Meet The 2012 Graphics Charts: How We're Testing This Year

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
guiminer will perform better with some flags set. the premium Bitcoin mining software is cgminer.
Are you overclocking gpu and reducing voltages and ram clocks to get best performance?
very interested in bitcoin benchmarks 😀 good work :)
 
Is it me, or are these charts a heck of a lot more fun to look at when you are about to buy a high-end card? Not so much fun when you already have bought a "high-end" card from a generation or two back... You go from having one of the fastest cards out there, to having something that you have to keep scrolling down to find in the charts !!

And this happens so fast these days.. it seams like only yesterday I was installing my brand new HD 6970 thinking how fast it was... now it just gets decimated on the charts, lol !!!
 
While I generally agree with this logic on resolutions, most Tom's users don't use those nice high resolution monitors you picked as your base. Most users will likely increase their resolution by adding 2 or three 1920x1080 or lower resolution monitors with AMD ifinity or Nvidia surround to get odd resolutions like 5760x1080. I see those kind of resolutions being more common for the majority of users then the large single monitor resolutions you guys picked. Why are those 2 and 3 monitor extended resolutions not being considered? That doesn't make sense to me.
 
Taking a look at the chart, the HIS 7870 IceQ Turbo X and an HIS 7870 IceQ Turbo. What's the difference between the two since they both have the same exact benchmarks? Is it just a typo or a duplication of the same card?
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]More than likely, it's the sequence the German team picked that is less CPU-bound than other StarCraft II tests we've used.[/citation]
Yeah, scII can be cpu bound, that doesn't mean it always is. The number of players, map size and game length all affect the cpu/gpu ratio. Custom games, for example, where the supply caps have been removed are often able to take even the most powerful rigs to their knees. Adding units exponentially increases the amount of work the cpu must do, while the gpu scales fairly linearly since rendering 20 objects is almost exactly twice the amount of work as rendering 10.
 
Hey tom, can you give me the replay which you use to benchmark starcraft.
It would be useful for me to use it and see how well my laptop preforms.
People if you guys have any replays please send me .
Thanks
 
Why are people downrating my world of warcraft comment? You do realize it is pretty much the most popular game in the world, i understand its hard to do consistent benchmarks with it because of so many variables, but removing it entirely will cause you to lose viewers.

People who have never played it have no idea how taxing WoW can be on high end systems, and creating a baseline in a benchmarks allows you to equate that to how it would run with all ultra settings in a 25 man raid scenario (super duper high end rigs in SLI can drop to 40 FPS range in these scenarios, much more taxing than any other game on the market).

Even though the wow benchmarks toms do are unimportant to crucial scenarios (getting in the hundreds of FPS) it at least COMPARES cards to each other. Having wow benchmarks going forward is especially important NOW because of the new hardware from ATI and nvidia as well as the new expansion on the horizon and its new textures.

 
[citation][nom]quixoticism[/nom]I would have preferred to see all the benchmarks at 1920x1080 done with maxed out graphics settings.I want to see how the base performance is in games with full detail, and save the heavy AA and resolutions for extreme.[/citation]

Totally agree with this. People want to know what a certain card will do at max settings. Then if it is not as high as they would like, they can decide whether to turn down the settings, or get a better card.
 
[citation][nom]formatc[/nom]This are absolutelly identic cards. Same GPU, same clocks, identic PCB - but only another cooler[/citation]

Thanks. Now that I look at the temp and noise benchmarks, it makes more sense. Although, I think the two flipped on the Temp Load benchmark. IceQX shouldn't be 3C hotter than the IceQ.
 
in crysis2 , in DX11 mode, when object quality isset to "ultra", the game puts unnecessary very heavy tessalation on the game objects and the sea that cripples performance.

is that being taken into account?
 
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]while speaking of comparison chart complaints:-Some cards (though not all) show up as their name, others have a picture of the card with a sales link, and others give very little information at all. It would be nice to make this consistent so that at the top of each column we could see the pic (if available), the name of the card, and then a sales link (hey, you have to pay of the site somehow)-organize the comparison charts a little. On the comparison page it just throws all the charts together with no apparent rhyme or reason. It would be nice to have groupings such as physical considerations (temps, noise, and power usage), gpgpu benchmarks, and game benchmarks sorted either by game.-Could we add physical dimensions? It would be helpful to some to know how long a card is, and now many slots it takes.-lastly, under "02 - Unigine Heaven DirectX 11 Performance 1920x1080, 4xAA, AFx16 Shaders medium Tessellation normal" the "score in" has a blank spot to enter in text (pretty sure it should say 'FPS' here) followed by a broken "Go" link.None of these changes should be all that hard to make, and would make the charts much simpler to use when comparing specific cards.[/citation]
Just a heads-up that I've passed your feedback to the team in Germany and am hoping to see some tweaks based on it!
 
Looks great guys. Here are some thoughts.

Multi-Monitor Resolutions

I like the segmentation. However, perhaps add a "single continuum catagory" where all cards are subjected to all benchmarks @1080p, full graphics settings for a easy comparison between all cards in all segments.

 
I too would prefer it if you guys would use MAX settings at the 1920x1080 resolutions. I wouldn't want to buy a graphics card based on how well it does at high settings at 1920x1080; I want to buy a graphics card based on how well it does at MAX possible settings at 1920x1080. I mean, who doesn't want to play at maximum possible settings at a HD resolution of 1920x1080? It practically makes it not worth reading the reviews for those of us with a 1080p display.

PLEASE RECONSIDER.

Thanks
 
Whilst I like the rest of the setup, I would have thought it more useful to have 1680x1050 (low end monitor) and 1920x1200 as represented resolutions given how common they are compared to 720p and 1280x1024.

As mentioned above it would have also been nice to include at least one x3 resolution, probably x3 1920x1080.
 
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]What we also need are reviews of hardware providers' customer and tech supports.[/citation]
That would be awesome, but how would you benchmark it? If the RMA department is busy they are going to drag things out over a long period of time in order to make the books look like there are less RMAs on a month-to-month basis than there really are. If they happen to have a light load you are likely to get a quicker response. Plus people get so emotionally wrapped up in the RMA process. 2-3 weeks is a perfectly acceptable amount of time to process an RMA for a large company (big companies simply do not move quickly), and yet people get bent out of shape when they do not send the replacement part immediately. Simply too many variables involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom