????Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_d
Wonder what the clocks on that are....?Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
Printable View
????Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_d
Wonder what the clocks on that are....?Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
metro and deus ex at 1600pQuote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost...&postcount=666
Umm,,, that is exactly what i was afraid of. Minimum FPS sucks badly. Lets hope thats the fresh drivers issue and not Nvidias new dynamic OC issue. Avg FPS says nothing. Minimum FPS is what counts.
I don't understand, it still beats the 7970 at 1600p in most games by the looks of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_d
Minimum fps is a worthless statistic that tells you absolutely nothing about what it's like to play on the system. If you have one slowdown it completely bogs the result and will show that system a is worse than system b, yet system b could be in microshuttering hell and you'd never know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristoferr
Metro may have PhysX enabled, so that one we can't call (same result of falling back at 1920x1080 too). Deus Ex, one title it only matches the 7970 in instead of trouncing it, does not mean the card is "out of gas" at all. You're ignoring the rest of the info saying that. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5072349Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_d
Both are important... I'm thinking more toward drivers though. Radeon 7970 has had a couple of months worth of new ones and probably eked out what it's going to performance-wise... GTX 680 is just coming out. Nvidia got some nice gains on the 5xx series, so I'm betting soon enough we'll see some boosts for 6xx as well. Speculation on my part, of course, but it seems sensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristoferr
more
http://www.abload.de/img/1c8iu6.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/29vidr.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/11rleim.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/12ykf61.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/135yeeu.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/14i3fp8.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/1589fuj.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/3tsfhy.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/41lcpm.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/5m1fqx.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/6qscv0.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/739e2n.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/8ivcji.png
http://www.abload.de/img/9cleee.png
http://www.abload.de/img/10kvfqh.png
http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulle...postcount=7521
Didn't they rip out all the GPGPU stuff in the 680 to win the die size, perf/watt, and other combos that come with that? I don't think its a big deal, just a strange move from Nvidia since all of their old X80 cards were crazy GPGPU.
Im not even going to make counter argument to this . You are just so wrong and i think you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Fussion
All of those benchmarks are pretty solid, 7970 did win random ones at 2560 which may/may not confirm the 2GB issue. We'll see what happens when someone starts pushing this and a 7970 on LN2 :D
I doubt it has anything to do with boost, AMD cards take the same min fps hit at the same time in the runs as the Nvidia cards and AMD has no boost to blame it on and if it where drivers is it not strange they both have the same exact issue with the same part of the game causing the fps drop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristoferr
very good in old games like far cry 2 , battlefield 2 and such not so in modern ones weird arch
Minimum FPS tells you how consistent the framerate is between the highest and lowest frames during a section of the game. If the minimum framerate is lower, it means that the game slows down more, and that is never good. You always want the minimum framerate to be as high as possible. That ensures a smooth gameplay experience throughout. As a metric of performance, it tells you how well your system copes with the data load in the most intense conditions in that said scene.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Fussion
Basically, you're dead wrong.
Yes, but you are missing the key point here. The cap betweeen GTX 680 max FPS vs min FPS is huge, compared to AMD card. Thats why im thinking that GPU boost is not quick enought to react. Average FPS just makes GTX to look better card, but min FPS tells the different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
So far the GTX 680 performs close to the 7970, if not faster only about 5%. I wonder how the real flagship card will perform, which is the one I will get.
We were talking about an outrageously clocked 7970 Lightning at some point. I just stumbled across one on LN2 http://www.techpowerup.com/162729/MS...Hz-Memory.html
Minimum FPS are not very useful. If you have a benchmark that is 120s long and the framerate dips exactly once quite low on card A and not so low on card B, what does that tell you about general playability?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
It would be much better to do something like the FEAR 1 benchmark, for example:
x% above 40
y% between 25 and 40
z% below 25
This way, you weigh the frequency of occurence of specific fps or fps intervals rathern than take only one single value that may very well have been an unrepeatable error.
Look at the min fps hit in Batman, the 680 takes the big hit once early on in the run while over the rest of the run performed very strong, you can't reasonably base a decision about game play on one instance in the entire run. If it where repeatedly hitting min fps sure it would be an issue.
http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=3pquf8.jpg
You're kidding right, the average fps "is" what makes the 680 a better card, what percentage of your gameplay do you spend at min fps overall...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristoferr
^early driver issues?
Thats wrong again. Min fps above 35 is what makes my gaming experience acceptable. Everything above it is not important since human eye can not tell the difference while using IPS screens like i do. Average fps is completely useless stat for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
^ The one who is wrong is you. avg fps factor in the fps during the whole benchmark, min fps only a fraction of a second. This is hardly relevant.
Correct. +1 it's useful to look at the timelapse but a single # for minimum isn't always terribly relevant. It's useful info but not what you should base off of.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
So a card that dips to 20 fps once but is above 40 otherwise is worse than a card that dips to 35 often? You need to do some sort of "average time spent below x fps" analysis to get the true minimum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristoferr
Well, end of discussion from me. I made my point clear and we just have different opinions here. What matters to me, doesnt matter to you.
trinibwoy, I choose my card and game settings based on one thing only. In no point of time, FPS can not fall below 35 when i play. Simple as that. :)
Overall im happy about 500$ price tag. That should make the card i want cheaper too perhaps. Thats 7870, what im hoping to get soon.