Are Differences in Performance Just Reduced Times?

[ipodlover77]

Thread title.

I know the 15 inch is vastly more powerful than the 13 inch, thats a no brainer. Quad vs dual core.

My question is, does the processor speed/cores only effect how long it takes to complete an action?

For example for editing 4K video, at the end of the day, will the two end result products be identical regardless of the laptop that was used? Again, this is if you factor out how long it took (IE. rendering).

Example, when you're dealing with GPU's a GTX 1060 will definitely result in lessor frames than a 1070. You Even if you play on the same resolution, same settings, a 1060 will out out lower frames than a 1070 so in this case the end result is a stark difference. For processors, is there a different in the end result?

 

[leman]

My question is, does the processor speed/cores only effect how long it takes to complete an action?

Principally yes. The only thing you gain by having more performance is being able to do something faster.

Example, when you're dealing with GPU's a GTX 1060 will definitely result in lessor frames than a 1070. You Even if you play on the same resolution, same settings, a 1060 will out out lower frames than a 1070 so in this case the end result is a stark difference. For processors, is there a different in the end result?

I don't really understand your example? The only difference is that 1070 is faster than the 1060, so it can draw more frames in the same time. The question is of course what you want to do, e.g. whether your job is to draw 1000 frames or whether your job is to draw as many frames as possible in a minute.

 

[jackoatmon]

The answer is just slightly more complex than you might expect.

A) Yes, it's basically that faster is faster and slower is slower. But there's also a threshold of "do-ability". By this I mean that without a certain loose minimum requirement, the task will be so choppy, the user feedback so laggy, and the program will crash so frequently that the job won't be realistically possible. So there's a "floor" somewhere under which you pretty much can't do the thing. You add an extra layer of visual effects, and the machine can literally grind to a halt. Infinite beach ball. Or overheating and GPU shutdown. System crashes. Whatever.

B) Integration matters a lot. Two identically-clocked & spec'd processors will complete the task in different times depending on how they're optimized for the task. For instance, Kaby Lake will have some unique drivers & componentry specifically designed for 4K video, so you'll be able to complete tasks in 4K video editing much easier even if it's the same spec as a Skylake processor.

C) Software optimization matters a lot. If you do some in-depth testing in 4K video, you'll see that on OSX, FCPX can do many tasks up to 4x faster than premiere Pro, because the software is so finely integrated with the hardware design.

D) Other hardware matters a lot. If you have a great GPU, for instance, more of the task can get offloaded, making each action the CPU takes more efficient.

But yeah, the output is theoretically identical. It's just, some setups simply can't do the task at hand, and others can be radically optimized with relatively tiny changes in hardware specs. It's not a linear ratio. It's a highly complex system with many variables.

 

[jerryk]

Example, when you're dealing with GPU's a GTX 1060 will definitely result in lessor frames than a 1070. You Even if you play on the same resolution, same settings, a 1060 will out out lower frames than a 1070 so in this case the end result is a stark difference. For processors, is there a different in the end result?

Can you explain what you mean by this. Playback speed of a video is gated by a number of things, but GPU is a minor factor.

 

[leman]

Can you explain what you mean by this. Playback speed of a video is gated by a number of things, but GPU is a minor factor.

I think OP's example was about gaming.