I posted a HardOCP link, and this is what the reviewer said:
Looking at the graph, the 5870 Crossfire set up plunges below the 30 FPS mark an inordinate amount of times.You can see that we were really pushing these video cards very hard in this game with these framerates, but I have to say that GTX 480 SLI was the most playable, you could really feel the difference. In fact, I would say that 2X AA at 2560x1600 with all Enthusiast settings is playable on GTX 480 SLI here, but not on the Radeon HD 5870 CrossFireX.
Correcting a false assumption and defending the 480s performance aren't the same thing..
Exactly! Gameplay experience with the 480 in Crysis is just much better than the 5870 no doubt about it.
HardOCP typically gives the most accurate results when it comes to benchmarks, as you can see the entire range of results over a specific period of time rather than just a mere snapshot.I also never noticed that graph's Crysis warhead performance for the GTX 480, graph must be a fake considering I have tested it myself and thats not the case.
I wish more reviewers used their method.




Somehow with Fermi failing in every other department, minimums are now all the rage with certain users. That's a single data point, you need graphs like HardOCP to check how badly each card is fluctuating. If the 5870 had very low minimums time and again that would drag the average down. Graphs will show the minimum as well as the overall trend in fps which is a lot more useful than a single data point. It also really depends on which review you sight, here the 5870 is ahead.
Get tired of seeing carfax defend a 480's performance in every thread
Reply With Quote

Bookmarks