Hardware support: Reminder: No memes, even in comments. |
- Reminder: No memes, even in comments.
- Today's Hardware Unboxed Video, and How to Spot Bad Statistics
- Intel Kills Off All Optane-Only SSDs for Consumers, No Replacements Planned
- Using Arithmetic and Geometric Mean in hardware reviews: Side-by-side Comparison
- Is Zen 3 Really Worth it For Gaming? 5600X vs. 3600 vs. 10400F
- I've compiled a list of claims that simply changing resolution in certain games also changes the draw distance, making load on CPU different resolution to resolution. What do you think of this? Should reviewers be careful about these cases?
- Using (inexpensive) Window Mount Air Conditioners for CPU/GPU Cooling
- Samsung confirms 870 EVO and 870 PRO are coming with updated MKX SATA controllers
- Nvidia GT1010
- AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX Review: Ripping With 8 Memory Channels
- Alleged 11900k benchmarks against a 10900k
- Overclocking with Sub-Ambient cooling. (Tech Ingredients)
- Zen 3 Desktop APUs?
- Hardware for Deep Learning. Part 4: ASIC
- Ryzen 5600 and 5700x
- D-Link AX1800 Mesh Wi-Fi 6 router appears at FCC, with single, 2-, 3-, 4-packs available
| Reminder: No memes, even in comments. Posted: 12 Jul 2020 12:46 AM PDT This is a friendly reminder of Rule #3: Memes, direct image links, and low effort content will be removed.This includes both posts and comments. We've had an uptick in meme comments here, and while we mods do enjoy our memes - some of us actually co-moderate a subreddit for that, /r/hardwarememes - they're not appropriate for /r/hardware. While I might give you the courteousy of a warning, technically you can get a 1-3 day tempban for such things (depending on if it was a toxic comment or a just a jesting comment). So please... refrain from these sort of comments so we don't have to be Nazi mods, OK? [link] [comments] |
| Today's Hardware Unboxed Video, and How to Spot Bad Statistics Posted: 16 Jan 2021 10:29 AM PST I'm a pretty big fan of Hardware Unboxed, because they generally practice high-quality data science. In particular, I see their ordered performance-delta plots as a gold standard for showing how tricky it can be to compare two CPUs or GPUs. However, today's video (1/16) had some methodology that made me stop and scratch my head. So, I figured this could be a pretty simple example for showing how to spot a "bad statistic." In other words, when someone creates statistics that diverge from the intended value. In their video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxuiWih_Z8), Steve produces a 16-game average by, as far as I can tell, just averaging together raw FPS numbers (12:50). That's a "bad statistic" for this case because it over-weights games with higher FPS and under-weights games with lower FPS. Normally that's not too much of an issue, but for this set of data that's a pretty extreme effect because RDR2 is 110 fps but Rainbow Six Siege is 440 fps. That means RDR2 matters 1/4th as much to the average as R6 does. Because the real goal here is to look at performance between CPUs across a variety of games, each game is supposed to be a separate data point with similar weight. To do that with an average, the FPS values should be normalized to some sort of standard range. In this case, the unequal weighting winds up driving up the average FPS reported, and very marginally understating the difference between most of the processors. For example, the 10900k was 0.9% faster than the 5600x when I picked a weighting scheme, but is 0.5% faster in their data. The averages also shift pretty significantly for all processors, from ~190fps to ~130fps, but my methodology is not rigorous enough to trust that number. You can derive a "true" average here by looking at what you expect someone using the hardware to experience, but that's a rabbit hole that's not worth going down, and there's probably no exact solution. However, even if we decide to equally weight each data point, there's an argument to be made that games with higher fps numbers should have lower weighting in a multi-game average, since consumers don't necessarily care if an ultra-fast game runs slightly-ultra-faster on a particular processor. Some sort of nonlinear penalization over a certain threshold would make sense, like if a game is above 244 FPS you stop considering it as much in the average. You can get pretty deep into the math here, but the general idea is that reviewers should be careful to make sure that their numbers accurately reflect what they're trying to show the audience. If they're trying to measure relative value or utility of a processor, which appears to be the case, then a deliberate unequal weighting might make sense. That being said, those are judgement calls that are hard to make. As an extreme example of this, you could select a step function that weights everything below 120 FPS as 0 and everything above 120 FPS as 1. What you would get out of it is a direct count of the number of games that a processor can maintain 120 FPS in - clearly that's less useful to a general audience, but I can guarantee you that there's someone out there who thinks that's a perfect reflection of what they need in a processor. The reason I brought up that ridiculous example, and the reason I made this post at all, is to show that we shouldn't expect reviewers to produce measurements that are exactly what we're looking for. It's up to us to keep our eyes out for when a measurement they've produced doesn't agree with our priorities. There are some times, like this one, where the measurement chosen clearly has some more general limitations, but usually things aren't that clear-cut. Active discussion and feedback to the reviewers can help improve the quality of reviews by making the measurements more representative. As viewers, it helps to keep an open discussion going so we can spot data that looks a little odd to multiple people. As an individual, there are also some common-sense checks you can make to spot "bad" data. The easiest way is to compare different reviewers, wherever that's possible. If you see a lot of variations in the data between reviewers, like we did when the rx6800 came out, dig a little bit deeper and figure out why the measurements are so variable. Often times, they're actually trying to measure varying definitions of performance, and some of them might better reflect what you're interested in (like HUB measuring rasterization and raytracing performance separately). In general, it's pretty safe to assume that strange-looking numbers are the result of "bad statistics" for your priorities, and the measurements may not reflect what you're personally interested in seeing. [link] [comments] |
| Intel Kills Off All Optane-Only SSDs for Consumers, No Replacements Planned Posted: 16 Jan 2021 01:37 PM PST |
| Using Arithmetic and Geometric Mean in hardware reviews: Side-by-side Comparison Posted: 16 Jan 2021 05:15 PM PST Recently there has been a discussion about whether to use arithmetic mean or geometric mean to calculate the averages when comparing cpu/gpu frame averages against each other. I think it may be good to put the numbers out in the open so everyone can see the impact of using either: Using this video showing 16 game average data by The differences are... minor. 1.7% is the highest difference in this data set between using geo or arith mean. Not a huge difference... NOW, the interesting part is I think there might be cases where the differences are bigger and data could be misinterpreted: Let's say in Game 7 the 10900k only scores 300 frames because Intel, using the arithmetic mean now shows an almost 11 frame difference compared to the 5600x but the geo mean shows 3.3 frame difference (3% difference compared to 0.3%) So ye... just putting it out there so everyone has a clearer idea what the numbers look like. Please let me know if you see anything weird or this does not belong here, I lack caffeine to operate at 100%. Cheers mates. Edit: I am a big fan of using geo means, but I understand why the industry standard is to use the 'simple' arithmetic mean of adding everything up and dividing by sample size; it is the method everyone is most familiar with. Imagine trying to explain the geometric mean to all your followers and receiving comments in every video such as 'YOU DOIN IT WRONG!!'. Also in case someone states that i am trying to defend HU; I am no diehard fan of HU, i watch their videos from time to time and you can search my reddit history to show that i frequently criticise their views and opinions. TL:DR
[link] [comments] |
| Is Zen 3 Really Worth it For Gaming? 5600X vs. 3600 vs. 10400F Posted: 16 Jan 2021 04:35 AM PST |
| Posted: 16 Jan 2021 02:22 PM PST https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/2184448/ https://forums.ubisoft.com/showthread.php/1577092-Draw-Distance-Help-Forums https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/render-scale-effect-the-render-distance-of-buildings/271328 https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2/index.php?threads/still-have-atrotious-rendering-distance-when-in-3-screen-resolution.210949/ (could be also the case with 4K and not just triples) Rage (1) would also dynamically change quality no matter what, prompting some articles about the problems of benchmarking it. Don't know if that's the case with Rage 2. [link] [comments] |
| Using (inexpensive) Window Mount Air Conditioners for CPU/GPU Cooling Posted: 16 Jan 2021 02:16 PM PST |
| Samsung confirms 870 EVO and 870 PRO are coming with updated MKX SATA controllers Posted: 16 Jan 2021 09:07 AM PST In October 2020 during the 870 QVO launch, Samsung Insights—Samsung's official business marketing newsletter—had spilled the beans on the upcoming 870 EVO and 870 PRO in an article titled "Samsung's 870 SATA will change how we use SSDs",
They link to the 870 QVO press release, which mentions nothing about these presumably TLC & MLC variants. The 870 PRO is only mentioned on Samsung Insights. The 870 EVO, however, already has product pages up on both Samsung & retailers like Office Depot.
// The confirmed specs //
Is it 96L V-NAND or 128L V-NAND? I do wonder if it's those mysterious "250 GB SATA SSDs" promised during the 128L launch in August 2019,
[link] [comments] |
| Posted: 16 Jan 2021 08:53 AM PST |
| AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX Review: Ripping With 8 Memory Channels Posted: 16 Jan 2021 09:11 AM PST |
| Alleged 11900k benchmarks against a 10900k Posted: 16 Jan 2021 09:24 AM PST |
| Overclocking with Sub-Ambient cooling. (Tech Ingredients) Posted: 16 Jan 2021 10:01 AM PST |
| Posted: 16 Jan 2021 09:53 AM PST Is anyone aware of if AMD is planning 5000-series APUs for desktop? And if so, what kind of time frame those might come out? Or is AMD liable to wait for the rumored Zen 3+ to launch that kind of product? [link] [comments] |
| Hardware for Deep Learning. Part 4: ASIC Posted: 16 Jan 2021 07:53 AM PST |
| Posted: 16 Jan 2021 05:01 PM PST Judging from the previous gen (3600 and 3700x), these are probably going to be the most sought out Zen 3 chips and was hoping we'd get some info on their release during CES. Anyone have any idea on when these will release? [link] [comments] |
| D-Link AX1800 Mesh Wi-Fi 6 router appears at FCC, with single, 2-, 3-, 4-packs available Posted: 16 Jan 2021 07:07 AM PST Earlier this week an unreleased Wi-Fi 6 router from D-Link appeared at the FCC, in the AX1800 class (2.4GHz up to 574 Mb/s, 5 GHz up to 1201 Mb/s and 2x2 MIMO in both bands). Looks like it's uses a MediaTek MT7621 as main SoC, with MT7915 chips for each radio. FCC ID: https://fccid.io/KA2COVRX1860A1
Product codes
[link] [comments] |
| You are subscribed to email updates from /r/hardware: a technology subreddit for computer hardware news, reviews and discussion.. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment