18
Taiji, on 03 October 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:
This is a pretty cool guide, I really like the efforts I see in the OP, but I have 2 points to pick up on.
--
Point 1: Not a useful guide for 120hz LCD/85hz CRT users
If you shelled out for a 120hz monitor then the minimum framerate you want is ~80+, because going above that will not make a discernable difference.
It's a common misconception that 60 fps is as good a framerate as average human eyes can benefit from - It stems from a misunderstanding of the biology of the eye. In fact people, most of them, will be able to tell the difference between 60 and 85.
So this guide could be improved to accommodate 120hz users who also have the money to make good use of their monitor, by listing the minimum FPS's above 60, which would mean that they too can be helped in deciding which card to go for.
--
Point 2: The benchies used in the OP are probably averages.
But averages aren't important - Gamers don't care about averages - It has nothing to do with the quality of gaming.
If the game runs at 20fps for 10 seconds and 80 fps for 50 seconds, then there were 4200 frames rendered in that minute, which gives an average of 70 fps but 10 seconds of nearly unplayable crap.
So the rule is never use averages without showing the essential minimums while comparing the relative merits of different cards.
--
By the way I think it's fine to leave the guide pretty much as it is - You can just make some mention about people using high performance screens, and about the benchies being unreliable. And that way you won't be risking misleading someone into buying the wrong ****.
Again, well done for making such a good guide, Vulpes. I can see you are a good community minded sort. I hope my criticism helps your future purchases make the difference you wanted
--
Point 1: Not a useful guide for 120hz LCD/85hz CRT users
If you shelled out for a 120hz monitor then the minimum framerate you want is ~80+, because going above that will not make a discernable difference.
It's a common misconception that 60 fps is as good a framerate as average human eyes can benefit from - It stems from a misunderstanding of the biology of the eye. In fact people, most of them, will be able to tell the difference between 60 and 85.
So this guide could be improved to accommodate 120hz users who also have the money to make good use of their monitor, by listing the minimum FPS's above 60, which would mean that they too can be helped in deciding which card to go for.
--
Point 2: The benchies used in the OP are probably averages.
But averages aren't important - Gamers don't care about averages - It has nothing to do with the quality of gaming.
If the game runs at 20fps for 10 seconds and 80 fps for 50 seconds, then there were 4200 frames rendered in that minute, which gives an average of 70 fps but 10 seconds of nearly unplayable crap.
So the rule is never use averages without showing the essential minimums while comparing the relative merits of different cards.
--
By the way I think it's fine to leave the guide pretty much as it is - You can just make some mention about people using high performance screens, and about the benchies being unreliable. And that way you won't be risking misleading someone into buying the wrong ****.
Again, well done for making such a good guide, Vulpes. I can see you are a good community minded sort. I hope my criticism helps your future purchases make the difference you wanted
1. 120hz; As it stands, there is currently no GPU capable of pulling an average FPS above ~65fps in Crysis 2 at 1080p (Therefore CryEngine 3, and by default in all likelyhood MWO.) I had originally planned to include it, but the highest FPS out there for the engine is just under 100fps at 1280x800 on a geforce GTX 680.
As my frames per second posting would be only having two occurrences at this time of 90+fps, I could post that as an update, however I had hoped to wait for the next tier at 120fps.
As for minimums, I can update them with that. However, I decided to use Techpowerup!'s benches as they are the review site I trust the most, and I feel they do the best in-depth review spanning over more titles, although due to the minimum frames per second is lacking with their site, I would have to find another site which I trust as much. Sadly there isn't one at this time that runs minimum FPS and I trust nearly as much. Though I do view other sites whenever they come out with reviews. TPU also has a better comparison chart, which most other sites lack.
Aside from this, most people who are reading this review will be running off of 60hz monitors anyhow, as such it doesn't matter quite as much. Though it is a valid point still. I would have to say I'm glad though, usually I have to argue the worth of above 30fps to people.
Az0r, on 03 October 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:
It's actually not purely Dx9 titles. WoW now supports DX11 and is still CPU bottlenecked. Like most situations when buying/building a PC, doing your own research on the titles you play will give you the best performance for your dollar.
WoW is CPU bottlenecked partly due to it's older engine, but it also has not had a large coding improvement. CryENGINE 3 is able to supoort up to 8 threads off a CPU naturally, and the implementation of DX11 pulls off CPU strain. WoW, due to it's older engine, is only able to implement two threads, even with the CPU benefits of DX11, there will be that lack of support by the parallelism in place that newer engines like CryENGINE 3 have. CryENGINE 3 is actually more CPU intensive than WoW's, however it has better programming and optimization.
