A minimum average framerate petition Edit:HTML Graphs!! Anand's still might be watching. Keep it going!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

Toro 45

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
4,263
0
76
I like the idea.I remember when Tribes2 came out eveyone was having trouble getting decent frames.Some were claiming 80fps indoors but outdoors or in a heavy battle it could drop to 23fps instantly.I remember trying several different video cards & always watching for the minimum frames because that is when the game would lag badly.

Toro
 
W

Woodchuck2000

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2002
1,632
1
0
You know If I were Anand, I'd be pissed off at that thread title...
There have got to be better channels in which to make suggestions about reviewing methodology.

Just as a general point though;
As I see it, the point of a graphics card review is to show the potential of a card. Tests like 3DMark, Flybys and Timedemos (run on interactive engines such as Q3A and UT2K3) show what a card is capable of in a well-known, repeatable environment. The tests are repeated then averaged (mean) to smooth over any hiccups.

You all seem to be interested in minimum frame rates becuase when you're playing a game, the frame rate is most noticeable when it dips. The problem is that everyday gaming is not a repeatable or consistent environment.

Even if minimum frame rates were given in reviews, what would that tell you? Since the conditions under which the benchmarks are being run are non-interactive, they would have little bearing on the minimum frame rates you could expect in a game.

A review is designed to give a repeatable indication of the potential of a system/component. Once the component(s) in question are set loose in the real world a whole host of other factors influence things like the FPS (min and max.) Including minimum frame rates in a review would tell us nothing about expected real-world performance and nothing about the potential of the component(s) in question. They aren't included in reviews because they are more work for the tester and reveal little, if anything, about a system's performance.

 
D

Dug

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2000
3,469
6
81
Just as a general point though;
As I see it, the point of a graphics card review is to show the potential of a card. Tests like 3DMark, Flybys and Timedemos (run on interactive engines such as Q3A and UT2K3) show what a card is capable of in a well-known, repeatable environment. The tests are repeated then averaged (mean) to smooth over any hiccups.

You all seem to be interested in minimum frame rates becuase when you're playing a game, the frame rate is most noticeable when it dips. The problem is that everyday gaming is not a repeatable or consistent environment.

Even if minimum frame rates were given in reviews, what would that tell you? Since the conditions under which the benchmarks are being run are non-interactive, they would have little bearing on the minimum frame rates you could expect in a game.

A review is designed to give a repeatable indication of the potential of a system/component. Once the component(s) in question are set loose in the real world a whole host of other factors influence things like the FPS (min and max.) Including minimum frame rates in a review would tell us nothing about expected real-world performance and nothing about the potential of the component(s) in question. They aren't included in reviews because they are more work for the tester and reveal little, if anything, about a system's performance.
Click to expand...


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Because you can't duplicate real game play in a benchmark.

 
D

Darien

Platinum Member
Feb 27, 2002
2,817
1
0
Mmm...fish...

sushi while looking at lotsa graphs...

...a dream come true for a geek!

I'm in.
 
D

Daovonnaex

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2001
1,952
0
0
Anand OUGHT to be watching this, but he's probably not.

Anyhow, I officially "sign" this petition.

Daovonnaex (assume that's in fine cursive)
 
E

element

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,635
0
0
Excellent idea. I'm in.

And for those of you against this, is my understanding correct that this will be in addition to, and not instead of, the current avg FPS benchmarks? If so, those that are against this can just ignore these numbers.

I would like to see it though.
 
B

Bovinicus

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2001
3,145
0
0
You know If I were Anand, I'd be pissed off at that thread title...
There have got to be better channels in which to make suggestions about reviewing methodology.

Just as a general point though;
As I see it, the point of a graphics card review is to show the potential of a card. Tests like 3DMark, Flybys and Timedemos (run on interactive engines such as Q3A and UT2K3) show what a card is capable of in a well-known, repeatable environment. The tests are repeated then averaged (mean) to smooth over any hiccups.

You all seem to be interested in minimum frame rates becuase when you're playing a game, the frame rate is most noticeable when it dips. The problem is that everyday gaming is not a repeatable or consistent environment.

Even if minimum frame rates were given in reviews, what would that tell you? Since the conditions under which the benchmarks are being run are non-interactive, they would have little bearing on the minimum frame rates you could expect in a game.

A review is designed to give a repeatable indication of the potential of a system/component. Once the component(s) in question are set loose in the real world a whole host of other factors influence things like the FPS (min and max.) Including minimum frame rates in a review would tell us nothing about expected real-world performance and nothing about the potential of the component(s) in question. They aren't included in reviews because they are more work for the tester and reveal little, if anything, about a system's performance.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. This is because a lot of reviews are comparing the card in question to the competition. The same situation must be repeated if a good comparison is to be drawn between the two. As well, reviewers have the capability to make demos in which the action is more intense than most anyone will ever come across. This means they can show a pretty good estimation as to what the minimum FPS will be. True, there is no exact science to tell people what performance they will get, but when is there? The systems they used in reviews are very high-end. Most people do not own systems of that caliber, so their performance will be totally different right from the start. The point of reviews is to compare various pieces of hardware to other pieces of hardware available on the market. This can still be done with minimum FPS taken into account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom