Yes. I was wrong by ignoring the power on volume thinking it didn't matter but it does have a very major impact.
Geometric mean for 2 terms = (a * b)^0.5
Current: CPU*GPU / Volume ^1.5
Correct: Geometric Mean / Volume
Incorrect: Geometric Mean / Volume ^ 1.5
Simple: CPU * GPU / Volume ^ 2
Ranking wise they are nowhere equivalent. I only looked at the top 5 but there's a very large difference in how systems are ranked based on the equation used. I was wrong to ignore the power on volume. Like you said, we're measuring performance per liter and putting a power other than 1 on volume makes a drastic difference. My initial suggestion was wrong by ignoring the power on volume. The correct method is to use the geometric over volume with a power of one. Or as you said, the simpler and equivalent equation would be cpu*gpu over volume with a power of 2. The equation in this format may seem like we're giving volume more weight but mathematically speaking.. what's actually happening is we're getting the geometric mean of the cpu and gpu benchmarks.
In conclusion, what we want to measure is performance per liter. If we want to respect that, we have to use either the equations (Geometric Mean/Volume) or (CPU*GPU/Volume^2)
Regardless, I think my message went across. (Geometric Mean/Volume) or the mathematically equivalent (CPU*GPU/Volume^2) should be implemented to correctly represent performance per liter.
Referring to [USER=45]@theGryphon[/USER]'s suggestion, getting the geometric mean of 2 cpu and 2 gpu benchmarks over volume of a power of one would be a very nice and accurate measurement of performance per liter. I'm pretty much a noob to the sff community currently with a mid-end node 202 system(hoping to upgrade and downsize soon) but would there be significant difference between 2 different cpu/gpu benchmarks? I also imagine what benchmarks that are used (such as single/multi core cpu performance) would be a pretty contentious topic. I will concede to whatever the more experienced sffpc community chooses. However, I personally very strongly advise that in order to correctly measure PPL, the equations I proposed be implemented.
