5 ms·
http://web.archive.org/web/20240221001449/https://www.cpubenchmark.net/year-on-year.html http://web.archive.org/web/20240221001449/https://www.cpuben... They h
by lolinder 2y ago
http://web.archive.org/web/20240221001449/https://www.cpubenchmark.net/year-on-year.html http://web.archive.org/web/20240221001449/https://www.cpuben...
They have more than twice as many samples on their Feb 10 update this year (47810) as they did last year on Feb 14 (22761). They have shown some growth year on year in sample size, but nowhere near doubling.
That suggests this month has been an outlier in having a strangely large number of samples already, which could all be related—maybe their software started being bundled with a specific OEM or was featured on a popular content creator or whatever.
As a sibling notes, less accurate just means less accurate, not necessarily skewed upward. There simply is less data to draw conclusions on than there will be later, so any medium-sized effect that adds 20k extra samples will have a larger effect now than later.
- hsuduebc2 2y agoI had the same thought. The common reasons for such a decline would be something like change of CPU architecture prioritizing energy efficiency over raw performance, limitations in manufacturing processes, or changes in benchmarking methodologies wouldn't had such steep decline. So I would guess either change of methodology or as you said weaker CPUs in general are measured by that.
- moffkalast 2y agoSo if I understand right, more old hardware makes it into the sample now than before, increasing the unreliability of early data? That makes sense I guess.
- lolinder 2y agoNot increasing the unreliability—it's unreliable no matter what this early in the year—but it's possible that more old hardware made it in this past month than in previous early years which would explain why the number went down this time.