AMD Ryzen 3DMARK Physic score leaks

[AlienALX]

Not the point

The graphs in the article are wrong.

It depends on the logic used to make those graphs. You said that they are wrong because they have basically taken the full CPU scores and divided them by the number of cores on the CPU to attain the single core score.

I say that it could be deliberate that they have done it like that, just to put the CPUs in order. A rough order? yes, but could still be perfectly indicative of CPU speed. It doesn't mean they are wrong. Misleading? maybe ! not completely accurate? of course. But it doesn't mean they are completely irrelevant.

Try upping your core count a little, then run a few more comparisons. IE - 4 cores, 6 cores etc.

 

[NickOmega]

I'm confused. You're saying that the way they've "calculated" per core score is wrong, and the evidence provided in this thread would suggest that the single core scores should actually be higher across the range of tested processors.

Right or wrong for testing purposes; If every processor in that graph were subject to the same method of score / core# = single core score then how can it be a less valid comparison?

 

[AlienALX]

Right or wrong for testing purposes; If every processor in that graph were subject to the same method of score / core# = single core score then how can it be a less valid comparison?

That is the way I see it tbh. 3DMARK is not linear. It is designed to scale well and accept anything you can throw at it for the results.

If the same testing method was used across every CPU then there is some truth to the results IMO.

 

[Doomslayer]

lol this is what you get when you buy into "In House Benchmarks"

Sad but funny this is that a lot of people are buying into it.

Also with AMD "Naming Scheme" of CPU it's sooo funny that they want to be like Intel they even had to rip off the "Numbering Scheme" lol

 

[NeverBackDown]

lol this is what you get when you buy into "In House Benchmarks"

Sad but funny this is that a lot of people are buying into it.

Also with AMD "Naming Scheme" of CPU it's sooo funny that they want to be like Intel they even had to rip off the "Numbering Scheme" lol

More nonsense from you.
I find it funny too. The fanboy inside you for Intel will explode when you finally realize how crappy they really are atm, especially when Samsung or TSMC passes them up.
And yes I know. You don't care. So don't reply, we know it's your hardcore opinion.

 

[Doomslayer]

More nonsense from you.
I find it funny too. The fanboy inside you for Intel will explode when you finally realize how crappy they really are atm, especially when Samsung or TSMC passes them up.
And yes I know. You don't care. So don't reply, we know it's your hardcore opinion.

TBH it doesn't bother me what AMD comes out with there not going to get me back, The only way AMD would ever get someone like me back is to come out with a CPU that's 25% faster than what Intel has but the problem that AMD has atm is that they can only match Intel not beat them.

If you really think i'm a fan boy just keep thinking that i'm not the only other person with the "Naming Scheme" on another forum i go to even people said the same thing.

At the end of the day AMD is not going to get me back as a Customer not until they come out with CPU's that smash Intel and atm i can't see that happening.

People are going to use what they want to use does that make then fan boys/girls no not at all.

lol The fish are biting and have been biting for months or years.

Hook, line & sinker.

 

[Kaapstad]

That is the way I see it tbh. 3DMARK is not linear. It is designed to scale well and accept anything you can throw at it for the results.

If the same testing method was used across every CPU then there is some truth to the results IMO.

If anyone posts a graph showing performance figures it works best if those figures are real results, not something made up as in the article.

 

[NeverBackDown]

TBH it doesn't bother me what AMD comes out with there not going to get me back,.

Great?
Irony is you took the bait here with no line. Didn't even bring any of that up.
Before this continues into something endless..
/End.

 

[Doomslayer]

Great?
Irony is you took the bait here with no line. Didn't even bring any of that up.
Before this continues into something endless..
/End.

And your took the bait earlier too so whatever.

Ah i see your living up to you name and your AMD Enthusiast tag line too.

/END

 

[NickOmega]

If anyone posts a graph showing performance figures it works best if those figures are real results, not something made up as in the article.

If the single core results for all of the processors in the graph were obtained in the same manner (i.e total score / # of cores) then it's not "made up" it's just a flawed method, but no less valid for the sole purpose of comparison.

 

[Kaapstad]

If the single core results for all of the processors in the graph were obtained in the same manner (i.e total score / # of cores) then it's not "made up" it's just a flawed method, but no less valid for the sole purpose of comparison.

It is not a flawed method, they are all made up which means total garbage.

If they can not be bothered to test for actual results they should not publish made up stuff.

 

[NeverBackDown]

It is not a flawed method, they are all made up which means total garbage.

If they can not be bothered to test for actual results they should not publish made up stuff.

Who said these were official leaks?

 

[Kaapstad]

Who said these were official leaks?

Not me.

I just said they were garbage.

 

[NickOmega]

It is not a flawed method, they are all made up which means total garbage.

If they can not be bothered to test for actual results they should not publish made up stuff.

You're suggesting is that not one benchmark was run, even for the full physics score (utilising all cores) on any of the processors, and they just picked numbers out of thin air?

 

[NeverBackDown]

Not me.

I just said they were garbage.

Exactly my point.
You're treating it as if they were official, when they aren't. So bagging on an unconfirmed rumor is counter-intuitive isn't it?

 

[AngryGoldfish]

Exactly my point.
You're treating it as if they were official, when they aren't. So bagging on an unconfirmed rumor is counter-intuitive isn't it?

Not if someone else thinks they're sound.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Not if someone else thinks they're sound.

I hope no one does.

 

[AngryGoldfish]

I hope no one does.

Maybe the methodology more so than the actual results.