Quote Originally Posted by Solus Corvus View Post
What I mean is that if you are calling AT's 2560x1600 numbers into question then you shouldn't claim the 1920x1200 numbers as vindication. Either use both the numbers or don't use either - accepting one number and denying the other because of personal expectations is cherry picking.
Sure I can. IMO, there is something wrong with their 2560 result. Why? Take this into consideration:

1680 -> 1920 = 540,000 pixels difference = 7.1 FPS drop

1920 -> 2560 = 1,792,000 pixels difference = 3.4 FPS drop


Their 1920 x 1200 results look good.