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

[FordGT90Concept]

Wiz isn't benchmarking laptop CPUs nor GPUs anyway.

 

[m0nt3]

I say it needs to be a revision of what games are tested and how they are tested, when benchmarking CPU's, and not about the resolution. Usually RTS games, MMO games, Battlefield online (not single player) where the CPU can actually make a difference.

 

[Duality92]

Do all 4, everyone will be happy.

 

[alucasa]

No, we need to add 8k.

 

[EarthDog]

I think some people are thinking more about GPU reviews than CPU reviews. There is good reason for why no one benches on 720p for a long time now in GPU reviews. But I still ask this question. If you see a game being benched on a CPU review at 85 FPS at 1080p and you want something closer to 120 FPS then how do you know whether the CPU isn't able to feed the GPU any more frames because it's maxxed out and you will need a faster CPU if you don't bench said CPU at a lower resolution to find out for certain?

Of course hardly anyone games at less than 1080p anymore except on laptops where you can't upgrade the CPU or GPU anyway so reading a CPU review would be irrelevant for a laptop.

Good question... but does 720p actually answer that, or is it a completely separate data set that cannot be used to figure that out? Unless its an ancient CPU, your bottleneck to hit 120 FPS at 1080p, in most titles and settings (assuming Ultra here), is going to be on the GPU.

I suggest taking a look at old techspot reviews of games which did this exact testing already for years. You;ll find in most titles from SB on forward, there are very few FPS differences, even at 1080p. The CPU isn't going to make that big of a difference at 1080p+. But the higher we go GPU wise, the more CPU power is needed to push these things.. for example, results would be different when running a 1080Ti vs a 1080... you might find the CPU choking more at 1080p with a 1080ti than a 1080... this is why I suggested picking a couple processors (like 7700K and a Ryzen) to run at stock at the same clocks, and overclocked to show what happens.

But, that is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the rabbit hole and is really an entire article in and of itself... For 99% of users, even here, that is swimming in the minutia a bit too deep.

 

[alucasa]

If a guy can figure out/estimate fps in 720p by looking at 1080p result, we then don't need 1440p, either. 4k result should be enough to figure 1440p result.

Edit: Actually, let's remove 1080p and keep 1440p.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If someone bought a 1080 to play at 720p...

 

[alucasa]

If someone bought a 1080 to play at 720p...

Believe or not, used to happen all the time in laptop world. People fell for "bigger the better" mentality only to find out that his sucky GPU can't handle stable 30 fps in Skyrim. So, lower the resolution. lolz

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I doubt there is any game a 1080 can't run at 1080p. Well, I suppose if it were connected to a Pentium 3 or Athlon XP, maybe.

 

[newtekie1]

That was never in question... the point is though, how many of those people run an wholly unbalanced system and pop a 1080 or greater there while still running a monitor from Y2K?

I get where the people asking for 720p are coming from. They are of the opinion that 720p completely removes the GPU bottleneck, giving a picture of relative performance between the CPUs only. IMO, 1080p already does that, but they think 720p is necessary to do it. It doesn't matter that no one would really run a lopsided setup like that, it is entirely about removing the GPU bottleneck to compare CPUs to each other. This allows you to actually see what CPU is better and which is worse. If you are just doing benchmarks where the GPU is the bottleneck, then what is the point of doing them for CPUs? If every CPU is just going to give the same result, there is no point in doing the tests or including the results. Yes, 720p isn't a realistic use, but neither is SuperPi, but we still include it in CPU reviews. At this point, the 720p game tests would be a synthetic test, IMO just like memory benchmarks or SuperPi or wPrime.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Also GPU's today run 1080 like butter,

Not across the board. There are many higher end and recent mid grade cards that can't max out 1080p even with high end CPU's as well on every game out now...much less what is still to come.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Not across the board. There are many higher end and recent mid grade cards that can't max out 1080p even with high end CPU's as well on every game out now...much less what is still to come.

He's testing with a 1080 so there's no need to think of it needing 720p 1080 @1080p will do whatever esport title you want at 144hz and i get what and why your saying it but i bought an fx8350 ,it didn't mature as expected , neither do amd gpus compared to nvidias which makes your future performance outlook worthless, it indicates nothing and 30 years of pc use, actual use has demonstrated that adequately to me, i get it though low res helps team blue and green so the fight goes on.
It doesn't help a buyer pick anything useful out imho.
If id listened to the likes of you id be skint , have an awesome cpu(i7 7700k) and mobo and still getting the same ish fps when I gameat 4k,
If i had done ,i would have been the most bile filled fanboi tirant on the web for wasteing money.
1080-4k spans all thats required for all our requirements in Reality and doesn't accentuate (toi much,) a lead that would evaporate in actual use.

In a gtx1080 @ 1080p low settings most esports titles would run like effin furrmark in reality.

 

[EarthDog]

I get where the people asking for 720p are coming from. They are of the opinion that 720p completely removes the GPU bottleneck, giving a picture of relative performance between the CPUs only. IMO, 1080p already does that, but they think 720p is necessary to do it. It doesn't matter that no one would really run a lopsided setup like that, it is entirely about removing the GPU bottleneck to compare CPUs to each other. This allows you to actually see what CPU is better and which is worse. If you are just doing benchmarks where the GPU is the bottleneck, then what is the point of doing them for CPUs? If every CPU is just going to give the same result, there is no point in doing the tests or including the results. Yes, 720p isn't a realistic use, but neither is SuperPi, but we still include it in CPU reviews. At this point, the 720p game tests would be a synthetic test, IMO just like memory benchmarks or SuperPi or wPrime.

I hear you... but it simply doesnt translate, results at 720. It exaggerates the result and people are trying to use that data for other resolutions or see what the cpu 'can do'. But what it can do at that low res has zero bearing on anything else and again, is exagerated.

As far as super pi, that, imo, isnt remotely like the situation here. Super pi and wrpime, show something... integer performance i believe...it does not have the ability to exaggerate results like testing at 720p. Now, its relevance for most users isnt much either, but that isnt my main point with those applications. Memory bandwidth tests feel more synthetic as it, unlike pi and prime, doesnt really translate to performamce unless whatever you are doing can saturate theoretical bandwidth.

We test these things at ocf because we are overclocking and benchmark centric. Our readers generally WANT to see it and know what to do with the information.

So yes, you can see a difference at 720p in cpus, but its an exaggerated difference. Its not synthetic, its not realistic. Its an indepedent data set good only for itself. It literally tells us nothing more than a result at an abhorrently low res with a powerful card.

 

[newtekie1]

I hear you... but it simply doesnt translate, results at 720. It exaggerates the result and people are trying to use that data for other resolutions or see what the cpu 'can do'. But what it can do at that low res has zero bearing on anything else and again, is exagerated.

It doesn't need to translate to anything. The low resolution tests are for nothing more than comparing CPUs in that test to other CPUs in that test, the same as SuperPi and wPrime. It doesn't translate to anything, it is meant to give a comparison between CPUs, that's it.

 

[rtwjunkie]

He's testing with a 1080 so there's no need to think of it needing 720p 1080 @1080p will do whatever esport title you want at 144hz and i get what and why your saying it but i bought an fx8350 ,it didn't mature as expected , neither do amd gpus compared to nvidias which makes your future performance outlook worthless, it indicates nothing and 30 years of pc use, actual use has demonstrated that adequately to me, i get it though low res helps team blue and green so the fight goes on.
It doesn't help a buyer pick anything useful out imho.
If id listened to the likes of you id be skint , have an awesome cpu(i7 7700k) and mobo and still getting the same ish fps when I gameat 4k,
If i had done ,i would have been the most bile filled fanboi tirant on the web for wasteing money.
1080-4k spans all thats required for all our requirements in Reality and doesn't accentuate (toi much,) a lead that would evaporate in actual use.

In a gtx1080 @ 1080p low settings most esports titles would run like effin furrmark in reality.

Ummm, not sure where your rant against me came about from. I never said test 720p, look at my vote. I don't think we should be testing CPU's with games at 720. It's simply such an oddball situation it isn't relevant to a whole system such as in a game.

I merely responded to one point about GPU's that Melvis said, because it's not true that all GPU's can play anything like butter all maxed out at 1080p. Only a few can do that for every game.

 

[Toothless]

I changed my vote because 720/1080/4k is a better spectrum and it's just easier to say "my chip does worse/better at this res so I know if I can/can't play there."

 

[Dethroy]

4K = all bars look the same; except for very little variance when the GPU is throttling/choking —> pointless

 

[Vayra86]

People that play at 1366 x 768 are most likely laptop users. What use is a CPU review which is not intended on the platform they play on. 1080P up is the way to go.

Shit man, I was one of those poor 'gamers' back in the day, playing exactly that res on a 600 dollar laptop that throttled like no tomorrow and still pushed 20 fps in Guild Wars 2 and some selection of other MMO's.

It was shit, but one adapts, and also, you make do with what you have - but if you still want to game, then that 720p laptop is what you game on.

Saying 'its Bejeweled' fuck them its their own little world, might not be very accurate... 90% of that 'little world' doesn't even know Steam exists, and that chart was from a Steam Survey.

Good question dodge but for cpu reviews I don't give a shit about anyone's feelings, just so you know.

You murderous CPU review reader! Rascal!

 

[dir_d]

Shit man, I was one of those poor 'gamers' back in the day, playing exactly that res on a 600 dollar laptop that throttled like no tomorrow and still pushed 20 fps in Guild Wars 2 and some selection of other MMO's.

It was shit, but one adapts, and also, you make do with what you have - but if you still want to game, then that 720p laptop is what you game on.

Saying 'its Bejeweled' fuck them its their own little world, might not be very accurate... 90% of that 'little world' doesn't even know Steam exists, and that chart was from a Steam Survey.



You murderous CPU review reader! Rascal!

What i meant was that the laptop users that game at that res are not even using the same CPUs that are in desktops, therefore the information from a CPU review does not apply to them. They can look at a review of a CPU and see how well it does at 1080P gaming if that is their next step up from gaming on a laptop but if they are sticking with laptop and 720p the review is just not intended for them.

 

[alucasa]

Shit man, I was one of those poor 'gamers' back in the day, playing exactly that res on a 600 dollar laptop that throttled like no tomorrow and still pushed 20 fps in Guild Wars 2 and some selection of other MMO's.

It was shit, but one adapts, and also, you make do with what you have - but if you still want to game, then that 720p laptop is what you game on.

Saying 'its Bejeweled' fuck them its their own little world, might not be very accurate... 90% of that 'little world' doesn't even know Steam exists, and that chart was from a Steam Survey.

Yeah, it smells like elitism.

 

[EarthDog]

It doesn't need to translate to anything. The low resolution tests are for nothing more than comparing CPUs in that test to other CPUs in that test, the same as SuperPi and wPrime. It doesn't translate to anything, it is meant to give a comparison between CPUs, that's it.

It, IMO, needs to translate to something because its a useless dataset (in that, useless to all that don't own a 1080+ and play games at that low res.

Pi and Prime are actually worth a lot more, as far as their results, than this 720p testing.. Pi shows single threaded integer performance while prime does multi-threaded. But, that is a completely different discussion.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Looking at the Ryzen 5 review, I think I have to do an about-face. The only benchmark worth doing is 720p because it establishes a minimum frame rate. At 4K, virtually all the frame rates fall below that minimum framerate established at 720p and thus, it's almost a flat line between the cheapest and most expensive processors. Further, the CPUs pretty much fall in line at 720p and 4K so you can reasonably extrapolate from 720p which CPU will be best at 1080p, 2560p, and 4K.

I think what TPU should do is write an article on how high resolutions in CPU tests are unnecessary using the data from the Ryzen 5 review then reference that article in future articles that only do 720p.

If you're trying to find the best gaming CPU for the lowest price, 720p is more valuable than any other resolution.

 

[W1zzard]

only do 720p.

If you're trying to find the best gaming CPU for the lowest price, 720p is more valuable than any other resolution.

If you understand the logic behind, yes. But a huge number of people will demand 1080/4K. Which is why I benched them all

 

[MrGenius]

I just scratched a hole in my head trying to understand it. Or rather why I'm still not seeing it. Ouch!

 

[Keullo-e]

It's 2017, not 2007. Who buys a fast desktop CPU to play with "HD Ready" resolution? And that "if (s)he has a 720p television" argument isn't good, since 1080p TV's doesn't cost much this day. Many has moved already to 4K.