The Ultimate Guide/TOOL to help determine ideal Price/Performance!

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
***UPDATE: changed my recommended values from 1.7x to 1.4x-1.6x... I may crunch the numbers in the comparison part again, but they shouldn't stray too far from their current values.

***UPDATE 2: check this out!: http://www.yougamers.com/hardw...ormance/?mainnavi=true


***UPDATE 3: some slight refinements and additions here and there.

The following is a guide and tool to help you determine the ideal price/performance ratio amongst video cards (although it could just as easily be used for CPU's, etc.; anything that follows a Moore's Law-esque progressive rate):



So, if card A is 50fps and card B is 75fps (a 50% increase in performance), but costs 50% more money, then it's NOT worth the added cost; in fact, I argue that you are actually paying MORE for LESS (even though they both yield the same fps/$ figure and card B performs 50% better). Thanks to progress/Moore's Law, we should get MORE performance for the SAME amount of money (well, including inflation). So, in terms of Moore's law, the performance/cost ratio between generations should always be about (going by theoretical performance) 2:1. So, in other words, if card A is 50fps and card B is 70-90fps of real-world performance or more and costs not significantly more... it's worth it! Anything less performance-wise/anything more cost-wise is probably not worth it (unless of course you need it for a specific application). So, a 1% increase in price should improve --theoretical-- performance by 2% to be worth it; 'theoretical' as in meaning an increase in say stream processors or clock speed, rather than real-world performance measured using framerate, which will always be lower... 70-90% real-world performance compared to theoretical specs is a pretty good range to expect. If assuming an 85% efficiency (which might be a little optimistic) over a 2x theoretical performance upgrade, one can expect a performance boost of 1.7x. This is the figure I chose to go with because I put a focus on value, but a more conservative estimate might be in the 1.4x-1.6x range. In fact, based on a fair bit of statistical analysis between generations, I conclude that a 1.5x average increase in real-world performance seems to occur (this is based on the averages of several benchmarks looking at 7800gtx- 8800gtx- gtx 280).

To go into more detail, one way to determine the price/performance ratio is to divide the framerate by the price-- a higher relative number is better. To compare the price/performance ratio between two cards always only compare within the same exact benchmark! So, say if card A is rated 0.5 (fps divided by price; e.g., 50fps and costs $100) and card B is rated the same (0.5, e.g., 100fps, $200), even though card B has a higher actual framerate, you'd think it would be better because they have the same performance/price ratio, but it's not because it costs more. This is because although its performance is 100% higher, its price is also 100% higher! Card B has a 1:1 ratio of increase vs Card A. Remember, we should be getting MORE (performance) for the SAME money OR, SAME performance for LESS money (not same for the same, which is a poor 1:1 ratio)-- imagine every time you walked into a computer store and said you wanted a higher performing CPU they said it would cost more (not counting inflation), like if at one point you wanted a 2GHz CPU and it cost $200, and then the next generation CPU came out (with twice the performance, say achieved with twice the clock speed) and you came in and the new 4GHz CPU cost $400...! This is a 1:1 ratio of increase. Soon, no one could (or would want to) buy anything! So, a truly good buy/deal/upgrade (of course depending on your applications/needs) compared to card A in this example would have a (real world) fps/price rating of about 0.85 (vs 0.5, or 1.7x higher) or higher for the same price, or a theoretical spec or performance/price rating of 1.0 or better (if you're too lazy to look at benchmarks :p). So, card A with a lower actual framerate has a better price/performance ratio than Card B even though they both might be rated 0.5 (price divided by framerate). This kind of thinking, that double the performance is worth double the money, has led to the huge and hugely expensive monster cards of today and accordingly crappy price/performance ratios of these ultra high-end cards (*cough GTX 280 *cough-- especially at its launch price, yikes!). Interestingly, you can also relate this thinking to power consumption trends as well (like performance/watt). Although, certainly you can find poor examples of price/performance at the low-end too (or nearly anywhere in the spectrum of cards/prices). Take, for example, the current 9500 GT; with at most 1/3 the performance level of the 4670 for about the same price... that's terrible value! To make a very vague, general statement, typically the ideal price/performance ratio is in the $75-200 range.

------------------------------------

---Now, take a look at some rather limited real-world examples (dated December 2008); compare the 4670 for $61 to the more expensive, higher performing card, 4850 for $130, divide that by the price of the lower end, cheaper card, 4670 for $61= 2.13, turn that into a percentage-- which is 113% (how much more expensive it is) multiply that number by at least 1.7x (to compare real-world fps) and you should arrive at how much, at least, better (real-world) performing the 4850 would have to be to be considered a worthy upgrade; therefore, the 4850 ought to perform at least 192% better (or 2.92x better) than the 4670... but, instead, it only performs almost twice as well-- for more than twice the price, a worse than even a 1:1 ratio (36fps vs 66fps). But even if the 4850 cost only $120 and did actually perform twice as well, it would still only be a very poor 1:1 performance/price ratio.

---Let's look at the 9500gt for $57 compared to the 4670 for $61. Take 61 divided by 57= a price difference of 1.07x or 7% more; so multiply the 7 by 1.7x and you find that it should perform at least 12% better than the 9500gt to be a worthy upgrade. Take 53fps (4670) divided by 20fps (9500gt) and you see that it in fact performs 2.65x or 165% better! Obscenely good value!

---Now let's look at the 4830 for $100, vs the 4670: a price difference of 1.64x or 64% more. So multiply 1.7x this amount and we find that it should perform at least 109% better (2.09x) to justify the price increase. In fact, it performs 34.4fps vs 25.5fps for the 4670, only 1.35x better (35% better), or, put another way, the amount of increase in its performance is only a fraction of what it should at least be (it should at least be 53fps) to be a worthy upgrade over the 4670.

---Now let's check out the 3650 $55 vs the 4670 ($61): a price difference of 1.11x or 11% higher. So, 1.7x 11%= 18.7% higher performance to be a worthy upgrade. The 3650 gets 20fps vs 53fps for the 4670, it performs 2.65x better (sound familiar? yes, the 3650 was competing against the 9500gt last generation) or 165% better performance! Compare this with the fact that to be a worthy upgrade, despite the price increase, it would only have to perform 18.7% higher! Which is to say that it performs 8.8x better than what would be considered the minimally acceptable increase in performance relative to its increased price! This is a performance/price ratio of 15:1 over the 3650!!! Which is to say that for every 1% increase in price from the 3650's price, you get a 15% increase in performance with the 4670! Which is like upgrading FOUR generations at once (and for only $6!!!)-- you could perhaps argue that that's like going from a geforce 4 to a geforce 8 in terms of the theoretical value/performance ratio offered. A big part of why this is the case is because of the fierce competition between ATI and NVIDIA (with ATI being mostly responsible for the hard downward pressure on prices for the relative performance). But now you know why these companies spend SO MUCH on trying to convince people that their high-end/poor performance-price cards are worth it.

You may want to adjust the desired minimum ratio to higher or lower than 1.7x, but I don't recommend going much lower than this amount in order to offer a truly compelling value/performance for your upgrade (1.4x-1.6x or higher is the recommended minimum range-- increase according to how much value you would like to see for your dollar/upgrade depending on application).

The 9600gso has worse performance for the same or higher money, the 9600gt is a terrible buy at $100, so is the 3870 also at $100, the 9800gt is competitive with the 4830 at the same price point (~$100) and offers similar performance, which is to say that even they both have poor performance/price ratios vs the 4670. And of course all higher-end cards such as the 4870 and gtx 260 at $300+ offer far worse value.

Essentially, the 4670 is a genius buy, especially because it shifts the optimal performance/price point down to the $60 mark. Amazing! And ya gotta admit that the fact that a $60 card can play crysis on stock High and average 26fps at 1280x1024 is pretty darn impressive. ;) FYI: 4670= slightly better than 8800gs performance for MUCH less.

Looking at dual card solutions, if we take a 2x 4850 (crossfire) solution, it will offer better performance/price ratio than a single gtx 280, 260, or even 4870 (although a practical consequence of this, of course, means that if your needs change, you cannot add another card). However, from a purely performance/price ratio, ALL crossfire/SLI solutions are poor as they all offer about 0.7:1 ratios (not even the already poor 1:1) at best compared to the original first card (i.e., they can only boost performance by 70% at best, usually, and obviously always less than 100%, which is 1:1). However, if you upgrade and add a second card later when prices have dramatically fallen, it may very well make good price/performance sense.

-------------------------------------

Another good reason to not exceed the curve of the rate of progress (performance/price over time) is that if you reach ahead of the curve now (say going for a 4830 or 9800gt), you are not only getting truly lousy value today, but when the next generation comes out, you will have to at least stay at the same point ahead of the curve to experience that nice up to ~2x performance increase-- thus starting a trend of continuously bad performance for your dollar every time you upgrade. To figure out if it's worth upgrading from your current card, you simply use the price you originally paid for it and compare it with the price/performance of the new card. If it isn't around the 1.4:1 or higher range, then don't upgrade (though depending upon your needs). And of course, ideally you would compare performance using fully identical benchmarks and hardware/setup.

Limitations of this guide include that it assumes an identical feature set between cards; this is usually not the case. Another is that it fails to take into account the relevant applications that you intend to use your card for. If, for example, you need game x to run at an average smooth framerate of 35fps+ and that is all you intend to use it for, then anything significantly above this performance level is irrelevant (as is that which is significantly lower); and, certainly, try to look at benchmarks with similar settings and resolutions with what you'll be using.

Finally, it is worth noting that upgrading less than once every generation (defined roughly as a doubling in theoretical performance) is a good way to improve your performance/price ratio even further and to even get MORE for LESS (rather than just more for the same amount of money)! That is to say that by waiting another generation, one can improve the ratio to 2x-2.56x from 1.4x-1.6x for the same amount of money. To put it into perspective, upgrading once every generation (which seems to yield an average of a 1.5x increase in real-world performance) is like going from 30fps to 45fps (1.5x), so it doesn't make a particularly compelling argument (unless of course your favourite game is stuttering and you don't mind shelling out); however, upgrading once every other generation is like going from 30fps to 67.5fps (1.5x1.5= 2.25x). So, if this is your strategy shoot for at least 2.2x (slightly below average to give you a guaranteed minimum performance increase). I should also note, however, that all games are designed to be run on several different performance levels, so a 2.2x difference may not necessarily change what games you can and cannot play, therefore, you may want to upgrade every third generation (yielding 101fps; 67.5x1.5). Upgrading ever third generation is probably the limit at which you can maintain your ability to play all or most games between each upgrade (e.g., 3 years), depending upon other hardware too, of course.

PLEASE NOTE: Even if your "needs" fall at a lower-value performance/price ratio (i.e., you need higher-performing cards), then please still at least take away from this guide the underlying principle that 1:1 is bad value. Even at your higher performance level, you can still use the principles/methods here to help determine the best performance/price ratio FOR YOU.

PLEASE READ my first post on page 5 of the thread before posting, thanks. When the formatting is ambiguous, my responses are listed in bold. If your question/criticism is the same as has already been raised and responded to, I will not bother responding. Thanks :)

----

We're done here, folks. And with that, allow me to say a few things:

djayjp: Amber asked you to stop namecalling, only for you to call garritynet "pathetic". We have rules for good reason, and no one is to be above that (not even the mods). Regardless of what other people do, it is never appropriate for you to break the rules; "but he started it" has no standing here, you should always be on your best behavior. For future reference please follow instructions from the moderators, I do not expect we'll give you a warning in the future.

Furthermore in accordance with the needs of community, I must ask you to deeply rethink your guide. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, opinions become problems when they are consistently bad advice. As others have correctly pointed out, this guide is bad advice because it takes only in to consideration a few factors, fewer than need to be considered, resulting in a bad recommendation. What you want to do is noble and I completely understand where you want to go, but the product does not match the intentions. Please do not repost this guide.

The rest of you: I'm writing down names and you know who you are. Just because the op is giving bad advice, does not give you the right to treat him poorly - these are things I should not need to tell you.

-ViRGE
 

Golgatha

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,649
1,508
126
If all anyone cared about was game FPS price/performance ratios, we'd all have 9800 GT/GTX or 4850 cards and 22in 1680x1050 displays. If someone was running a 24in high resolution display and wanted to game on it, they'd be wasting their money on anything less than a card capable of the panel's native resolution at 30FPS or more in the games they wanted to play.
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Originally posted by: Golgatha
If all anyone cared about was game FPS price/performance ratios, we'd all have 9800 GT/GTX or 4850 cards and 22in 1680x1050 displays. If someone was running a 24in high resolution display and wanted to game on it, they'd be wasting their money on anything less than a card capable of the panel's native resolution at 30FPS or more in the games they wanted to play.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you were trying to say with your first sentence (?). If you read the post, you'll see that I think those cards offer very poor price/performance ratios.

As for your second point, I absolutely agree and that point (regarding the intended application) was made in the post.
 

I4AT

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2006
2,629
1
76
Card A costs $1 and nets you 5fps. Card B costs $100 and nets you 45fps. Which do you choose?
 

LOUISSSSS

Diamond Member
Dec 5, 2005
8,771
54
91
i'm not sure all that math was necessary. people will still not be doing the math for every video card prior to buying one. people will still buy what everyone else is buying (4850 etc) for most acceptable performance/$$. in your conclusion of the 4850, you say the 4670 is a better deal that it cost x times cheaper and performers y times worse. but people still need higher performance cards to satisfy their needs.
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
i'm not sure all that math was necessary. people will still not be doing the math for every video card prior to buying one. people will still buy what everyone else is buying (4850 etc) for most acceptable performance/$$. in your conclusion of the 4850, you say the 4670 is a better deal that it cost x times cheaper and performers y times worse. but people still need higher performance cards to satisfy their needs.

You're absolutely right about people's needs-- I made that point in the post. I still think you'd be surprised at how many gamers would be satisfied (i.e., meets their needs) by a card like the 4670.
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Originally posted by: I4AT
Card A costs $1 and nets you 5fps. Card B costs $100 and nets you 45fps. Which do you choose?

Well..., since card B costs 10,000% more, it should perform 17,000% better, or give you an fps of 8,500! You see what this example shows (despite using unrealistic example cards), is the HUUUGE performance increase you can expect FOR FREE between generations and staying on the optimal place on the tech curve.

Really though, you will not find such cards in the real world, so it's kinda irrelevant; if anything, it demonstrates that the $1 card is INSANE value! Any gfx company would kill to have that kind of performance in a $1 card (as essentially it would be technology from the future, relatively speaking, of course compared to the other card ;)
 

I4AT

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2006
2,629
1
76
lol, I just tend to go with the cheapest card I can get that will run the games I'm currently playing well enough. Performance per dollar and performance per watt can be considered when making a purchase, but it shouldn't be your rule of thumb.
 

kpo6969

Member
Jul 31, 2007
89
0
0
Originally posted by: djayjp
Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
i'm not sure all that math was necessary. people will still not be doing the math for every video card prior to buying one. people will still buy what everyone else is buying (4850 etc) for most acceptable performance/$$. in your conclusion of the 4850, you say the 4670 is a better deal that it cost x times cheaper and performers y times worse. but people still need higher performance cards to satisfy their needs.

You're absolutely right about people's needs-- I made that point in the post. I still think you'd be surprised at how many gamers would be satisfied (i.e., meets their needs) by a card like the 4670.
http://www.yougamers.com/hardw...utmv=-&__utmk=66494126
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Originally posted by: kpo6969
Originally posted by: djayjp
Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
i'm not sure all that math was necessary. people will still not be doing the math for every video card prior to buying one. people will still buy what everyone else is buying (4850 etc) for most acceptable performance/$$. in your conclusion of the 4850, you say the 4670 is a better deal that it cost x times cheaper and performers y times worse. but people still need higher performance cards to satisfy their needs.

You're absolutely right about people's needs-- I made that point in the post. I still think you'd be surprised at how many gamers would be satisfied (i.e., meets their needs) by a card like the 4670.
http://www.yougamers.com/hardw...utmv=-&__utmk=66494126


kpo6969... you are the man! Nice find! See, I knew the 4670 had the best bang for the buck! The 3850 and the 4670 are nearly identical in price and performance!!! In fact, the 4670 is significantly faster for the same or less money! Also, the 4670 absolutely destroys the 8600gt/s in both absolute price AND performance... FAR more so than that graph would suggest. I'm surprised all that number crunching ended up with an accurate prediction! They probably don't have the 4670 listed yet cuz it's too new (and of course it depends upon the price in retailers, etc., I used newegg.com). And I guess the 4830 isn't listed cuz it's also too new (?). So, yeah, you COULD crunch all those numbers..., or just go to that site :p ;)

check this out!:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3405&p=6
 

Phew

Senior member
May 19, 2004
477
0
0
It's not that complicated. Buy the cheapest card that will give you >30 fps at the native resolution of your monitor in the games you want to play.
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Originally posted by: Phew
It's not that complicated. Buy the cheapest card that will give you >30 fps at the native resolution of your monitor in the games you want to play.

Well, you're right... if money is no object! ;) Otherwise, even if you do go for a higher-end part (even though it's bad value strictly-speaking), you can at least find out how far ahead of the curve you are getting with my method, in terms of performance/dollar.
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
Originally posted by: I4AT
Card A costs $1 and nets you 5fps. Card B costs $100 and nets you 45fps. Which do you choose?

That is an easy one, Card B! ;)

Actually, Card A is waaaaaaay better! See my third post (post 7).

But yeah, card B is only 9x better, but costs 100x more! A performance/price ratio of only 0.09:1!!!
 

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
I think the idea is great, except the method and formula is inherently faulty as far as consumer decisions go. Take for example 3850/4670 vs 9600GSO:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...review-point-of-view/8

According to the review above, 9600GSO provides significantly better FPS than 3850 despite roughly similar cost, for Call of Duty 4. If the customer is only interested in CoD4, then the results from the chart in OP is somewhat irrelevant to his decision. The chart's data is factors in too many games that many gamers consider irrelevant. I think the OP's chart is a "view from 30,000ft above". It doesn't show some important details like game choices and market segment.

Again, a video card purchase decision should come in by, market segment (low, mid, high), screen resolution (which really is more about market segment too), and preferred game choices. Not super chart of "over all" value.
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Originally posted by: razor2025
I think the idea is great, except the method and formula is inherently faulty as far as consumer decisions go. Take for example 3850/4670 vs 9600GSO

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3405&p=6

4670>3850

performance comparison between 4670 and 9600gso:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3405&p=7

Regarding the 9600gso, the gddr3 version retails for at least $105; the 4670 retails for $61. 4670 has significantly greater performance than the 3850. According to the formula (revised it would be 1.5x, though personally I now think 2.2x is more optimal), since 9600gso costs 72% more, its performance should at the very least be 108% higher to justify the greater cost. Case closed. ;)

And what is this "chart in OP" that you refer to? If I will make a leap and assume you are talking about overall performance (?). I don't see such a chart on the link you posted.

And for sure a big part of one's decision should be based on the intended application, but the "intended application" is usually constantly changing regarding games and users upgrade frequently, thus some kind of overall performance stat is required to make an informed decision (also to help predict future overall performance). The purpose of this method is to determine where one stands on the price/performance curve and how much one is either gaining or losing each and everytime one upgrades. It also crucially argues that simply taking the dollar value and dividing by FPS is flawed on its own and that you can't say that getting 100% more performance is worth 100% more money.
 

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,300
23
81
Originally posted by: djayjp
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
Originally posted by: I4AT
Card A costs $1 and nets you 5fps. Card B costs $100 and nets you 45fps. Which do you choose?

That is an easy one, Card B! ;)

Actually, Card A is waaaaaaay better! See my third post (post 7).

But yeah, card B is only 9x better, but costs 100x more! A performance/price ratio of only 0.09:1!!!

The one flaw with your logic is that there has to be a certain minimum performance variable in there somewhere.

In the example above, Card A is worthless (not even worth $1) because it won't give you playable framerate (5 fps is a slideshow at best). I4AT was pretty much kidding with you on the prices, just to make a point.

What most people do is what Phew pointed out: buy the cheapest card that gives at least a certain level of performance. The reason people buy GTX 280 or 4870X2 (or two) is because for the games they're playing, at the chosen screen resolution, they need that much graphics processing power to run smooth frame rates. So it doesn't matter that the $/fps ratio is crap compared to a 4670 because the cheaper card simply won't perform at the required level (ie a 4670 is not going to run Crysis at 2560x1600 on very high).
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Originally posted by: Denithor
Originally posted by: djayjp
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
Originally posted by: I4AT
Card A costs $1 and nets you 5fps. Card B costs $100 and nets you 45fps. Which do you choose?

That is an easy one, Card B! ;)

Actually, Card A is waaaaaaay better! See my third post (post 7).

But yeah, card B is only 9x better, but costs 100x more! A performance/price ratio of only 0.09:1!!!

The one flaw with your logic is that there has to be a certain minimum performance variable in there somewhere.

In the example above, Card A is worthless (not even worth $1) because it won't give you playable framerate (5 fps is a slideshow at best). I4AT was pretty much kidding with you on the prices, just to make a point.

What most people do is what Phew pointed out: buy the cheapest card that gives at least a certain level of performance. The reason people buy GTX 280 or 4870X2 (or two) is because for the games they're playing, at the chosen screen resolution, they need that much graphics processing power to run smooth frame rates. So it doesn't matter that the $/fps ratio is crap compared to a 4670 because the cheaper card simply won't perform at the required level (ie a 4670 is not going to run Crysis at 2560x1600 on very high).

I guess it all depends upon your "needs". Somehow though, I suspect your needs depend greatly upon the amount of disposable cash you have. If money is no object, or if you REALLY love ONE particular (horribly unoptimized game-- I know what I'm talking about... I've got crysis running at High on an 8400m gt), then by all means. Check out my post right above...
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
The needs also depend on your monitor. I personally use a 27" screen at 1920x1200, so I need at least an 8800gt-level of performance, and even then in some games I can't run with all the eye candy. But once I made the jump to a large screen, there's no way I'd ever want a smaller screen, even if it means I have to keep spending more money on video cards.
 

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
Originally posted by: djayjp
Originally posted by: Phew
It's not that complicated. Buy the cheapest card that will give you >30 fps at the native resolution of your monitor in the games you want to play.

Well, you're right... if money is no object! ;) Otherwise, even if you do go for a higher-end part (even though it's bad value strictly-speaking), you can at least find out how far ahead of the curve you are getting with my method, in terms of performance/dollar.

I want more than 5fps ;)
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
Originally posted by: djayjp
Originally posted by: Phew
It's not that complicated. Buy the cheapest card that will give you >30 fps at the native resolution of your monitor in the games you want to play.

Well, you're right... if money is no object! ;) Otherwise, even if you do go for a higher-end part (even though it's bad value strictly-speaking), you can at least find out how far ahead of the curve you are getting with my method, in terms of performance/dollar.

I want more than 5fps ;)

So do I!!! :p But really, the 4670 has 8800gs performance for MUCH less, so I can guarantee you a little more than 5fps ;)
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Originally posted by: munky
The needs also depend on your monitor. I personally use a 27" screen at 1920x1200, so I need at least an 8800gt-level of performance

4670= 8800gs, but is MUCH cheaper!
 

garritynet

Senior member
Oct 3, 2008
416
0
0
Actually, Card A is waaaaaaay better! See my third post (post 7).

Card A is better as far as your numbers game is concerned. In reality no one would want to game on a 5fps card regardless of price and most of us would gladly pay $100 for a card that would let us run our games, thinking Crysis here, at 45fps.

You have taken the concept of diminishing returns and made it into some sort of linear function of price-per-fps and value without regard to the relationship between function and value.

Not only that but your post is nearly unreadable. I suggest heavy formatting/abridging and a new title. I think yours might be misleading to some.
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Originally posted by: garritynet
Actually, Card A is waaaaaaay better! See my third post (post 7).

Card A is better as far as your numbers game is concerned. In reality no one would want to game on a 5fps card regardless of price and most of us would gladly pay $100 for a card that would let us run our games, thinking Crysis here, at 45fps.

You have taken the concept of diminishing returns and made it into some sort of linear function of price-per-fps and value without regard to the relationship between function and value.

I think I addressed the whole 5fps card issue already... such a comparison does NOT exist. It is fiction. Actually, now that I think about it, this comparison CAN NOT exist because card A's performance at that price would be impossible to achieve in comparison to the $100 card. That's how obscenely good of a price-performance ratio card A has compared to an (assumedly) decent $100 card.

Secondly, I think you misunderstand the guide. The whole point is that it isn't merely a linear function. It scales with price and performance relative to the ratio in performance and price between two relevant cards. The idea is that Moore's law gives you value for free every generation and the idea is to maximize this free performance ratio. The ratio of improvement between each generation is about 1.5x in real world performance for the same price-- there are exceptions, the 4670 performs almost 3x better than the last generation's mid-range cards. The 4670=8800gs for MUCH less... does this not represent outstanding value? Does this not represent outstanding performance (i.e., functionality)? And, ONCE AGAIN, I repeated several times throughout that it depends upon the intended application. TY
 

djayjp

Member
Dec 3, 2008
50
0
0
Not only that but your post is nearly unreadable.

PLEASE... by all means, feel free to show me any section which could accurately be described as "nearly unreadable". thanks a bunch.

Oh, and I love it how everyone is so appreciative of the guide or the fact that I at the very least introduced them to some new concepts that they hadn't been aware of before..., right, instead of just unjustly criticizing all the time.