'Faster than' means

[snc]

What if we multiply by .5?

understanable but unnecessarly confusing

 

[Deleted member 11852]

lmao with confusing of percentage usage ;d its really better just to keep to multiplayers like 1.5x, 2x and don't use percentage at all (you can't interprent 1.5x or 2x in different ways) ;d and to do that slower should be base

I reckon there are as many people uncertain about fractions as there are uncertain by percentages. I mean, people could just spend 20 minutes to learn how to compare two numbers but that would be crazy, right!?!

And to be clear, when I say "uncertain" I mean "wrong".

 

[iroboto]

I reckon there are as many people uncertain about fractions as there are uncertain by percentages. I mean, people could just spend 20 minutes to learn how to compare two numbers but that would be crazy, right!?!

And to be clear, when I say "uncertain" I mean "wrong".

Or if there is confusion, remove % and fractions and just leave it as the base numbers. The reality is, FPS are exponential scale as well, so percentages don't make a lot of sense. As you approach 0ms frame times, your FPS approaches infinity. Might be best to just look at the individual frame times, and unfortunately that's not provided. When I see benchmarks like 245fps vs 267 fps, and people try to draw some conclusion that X is better than Y by 10%: it's really 4.081ms vs 3.745ms. You're really just splitting hairs here. 100 runs of the same benchmark may result differently for example.

I do prefer that journalists trust users to read data with quartile / box/whiskers / uncertainty drawn onto the graph, as opposed cleaning it up to a singular number.

 

[see colon]

understanable but unnecessarly confusing

Not if you want your baseline to be consistent across multiple comparisons. Like, if hardware A is baseline, then hardware b is going to be 1.2x in some games and .9x in some others.

 

[snc]

Not if you want your baseline to be consistent across multiple comparisons. Like, if hardware A is baseline, then hardware b is going to be 1.2x in some games and .9x in some others.

and we back to this if some card has 0.75x performance of other one could wrongly think the other card is 25% faster but its 33%

 

[iroboto]

and we back to this if some card has 0.75x performance of other one could wrongly think the other card is 25% faster but its 33%

I think typically if most people understand math and percentages, this particular type of language bolded and colour coded should be definitive of explanation. I think most schools will teach fractions or percentages using this language. X is a % of Y. Is fairly normal and universal in understanding. It means it's only 75% as fast as Y in this case. I don't think anyone should be confused by this. Most people's day to day lives are bombarded by percentages, and usually it's in form of 33% off. 25% off. So there is a regular price and then a sale price. In this case, $100 becomes $75 it's 25% off. This is normal for most people. Most people also know how to calculate tax as well 13% more is 1.13x.

If one cannot perform these basic math equations, it's unlikely they are on a soap box telling the world of FPS differentials thus, unnecessary to talk about confusing them: they wouldn't understand 33% faster anyway.

 

[dobwal]

What? No, two times faster is a 200% increase. Twice as fast is a 100% increase. The word "faster" is a rate of increase, and the base value must be added to it. "Two times faster" is descriptive of the rate of increase only, and not the base so the base must be added to it to calculate the final number. So base times rate of increase to find thee rate of increase, added to base to find the total number. "As fast" includes the base value and is comparative to that base value. So base multiplied times the comparative value (2 in the case of twice). You say it right there at the end. "100% increase (or faster) would be calculated as 100 mph X 2 or 100 mph (base number) + 100 mph (the increase in speed) = 200 mph". That's 100% (or 1 times) faster, or twice as fast. 200% faster would be two times faster.

-Edit-
After putting some thought into it, I think "two times faster" may be grammatically incorrect anyway. It's like saying "more faster".

Ever readily heard the phrase “1X as fast”? You won’t because for most people don’t define that as an 100% increase in speed or performance. 1X is just another term for equivalent.

2 X and 200% increase refers to two different calculations.

2 X refers to base speed (or performance) X 2 = total speed or performance.

12 Tflops X 2 = 24 Tflops

200% increase refers to (total speed divided by base speed -1) X 100 (coverts results from decimal to percentage) equals increase as a percentage.

(36Tflops/12 Tflops - 1) X 100 = 200% increase in performance

Your everyday VCR or video app refers to 2X as twice the normal playback speed not 3 X the normal playback speed.

edit: corrected the 2nd formula as it was wrong

 

[snc]

I think typically if most people understand math and percentages, this particular type of language bolded and colour coded should be definitive of explanation. I think most schools will teach fractions or percentages using this language. X is a % of Y. Is fairly normal and universal in understanding. It means it's only 75% as fast as Y in this case. I don't think anyone should be confused by this. Most people's day to day lives are bombarded by percentages, and usually it's in form of 33% off. 25% off. So there is a regular price and then a sale price. In this case, $100 becomes $75 it's 25% off. This is normal for most people. Most people also know how to calculate tax as well 13% more is 1.13x.

If one cannot perform these basic math equations, it's unlikely they are on a soap box telling the world of FPS differentials thus, unnecessary to talk about confusing them: they wouldn't understand 33% faster anyway.

I see often even on technical discussions that when something is showed if fashion X is a % of Y somes wrongly assume advantage of Y as 1 - % and not as 1/%

 

[iroboto]

I see often even on technical discussions that when something is showed if fashion X is a % of Y somes wrongly assume advantage of Y as 1 - % and not as 1/%

well, lets correct those folks then There's no point in arguing in the language we should use when there appears to be an international standard. When someone is wrong, we should just correct them and move on. There's no reason a thread on XSX should have 30 some odd posts about fraction and percentages

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Or if there is confusion, remove % and fractions and just leave it as the base numbers.

I think in technical forum, subjects should not be dumbed-down, people should smart-up a bit.

 

[see colon]

Ever readily heard the phrase “1X as fast”? You won’t because for most people don’t define that as an 100% increase in speed or performance. 1X is just another term for equivalent.

2 X and 200% increase refers to two different calculations.

2 X refers to base speed (or performance) X 2 = total speed or performance.

12 Tflops X 2 = 24 Tflops

200% increase refers to (total speed divided by base speed -1) X 100 (coverts results from decimal to percentage) equals increase as a percentage.

(36Tflops/12 Tflops - 1) X 100 = 200% increase in performance

Your everyday VCR or video app refers to 2X as twice the normal playback speed not 3 X the normal playback speed.

edit: corrected the 2nd formula as it was wrong

Yeah, I agree with all of this. It's the use of the word "faster" that causes the issue, and none of your examples use faster. 2x is 2 multiplied by the base value. 2x faster is 2 multiplied by the base and then added to the base because faster relates to the rate of increase. You don't hear "1x as fast" because that would be a statement of equivalence. 1 times faster would be twice as fast because the rate of increase is 1 times the base value, or 2x total. Well, maybe. Because like I said I'm not sure it's even grammatically correct. And, faster in terms of time gets weird anyway. If something is done 10% faster, that would imply a 10% reduction in the time to completion, right? So 100% faster would have a 0 time to completion? It works if you apply "faster" to velocity, or if time is a fixed value like in frames per second, but when you start applying it to time you get impossibilities really quick.

 

[dobwal]

Yeah, I agree with all of this. It's the use of the word "faster" that causes the issue, and none of your examples use faster. 2x is 2 multiplied by the base value. 2x faster is 2 multiplied by the base and then added to the base because faster relates to the rate of increase. You don't hear "1x as fast" because that would be a statement of equivalence. 1 times faster would be twice as fast because the rate of increase is 1 times the base value, or 2x total. Well, maybe. Because like I said I'm not sure it's even grammatically correct. And, faster in terms of time gets weird anyway. If something is done 10% faster, that would imply a 10% reduction in the time to completion, right? So 100% faster would have a 0 time to completion? It works if you apply "faster" to velocity, or if time is a fixed value like in frames per second, but when you start applying it to time you get impossibilities really quick.

I can see why you think this way but I don’t think people in general do so.

2x larger, 2X smaller, 2X wider or 2X slower aren’t typically used to describe factors of 3 or 1/3rd.

 

[Pete]

Two times faster and twice as fast is the same thing.

Dangit, just reading that out loud makes sense.

100 mph X 2 = equals twice as fast or 2X faster.

Okay, sure, that would have to follow from the previous sentence....

100% increase (or faster) would be calculated as 100 mph X 2 or 100 mph (base number) + 100 mph (the increase in speed) = 200 mph.

Wait, hold on. 100% increase = 100% faster =/= two times faster because 100% =/= 2x. So I think we’re back to what faster implies, which I believe is (as see colon has said) the difference on top of the original value.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28iht-edfreeman.1.8081659.html

I was excited at the idea of a serious article on the subject. Unfortunately, that’s an op ed, and a disappointing one. “‘35 times less’ ... could be clearer” but is okay because tradition, whereas “‘300 percent less’ ... is nonsense.”

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Wait, hold on. 100% increase = 100% faster =/= two times faster because 100% =/= 2x. So I think we’re back to what faster implies, which I believe is (as see colon has said) the difference on top of the original value.

This is where percentages can get confusing for some people.

What is the 100% revering to?

• 100% "of something" is 1x of something.
  • I ate 50% of a pie is 1/2 of the pie.
  • I drove 50% of the speed limit is 1/2 of the speed limit.
  • I drove 100% of the speed limit is 1x the speed limit.
  • This is using percentage as an absolute reference to some value.
    • IE - 100% = 1x, 50% = 0.5x, 150% = 1.5x, etc.
• However, 100% "faster than something" is 2x of something, while 100% "slower than something" is 0x of something.
  • I drove 50% faster than the speed limit is 1.5x the speed limit.
  • I drove 100% faster than the speed limit is 2.0x the speed limit.
  • I drove 50% slower than the speed limit is 0.5x the speed limit.
  • This is using percentage as an additive value of some reference value.
    • IE for [faster], 100% = (1 + 1)x, 50% = (1 + 0.5)x, 200% = (1 + 2)x
    • IE for [slower], 100% = (1 - 1)x, 50% = (1 - 0.5)x, 200% = doesn't make sense.

I imagine this could make things more confusing when discussing percentages in a language that isn't a person's native language.

Regards,
SB

 

[zed]

Exercise your democratic right
This is a response to this thread pages 104-105 https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/xbox-series-x-xbsx-release-november-10-2020.61502/page-105

 

[BRiT]

Shouldn't your question be, "Which statement is correct?"

1. 300 km/hr is 200% faster than 100 km/hr
2. 200 km/hr is 2 times faster than 100 km/hr
3. Both 1 and 2

 

[BRiT]

Doesn't "faster than" refer to the delta between X and Y?

Speed X is 200
Speed Y is 100.
So whats being described is the speed difference of (200 - 100) , which is 100 km/hr.

How does 100 hm/hr speed difference relate to speed Y of 100 km/hr?

So for 200 and 100 the statement should use "twice as fast" instead of "2x faster than"?

 

[Zaphod]

The first option should be mathematically correct (even if it sounds counter-intuitive when used in natural language for modifiers larger than one) since the phrasing suggests that the smaller number is the base.

One time = 1X = 100%

20 Km/h is one time faster than 10 Km/h.
20 Km/h is 1X faster than 10 Km/h
20 Km/h is 100% faster than 10 Km/h

That the higher count doesn't make much sense should be obvious if the increase is a fraction.

15 Km/h is one half time faster than 10 Km/h.
15 Km/h is 0.5X faster than 10 Km/h
15 Km/h is 50% faster than 10 Km/h

People wanting to avoid the mental disconnect should use phrase it using "as fast" instead of "faster than".

Edit:
"Faster than": The difference in speed between A and B is X times the speed of B.

"As fast": The speed of A is X times the speed of B. The difference in speed between A and B is X times the speed of B minus the speed of B.

 

[see colon]

Right! "Faster" applies to the rate of increase, "as fast" applies to the base speed only. So to calculate the total speed with "faster" you have to add the increase to the base value, while with "as fast" the base value is already included.

 

[zed]

Shouldn't your question be, "Which statement is correct?"

1. 300 km/hr is 200% faster than 100 km/hr
2. 200 km/hr is 2 times faster than 100 km/hr
3. Both 1 and 2

We have enough trouble agreeing on faster than without adding another variable 'percentage'
FWIW I would go
200 km/hr = 2 times faster than 100 km/hr
200 km/hr = 100% faster than 100 km/hr