Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Should CPU, GPU Name-Numbering Indicate Real World Performance?
dryriver writes: Anyone who has built a PC in recent years knows how confusing the letters and numbers that trail modern CPU and GPU names can be because they do not necessarily tell you how fast one electronic part is compared to another electronic part. A Zoomdaahl Core C-5 7780 is not necessarily faster than a Boomberg ElectronRipper V-6 6220 -- the number at the end, unlike a GFLOPS or TFLOPS number for example, tells you very little about the real-world performance of the part. It is not easy to create one unified, standardized performance benchmark that could change this. One part may be great for 3D gaming, a competing part may smoke the first part in a database server application, and a third part may compress 4K HEVC video 11% faster. So creating something like, say, a Standardized Real-World Application Performance Score (SRWAPS) and putting that score next to the part name, letters, or series number will probably never happen. A lot of competing companies would have to agree to a particular type of benchmark, make sure all benchmarking is done fairly and accurately, and so on and so forth.
But how are the average consumers just trying to buy the right home laptop or gaming PC for their kids supposed to cope with the "letters and numbers salad" that follows CPU, GPU and other computer part names? If you are computer literate, you can dive right into the different performance benchmarks for a certain part on a typical tech site that benchmarks parts. But what if you are "Computer Buyer Joe" or "Jane Average" and you just want to glean quickly which two products -- two budget priced laptops listed on Amazon.com for example -- have the better performance overall? Is there no way to create some kind of rough numeric indicator of real-world performance and put it into a product's specs for quick comparison?
But how are the average consumers just trying to buy the right home laptop or gaming PC for their kids supposed to cope with the "letters and numbers salad" that follows CPU, GPU and other computer part names? If you are computer literate, you can dive right into the different performance benchmarks for a certain part on a typical tech site that benchmarks parts. But what if you are "Computer Buyer Joe" or "Jane Average" and you just want to glean quickly which two products -- two budget priced laptops listed on Amazon.com for example -- have the better performance overall? Is there no way to create some kind of rough numeric indicator of real-world performance and put it into a product's specs for quick comparison?
As soon as someone gives me a definitive definition of what "real world performance" for a CPU/GPU is that doesn't change over time/software-version/user-care-ometer is, I might agree that it's feasible to use it to name models.
'Real world performance' according to who or what, precisely?
Clock speed doesn't tell you the whole story and to the vast majority of people (read as: non-technical people) it wouldn't mean anything to them anyway, other than maybe one number is bigger than another number.
Same goes for so-called 'benchmark' test suites, which I think can be argued as being biased in one way or another (or a processor gaming the system to make it appear it's faster on such-and-such benchmark test).
I think that for the people such information matters to, they're going to already know what's what without anyone spelling it out for them.
Cars are also complex, they don't have simple-to-understand names and variants and require you to document yourself and investigate for large amounts of time before committing to a purchase.
Don't try to dumb down complex machinery. It will never work.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Even then what's being asked here is like asking which power supply will make your computer faster; it makes no sense. You could have the hottest-shit-fast CPU available, and since you're booting it off a cheap USB 2 flash drive and a USB 2 video adapter, the performance will suck. Then you put it side-by-side with the cheapest shittiest CPU you can find, but with the best x16 PCIe graphics card and a top of the line SATA SSD, and it kicks the other systems' ass.
1. Like EPA fuel mileage tests, manufacturers will find ways to rig their chips so they benchmark better.
2. Unlike the EPA/feds, there's nobody to punish corporations when they cheat.
It's really not hard to do a little research to see how CPUs compare. Yes, it's a PIA if you're buying spur-of-the-moment and comparing laptops at the Big Box Store. But you need to do research. Hyperthreading and multiprocs will speed up some apps and do very little for others, some standardized benchmark number printed in the specs won't really tell consumers anything very useful. Too many variables and dependencies.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I'll try a novel analogy instead of the typical car thing. Imagine these chips (CPUs, GPUs, etc.) as shoes. Yes, shoes. Now there are obviously shoes of all kinds of sizes and types, and no one shoe of a certain size/type can be said to fit a particular person's requirements. Too big, too small. Great (9) for the red carpet runway, not so much (2) the tarmac kind. Perfect (10) for the alpine, chafing and sweaty (1) on the beach.
User A does spreadsheets all day, B does FPS games, C does CAD, D AI research, etc.. Some require multi-threaded performance; some, single-threaded, etc. etc.. What might seem like a good performance for one use is weak for another. It's just not possible to come up with a workable single axis performance metric when performance is determined by multiple variables, each having their own weight depending upon the user.
If you want to shop for kit that best fits your needs, you first need to come up with an understanding of the importance of each of the variables then go comparison shop the various benchmarks out there. As with most nearly everything it's best to just ignore the marketing speech and go do your own research.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
They already do this. Always look for the standardised number following the dollar sign.
But how are the average consumers just trying to buy the right home laptop or gaming PC for their kids supposed to cope
They don't need to. The average user will have their needs met by any computer built in the past 10 years.
if you want high-end or specialised stuff, just let the price guide you. The more expensive (so long as you don't get suckered into paying a brand premium) a generic computer is, the better it will perform.
Most people buy to a budget, anyway - not to a specification. That is why the first question a sales-droid will ask you is "how much do you have to spend?".
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
No, you dont need 850w for your single GPU PC
True except for some edge cases.
Its job is to turn on, not die, and when it does die, not take out everything else with it
You missed "deliver power at the specified voltage and amperage, within tolerances, including not sagging, spiking or being 'noisy'". Bonus if it can do this for more than five years.
It sounds like you've never had intermittent faults that turned out to be the fault of a cheap PSU aging _way_ too soon and far from gracefully.
There are reasons some people insist that your PSU is (at least) as important as any other component, and it has nothing to do with 'bigger is better'.
But hey, don't let your ignorance stop you 'shit[ting] on' someone else's.
The PSU is very important, for all the reasons you say.
But there is a culture that advocates much bigger and more expensive PSUs than required, and that is bleeding into the realm of casual PC builders.