G.Skill TridentZ 5 RGB 6800 MHz CL34 DDR5 review
Be Quiet! Dark Power 13 - 1000W PSU Review
Palit GeForce RTX 4080 GamingPRO OC review
Core i9 13900K DDR5 7200 MHz (+memory scaling) review
Seasonic Prime Titanium TX-1300 (1300W PSU) review
F1 2022: PC graphics performance benchmark review
MSI Clutch GM31 Lightweight (+Wireless) mice review
AMD Ryzen 9 7900 processor review
AMD Ryzen 7 7700 processor review
AMD Ryzen 5 7600 processor review
Nvidia Profits Tripled In Q4 2016
Nvidia is happy alright, the graphics chip (or should we say parralel computing) company increased its net profit to $ 655 million (614 million euros). That's a tripled compared to the same quarter a year earlier.
The news reaches us thjroug figures of the fourth financial quarter for 2016. Revenues grew to $ 2.17 billion, an increase of 55 percent compared with a year earlier. Revenues from Nvidia's data center division, which manufactures chips for include Amazon, Microsoft and Alibaba also has tripled which summed up towards 926 million USD in revenues.
Nvidia speaks of record figures. "Our GPU platform is increasingly being used for artificial intelligence, cloud computers, gaming and self-propelled vehicles," said Nvidia founder Jen-Hsun Huang.
The company has reached all of its goals that quarter in terms of gaming, visualization, data centers and self-propelled vehicles. Exact figures on some departments have not been shared.
Nvidia Prevents Reselling Bundled Games By Forcing GeForce Experience - 02/03/2017 12:51 PM
Right, this is going to be a complicated story to explain. As you guys know I have been rather critical towards what Nvidia is doing with GeForce Experience. At first it was intended to be a platform ...
Nvidia Pascal GP100 Die Shot Photo - 08/25/2016 10:05 AM
Over at the Hot Chips symposium Nvidia has been sharing a thing or two with media. Quite interesting is a new photo series of the GP100. Now do not confuse GP100 with the GP102 that is housed in the N...
Nvidia Pascal GP104-400 GPU photo surfaces and shows GDDR5X Memory - 04/25/2016 09:45 AM
Yet another PCB photo appeared with on it, a GPU seated. This time it is the GP104-400-A1 GPU which which would be the 3rd Pascal GPU surfacing, and kind of seems to cinfirm a 980 Ti succesor, the ...
NVIDIA partners halt GeForce GTX 970, 980, 980Ti production and GPU Pascal codenames surface - 04/13/2016 09:25 AM
In anticipation of upcoming Pascal products in the coming month or two, at least that's what hwbattle is reporting this morning. As we get closer to the actual launch more and more tiny little detai...
Nvidia Pascal Consumer card announced during Computex - 04/11/2016 02:48 PM
But they will launch later ... Nvidia is to announce its consumer grade Pascal graphics cards at Computex 2016 from May 31-June 4, graphics card manufacturers include Asus, Gigabyte and MSI. They wou...
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7143
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7143
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5393757 Posted on: 02/16/2017 04:12 PM
I'd have to agree that Passmark (as well as other synthetic benchmarks) are generally useless tests. Any review that uses them, I skip right over those because they contribute nothing toward my knowledge of the product. Though, there is 1 thing they do that is helpful - they illustrate the potential of a product compared to another one of it's kind in a different performance tier. So for example, they're great at showing how much better a 1080 is from a 1070, but they're not very good at showing how much better a 1080 is from a 980.
I'd have to agree that Passmark (as well as other synthetic benchmarks) are generally useless tests. Any review that uses them, I skip right over those because they contribute nothing toward my knowledge of the product. Though, there is 1 thing they do that is helpful - they illustrate the potential of a product compared to another one of it's kind in a different performance tier. So for example, they're great at showing how much better a 1080 is from a 1070, but they're not very good at showing how much better a 1080 is from a 980.
EJocys
Senior Member
Posts: 138
Joined: 2003-07-08
Senior Member
Posts: 138
Joined: 2003-07-08
#5393893 Posted on: 02/16/2017 10:41 PM
you're inventing arguments in order to discredit hwbench for no real reason other than winning this debate.
There is nothing to invent. In order to discredit reputation you must have it first. I know where PassMark got their data. Please tell me where hwbench.com acquired their data?
You just owned yourself without even realizing, because you used the word 'professional' with a completely different meaning.
PassMark in test business for 20 years and they wrote GPU test software to prove this. They are professionals. Their tests are more on "synthetic" side, but data is accurate.
Back into it, Passmark is a synthetic benchmark. We are talking about games.
Sure and apple is not made from chemicals
. Synthetic tests have advantage of giving pure performance results of the product with the minimal impact of other factors (bottlenecks). Synthetic tests are more comparable, due to minimised influence of other components. Real word-tests are also important, but they both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Christ, instead of arguing with me why don't you just take a look at some of passmark's results:
GTX 1080 -> 12,001 points
GTX 980Ti -> 11,392 points
So the 1080 is only 5.3% faster than the 980Ti as far as Passmark is concerned.
Christ won't help you. Synthetic test shows maximum performance which can be achieved on hardware. If you use these cards with same amount of memory, inside PC with the fastest CPU, set them to default frequency (no overclocking) and set game settings to highest quality (Ultra 4K), so that the only GPU would be bottle-necking, then in theory 1080 should perform only 5.3% faster than the 980Ti. For example: 1080 was just 10% faster than 980Ti in similar conditions:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-review-performance-benchmarks-and-conclusion-page-2
It's fine not to know stuff. But claiming you do when in reality you know exactly sh!t puts you in a very bad light.
Projecting?
Case closed. Unless you actually have something intelligent to say, I won't bother with you anymore. Sorry.
a) Do not trust sites which hides their data sources.
b) Learn advantages of Synthetic tests.
KEK
you're inventing arguments in order to discredit hwbench for no real reason other than winning this debate.
There is nothing to invent. In order to discredit reputation you must have it first. I know where PassMark got their data. Please tell me where hwbench.com acquired their data?
You just owned yourself without even realizing, because you used the word 'professional' with a completely different meaning.
PassMark in test business for 20 years and they wrote GPU test software to prove this. They are professionals. Their tests are more on "synthetic" side, but data is accurate.
Back into it, Passmark is a synthetic benchmark. We are talking about games.
Sure and apple is not made from chemicals
. Synthetic tests have advantage of giving pure performance results of the product with the minimal impact of other factors (bottlenecks). Synthetic tests are more comparable, due to minimised influence of other components. Real word-tests are also important, but they both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Christ, instead of arguing with me why don't you just take a look at some of passmark's results:
GTX 1080 -> 12,001 points
GTX 980Ti -> 11,392 points
So the 1080 is only 5.3% faster than the 980Ti as far as Passmark is concerned.
Christ won't help you
. Synthetic test shows maximum performance which can be achieved on hardware. If you use these cards with same amount of memory, inside PC with the fastest CPU, set them to default frequency (no overclocking) and set game settings to highest quality (Ultra 4K), so that the only GPU would be bottle-necking, then in theory 1080 should perform only 5.3% faster than the 980Ti. For example: 1080 was just 10% faster than 980Ti in similar conditions:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-review-performance-benchmarks-and-conclusion-page-2
It's fine not to know stuff. But claiming you do when in reality you know exactly sh!t puts you in a very bad light.
Projecting?
Case closed. Unless you actually have something intelligent to say, I won't bother with you anymore. Sorry.
a) Do not trust sites which hides their data sources.
b) Learn advantages of Synthetic tests.
KEK
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7143
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7143
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5393896 Posted on: 02/16/2017 10:55 PM
@EJocys
I don't think you understand the argument against synthetic benchmarks... It doesn't matter what they reveal if the numbers they produce can never be achieved in any real-world benchmark.
Think of it like the HP or KW rating of a car engine. Many brands state the power at the crank at peak torque, which for many cars is as high as 6000RPMs. That number is useless and meaningless, because not only is it physically impossible for you to achieve, but you would have to rev your engine near redline the entire time, and that's just plain annoying. That number doesn't account for how much actual USABLE power you have, and that usable power can also be sapped from weight or crappy tires.
Synthetic benchmarks for PCs are no different; they tell you nothing useful, they just give you a really big number to toot your horn about. At the end of the day, if your Passmark score is the only thing your product is #1 at, you do NOT have the best product. It doesn't matter how good a product is in theory when stuff like drivers, CPU overhead, PCIe overhead, memory latency, poorly optimized software, etc etc get in the way.
@EJocys
I don't think you understand the argument against synthetic benchmarks... It doesn't matter what they reveal if the numbers they produce can never be achieved in any real-world benchmark.
Think of it like the HP or KW rating of a car engine. Many brands state the power at the crank at peak torque, which for many cars is as high as 6000RPMs. That number is useless and meaningless, because not only is it physically impossible for you to achieve, but you would have to rev your engine near redline the entire time, and that's just plain annoying. That number doesn't account for how much actual USABLE power you have, and that usable power can also be sapped from weight or crappy tires.
Synthetic benchmarks for PCs are no different; they tell you nothing useful, they just give you a really big number to toot your horn about. At the end of the day, if your Passmark score is the only thing your product is #1 at, you do NOT have the best product. It doesn't matter how good a product is in theory when stuff like drivers, CPU overhead, PCIe overhead, memory latency, poorly optimized software, etc etc get in the way.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 2010-08-24
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 2010-08-24
#5394061 Posted on: 02/17/2017 10:10 AM
Wow you actually brought arguments this time. You did a sh!t job because nothing from what you said holds true, but I congratulate you for actually trying.
Hwbench's reputation? Go on /r/PCMR, /r/buildapc or /r/pcgaming and make a post stating how Passmark is accurate when talking about gaming performance. If you get a positive vote ratio I'll eat my own d!ck. That thing, along with CPU/GPUboss are despised on reddit's hardware communities with good reason.
You will see most comments quoting hwbench, anandtech and even tomshardware's GPU hierarchy list as being the most accurate you can find.
I don't even need to bring hwbench's reputation into this (which is pretty good, since it has the respect of multiple big reddit communities). It's about Passmark's crap reputation. That thing is not good for comparing game performance. Stop denying this already.
Schmidtbag's analogy with the peak power rating in cars is spot on regarding synthetic benchmarks in general.
Synthetics usually give you a best-case scenario where certain parts of the GPU (depending on the type of benchmark) are used at full load (without any bottleneck between them) at the same time. This does not happen in reality, just like having a 32-core CPU doesn't necessarily mean better gaming performance compared to a quad-core. There will be internal and sometimes external bottlenecks.
Did you even look at that poor excuse of a review you posted?
1. their sample size is 5 games, which is ridiculously small.
2. they only tested 4k, which may or may not be indicative or performance across the board. different cards react differently to certain resolutions.
3. they tested what looks like a custom 980Ti to a Founder's 1080 which again skews the result set. they made up for it by overclocking the Founder's, but not in all tests.
Now regarding your conclusion regarding this benchmark.
..If you average out the difference between the 980Ti and the non-OC 1080 in those game benchmarks, you get a difference of exactly 19.228915662650596%. 19+% is pretty far from the 10% you're quoting. Just another piece of proof that you don't know what you're talking about. Did you even look at the review you posted?
In fact, if you add the overclocked results, you'll see that it starts to resemble what anandtech and hwbench are saying, that the difference averages out around 30% in favor of the 1080:
http://hwbench.com/vgas/geforce-gtx-980-ti-vs-geforce-gtx-1080
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1715?vs=1714
All of this happens while Passmark says the difference is 5%. Are you really so blind about this?
And let's say I understand you don't trust hwbench. But if you don't trust anandtech, frankly, you're an idiot. There's no way around it.
Now instead of being a wise-ass, I suggest you thoroughly read my post this time. It's clear you didn't bother last time and I'm stuck here repeating the same basic things to you. I assure you this won't happen again.
However if you choose to ignore the hard and concise facts I presented to you in this post, you're simply empty-headed. Have a good lecture.
Wow you actually brought arguments this time. You did a sh!t job because nothing from what you said holds true, but I congratulate you for actually trying.
Hwbench's reputation? Go on /r/PCMR, /r/buildapc or /r/pcgaming and make a post stating how Passmark is accurate when talking about gaming performance. If you get a positive vote ratio I'll eat my own d!ck. That thing, along with CPU/GPUboss are despised on reddit's hardware communities with good reason.
You will see most comments quoting hwbench, anandtech and even tomshardware's GPU hierarchy list as being the most accurate you can find.
I don't even need to bring hwbench's reputation into this (which is pretty good, since it has the respect of multiple big reddit communities). It's about Passmark's crap reputation. That thing is not good for comparing game performance. Stop denying this already.
Schmidtbag's analogy with the peak power rating in cars is spot on regarding synthetic benchmarks in general.
Synthetics usually give you a best-case scenario where certain parts of the GPU (depending on the type of benchmark) are used at full load (without any bottleneck between them) at the same time. This does not happen in reality, just like having a 32-core CPU doesn't necessarily mean better gaming performance compared to a quad-core. There will be internal and sometimes external bottlenecks.
Did you even look at that poor excuse of a review you posted?
1. their sample size is 5 games, which is ridiculously small.
2. they only tested 4k, which may or may not be indicative or performance across the board. different cards react differently to certain resolutions.
3. they tested what looks like a custom 980Ti to a Founder's 1080 which again skews the result set. they made up for it by overclocking the Founder's, but not in all tests.
Now regarding your conclusion regarding this benchmark.
..If you average out the difference between the 980Ti and the non-OC 1080 in those game benchmarks, you get a difference of exactly 19.228915662650596%. 19+% is pretty far from the 10% you're quoting. Just another piece of proof that you don't know what you're talking about. Did you even look at the review you posted?
In fact, if you add the overclocked results, you'll see that it starts to resemble what anandtech and hwbench are saying, that the difference averages out around 30% in favor of the 1080:
http://hwbench.com/vgas/geforce-gtx-980-ti-vs-geforce-gtx-1080
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1715?vs=1714
All of this happens while Passmark says the difference is 5%. Are you really so blind about this?
And let's say I understand you don't trust hwbench. But if you don't trust anandtech, frankly, you're an idiot. There's no way around it.
Now instead of being a wise-ass, I suggest you thoroughly read my post this time. It's clear you didn't bother last time and I'm stuck here repeating the same basic things to you. I assure you this won't happen again.
However if you choose to ignore the hard and concise facts I presented to you in this post, you're simply empty-headed. Have a good lecture.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 2010-08-24
I really have no idea why hwbench's provenience or amount of traffic (especially traffic, it's not like passmark actually sells stuff) matters. No offense, but at this point you're inventing arguments in order to discredit hwbench for no real reason other than winning this debate. By that logic, GPUboss is amazing for comparing GPUs; when in reality their scoring system is the biggest piece of sh!t for comparing GPU performance.
You just owned yourself without even realizing, because you used the word 'professional' with a completely different meaning.
Well known amongst the professional market, yes. Not amongst gamers. You should take a look at their products on their home page.
Back into it, Passmark is a synthetic benchmark. We are talking about games.
Christ, instead of arguing with me why don't you just take a look at some of passmark's results:
GTX 1080 -> 12,001 points
GTX 980Ti -> 11,392 points
So the 1080 is only 5.3% faster than the 980Ti as far as Passmark is concerned.
How about we mix it up a little?
GTX 970 -> 8,591 points
Fury X -> 8,301 points
The 970 is not only near the Fury X, it's even 3.5% faster. You seriously think passmark is a good indication of gaming performance? Dude sorry, I just can't conceptualize how you could possibly think this. At this point I'm asking myself if you're trolling or just completely ignorant. There, I'm smug again. Because you deserve it again.
Oh, and for the lolz - passmark has an entry for a 970Ti. Yep. 970Ti. Chew on that one for a second.
I won't even bother replying to the rest of your post since it only contains biased assumptions like "Trinidad" or "No. It just shows that you did not get what I've wrote" without giving a single fact to back that up.
It's fine not to know stuff. But claiming you do when in reality you know exactly sh!t puts you in a very bad light.
Case closed. Unless you actually have something intelligent to say, I won't bother with you anymore. Sorry.