CPU Reviews 720p/1080p/4K or 1080p/1440p/4K?

[W1zzard]

Rebenching all CPU and all games on Creators Update.

This is not for GPU reviews, but for CPU Reviews w/ GTX 1080, for game testing.

720p/1080p/4K or 1080p/1440p/4K?

Which do you think will be more useful?

 

[Shou Miko]

@W1zzard I would be really sad to see 1440p gone because it's the native resolution I game in so in but why not just keep all 4 resolutions?

 

[HTC]

Suggest you use a card from each camp instead of a card from only one of the camps, regardless of which resolutions you end up choosing.

 

[qubit]

As I keep saying, you need a low resolution when benching CPU framerate performance, so I've voted for 720p.

Not doing so just bottlenecks it with the graphics card and makes all the CPUs in the test look the same. This is so mindnumbingly obvious that I can't believe anyone actually argues this point.

And again, this is in addition to the higher resolution tests, not replacing them.

 

[Melvis]

1080/1440/4K hands down, no point going lower when no one uses it anymore. 1080p is the most used rez today and people are only going to upgrade upwards regardless if this is for CPU or GPU benchmarking. Also GPU's today run 1080 like butter, this should now be the bottom rez used for any type of benchmarking regardless if its CPU or not

 

[P4-630]

1080/1440/4K hands down, no point going lower when no one uses it anymore.

+1^
As enthusiast I say the same, and that's TPU's biggest target IMO.

Just ordered a 1440p monitor.

 

[Caring1]

1080/1440/4K hands down, no point going lower when no one uses it anymore.

I've got two old monitors I use daily, neither are 1080P, I appreciate tests done in lower res.

As I keep saying, you need a low resolution when benching CPU framerate performance, so I've voted for 720p.

Not doing so just bottlenecks it with the graphics card and makes all the CPUs in the test look the same. This is so mindnumbingly obvious that I can't believe anyone actually argues this point.

This ^^^

 

[P4-630]

I appreciate tests done in lower res.

Ok agree with that somehow as well, but don't drop 1440p either.

 

[Melvis]

I've got two old monitors I use daily, neither are 1080P, I appreciate tests done in lower res.

So do I but you and I are not the majority of users. Majority of users will be 1080P or above.

 

[bug]

Voted for option #1: if you're really testing the CPU, it's important to include at least one scenario where the GPU is NOT the bottleneck. Also, it happens to cover a wider range of resolutions. You need the numbers for 1440? You can derive them from 1080 and 4k (mostly).

 

[Shou Miko]

Voted for option #1: if you're really testing the CPU, it's important to include at least one scenario where the GPU is NOT the bottleneck. Also, it happens to cover a wider range of resolutions. You need the numbers for 1440? You can derive them from 1080 and 4k (mostly).

You can't really use 1080p or 4k to estimate what the performance for 1440p will be, u can't se that oh it will be 25% slower than 1080p or something like that and since 4K takes too much to drive to get stable 60fps and plus 100fps I feel myself with my GTX 1070 is doing 100fps and more in a lot of games in 1440p really good I don't complain.

 

[basco]

this is not looking good for the 720p voters.
i would ditch 4k and keep the 3 others-but i know will never happen.
i hope everybody reads before voting.

 

[krusha03]

It depends on what you want to achieve. Pure CPU review and having results for the sake of results then go option 1 because as many people say option 1 removes the GPU as bottleneck as much as possible.

However is this useful and representative of the real world gaming usage patterns? I don't think so. Because while having a Titan XP on 720p will crunch out 200FPS on i7-7700K vs 160FPS on AMD Ryzen 1700, but who uses a Titan XP on this resolution? Why don't we test then at 480p?

The matter of fact is that the average person using a GTX1060 or a RX 480/580 will most likely see minimal difference between the two CPUs on 1080p. And in my opinion a review should give informative choice on what to buy. Therefore option 2 makes more sense for me.

 

[bug]

You can't really use 1080p or 4k to estimate what the performance for 1440p will be, u can't se that oh it will be 25% slower than 1080p or something like that and since 4K takes too much to drive to get stable 60fps and plus 100fps I feel myself with my GTX 1070 is doing 100fps and more in a lot of games in 1440p really good I don't complain.

Well, you won't get exact numbers, but you know 1440 is 1.6x the number of pixels of 1080p and .4 the number of pixels of 4k, so you can interpolate. Expect more if 4k is GPU limited. It will at least tell you if you're into playable territory.

 

[Vayra86]

Honestly, CPU benchmarks at 1440p and 4K are worthless - they won't show you anything else but the limitations of GTX 1080.

I really wonder if half the voters even realized they're voting for CPU benches.

Faith in humanity has been damaged a little here.

TBH if you don't bench at low res, I'll stop taking TPU seriously for any CPU review. Simply because you've lost the plot. No offense.

 

[krusha03]

Honestly, CPU benchmarks at 1440p and 4K are worthless - they won't show you anything else but the limitations of GTX 1080.

I really wonder if half the voters even realized they're voting for CPU benches.

Faith in humanity has been damaged a little here.

TBH if you don't bench at low res, I'll stop taking TPU seriously for any CPU review. Simply because you've lost the plot. No offense.

So what you are saying CPU doesn't matter for gaming (because who games at 720p) therefore no use in gaming tests in CPU benchmarks?

 

[bug]

So what you are saying CPU doesn't matter for gaming (because who games at 720p) therefore no use in gaming tests in CPU benchmarks?

CPU matters because it feeds the GPU. Usually that is not a big problem, but it is possible to pair a fast GPU with a weak CPU that will hold it back. That's what these tests are meant to reveal: CPU's raw power (when testing lower resolutions) and the point where CPU stops making a difference (when testing higher resolutions).

 

[krusha03]

CPU matters because it feeds the GPU. Usually that is not a big problem, but it is possible to pair a fast GPU with a weak CPU that will hold it back. That's what these tests are meant to reveal: CPU's raw power (when testing lower resolutions) and the point where CPU stops making a difference (when testing higher resolutions).

Yes but then you want to see if the CPU mater in a representative case. I mean do you go and buy a car based on a dyno run test which while give lots of information it is in no way representative of real world performance?

 

[basco]

what about 720+1440+4k

 

[64K]

I game at 1440p but I voted for 720p/1080p/4K

For CPUs it's good to know how many FPS a CPU can feed to the GPU for rendering frames and a 720p test would tell us that. By the time we are up to 4k then the GPU becomes the issue bringing down the FPS especially on highest settings. Some people are going to try to game at 120 Hz or 144 Hz even if it means cutting down on the eye candy because for them the FPS is what matters and I've heard that some competing in e-sports even run their monitor at 720p to get the frames they want.

 

[Vayra86]

Yes but then you want to see if the CPU mater in a representative case. I mean do you go and buy a car based on a dyno run test which while give lots of information it is in no way representative of real world performance?

Rule number one: car analogies always fail; in this case, because you're not testing the car, but you are testing the ENGINE of the car. If you test higher resolutions, to keep with your car analogy, the other components of the car come into play, that determine if the car won't fall apart at the top speed the engine can achieve. In the latter case, you move the testing towards the components surrounding the engine as they will always be the limiting factor in one way or another.

You want to see the limitations of the CPU, and the maximum performance you can extract from it. Because that is what a CPU test is about. Alongside that, one higher resolution is sufficient, and in that case I would still vote for 720p + 1080p. Perhaps 720p versus 1440p would do fine too.

Once you crank up the resolution, you move the bottleneck towards the GPU (even at 1080p on a GTX 1080, this can happen, will happen frequently) and at that point you are no longer 'testing' the CPU performance, but the GPU performance on that specific CPU.

'Representative' is irrelevant in this case because it simply does not exist. The only representative test is testing your own content on your own setup. Performance testing is never and should never be about 'representative' because everyone has a different setup. You can never tick all the boxes. RAM at a different speed? Different outcome. Higher GPU OC? Different outcome. GPU on water? Different outcome...

Testing at 1080p/1440p/4K makes 2/3rds of all benches you run effectively useless, as in, they provide no meaningful information compared to the test @ the lowest res of the three. The CPU will do the same work on all three resolutions. And even on the lowest res you can't get a view of that maximum FPS a CPU can push out.

 

[EarthDog]

Rebenching all CPU and all games on Creators Update.

This is not for GPU reviews, but for CPU Reviews w/ GTX 1080, for game testing.

720p/1080p/4K or 1080p/1440p/4K?

Which do you think will be more useful?

the latter.

720p is played out and nobody in their right mind will buy a 1080 and a high end cpu to play at such an abhorrently low resolution. Unrealistic envirnonment that would only serve to a very few...useless testing.

Cpu bencmarks at high res with a 1080 is quite valid testing contrary to lemming beliefs. Low res testing with high end gpu is just useless.. so why not run tests where people actually play with the hardware tested?? Surely differences will be less, but, thats the point of this testing to see where it lands with different cpus which is the only variable being tested.

720p with a 1080 literaly shows one nothing which can be extrapolated to higher resolutions. People shouldnt care what a cpu "can do" at that res (see sentence prior)....unless they were silly enough to buy a gtx 1080 and play at 720p. Since there are so few out there, its good to see testing at resolutions where they do use that kind of card and whatever cpu.

1080p/2560x1440/4k uhd.


What would also be neat to see is this testing with say a 1070, and 1060...580...1080ti.. and see what the cpus do with different cards.

 

[bug]

Yes but then you want to see if the CPU mater in a representative case. I mean do you go and buy a car based on a dyno run test which while give lots of information it is in no way representative of real world performance?

Esports require high fps. Players often sacrifice details/resolution to maintain a high min-FPS. So I'm not sure why you think raw power is not representative.
Sure,, I'm not into esports and maybe you aren't either. But a review's job is to cover everything. Otherwise it's just cherry picking.

 

[Vayra86]

Esports require high fps. Players often sacrifice details/resolution to maintain a high min-FPS. So I'm not sure why you think raw power is not representative.
Sure,, I'm not into esports and maybe you aren't either. But a review's job is to cover everything. Otherwise it's just cherry picking.

Precisely my point. The only true 'representative' testing is the maximum performance figure. You can do whatever you want to do with that information, making it representative for your specific needs.

Also people seem to forget we already have 'performance summaries' for real-world game performance...

 

[basco]

ok so i am a lemming.
why cant we have discussions whithout that?

if i look at this:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600X/11.html

we see in nearly all games 1-2 frames diff in higher res.(exceptions are there).

but i am open for everything and i see that 1080p might be enough to tell the diff.
so maybe no need for 720p but i dont see why the tester needs to do work for 1440p +4k while there is really no diff between these 2 resolutions?