4 ms·

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 rende

by 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

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.