We're really re-hashing this again, I just want to point out that the term average is a discrete value so you have some funky stuff going on here with the "average" being 15-23%, just to remind you, average is not a range - it is a discrete absolute value.
I know you love AMD, and that's cool, but you're continuing to put them in the best light possible. I don't understand WHY you're doing this, but at the same time, there is nothing wrong with that. Hey, we all have our preferences. I like nvidia is far better because of intangible factors and features. You like AMD. Whatever man, that's how some roll, nothing wrong with it. But I don't agree with your assessment at all. I mean, i'm looking at overclocked 290X reviews at Guru3d, hardwarecanucks, pcper, techpowerup, and hardocp and they are most CERTAINLY not averaging 23% faster for overclocked 290X cards. In fact, like I said, the definition of the word "average" is not a range. It is a discrete absolute value. So that brings up problem number one with your claim.
Furthermore, there are numerous reviews at the websites that were aforementioned and their scaling ranged from 6-10% above stock. 6-10% faster than Titan and 6-10% above stock. 6-10 % is not 23%. Now we have a pickle here, huh? The stock 290X is even with Titan or within 1%. 6-10% above stock is certainly not 23%. An average is a discrete value, I should remind you.
How about we do this. Which websites do you look at? I look at techpowerup, hardwarecanucks, hardocp, pcper, and guru3d. Like I said. Aftermarket 780s overclocked basically blow away the overclocked 290X at the above websites. I don't know what kind of funky stuff your'e doing to think that a "range" of values is an average, that violates the definition of the word average itself, or what websites you're looking at.
I'll tell you what we CAN do. With all due respect, I think your assessment is wrong. I do not think Hawaii overclocks that well. But, if you want to debate this further, you suggest which of the above review sites *I* mentioned that you like. Look at my list. And you can suggest your own. Maybe we'll do a sample of 10 or something. Because I think your assessment, no offense, is wack. Then we can look at overclock values and do some absolute math without an "average" suddenly being a range of values. Like I said, a range violates the definition of "average".
So you suggest the review websites that you like, not including kitguru (AMD sponsored and only tests AMD GE games). I like the above websites because they test a mix of both games sponsored by both nvidia and AMD. I already named mine. And we'll look into this further. My list again is HardOCP, PCPer, hardwarecanucks, guru3d, techpowerup. All of these websites test a wide variety of games that aren't necessarily all AMD aligned. Unlike kitguru. You name which review sites out of above you like. And suggest your own. Then we'll agree to a testing methodology.
