These are two Performance Rating tables I created for myself for two reasons, I tend to upgrade my hardware by power of two usually. So if my own hardware is 1.0 rating and what I plan to upgrade to is 2.0 rating this means a doubling of performance compared to my current. The other reason I made these performance charts was that Tom's Hardware has no such performance rating.
http://emsai.net/projects/charts/cpu/
http://emsai.net/projects/charts/gfx/
It should be relatively easy to add this feature to Tom's Hardware as all that is needed is to use a baseline and then divide the test results of all the other entries in the CPU or GFX charts with the baseline entry's value, and there's your performance rating, simple right?
You could use a fixed performance baseline like in my two examples, in which case I guess you guys could call it Tom's Hardware Performance Rating, not unlike the Windows Performance Index, but way more accurate obviously.
Or you could simply allow the user to choose their own baseline (their own hardware maybe?) and have the performance rating calculated against the latest hardware test results.
So what is the benefit of a Performance Rating system like this?
Take my two example tables for instance, the GFX card I have is the baseline one. If I where to upgrade I would look at something with a 2.0 or better for at least a doubling in performance, anything less than that would be a waste of money and not give a significant improvement in performance. 3.0 or higher would be too much and obviously too costly.
Another benefit is that this performance rating system is test independent (if you guys decide on a fixed baseline for the future like in my examples), it would be possibly to test new hardware against only one of the existing entries and apply the proper modifier and add it to the list.
Another benefit of this system is it is test independent so when that old test benchmarks being phased out and new test benchmarks being introduced these performance rating values would be unaffected and still valid as they all have a common baseline.
Obviously this means that in 5+ years depending on hardware progress the best hardware might end up with a rating of 25.0 or higher, but the need for a adjustment would probably not be needed until it hits 10000+ really.
And if you look at the CPU example you will see that there is note above the table about 7 of your CPU tests was used, summed and divided by 7 to get the performance rating. This system is highly scalable and test benchmarks can thus be added or removed or be very different between each hardware yet the rating is not affected thanks to the baseline.
Looking forward to hearing response on this, if there is no interest in using such a system I'll probably end up making something more permanent on my own site. It's just that Tom's Hardware has much better and instant access to test data and combine this performance rating with the price and you get a much better way to do price/performance info.
Regards,
Roger "Rescator" Hågensen
http://emsai.net/projects/charts/cpu/
http://emsai.net/projects/charts/gfx/
It should be relatively easy to add this feature to Tom's Hardware as all that is needed is to use a baseline and then divide the test results of all the other entries in the CPU or GFX charts with the baseline entry's value, and there's your performance rating, simple right?
You could use a fixed performance baseline like in my two examples, in which case I guess you guys could call it Tom's Hardware Performance Rating, not unlike the Windows Performance Index, but way more accurate obviously.
Or you could simply allow the user to choose their own baseline (their own hardware maybe?) and have the performance rating calculated against the latest hardware test results.
So what is the benefit of a Performance Rating system like this?
Take my two example tables for instance, the GFX card I have is the baseline one. If I where to upgrade I would look at something with a 2.0 or better for at least a doubling in performance, anything less than that would be a waste of money and not give a significant improvement in performance. 3.0 or higher would be too much and obviously too costly.
Another benefit is that this performance rating system is test independent (if you guys decide on a fixed baseline for the future like in my examples), it would be possibly to test new hardware against only one of the existing entries and apply the proper modifier and add it to the list.
Another benefit of this system is it is test independent so when that old test benchmarks being phased out and new test benchmarks being introduced these performance rating values would be unaffected and still valid as they all have a common baseline.
Obviously this means that in 5+ years depending on hardware progress the best hardware might end up with a rating of 25.0 or higher, but the need for a adjustment would probably not be needed until it hits 10000+ really.
And if you look at the CPU example you will see that there is note above the table about 7 of your CPU tests was used, summed and divided by 7 to get the performance rating. This system is highly scalable and test benchmarks can thus be added or removed or be very different between each hardware yet the rating is not affected thanks to the baseline.
Looking forward to hearing response on this, if there is no interest in using such a system I'll probably end up making something more permanent on my own site. It's just that Tom's Hardware has much better and instant access to test data and combine this performance rating with the price and you get a much better way to do price/performance info.
Regards,
Roger "Rescator" Hågensen