Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Hardware Technology

Ask Slashdot: Should CPU, GPU Name-Numbering Indicate Real World Performance? 184

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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: Should CPU, GPU Name-Numbering Indicate Real World Performance?

Comments Filter:
  • by imgod2u ( 812837 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @06:44PM (#56369521) Homepage

    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.

    • What exact 'performance' figure does dryriver suggest?
      Raw GIPS/TFLOPS? pretty much meaningless and very easy to get an achievable peak number.
      SPECINT/SPECFP? with what OS, compiler, flags, version, etc?

      Anyone who knows much about cpu/gpu performance knows why this is a very very very silly 'suggestion'. It would be not more meaningful than the numbers they assign now.

      The complain should be with the manufacturers - please come up with more sensible naming practices, but in the end, thats their decision.

      Marke

      • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @06:53PM (#56369575) Journal
        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.
        • Some common ground numbers could be posted with PC specs though - boot times, average FPS in a current popular game, load time of MS Word, time to copy a large file... that probably covers most of the needs of a typical user.
          • Now define "boot" for the boot time... what graphics settings for that game, what third-party extensions are used in Word, and where/how we're copying the file and whether cache is involved.

            Of course, the first thing I would do with a shiny new machine is transfer over my video card, so all GPU measurements are useless right out of the gate. The second thing I would do is to replace any spinning disks with a mid-range SSD, making the other benchmarks useless, as well. My mother wouldn't change any hardware,

        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          On the other hand, you can have a basic computer and swap in different CPU's or graphic cards or power supplies and compare the speed.
          I had a Netburst Pentium D at 2.8 GHz which I swapped for a 1.86 GHz C2d and almost halved compilation time, later swapped in a 2.8GHz Core extreme and knocked another 1/3rd off compile time. Everything else seemed to get about the same speedup as well.
          If I was a gamer, I could have done similar with graphic cards.
          The problem is how things are inter-related. A slow CPU can't

        • 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.

          Or possibly the opposite based on the workloa

        • The power supply can limit on what hardware you can add to your system though. It self doesn't make the computer faster, but it allows to build a faster computer.

          It is like high octane gasoline. It doesn't make your car faster or run better, if you car isn't designed for it, it is just wasting your money. But the car that is designed to use high octane gasoline, can normally run faster then you car can.

      • by xevioso ( 598654 )

        Exactly. As soon as someone comes up with a standard and an agreement by manufacturers to adhere to it, such as all iterations of a graphics card being something like GTX+1000, then GTX+1010, a company whose card *should* be GTX+1020 would name it GTX+1100 just to get better sales, and then you just have lawsuits that follow and a richer card manufacturer.

        • To prevent that you could obligate that the numbers have to be proportional to some arbitrary metric. First problem, what metric? Second, in four years time the latest version would have to be called GTX+47000000 or something.

          Frankly, the question's retarded in the first place.

      • It's likely impossible to walk into a Best Buy or Fry's Electronics and purchase any off the shelf computer that is incapable of meeting the needs of 'joe or jane average'. They can all run a browser (meeting social media needs), they can all run the MS Office Suite (meeting productivity needs) and they are more than capable of running casual entertainment - movies, music, streaming media, and casual games. Even a chromebook can meet a users needs - Microsoft has had cloud versions of their productivity sof
        • by msauve ( 701917 )
          Yep, and even if seeking "best," that's likely unrelated to the CPU. SSD vs. hard drive or TN/VA/IPS display probably makes a bigger difference to the user experience.
    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Use Dhrystones and Whetstones

      • by imgod2u ( 812837 )

        Both of which fit perfectly in at least the last level cache of modern CPU's. So you have no idea what performance for workloads that don't fit in cache (all of them that matter) performs.

        And both have fairly rudimentary hot loops that basically no modern software that users care about (mostly javascript and media creation software) cares about.

    • by cheesybagel ( 670288 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @09:28PM (#56370339)

      Someone created such a system once. It was called the "PR" or Performance Rating [wikipedia.org]. It was used by AMD and Cyrix at a time when they had processors with different MIPS/Hz than Intel. The thing is, the benchmark was mostly integer based, so when games like Quake came out, which used the Intel Pentium's pipelined FPU, which the other manufacturer's processors didn't have, the PR kind fell by the wayside.

      • And this is kind of the problem. The goalposts for performance move constantly so it's best to force users to research.

        However they want because the question is missing an obvious gotchya: Unless you're building a high performance special purpose system most people couldn't give a crap and in general purposes their choice of CPU or GPU has very little effect on the system performance, so they'll go cheap.

    • Exactly. Normally hardware makers don't make their top of the line products suck. But they may make different design decisions.
      GPU A may be able to dump out billions more polygons per second then GPU B. But GPU B does more advanced coloring and edge rounding and environmental effects. So GPU A may work better on a higher resolution screen, but on normal resolution screens GPU B gives better results.

      Back in the 1990's The key indicator was the Megahertz, So people normally would opt for the 386 25mhz comput

    • While I very much agree this is close to the core of the problem, you have to admit that current part numbering schemes are wildly ridiculous (with Intel taking the cake). The manufacturers could at least put some semblance or real-life performance in these schemes, even if their respective competitors disagree with the measure being used.

      It's like the fallacy that is commonly used to defend questionable journalism: "true objectivity does not exist, so why even try?"

      (One possible answer: "be that as it may,

  • Passmark (Score:5, Informative)

    by darkain ( 749283 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @06:47PM (#56369533) Homepage

    Passmark. You're welcome. https://www.passmark.com/ [passmark.com]

    • Re:Passmark (Score:5, Informative)

      by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @06:49PM (#56369551)

      That's useful AFTER you bought the machine.
      What's useful BEFORE you buy the machine? Simple: CPUBoss and GPUBoss.
      http://cpuboss.com/compare-cpu... [cpuboss.com]
      http://gpuboss.com/compare-gpu... [gpuboss.com]

      • What's the difference. Aren't they both benchmarking apps? I used passmark scores to decide on a CPU during my last round of upgrades and it seemed pretty in line with what I experienced when I owned the CPU.
      • Cool story. Tells me nothing. How fast will it encode video? How fast will it run a game? How fast will it crunch an excel table? How fast will it calculated digits of Pi?

        There is no single benchmark that can answer what CPU or GPU you should buy without knowing WHY a person is buying it.

        • How fast will it run a game”???
          What the actual fuck.
          WHICH GAME?
          There are plenty benchmarks and reviews for each CPU and GPU, and that's exactly the problem, you can't encode that into a product name. Out of the 100+ Pi-related benchmarks, which one is the reference one? Out of the million or so games out there, which is the reference one? And which patch version, running on which platform, which operating system and which drivers?

          See, that's why I prefer comparing components' performance rather than l

          • What the actual fuck.
            WHICH GAME?

            No actual fucking involved. You simply extended my reply on an already originally absurd premise to the next level. This entire thread is stupid right back to the original Ask Slashdot submission.

            • I apologize. I thought your comment was linked to mine, instead if was on the story itself.
              My comprehension fail reared its ugly head once more.

              • I could have written it better. But yes my point is benchmarking a thing tells you nothing. Benchmarking multiple things and rolling them into one result tells even less.

                 

    • by darkain ( 749283 )

      For those that want a more detailed answer. Literally type in any CPU/GPU model name/number into Google followed by the word "Passmark" - the top result will almost certainly be the product page on the Passmark web site. Each product has a simplistic single numerical overall score. Just compare those. Passmark isn't perfect, but is accurate enough to count as a general overview for basic purchasing requirements.

      • Passmark isn't perfect, but is accurate enough to count as a general overview for basic purchasing requirements.

        It is also hard to game because the results in the db are crowd-sourced with only the cpu model or gpu model being a fixed element. So some of the people running the bench have slow ddr, others fast, some have virus scanners running, others dont, and so on.

        The results end up being close to the mean or median of what to expect if you buy or build a system featuring the part.

        The benchmarks you find with "reviewers" can be gamed by the reviewer OR in some cases the manufacturer (who "generously" donated t

    • Re:Passmark (Score:4, Informative)

      by jma05 ( 897351 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @07:03PM (#56369619)

      Yes, or more specifically:
      https://www.cpubenchmark.net/c... [cpubenchmark.net]
      https://www.videocardbenchmark... [videocardbenchmark.net]

  • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @06:47PM (#56369537) Journal
    '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.
  • It isn't possible. Microsoft tried this with the "Windows Experience Index". It failed. dryriver asks the best questions though.
  • I suspect Intel went to the i3/5/7 numbering because they could not continue to raise clock speeds. The new numbering obfuscates performance. For example, I'm running an i3 desktop that while 2 core, each core is faster than many i5 single cores. That means I get great performance out of a single thread at a much lower price. It's just not as good at handling numerous simultaneous processes.

    • I got bitten by Intel Obfuscation Syndrome when I bought a Core 2 Quad Q8200, not realizing that it was the only one of the Core 2 Quads to not have virtualization. Yeah, I should have looked before I leaped. In the end, it was a bad buy all around, as the DG43NB motherboard I bought to go with it also ended up crapping out in a surprisingly short time, but lasting long enough to be out of warranty. Needless to say, all of my later builds have been AMD (with various makes of motherboards).

    • It's also very irritating that they named that series of processors "Core". That does nothing but confuse people.
    • by swb ( 14022 )

      I think generally speaking marketing tends to decrease transparency and increase obfuscation as new product performance shows fewer gains.

      If new products had better general performance than old products, product naming would tend to track the performance improvements as was seen in the Mhz era.

      But as producers run out of simple performance improvements, they have to start trying to create a new demand profile, often one that's kind of made up and not representative of actual performance.

      IMHO, most capitalis

  • 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?

    If it was manufactured this or last year, it's probably better than Joe or Jane's 5-year-old laptop which was more than likely working just fine for them (modulo bloatware and registry cruft) until it broke. That's good enough, right?

  • Same as cars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @06:51PM (#56369565)

    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.

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      Concerning cars. They sell the 2018 model somewhere in September. To me that is not dumbing down, that is lying. If I buy a car with a 2L engine and it has 1.51L That is also not dumbing down. It is not even rounding up. It is lying.

      This is not about having the model call "JXw87dR" It is about having it named a "2 Liter with 700 HP witb a maximium speed of 310Mph JXw87dR" and then saying "Well, that is just the name". That is why you have "I can't believe it's not butter."

      It is like saying Tictacs have no s

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Since we're living in an ideal capitalist society, the number that indicates relative performance should be preceded by a dollar sign.

  • Oh yeah, I'm currently at 5808 bogomips on my I7-7820HQ.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Seeing as it took Intel so long to go from i3 to i5 to i7 processors to only now releasing i9s they have a long way to go to get back to the glory version number days of i386 [wikipedia.org].

    In all seriousness though, I've kind of given up on making sense of the processor/GPU models and just paste it in Google to see the specs and compare that with another one I am already familiar with.

  • Well, sure, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Radical Moderate ( 563286 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @07:03PM (#56369625)
    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.
    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      Could you explain how this works and what things mean to my mom. She is 78 and wants to buy her first PC. She knows that 2 is better than 1.

      Concerning your point 2. That is something that should change, because that is your problem right there: accountability. It seems that that is seriously lacking in the USofA. Laws seem to be made for the companies by the companies.

      • Sure I could, but not worth my time. That's why she has you. I help friends and relatives buy computers all the time, I expect that's true of most of the people on this site.
  • Just convince them that the HDD option isn't worth the $100 in savings.

  • by Nethemas the Great ( 909900 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @07:08PM (#56369657)

    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.

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      So you are saying that using shoe sizes does not work and we should stop using them?
      If I go into the store and ask for my shoe size, I am almost always extremely close to what I need. Sometimes I do not like the fit, sometimes I do not like the model or color. But the size is always very close to fitting what I need. Perfect? No, but a very good indicator.

      I have a 42 (EU size) and sometimes a 41 will fit a bit better, but I have NEVER needed to go to 40 or even 43.

      So when looking at shoes or any other cloth

    • by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      That's because, like the OP, you're trying to cram multiple metrics into a single value - whether it's CPUs, GPUs, shoes, or whatever else. Clearly that's not going to work. Perhaps something akin to the "Performance Charts" that many industries have adopted might work though - those colourful charts that typically give a series of ratings for a number of key metrics, e.g. in the case of car tyres stuff like Road Noise, Durability, Fuel Economy, and so on, and and indication of how well they perform in th
  • Somehow, game companies manage to figure out which CPUs/GPU are required and preferred for each of their games. Of course it's almost impossible to tell if my current hardware meets those specs because the numbering is completely out of order. i3, i5, i7, sure the i7 is somehow better, but how much better? Will my top end i5 beat the medium tear i7 that they ask for? It's maddening. At this point I only buy Nvidia GPU systems because I've sweated blood learning their numbering system and I don't want to

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @07:16PM (#56369697) Journal

    But what if you are "Computer Buyer Joe"

    As "Computer Buyer Joe", I have found that the best approach is to get my computer nerd nephew to hook me up with the good shit. I tell him how much I can spend and which games I want to play and he does the rest. Then, I throw him $50, which he immediately spends on oxycontin or rap records or whatever it is that kids spend money on these days.

  • Already Done (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dohzer ( 867770 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @07:17PM (#56369699) Homepage

    They already do this. Always look for the standardised number following the dollar sign.

  • I can dive right into the numbers because I've been immersed in tech for 25 years. Put in the time to learn it or lean on someone who already has and compensate them fairly. If it's a friend or family member, do them a favor; if not, then buy the parts from whoever you talk to, or compensate them monetarily. You can't trivialize this...you can't boil it down to some simple number to describe all types of components.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I don't think the name needs to denote real performance numbers. However, it ABSOLUTELY SHOULD denote different products which HAVE PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES! Case and point, AMD first released a RX560 which was benchmarked and reviewed by all the media/press which used 1024 Stream Processors and 16 compute units. A few weeks/months later, AMD quietly released a new version, still calling it the RX560 (with no other indication of a change and no announcement of a change), and instead having 896 Stream Process

  • by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @07:27PM (#56369747)

    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?".

    • but laptop performance varies wildly based on the efficiency of the cooling solution. On my work laptop I went from a computer with a slower CPU to a faster one spec wise and took a pretty big performance hit even in stuff like Excel/Word.
    • Indeed. Price drives decisions for the average consumer in this space. Performance is secondary, especially so since any of them will work just fine for the average consumer. Asking "how will they know which CPU they need?" makes about as much sense as asking "How will they know whether they need a Ferrari or a Corolla?"

  • by stikves ( 127823 ) on Monday April 02, 2018 @07:30PM (#56369755) Homepage

    The model names are mostly standardized now, even across different manufacturers.

    Intel has, for example Core i7-4790K, and Core i7-8700K. AMD would have Ryzen 2950x, and nVidia would have GTX 1070 Ti. There is a similar pattern in all of them.

    Intel (desktop) chips read like 4-7-90-K, 4th generation, i7, last iteration (highest performance variant), unlocked (non-K versions are not enabled for overclocking). Then 8-7-00-K would be 8th generation, i7, first iteration.

    AMD copied this to an extend. 2-9-50X would ve second generation Ryzen, i9 counterpart, mid-level, but -X suffix seem to mean slightly improved performance (all AMD chips were unlocked for overclocking).

    nVidia is similar 970 would be 9th generation GTX, second highest level (geared towards gamers with mid-to-large budgets), while 10-80 Ti would be 10th generation GTX, highest level (geared towards people with serious money), and updated (Ti) edition.

    In general, generation increases add significant power reduction, allowing less running cost, and higher performance for the same price. In fact a future i3 might be better than a previous i5.

    (I'm skipping Pentium/Celeron which are lower binned silicones of the same design, and Atoms, and of course Xeon server and workstation chips).

    Looking at Wikipedia for the CPU/GPU generation gives sufficient detail for differences between offerings. If I'm planning to purchase a CPU to use for many years, I would benefit spending some time understanding those differences.

  • Instead of making buying decisions from info on websites (Amazon, Newegg,etc.) trying to sell you the product, why not try some other sources like hardware review sites?

    Bonus Tip: The two budget priced laptops listed on Amazon.com? Performance sucks on both.
  • Aside from the fact that you can't clearly define any simple set of tasks as being indicative of "real world performance", you also can't dictate to manufacturers what they call their products. As soon as you come up with a suite of tests that is your "real world" benchmark, then you can guarantee that manufacturers will optimise their designs specifically for the suite of tests you're running and game the benchmarks.

    Re: the numbers, this would be like telling Audi that they can't sell a car called an RS3 t

  • Do you really think you can boil a performance metric down into a single number? It's a multidimensional problem.

  • just some approximation.

  • The average consumer will look at three things; The CPU speed, RAM size and hard drive size. You can't assign a single spec to computer components because how they interact with each other matters. For example the motherboard's bus speed can have a huge effect on performance, but only if you have ram that is fast enough to use it and a CPU that can keep up.

    Rule of thumb: Build the PC yourself. I start with price and review score. If it's cheap, there's a reason. Get a good motherboard then research out what

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

    "All metrics of scientific evaluation are bound to be abused. Goodhart's law (named after the British economist who may have been the first to announce it) states that when a feature of the economy is picked as an indicator of the economy, then it inexorably ceases to function as that indicator because people start to game it.[6]"

  • Why should GPU's be treated any different than any other product. Car names have no bearing on performance, drug names CERTAINLY have no relation to what they are or do to you or for you. It is strictly a marketing scam to try and grab the attention of potential buyers. Consider Ultra Mega Platinum Extreme vitamins. I could see a case where they should be required to provide some actual real world indication of mflops or tflops or general productivity but that would require some standardized measure perform

  • This is a problem device manufacturers should be willing to fix. If consumers cannot decide which product to by on performance, the only way to decide is price. Such a market is doomed to crush manufacturer's margins.

    But fortunately, most consumers are OEM, which may still have the ability to understand parts performances

  • I don't think trying to make CPU/GPU numbers comparable between vendors is a good idea - whatever standard is used WILL be abused and exploited, to the detriment of actual performance if need be.

    But within each vendor, there should be general ways to tell performance based on a model number and a simple, consistent numbering scheme.

    * Some number needs to indicate relative performance. A higher number here should indicate higher performance in every reasonable usage. These do not need to be on an absolute sc

  • This is a common problem in a number of fields. The usual answer is to turn the calculation around and start with the purpose/function/use-case scenario of the item. In this case, it'd be to sort the list of available items, optimal to sub-optimal, according to performance at compressing video, playing a particular type of game, or whatever. Shoppers can then find the categories that they're interested in.
  • By AMD and Cyrix. Was called P-Rating (P for performance, not Pentium).

    It did not work then, it will not work now.

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    A table like the above, will explain the breakdown of the numbering. It hasn't changed much with each generation since the core series lineup came in 10 years ago.
    Here is a better breakdown with more words than numbers. https://www.intel.com/content/... [intel.com]

    But perhaps youre a casual and that's all a bit too esoteric for you?

    If you want to easy it up, just go to www.cpubenchmark.net and you can easily compare all cpus and pricepoints. Look at single thread performance if that's all your application can handle (or you are a gamer..), and total performance if its multithreaded. There is a wealth of user submitted data there that i would never view processor advertisements without.

    Its really not something you need to spend more than an afternoon getting acquainted with. An exercise that anyone who wants to spend $500+ on a new PC should be more than willing to do. As others have said, basic research is important when buying most things.

  • by Gadget_Guy ( 627405 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @02:42AM (#56371229)

    This is not specific to CPUs and GPUs, but I am sick of model names/numbers being reused for different products. I was browsing Dell's website recently and found it frustrating to find that the Inspiron 3000 series comes in 15" and New 15" varieties. The 15" variety could use either a Celeron or Pentium processor, while the New 15" ones could be either 7th or 8th generation i3, i5 or i7. Why have three 0s in the number if you are never going to change any of those digits?

    And don't get me started on the Inspiron 5000 15" and New 15" range or the Inspiron 7000 15" (but no New 15") range. There is also the Nvidia GTX1060, which comes in two varieties that performs differently.

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @03:40AM (#56371333)

    It's already bad enough that hardware manufacturers tweak and skew their drivers to eke out another dot at some artificial benchmark program, I don't want them to actually produce their hardware to fit an arbitrary metric that has nothing to do with real world problems because they have to since some illiterates want to compare numbers instead of finding out what they mean.

  • for average joe, any computer is basically fast and good enough.

  • a BMW 320i, Mercedez Benz E300, or a Chrysler 300C? It ain't just processors.
  • by TonyJohn ( 69266 )
    Yes, of course names should provide useful information.

    Yours sincerely,
    John can-perform-basic-car-repairs sometimes-forgets-anniversaries can't-play-an-instrument digital-logic-design-expert not-very-sporty Smith MEng

  • I was on the team for Intel Labs Europe/Toshiba Europe when they decided to take the MHz rating off of new CPUs to make it "easier for customers" who "don't want to read numbers." I told them from the very start that it was a bad idea that was clearly done for marketing, not user friendliness, but they told me to shut the fuck up and write it up as though it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Fucking idiots.
  • Because processors in general are general purpose in nature, it would be impossible to assign a model number based on some made up score. How many processor cores, how much L1, L2, L3 cache is there, clock speeds, how well optimized the operating system is for the chip in question, chipsets, RAM speeds, storage speeds.

    Special purpose chips, not having flexibility in terms of what gets run, does not have that sort of confusion. How quickly can you handle various video codecs for example, will not have as

  • If this is a consumer thing, why not index on the biggest raw costs to what make the chip suitable to it's purpose.

    Transistor density, clock speed, and maybe R&D costs.

This screen intentionally left blank.

Working...