, the 2700X takes ~60% longer in reality, which is ~66% more renders per second (which is the same percentage more per day), but the difference in the length of the bars on pc-kombo.com is <10% for Computerbase and ~1% for Anandtech. Something has gone wrong there.
  - onli 6y ago
    It's the same numerical distance. Look how small the bars are at the anandtech page, https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 also does not show you the one is 66% faster - same problem, just inverted. But the original is easier to get, and 1/X style comparisons could work - or in general just "how much faster" bars. Thanks :)
    - zrm 6y ago
      > It's the same numerical distance. ... What people are going to care about is the difference as a percentage. :) > Look how small the bars are at the anandtech page, https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 also does not show you the one is 66% faster - same problem, just inverted. Actually the bar for the 2700X on the Anandtech page is 66% longer than the bar for the 3900X, though it's admittedly harder to eyeball when they're both that short because of the much slower processors at the bottom of the page. You can imagine how much easier that page would be to see if they didn't include those two Celerons at the bottom. (You can also imagine how that would affect the results using the math you were using; if adding or removing a CPU changes not just the length of the bar but the actual numbers for an entirely different CPU, something's fishy.) Doing 1/X for timed benchmarks helps that for the modern processors though, because it makes it so the bars that are short and hard to eyeball are the slowest processors rather than the fastest ones.

by zrm 6y ago

onli 6y ago

Computerbase hides some benchmark results by default. Click at the top right "+29 Einträge" to see 29 processors more, including the 2700X. I understand that the number in that specific benchmarks is confusing right now. Again, that's from the conversion done for the "lower is better" benchmarks. That's why it's not the same number, just the same distance. I hope a better solution can be used soon.

zrm 6y ago
It's not the same distance though. The way to convert "lower is better" to "higher is better" is to invert the results, e.g. convert seconds per render to renders per second. You take 1/X where the original number was X. Or do renders per day if you don't want results as small fractions, which just means multiplying the inverted results by a constant, e.g. the number of seconds per day. For both the Anandtech and Computerbase Blender results, the 2700X takes ~60% longer in reality, which is ~66% more renders per second (which is the same percentage more per day), but the difference in the length of the bars on pc-kombo.com is <10% for Computerbase and ~1% for Anandtech. Something has gone wrong there.
- onli 6y ago
  It's the same numerical distance. Look how small the bars are at the anandtech page, https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 also does not show you the one is 66% faster - same problem, just inverted. But the original is easier to get, and 1/X style comparisons could work - or in general just "how much faster" bars. Thanks :)
  - zrm 6y ago
    > It's the same numerical distance. ... What people are going to care about is the difference as a percentage. :) > Look how small the bars are at the anandtech page, https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 also does not show you the one is 66% faster - same problem, just inverted. Actually the bar for the 2700X on the Anandtech page is 66% longer than the bar for the 3900X, though it's admittedly harder to eyeball when they're both that short because of the much slower processors at the bottom of the page. You can imagine how much easier that page would be to see if they didn't include those two Celerons at the bottom. (You can also imagine how that would affect the results using the math you were using; if adding or removing a CPU changes not just the length of the bar but the actual numbers for an entirely different CPU, something's fishy.) Doing 1/X for timed benchmarks helps that for the modern processors though, because it makes it so the bars that are short and hard to eyeball are the slowest processors rather than the fastest ones.