Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why are there no 3-D graphs for CPU-GPU?

Last response: in Site Feedback
Share
October 14, 2010 4:07:25 PM

Hello everyone at Tom's. I know we all love our charts. We love to see what trounces what and by how many FPS. And we love to argue about where the bottleneck is, and how different combinations will perform, etc. Why has nobody created a nice, 3-D graph with such information? I posted this in the general discussion section of Toms network, thinking it was appropriate, but nobody looks at that section because it is not as interesting as helping a n00b choose a 5870 over a 470 or arguing amd/intel.



why are there no 3-D graphs in x-x-y format for CPU-GPU-FPS? I am pretty sure the data is available in the abundant resources that is Tom's charts, and even if we can not get ALL of the cpus paired up with ALL of the GPUs, if you place them according to hierarchy it would still contain a lot more information than the typical 2-D graphs.

Are all of the benchmarks Tom's has completed in a well-documented format? It should be fairly simple to come up with a rough example using excel (even though their 3-D plotting is sub-par).

I feel like this would give a lot of insight (especially with the pairing of cpus and gpus to determine where the bottlenecks for certain programs are really located). You would be able to get rid of independent cpu/gpu 2-D graphs and just have one 3-d plotting of all of that data. There will be gaps, but there are gaps in the 2-d graphs as well, just not documented with blank spaces.

If tom's wants to give me all of the data, I will do it myself and post it, but i do not feel like going through the charts and doing data entry by myself. We could even put how much certain "towers" (the FPS tower ((y- axis will look like a tower coming up from the ground of the x-x-axes)) will represent how well the combination works for that specific title, the taller the tower, the more FPS) cost, so there will feasibly be a cpu-gpu combination that will cost less than a similarly sized "tower", and this will be easily identified using the 3-D graph as opposed to doing the math in your head or searching between the cpu charts and gpu charts to find documented combinations.

If you feel this has any merit, please let me know. I would like this to be pursued, and would be willing to assist or just do it if anyone feels like it will benefit the community.

I made a small example chart of what I am talking about:



I fudged the numbers, but you can visually tell that the 450 is a bottleneck across the board etc, and that the best config is a 480 and a 980x. But you can also tell that a 480 with a 960 is getting the same FPS as a 470 with a 980x, etc. This is probably not true in RL, but for the purpose of my demo....so don't go on this example chart for purchasing.

But I feel like this type of chart would be more helpful and intuitive than the traditional 2-D charts.

More about : graphs cpu gpu

a b à CPUs
October 14, 2010 4:43:17 PM

This topic has been moved from the section Graphics & Displays to section Site Feedback by Mousemonkey
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2010 9:11:05 AM

The problem with that graph is that it could be difficult to read. The shortest purple column is clearly the same size as the others so we can assume it is around 12FPS. But what if it was taller? It would be difficult to tell how far up the chart it actually is unless it is the same as another column. Any time you draw a graphic on an angle other than straight on (necessary for 3D) it makes it difficult to line up the columns with the scales. This makes it ambiguous. A 2D graphic doesn't have this problem.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 15, 2010 12:52:30 PM

True, but putting FPS numbers on the top of the columns isn't really a hard thing to do. I was just trying to somehow get configurations' FPS numbers in view, rather than saying "If you have this specific CPU, then here are different graphics cards' numbers" or "If you have this specific GPU, here are different CPU numbers".
I just quickly added the numbers at the top, let me know what you think.



The best would be a halfway interactive (flash?) or something graph where the user can move about (since the data should be overwhelming), and click on a tower, and obtain the FPS and cost of that certain configuration. I have never used flash or a program that can accomplish something like that, but I know it can be done and I think would add a little edge to THG's charts, and be a little more n00b-friendly.



m
0
l
October 15, 2010 12:53:38 PM

Also, I didn't know there was a forum called feedback. Nice call, mm. Sorry for double posting this thread, btw.
m
0
l
October 15, 2010 1:31:06 PM

Well, getting all the data together is really the meat and potatoes of the thing. If you are up for gathering this information and turning it into a chart, I or one of my mods would be more than happy to sticky this in the appropriate subforum. If it's really good, might even make it a feature. :) 
m
0
l
October 15, 2010 2:19:46 PM

That was my main objective. I do not mind getting it together. I was wondering if there was a more friendly format for the data that you guys have in your charts section that you possess? Maybe an excel format? What program do you guys use to generate your charts? I realize you have a TON of data, but I would focus on the more current-gen CPUs and GPUs. Maybe just the 200 nVidia series, the new 400 series, AMD 4000 and 5000 series, and the CPUs....probably less varied during your testing, but I am sure there is some good data to be had from all the benching you guys perform. Let me know, I am interested in doing this.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2010 2:38:13 PM

jomofro39 said:
Also, I didn't know there was a forum called feedback. Nice call, mm. Sorry for double posting this thread, btw.

No worries ;) , and I've deleted the duplicate by the way.
m
0
l
!