Guys - a little constructive criticism on the article. First, dedicating 4 pages of the article to Power consumption is overkill. That is more than what was dedicated to frame-rates of Games. Second, Price/Performance analysis was missed. This is arguably more important to most people than efficiency, and it's an easy addition to what you already have. Third, overclocking is important. Sure, one press sample is just that, but gathering data points across the net gives users a good feel for general headroom. Finally, the meat of the article, the game tests, are just lacking. You tested fewer games at fewer resolutions than most other sites providing coverage for these cards. Sure, you are showing a bunch of different representations of the same data, but I would argue that most users are primarily looking at frame rates and then perhaps frame time variance. The new chart representation doesn't allow you to scan through the article looking at frame rates for resolutions you are interested in, you have to click through to the right picture to get what you want. Plus, those arrows hide some of the Y axis labels.
If you want to know who actually killed it today with the 980 and 970 coverage, it is Techpowerup. Those guys (or primarily, that one guy) really knocked it out of the park with their coverage of this release today.
If you want to know who actually killed it today with the 980 and 970 coverage, it is Techpowerup. Those guys (or primarily, that one guy) really knocked it out of the park with their coverage of this release today.