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.
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.
, and I've deleted the duplicate by the way.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram