Currently most review sites test CPUs in game by minimizing all the graphics effects, hopefully just getting CPU related calculations as a means for benchmarking. We usually see the result of hundreds of frames a second and some Intel on top, but I think there might be something wrong with this testing method. I feel when we are approaching hundreds of frames a second it intrinsically supports smaller caches and less cycles per instruction.
I feel there is a better method for practical tests of CPUs. Start with a GPU we know is bottlenecked by CPUs at extreme graphic settings. Like the ASUS ROG Aries. Then run it with the most graphic settings we can run. This will probably mean greater draw distance and a wider field of view. Everything else is pretty much handled on the GPU. Then test with those settings. I think it would be interesting to also check multiple resolutions and multiple monitors. Even though it should have no impact on the results since pixel data is entirely calculated on the GPU, their actually might be some impact that has not been factored and was just dismissed.
I feel there is a better method for practical tests of CPUs. Start with a GPU we know is bottlenecked by CPUs at extreme graphic settings. Like the ASUS ROG Aries. Then run it with the most graphic settings we can run. This will probably mean greater draw distance and a wider field of view. Everything else is pretty much handled on the GPU. Then test with those settings. I think it would be interesting to also check multiple resolutions and multiple monitors. Even though it should have no impact on the results since pixel data is entirely calculated on the GPU, their actually might be some impact that has not been factored and was just dismissed.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram