-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
OcUK RX5800X3D review thread
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Caporegime
Correct.
No, you don't.
Oh.... i see what he's doing.
Subtract the positive 149 from the negative 92 = a difference of 57 across 40 games, right so divide that 57 difference over those 40 games = 1.425, now that is NOT 1.425%, the decimal point is PAST a whole 1, so its 0.425 past the whole, THAT is 42.5%.
And to prove the equation you add the 42.5% to the 40 which = 57, the number you started with, equation correct, so like i said 42.5% is no where near 1%
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2017
- Posts
- 1,923
gains divided by loses is not how you get averages or percentage change.
Oh.... i see what he's doing.
Subtract the positive 149 from the negative 92 = a difference of 57 across 40 games, right so divide that 57 difference over those 40 games = 1.425, now that is NOT 1.425%, the decimal point is PAST a whole 1, so its 0.425 past the whole, THAT is 42.5%.
And to prove the equation you add the 42.5% to the 40 which = 57, the number you started with, equation correct, so like i said 42.5% is no where near 1%
Didn't do that either.
Well, my spreadsheet does:
https://ethercalc.net/1rpvh8j1z7j4
So a bit worse than CB who at 720P got 5% (or 3% in the far more relevant min frames) for the 5800X3D vs the 12900K, but then this at the less CPU demanding is 1080P.
EDIT: Anyway I consider this a huge win for the 5800X3D. It costs less than the 12900K, uses almost half the power even while gaming, doesn't need DDR5 and has cheaper more motherboards. And I consider the 12900KS is a total joke of a release.
Caporegime
I know, its why i never used that equation to start with.
I still don't know what you did, you also haven't demonstrated how you got to 1%
These CPU's were tested in the same games, so if you add up all the frame rates for the 12900K and for the 5800X3D and then divide those totals by each other you arrive at a decimal point difference, the number beyond the decimal point is your percentage, in this case 1.061 is 6%.
Or to put it another was lets just take the first result.
5800X3D: 668 FPS
12900K: 582 FPS
668 / 582 = 1.147. that is 14.7%, yes?
Caporegime
Once you have read that ^^^^^
That wouldn't work ^^^^ do you know why? You're adding a negative as if it was a positive. do what i did to prove your numbers, you will find them wrong.
Well, my spreadsheet does:
https://ethercalc.net/1rpvh8j1z7j4
So a bit worse than CB who at 720P got 5% (or 3% in the far more relevant min frames) for the 5800X3D vs the 12900K, but then this at the less CPU demanding is 1080P.
That wouldn't work ^^^^ do you know why? You're adding a negative as if it was a positive. do what i did to prove your numbers, you will find them wrong.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
This isn't quite sensible. You are putting more weight on the high fps games.
Instead you should calculate the geometric mean of each CPU and compare. Unless of course you only play those high fps games where no monitor can reach that refresh rate.
+10%, so 1.10
-20% so 0.80
Average is -5%, so 0.95. Hm, that is clearly wrong, isn't it?
Still, my spreadsheet was more about how techpost arrived at their answer rather than getting a true average here. And I think I am pretty sure what they did do. Now totally confused about what they should have done!
-20% so 0.80
Average is -5%, so 0.95. Hm, that is clearly wrong, isn't it?
Still, my spreadsheet was more about how techpost arrived at their answer rather than getting a true average here. And I think I am pretty sure what they did do. Now totally confused about what they should have done!
Caporegime
I think I’ve lost the will to live reading these last dozen posts. 
Caporegime
You can't weigh one way or the other when you're dividing.
If i apply my equation to TPU's averages results i get to the same number they do.
I don't know what Tech Spot did either, i suspect they just made a mistake.
Think about it, if you just add up all the results from both CPU's you arrive at the total number of FPS, just as if it was one game, they are the same games, so you divide those FPS on the 5800X3D by the FPS of the 12900K. the result is 1.061, 6%, its actually really simple
Associate
I think I’ve lost the will to live reading these last dozen posts.
Same dude, Same
You can't weigh one way or the other when you're dividing.
If i apply my equation to TPU's averages results i get to the same number they do.
I don't know what Tech Spot did either, i suspect they just made a mistake.
Think about it, if you just add up all the results from both CPU's you arrive at the total number of FPS, just as if it was one game, they are the same games, so you divide those FPS on the 5800X3D by the FPS of the 12900K. the result is 1.061, 6%, its actually really simple
Take an extreme to see the different way of looking at it.
Imagine 2 games.
First with the 5800x:- 1st only managed 1fps. The other did 100fps
Then with the x3d:- 1st at 2fps and other at 101fps.
You could say this was 101fps total at first and 103fps after so only 1.8% faster (or so, top of my head)
Or you could say it's 100% faster in the first game and 1% faster in the 2nd game, averaging 50.5% faster over 2 games.
Your calc is done the first way and I think the 1% way is done the other way.
The 1% faster claim in the article is based on the 40 game average (see Performance summary graph).
Your 6% claim is based on 15 select games which have the FPS results shown in the article, presumably becuase they are the most interesting results to show FPS numbers for. If they showed FPS numbers for all 40 games tested it would work out to the same 1% claim.
Think about it, if you just add up all the results from both CPU's you arrive at the total number of FPS, just as if it was one game, they are the same games, so you divide those FPS on the 5800X3D by the FPS of the 12900K. the result is 1.061, 6%, its actually really simple
Your 6% claim is based on 15 select games which have the FPS results shown in the article, presumably becuase they are the most interesting results to show FPS numbers for. If they showed FPS numbers for all 40 games tested it would work out to the same 1% claim.
Caporegime
That is how averages work.
If the 5800X3D is 1 FPS and the 12900K 100 FPS in the same game. While in another game the 5800X3D is 60 FPS vs 50 FPS for the 12900K and 5800X3D 70 FPS in a third game with the 12900K 60 FPS the 12900K is on average 60% faster.
100 + 50 + 60 = 210
1 + 60 + 70 = 131
210 / 131 = 1.60 (+60%) its not the 12900K's fault the 5800X3D is so bad in that one game.
-------
As it happens:
40 games tested, 5800X3D: 4240, 12900K: 3994.
4240 / 3994 = 1.061 (6%)
Last edited:
Caporegime
Yes but both ways I showed are valid, you believe your way to be the correct valid way. The fact is, both are valid depending on how you want to show the numbers and what you consider important. You keep asking how he got 1% but keep disputing he can do it that way. In that case you can never get it so may as well drop it.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2017
- Posts
- 1,923
I know, its why i never used that equation to start with.
I still don't know what you did, you also haven't demonstrated how you got to 1%
These CPU's were tested in the same games, so if you add up all the frame rates for the 12900K and for the 5800X3D and then divide those totals by each other you arrive at a decimal point difference, the number beyond the decimal point is your percentage, in this case 1.061 is 6%.
Or to put it another was lets just take the first result.
5800X3D: 668 FPS
12900K: 582 FPS
668 / 582 = 1.147. that is 14.7%, yes?
you can't add up all the fps, work out the percentage change then say on average it is 6% faster. You are not comparing like for like between games therefore you cannot use fps. You have to calculate all the percentage changes first then work out an overall average. Now depending on how you do this you can get a couple of different answers ranging from 1.01% to 1.4%.
However, it is a crap non-scientific way to compare the CPU's.
Caporegime
You could if they were all listed.
Of course i am, they are the same games, name which games are different, i was taking the numbers from the game bar chart, how are they not the same game?
Like this?
1.24
1.15
1.14
1.13
1.11
1.10
1.10
1.08
1.07
1.06
1.06
1.04
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.01
1.01
1.01
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.97
0.96
0.96
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.91
0.90
0.89
0.86
0.86
Adding all those together comes to 38.55 / 40 = 0.963
I think I’ve lost the will to live reading these last dozen posts.
5800x3d, fast at games, vrmm vrmm, buy buy
Don't think I saw this review mentioned:
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/334083-amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d-review-amd-retakes-the-gaming-throne
You didn't take statistics classes did you? Your way of aggregating the results is mathematically fine, but it's a biased result because you are giving different weightings to each game based on its FPS thereby saying some games are more important than others so we give the more important games a higher score in our aggregate results. Do you know who else creates these types of biased results quite often? UserBenchmark, yes that's right those guys - they place different weightings on different benchmark results and that's exactly what you are doing...
Last edited: