Choosing between 2 GPUs - help on 2 basic principles needed

Coolio

n00b
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
31
Hi folks,

I will have to compare Nvidia GPUs in different variations soon (Reference, FE, AIB) and will appreciate your help with some principles:

  1. I've always thought that at the end of the day the most significant tech specs become part of certain formulas and finally result in 2 parameters: flops (how fast the GPU performs calculations) and bandwidth/transfer rate (how much data it can push to the system at a time). So I supposed I can use those 2 to compare GPUs of at least the same brand and generation, for example Nvidia RTX 2060 Founders Edition and some ASUS AIB model built on the same GPU. However, someone has pointed to the example of AMD Radeon Vega 64 and Nvidia GeForce RTX 2070. Yeah, these are different brands, but still - Vega has 11518 Gflops and 483.8 Gb/sec bandwidth and GeForce has 8920.32 Gflops and 448 Gb/sec, however both cards are relatively competitive. So finally, can I use flops/bandwidth to compare GPUs and if yes - to which extent?
  2. Which scenario will you choose for better performance and why: 1) "less clocks & very fast VRAM (HBM2)" or 2) "higher clocks & fast VRAM (GDDR5X)"?
Tank you for your comments!
 

Susquehannock

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
3,882
^^ that.
And if you are still hell bent on details, look at benchmarks in games you actually intend to play. Not all will be the same.
 

Coolio

n00b
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
31
Thank you guys!

What embarasses me is that GPU seems to be the only PC component which can't be compared using its tech spec.
You can compare RAM, SSD, CPU, PSU, monitor - from their performance perspective, but when it comes to GPU the comparison is boiled down to just watching YouTube videos with side-by-side comparison in games.

By no means I'm underestimating the benefits of the "visual" part of the evaluation, but doesn't it seem the same odd to you as the proposal to "copy 50Gb of data to see which SSD works for you best"? To me - it definitely does.
 
Last edited:

Slade

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
2,734
Think of it like cars. You have a c8 corvette and a hellcat. on paper a hellcat is 700hp and c8 495. Yet from a dig the c8 will win almost everytime while from a roll the hellcat will win. The c8 will carve corners and track faster too.

The same with gpu. Need to look at where you need to apply that performance and go with the one that has strengths in the ones you use.
 

Andrew_Carr

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
1,785
Thank you guys!

What embarasses me is that GPU seems to be the only PC component which can't be compared using its tech spec.
You can compare RAM, SSD, CPU, PSU, monitor - from their performance perspective, but when it comes to GPU the comparison is boiled down to just watching YouTube videos with side-by-side comparison in games.

By no means I'm underestimating the benefits of the "visual" part of the evaluation, but doesn't it seem the same odd to you as the proposal to "copy 50Gb of data to see which SSD works for you best"? To me - it definitely does.
I don't think CPU performance is as easily compared either. Look at clock speeds from the Pentium 4 days until now and you don't really have major changes, but IPC, core count, etc. has ensured higher performance today even at similar clock speeds. RAM is probably the one thing I can think of that's relatively straightforward to compare (until you get into tuning it). PSUs you can compare watts, but there's still good vs bad PSU brands at the same wattages, SSDs you can compare storage speed but there's multiple other factors, and monitors are a hell to compare unless you just care about size and price.
 

Coolio

n00b
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
31
Think of it like cars. You have a c8 corvette and a hellcat. on paper a hellcat is 700hp and c8 495. Yet from a dig the c8 will win almost everytime while from a roll the hellcat will win. The c8 will carve corners and track faster too.

The same with gpu. Need to look at where you need to apply that performance and go with the one that has strengths in the ones you use.
Dammit - you managed to find the comparison hard to argue with! :))))) The problem is you can test-drive the car before you buy it. But ok, I hear you and looks like I have no choice but take it as it is: only side-by-side comparison works with GPUs. Sad but true.


I don't think CPU performance is as easily compared either. Look at clock speeds from the Pentium 4 days until now and you don't really have major changes, but IPC, core count, etc. has ensured higher performance today even at similar clock speeds. RAM is probably the one thing I can think of that's relatively straightforward to compare (until you get into tuning it). PSUs you can compare watts, but there's still good vs bad PSU brands at the same wattages, SSDs you can compare storage speed but there's multiple other factors, and monitors are a hell to compare unless you just care about size and price.
Yeah, don't take me wrong - I'm not trying to oversimplify things, but it has always seemed to me it's possible to compare all the above-mentioned HW based on its tech spec - at least in wide strokes. And even CPUs - we can be more or less precise at least within the same brand's lineup (even more so - within the same architecture). OK, looks like GPUs are the ethereal world to just accept and save nerves. :)))
 
  • Like
Reactions: x509
like this
Top