Originally posted by kigurai
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Intel Ivy Bridge: UXA vs. SNA - Updated Benchmarks
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mendieta View PostI think two simple things would make tests easier to digest:
1. always show things in a way more is better. For instance, if something is measured in seconds to completion, show it as a frequency (1 / time-to-completion )
2. Once a battery of tests are performed, each configuration gets a geometric average of all measurements, so you get one global number for each configuration
Optionally, one could add one final plot where all averages are normalized to the slowest. Tom's hardware show their reviews like that, and it's pretty awesome.
Back to Intel, I am so glad to see full open source support. My next desktop rig will be Intel (for the first time, ever)
Cheers!
Comment
-
Originally posted by mendieta View PostI think two simple things would make tests easier to digest:
1. always show things in a way more is better. For instance, if something is measured in seconds to completion, show it as a frequency (1 / time-to-completion )
2. Once a battery of tests are performed, each configuration gets a geometric average of all measurements, so you get one global number for each configuration
Readers who are not willing to read and understand the article can simply skip to the conclusion, they just won't be able to delude themselves into thinking that they formed their opinion based on the data.
Comment
-
Originally posted by erendorn View PostWell [nb of tasks]/[time] is not only a frequency, but also a speed. And that is meaningful even for single test units (how many time does it need to complete a given test => at which speed does it run through this given test).
Comment
-
Originally posted by erendorn View PostWell [nb of tasks]/[time] is not only a frequency, but also a speed. And that is meaningful even for single test units (how many time does it need to complete a given test => at which speed does it run through this given test).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostSame here, just too bad that there are only integrated variants of this great product :/ .
Comment
-
Originally posted by mendieta View PostExactly! I'm a physicst so I said "frequency", but the concept is exactly as you stated it.
We may want to pull Michael into this conversation
Comment
-
These benchmarks show an incredible improvement on some operations, but I wonder how that translates in real-world use; it seems that 2D operations are already very fast on my desktop (my netbook on the other hand is slow but I always thought it was due to the processor, not the GPU). The only thing that I (think I) understand is the Firefox canvas test; a 3 times improvement in drawing speed could be useful at times.
With regards to PTS graphs, +1 for always using units where ?more is better?, or (maybe simpler) drawing bars in a different color when ?less is better?.
Comment
-
Originally posted by stqn View PostThese benchmarks show an incredible improvement on some operations, but I wonder how that translates in real-world use; it seems that 2D operations are already very fast on my desktop (my netbook on the other hand is slow but I always thought it was due to the processor, not the GPU). The only thing that I (think I) understand is the Firefox canvas test; a 3 times improvement in drawing speed could be useful at times.
Firefox is the standout example; everything from page loading, to scrolling and canvas noticeably benefits from improvements in the DDX. What is harder to measure are the latency improvements that result in X requiring less CPU time to do the same amount of work - especially on these "big core" processors. Where this work matters most is on those slow devices, such as the Atom netbook and its descendents. You would be surprised by how much you ascribed to poor hardware that was in fact attrocious software and drivers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ickle View PostWhere this work matters most is on those slow devices, such as the Atom netbook and its descendents. You would be surprised by how much you ascribed to poor hardware that was in fact attrocious software and drivers.
Comment
Comment