I think I get a general sense of what the OP is trying to say: Something about some video cards having a better price performance ratio than others and something else about not upgrading unless its 'worth it'. I think most people have a pretty firm grip on these concepts.
Where he loses me is with everything else. People buy video cards to play games, run multiple monitors or for workstation use and not to have the best ratio of price/performance. If you have no such needs then it dose not matter what card you have, just as long as its cheap.
I have a 9800GTX which is not the best P/P card out there. I paid $150 when I could have purchased a 9800GT for $99. The 9800GT cost 33% less and provides about 90% of the performance. I just purchased the best card I could afford because I want the best graphics possible when I play my games.
I want to play Crysis Warhead, Far Cry 2 and COD W@W at 16x10. I also want to take advantage of the Hybrid Power feature of my MB, which keeps my SFF(SUGO SG02) PC that I have on my desk very quiet when I am not playing games.
My budget was $150. The two best cards at $150 are the 9800GTX and the 4850. The 9800GTX supports hybrid power. The 9800GTX wins. Do other cards give me more performance for my dollar? Sure. Do they give me more performance for my budget? No.
I went with a 9800GTX instead of the 4670. The 4670 cost about half as much and provides more than half the performance, so its a better card right? I'll 'benefit' more from this card right? WRONG. Its value is more than just a matter of frames per dollar. Value is defined by usability to the purchaser. Not gonna happen with a 4670. Not really gonna happen with a 9800GTX either but it gets closest to what I want within my budget.
No math needed. No dividing. No statistics. Just my budget and my needs.
Where he loses me is with everything else. People buy video cards to play games, run multiple monitors or for workstation use and not to have the best ratio of price/performance. If you have no such needs then it dose not matter what card you have, just as long as its cheap.
I have a 9800GTX which is not the best P/P card out there. I paid $150 when I could have purchased a 9800GT for $99. The 9800GT cost 33% less and provides about 90% of the performance. I just purchased the best card I could afford because I want the best graphics possible when I play my games.
I want to play Crysis Warhead, Far Cry 2 and COD W@W at 16x10. I also want to take advantage of the Hybrid Power feature of my MB, which keeps my SFF(SUGO SG02) PC that I have on my desk very quiet when I am not playing games.
My budget was $150. The two best cards at $150 are the 9800GTX and the 4850. The 9800GTX supports hybrid power. The 9800GTX wins. Do other cards give me more performance for my dollar? Sure. Do they give me more performance for my budget? No.
I went with a 9800GTX instead of the 4670. The 4670 cost about half as much and provides more than half the performance, so its a better card right? I'll 'benefit' more from this card right? WRONG. Its value is more than just a matter of frames per dollar. Value is defined by usability to the purchaser. Not gonna happen with a 4670. Not really gonna happen with a 9800GTX either but it gets closest to what I want within my budget.
No math needed. No dividing. No statistics. Just my budget and my needs.
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
With all due respect to your modliness, I disagree, and this is part of what is wrong with the guide IMO. He takes too many shortcuts and makes to many assumptions.
Instead of making assumptions, he should have run the benchmarks... Sure, that takes more time, but there is a reason people run benchmarks.
Anyway, that's exactly what I did. It took all of 10mins to find the benchmark tool, install it, and run a few benches:
Clearly, the OP is incorrect. Based on his assertion I should have been seeing fps closer to 160fps given the starting point of ~20fps. Instead I was not even quite to 100fps. Not once did I see an actual doubling of fps. Although, surprisingly close between Mainstream and Performance settings.
Further evidence of sloppiness and lack of effort:
As pointed out by garritynet, the OP extrapolates data based on a game that doesn't even exist.
What djayjp is doing is presenting his opinion as fact, and not really doing much work to support his own claims or to refute others. That is why he's getting the reaction that he is. A negative response to poorly supported, sloppy work that is passed off as some new concept is what one should expect, and in this case it is rightfully deserved.
it doesn't really matter how much time he spent on it. his calculations still don't work and cannot be used by me (does his calculations work for you, mod?) The title is also misleading as a member pointed out a few posts above this. "ultimate guide to price/performance" should include a way to include prices from every seller in the market, consider every benchmark for every game. if it doesn't do that its not Ultimate.
all the op keeps saying is something about the 4670. okay maybe(?) it is the master of price/performance, but it doesn't play games at 2560x1600 does it? what do those people buy then?
maybe i'll understand the "guide" better if he can provide me with the best video card with ULTIMATE PRICE/PERFORMANCE in this case:
i want to play: crysis, fear, bioshock, and cs:s with (8xAA/8xAF) at 2560x1600 resolution
CPU: Q6600
GPU: =)
RAM: 4gb DDR2 800
OS: Vista
Lets give the OP to prove his Guide right now
(until then, to me he is just trying to mash some numbers together and pass it as a fact.)
I sincerely thank you for the attempt to make this a better thread, AmberClad, I do indeed appreciate it! My response regarding LOUISSSSS is that he asked me for a thorough breakdown of how this method would work for COD3... and I did to the best of my abilities by giving him some rather thorough research and analysis on my part (using COD4) only to discover.... that COD3 doesn't even exist on PC!!! He clearly did this on purpose just to provoke a negative reaction (to say it in a very polite manner).
Just one polite question: ARE YOU GUYS TRYING TO MAKE ME GO INSANE?
Because that seems to be your guys' purpose here posting on this thread. Can I prove the claim that I just made beyond doubt? I think so, yes:
Please note that within the guide/tool it mentions AT LEAST half a dozen times that it all depends and is relative to one's NEEDS.
I have continued to restate this exact same point AT LEAST a dozen times throughout this thread.
Furthermore, I have stated on many occasions and made it abundantly clear (as if it weren't already so) that the card comparison section is using merely EXAMPLES-- showing, more than anything, HOW to use the method/tool for YOURSELF based on YOUR specific needs to HELP determine the best value for you; I do not proclaim it to be ultimate truth for every person on the planet, especially for you. That being said, my recommended card in the extremely limited and non-scientific comparison should likely serve the needs of many people well at a low price point.
I have also already stated a number of times (and even changed the title to better reflect this point) that this is more of a TOOL (once again, NOT ultimate truth), one more tool to better inform and empower the consumer to make a better, more informed, more objective decision. Is this not a GOOD THING? Isn't the attempt to offer more choice, information, and, therefore, potential value a GOOD/COMMENDABLE thing-- something to be the least bit appreciative of? Whether you choose to use this tool at your disposal (to enhance the information present to you when making your decision; which seems to reliably, in the history of humanity, yield better answers/choices) IS UP TO YOU; again, more choice and information is a good thing is it not? Am I wrong in my efforts to potentially save someone some money by offering something objective, rather than someone thinking that they're getting more value than they really are based on vague, subjective, and anecdotal recommendations and pretty graphs? Isn't it nice to have an alternative option/information to help guide your decision?
As well, I argue that what makes this guide so 'ultimate' is that it is timeless, unlike ALL other such guides that I am aware of, (except of course for the EXAMPLE cards), one can use it regardless of generation; it will always serve well as ONE MORE TOOL at one's disposal to help one make a better decision (OBVIOUSLY in conjunction with one's relative 'needs'). Otherwise, I would have to update the guide (in order to maintain its 'ultimate' status from THIS particular perspective) every week due to ceaselessly volatile market conditions! Even if I did, it STILL wouldn't help buyers with their individual needs which is something that only you can ultimately make when deciding which card to purchase. The idea is that you can still use this method as another factor to consider to help you make your purchasing decision. Again, this is what makes it so unique, innovative, and compelling.
And finally, I believe I am due some modest appreciation regarding my rather insightful and innovative observation that a 1:1 performance/price ratio is poor value from a strictly performance/price standpoint; this means that even if higher end cards could increase their performance by the same ratio that their price increases (which they fall FAR short of), a 100% increase in performance is NOT (from a strictly P/P perspective) worth a 100% increase in price. Any performance/price comparison that I have seen online always merely takes the fps divided by the price, thus falling victim to the 1:1 fallacy; my guide/tool goes further, giving you a more accurate assessment of a card's relative performance/price value using the absolutely factual Moore's law/generational progress as a factor (the real-world performance variable --1.5x over each generation-- of which is estimated using statistical analysis based on a variety of benchmarks looking at 7800gtx-- 8800gtx-- gtx 280); is it statistically perfect? I ask, is it possible for anything to be statistically perfect? I aim for accuracy within my means; please, I urge you guys to come up with your own variable. If you continuously upgrade based on a faulty 1:1 value assessment, you would continually be upgrading far up the tech curve/optimal rate of return, away from the only ultimate determinant of P/P-- Moore's law/generational progress; this is another reason why I chose the name for the thread that I did-- it is a crucial differentiating factor that sets it firmly apart from any other P/P guide that I am aware of.
I have nothing more to say regarding any posts which bring up the SAME points over and over and....
*****UPDATE:*****
To summarize the method:
To simplify let's say that the 8800gtx cost $500 at launch and performed at 100fps; let's say that the gtx 280 launched at $500 (let's pretend) and performed at 150fps. This shows a 1.5x gain over the previous generation at the same price (i.e., 1.5:1 performance: Price ratio; don't forget that if you change the word order, to make the corresponding change in the numbers!). This roughly demonstrates the improvements that we might expect essentially for free over time. So, if the gtx 380 launches at $1000, we would expect it to perform at an unusually high level of performance to justify this break in trend; we would expect it to yield 450fps (1.5x2 for double the price=3x150) rather than the usual 1.5x increase to 225fps. If it did only perform at this lower level, people would think something was very wrong and would turn to the competition to continue the expected pace of progress (1.5x). This roughly demonstrates the flaw with ~1:1 P/P ratio thinking (or really, anything less than about 1.5:1); the actual figure in this example was 0.75:1 (1.5/2 for only 1.5x performance, but double the price; a 1:1 ratio here would be 300fps vs 450 at 1.5:1). You can clearly see that a 1:1 ratio falls short of an expected 50% increase in performance (or 150% of original). So, if this is the case, then why are people being fooled into coughing up their cash for the same crappy ~1:1 ratios? I don't know, one reason might, however, be their supposed needs or their disposable income (duh). Anyhow, we can see that if something costs double the price, it should offer 3x the performance rather than the commonly accepted notion that it should only have to offer 2x the performance to be a worthy upgrade (3 divided by 2=1.5).
In order to implement the method yourself:
(some of my prior calculations, outside of this update, weren't entirely accurate, please take these new ones as being definitive, sorry; I will update everything when I have the time)
Take the following hypothetical example-- card A costs $50 ; card B costs $100. You take the price of the more expensive card and divide it by the price of the cheaper card (100/50=2). In this case it is easy to see that it costs 2x more, or 200% the cost of card A, or 100% more. This means that for card B to be considered a good deal, we should expect it to perform at least about 3x better, or 300% the performance of card A, or 200% better (1.5x2 for double the cost=3). So, if card B performs at less than about 60fps compared to card A's 20fps, then it isn't worth the added cost (needs aside). You can evidently see here that to be a good deal under such terms, twice the money should yield 3x the performance. Most cards, unfortunately, offer nowhere near close to such a compelling increase in performance for their added cost and since most people mistakenly believe that 2x the cost should only have to yield 2x the performance to be a worthy upgrade (usually mistakenly obtained by fps/$ or $/fps), this is how card manufacturer's are able to make large profits. So, for every percentage increase in price that you pay, you should expect at least about a 1.5% increase in performance. I actually recommend upgrading no more often than once every other generation so as to increase the rate of return to 2.25x on the dollar (1.5x1.5=2.25), as 1.5x is rather paltry for investing in an entirely new card-- like going from 30 to 45fps.
-----------------------------------
As an aside, I would like to take a moment to respond to Nitromullet. I thought that you were one of the few impartial and fair posters here, but this opinion of you has now changed. From your last post, it is clear that you are desperately attempting to prove my efforts completely worthless and my attempts here as an utter and complete failure, with absolutely no merit or value (though you are not unfortunately the only one). Thank you so much. You take the least researched aspects of my posts here (NOT from the first post) and try to twist them to suit your destructive ends.
If you look at the Crysis settings levels which I NEVER presented as fact (only suspicion), whereas you do even though crysis is well known to be CPU-limited on Very High at higher framerates (unless you have a 3.7GHz or higher Core 2, even then...):
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...d-4870-x2,2073-18.html
average framerate increase between quality levels of your posted results (using the average)= 71% ; this falls nicely in-line with my prediction of a 1.7x increase (even though your CPU limited performance); but, yes, in the whole uber-hypothetical card match up ($1 giving 5fps; which is absurd), I roughly estimated a 2x increase--- the point is that this purely hypothetical card at 1.7x would still yield 24.5fps on low if card B can get 45fps on Very High at $100-- not entirely out of the range of possibility considering that you can get a 9800GT or a 4830. Once again, card manufacturers would kill to have this kind of price/performance ratio and even more expensive (yes, it's true) integrated gfx yield LESS performance, therefore making it an attractive upgrade (for LESS money). Case closed. Also, I really dislike talking about cards that don't, and never will (unfortunately), exist. Of course a card will exist that can do that at some point (though most likely still NOT for $1), but that is irrelevant to our discussion and all of these hypothetical comparisons go against my pragmatic and empirical interests.
I'm not even going to comment again on the whole COD3 sham.
Because that seems to be your guys' purpose here posting on this thread. Can I prove the claim that I just made beyond doubt? I think so, yes:
Please note that within the guide/tool it mentions AT LEAST half a dozen times that it all depends and is relative to one's NEEDS.
I have continued to restate this exact same point AT LEAST a dozen times throughout this thread.
Furthermore, I have stated on many occasions and made it abundantly clear (as if it weren't already so) that the card comparison section is using merely EXAMPLES-- showing, more than anything, HOW to use the method/tool for YOURSELF based on YOUR specific needs to HELP determine the best value for you; I do not proclaim it to be ultimate truth for every person on the planet, especially for you. That being said, my recommended card in the extremely limited and non-scientific comparison should likely serve the needs of many people well at a low price point.
I have also already stated a number of times (and even changed the title to better reflect this point) that this is more of a TOOL (once again, NOT ultimate truth), one more tool to better inform and empower the consumer to make a better, more informed, more objective decision. Is this not a GOOD THING? Isn't the attempt to offer more choice, information, and, therefore, potential value a GOOD/COMMENDABLE thing-- something to be the least bit appreciative of? Whether you choose to use this tool at your disposal (to enhance the information present to you when making your decision; which seems to reliably, in the history of humanity, yield better answers/choices) IS UP TO YOU; again, more choice and information is a good thing is it not? Am I wrong in my efforts to potentially save someone some money by offering something objective, rather than someone thinking that they're getting more value than they really are based on vague, subjective, and anecdotal recommendations and pretty graphs? Isn't it nice to have an alternative option/information to help guide your decision?
As well, I argue that what makes this guide so 'ultimate' is that it is timeless, unlike ALL other such guides that I am aware of, (except of course for the EXAMPLE cards), one can use it regardless of generation; it will always serve well as ONE MORE TOOL at one's disposal to help one make a better decision (OBVIOUSLY in conjunction with one's relative 'needs'). Otherwise, I would have to update the guide (in order to maintain its 'ultimate' status from THIS particular perspective) every week due to ceaselessly volatile market conditions! Even if I did, it STILL wouldn't help buyers with their individual needs which is something that only you can ultimately make when deciding which card to purchase. The idea is that you can still use this method as another factor to consider to help you make your purchasing decision. Again, this is what makes it so unique, innovative, and compelling.
And finally, I believe I am due some modest appreciation regarding my rather insightful and innovative observation that a 1:1 performance/price ratio is poor value from a strictly performance/price standpoint; this means that even if higher end cards could increase their performance by the same ratio that their price increases (which they fall FAR short of), a 100% increase in performance is NOT (from a strictly P/P perspective) worth a 100% increase in price. Any performance/price comparison that I have seen online always merely takes the fps divided by the price, thus falling victim to the 1:1 fallacy; my guide/tool goes further, giving you a more accurate assessment of a card's relative performance/price value using the absolutely factual Moore's law/generational progress as a factor (the real-world performance variable --1.5x over each generation-- of which is estimated using statistical analysis based on a variety of benchmarks looking at 7800gtx-- 8800gtx-- gtx 280); is it statistically perfect? I ask, is it possible for anything to be statistically perfect? I aim for accuracy within my means; please, I urge you guys to come up with your own variable. If you continuously upgrade based on a faulty 1:1 value assessment, you would continually be upgrading far up the tech curve/optimal rate of return, away from the only ultimate determinant of P/P-- Moore's law/generational progress; this is another reason why I chose the name for the thread that I did-- it is a crucial differentiating factor that sets it firmly apart from any other P/P guide that I am aware of.
I have nothing more to say regarding any posts which bring up the SAME points over and over and....
*****UPDATE:*****
To summarize the method:
To simplify let's say that the 8800gtx cost $500 at launch and performed at 100fps; let's say that the gtx 280 launched at $500 (let's pretend) and performed at 150fps. This shows a 1.5x gain over the previous generation at the same price (i.e., 1.5:1 performance: Price ratio; don't forget that if you change the word order, to make the corresponding change in the numbers!). This roughly demonstrates the improvements that we might expect essentially for free over time. So, if the gtx 380 launches at $1000, we would expect it to perform at an unusually high level of performance to justify this break in trend; we would expect it to yield 450fps (1.5x2 for double the price=3x150) rather than the usual 1.5x increase to 225fps. If it did only perform at this lower level, people would think something was very wrong and would turn to the competition to continue the expected pace of progress (1.5x). This roughly demonstrates the flaw with ~1:1 P/P ratio thinking (or really, anything less than about 1.5:1); the actual figure in this example was 0.75:1 (1.5/2 for only 1.5x performance, but double the price; a 1:1 ratio here would be 300fps vs 450 at 1.5:1). You can clearly see that a 1:1 ratio falls short of an expected 50% increase in performance (or 150% of original). So, if this is the case, then why are people being fooled into coughing up their cash for the same crappy ~1:1 ratios? I don't know, one reason might, however, be their supposed needs or their disposable income (duh). Anyhow, we can see that if something costs double the price, it should offer 3x the performance rather than the commonly accepted notion that it should only have to offer 2x the performance to be a worthy upgrade (3 divided by 2=1.5).
In order to implement the method yourself:
(some of my prior calculations, outside of this update, weren't entirely accurate, please take these new ones as being definitive, sorry; I will update everything when I have the time)
Take the following hypothetical example-- card A costs $50 ; card B costs $100. You take the price of the more expensive card and divide it by the price of the cheaper card (100/50=2). In this case it is easy to see that it costs 2x more, or 200% the cost of card A, or 100% more. This means that for card B to be considered a good deal, we should expect it to perform at least about 3x better, or 300% the performance of card A, or 200% better (1.5x2 for double the cost=3). So, if card B performs at less than about 60fps compared to card A's 20fps, then it isn't worth the added cost (needs aside). You can evidently see here that to be a good deal under such terms, twice the money should yield 3x the performance. Most cards, unfortunately, offer nowhere near close to such a compelling increase in performance for their added cost and since most people mistakenly believe that 2x the cost should only have to yield 2x the performance to be a worthy upgrade (usually mistakenly obtained by fps/$ or $/fps), this is how card manufacturer's are able to make large profits. So, for every percentage increase in price that you pay, you should expect at least about a 1.5% increase in performance. I actually recommend upgrading no more often than once every other generation so as to increase the rate of return to 2.25x on the dollar (1.5x1.5=2.25), as 1.5x is rather paltry for investing in an entirely new card-- like going from 30 to 45fps.
-----------------------------------
As an aside, I would like to take a moment to respond to Nitromullet. I thought that you were one of the few impartial and fair posters here, but this opinion of you has now changed. From your last post, it is clear that you are desperately attempting to prove my efforts completely worthless and my attempts here as an utter and complete failure, with absolutely no merit or value (though you are not unfortunately the only one). Thank you so much. You take the least researched aspects of my posts here (NOT from the first post) and try to twist them to suit your destructive ends.
If you look at the Crysis settings levels which I NEVER presented as fact (only suspicion), whereas you do even though crysis is well known to be CPU-limited on Very High at higher framerates (unless you have a 3.7GHz or higher Core 2, even then...):
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...d-4870-x2,2073-18.html
average framerate increase between quality levels of your posted results (using the average)= 71% ; this falls nicely in-line with my prediction of a 1.7x increase (even though your CPU limited performance); but, yes, in the whole uber-hypothetical card match up ($1 giving 5fps; which is absurd), I roughly estimated a 2x increase--- the point is that this purely hypothetical card at 1.7x would still yield 24.5fps on low if card B can get 45fps on Very High at $100-- not entirely out of the range of possibility considering that you can get a 9800GT or a 4830. Once again, card manufacturers would kill to have this kind of price/performance ratio and even more expensive (yes, it's true) integrated gfx yield LESS performance, therefore making it an attractive upgrade (for LESS money). Case closed. Also, I really dislike talking about cards that don't, and never will (unfortunately), exist. Of course a card will exist that can do that at some point (though most likely still NOT for $1), but that is irrelevant to our discussion and all of these hypothetical comparisons go against my pragmatic and empirical interests.
I'm not even going to comment again on the whole COD3 sham.
edplayer
Platinum Member
- Sep 13, 2002
- 2,186
- 0
- 0
I have only read a small part of this thread 
Seems like you pissed a lot of people off. Guess some people get emotional when you point out their silly obsession over a few fps.
I was waiting for the 4670 to come out a while back as it seemed like it would be the "bang for the buck" card to get but it kept getting delayed. Ended up buying a 9600GT for $54 after rebate (before taxes). Very happy with the card. The 4670 also launched at around $80 so I was happy that I went with my choice because of that also.
Seems like you pissed a lot of people off. Guess some people get emotional when you point out their silly obsession over a few fps.
I was waiting for the 4670 to come out a while back as it seemed like it would be the "bang for the buck" card to get but it kept getting delayed. Ended up buying a 9600GT for $54 after rebate (before taxes). Very happy with the card. The 4670 also launched at around $80 so I was happy that I went with my choice because of that also.
Originally posted by: edplayer
I have only read a small part of this thread
Seems like you pissed a lot of people off. Guess some people get emotional when you point out their silly obsession over a few fps.
I was waiting for the 4670 to come out a while back as it seemed like it would be the "bang for the buck" card to get but it kept getting delayed. Ended up buying a 9600GT for $54 after rebate (before taxes). Very happy with the card. The 4670 also launched at around $80 so I was happy that I went with my choice because of that also.
Heck yeah, Edplayer, that is what I call extremely good value! Very nearly 8800gt performance at 1/4 the cost from what one would have spent a year ago! (which, if we assume a doubling of performance/price per year-- which is overly optimistic-- that beats it by ~2:1, thus, it is much closer to the optimal place on the tech curve). Man, I wish I could get a 9600gt at that price!
why do u keep saying that? nobody cares about last year's performance. we care about PRESENT DAY.
isn't the 9600gt the same gpu as the 8800gt? a year later, shouldn't it be cheaper AND faster?
8800gts 320mb - $99
is this card a good value? it offers DOUBLE x1900xt performance.
nobody will be using ur guide or even understands it because you're not giving any REAL LIFE examples. you keep saying $1 = 5fps, we're like HUH? use real life cards and real life people that play a few different games.
if you're not going to use the perfect real-life example i gave a few posts above, please make up a good REAL LIFE example of how to use ur guide.
Re. the 9600gt quote, you still don't get it.. it's RELATIVE P/P value. It's timeless.
I already did... it's called the numerous examples contained within the first post! If you don't get the formula already, I can't say anything more to help explain it.
So you don't have any kind of apology for me for making me research a game that doesn't even exist? cod3 isn't on PC
No. Read the first page again-- I said that going from one generation to the next, you should be getting MORE performance for the SAME amount of money (OR the SAME performance for LESS, relatively/proportionately speaking). If you wait two generations, you should get more for less.
The frame buffer on that card sucks big time. You can get a 512MB 9800gt or 4830 (correction) for ~$100. And geforce cards are far more sensitive to the size of the frame buffer than the newer ati cards:
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...d-4870-x2,2073-18.html
note how the ati cards do fine at high rez with aa, but the geforce cards with the same amount of mem-- 512MB choke at 1fps. This shouldn't just apply at that rez, but is indicative of future performance from the ati cards in any games that require large frame buffers.
Its not that he pissed us off, its that he is so completely enamored in his supposed 'tool'. There is no tool just bad math, guesses and assumptions. When critiqued he just lashes out in nerd rage to defend his pet 'tool'.
Modest, are we?
------------------------------
Also he takes this
To say this(which might be his tool, I dunno):
IF Current fps * 1.4-1.7 < Expected FPS THEN upgrade.
Compare Fps/$$$ for all cards that exceed 30fps AND meet the upgrade requirement. The card with the highest Frames per $ is the ideal Pr/Per upgrade.
However even this is unnecessary. All you need is
IF Current Card dose not do what you want THEN buy cheapest card that dose.
Timeless to you. Real world Pr/Per is decided by the other cards that occupy the same market segment, not some ratio that exist in a vacuum.
No, why would I be saying that?! That's just crazy! People should obviously only ever buy cards from the future... geez. What I was obviously trying to say was that while the 8800gt was a pretty good value THEN at its original price relative to its competition, the 9600gt at that price relative to its competition is an even better value NOW, relatively-speaking, i.e., time accounted for. Are you trying to argue that a 9600gt for $54 ISN'T a proportionately/relatively better deal (P/P wise)?
The number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits will double roughly every 24 months.
Sorry if I got it wrong. It was my honest effort to translate your various post. One way or the other its still useless. Looking at benchmarks it is very easy to determine whether or not a cards performance increase is worth the cost without having to find any percent of anything.
Say your getting 45 fps with your 7800gt and the benchmarks say you can get 62fps with an 8800gt. Do you need to do math to figure out if its a big enough improvement to warrant the cost? Nope, you need only decide if you want the extra fps and if you mind spending the cash.
For what?
Better deal P/P wise? Sure, whatever. Dose anyone need to do math to figure that out? No. Dose P/P have anything to do with whether or not a 9600gt will run COD4 on my monitor? No.
My point though this whole debate is that your tool is a whole lot of nothing. Graphic cards will obey moores law. Insightful. Don't buy cards that aren't a good deal. Innovative.
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
Of course it is. The 8800GT was a good value for a performance card. It's intent was to bring high performance to the masses, which it did to some extent. It was never meant as a value card per se. The 9600GT is just a mid range card. Mid range cards are almost always better P/P cards than their higher end counterparts.
Lemme guess, for ATI's line up this year the P/P ratio from worst to best goes a little like this:
4870 X2 (worst P/P)
4870
4850
4830
4670 (best P/P)
I did that without looking at any benchmarks, pricing data, or any references to Moore's Law whatsoever.
...now, I'll validate.
Since, you like Tom's so much... I'll compare what I think to what he says: http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...rque_fbrandx4,798.html
Prices are from newegg, searching for card and sorting by lowest price. (Rebates not factored in)
4870 X2 557.60fps/$499.99 = 1.12 fps/$
4870 595.80fps/$224.99 = 2.65 fps/$
4850 536.50fps/$159.99 = 3.35 fps/$
4830 (Tom doesn't have this card yet, apparently)
4670 388.60fps/$75.99 = 5.11 fps/$
Looks like I was dead on (well, I might be wrong about the 4830), all without a formula. How did I know that? It boils down to the simple fact that newer tech generally costs more, and has a worse P/P ratio. The highest end cards tend to have the newest tech, should perform the best, but offer a worse return on investment dollar for dollar...
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Well, actually, there is a bit of a formula there.
Finally! You get it. Its about time. Now that you have seen the light I look forward to your revised guide.
The 4870 is good deal priced at $200AR. That your method fails to recognize that shows that it is faulty. This "free increase in performance" is actually not free at all. Remember: Moore's Law is more of an observation than an actual law. ATI worked their butts of to deliver the 4870 and they charge for all that R&D too. That cards on the lower end of the spectrum offer a better FP$ has nothing to do with Moore's Law.
So he still got it right.........just the disparity is different? So his method still works when it comes to finding the best 'value' for your money.
Originally posted by: garritynet
That my method disagrees with your subjective opinion (which is presented with nothing else to back it up) demonstrates no fault. All my method says is that there is a better deal than such cards as the 4870 (even with that insane rebate).
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding that moore's law not applying to lower end cards. If moore's law is not your thing, then how about simply a statistical guarantee that performance tends to improve at a certain predictable rate. The rate I have observed is 1.5x over generations in gpu's
The answer is that this simpler method sort of does, but doesn't really work. It sort of works for finding it out when the differences are large and at low price points, basically at finding a starting point (or bottom) to start your comparisons with more expensive cards. Using his method, you will inevitably mistakenly conclude that cards that offer 1:1 P/P's are worthwhile in terms of comparing percentage increase in price vs percentage increase in performance, I disagree, and so does Gordon Moore
Really though, use your brain for a moment and you'll realize that this is not at all a controversial point... everyone agrees with it, otherwise the next time you went to buy a graphics card next generation, instead of paying $200, you'll have to pay $300 (200x1.5) to get the usual performance increase, assuming a usual performance increase of 1.5x (this is how a 1:1 view sees the world; idiotic, isn't it? But in what publications have you seen this point ever having been raised when they do P/P comparisons? -- i.e., they simply take fps/$ or $/fps).
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
Originally posted by: djayjp
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Well, actually, there is a bit of a formula there.
Maybe I should have taken this a step further with the 4550...
4870 X2 557.60fps/$499.99 = 1.12 fps/$
4870 595.80fps/$224.99 = 2.65 fps/$
4850 536.50fps/$159.99 = 3.35 fps/$
4830 (Tom doesn't have this card yet, apparently)
4670 388.60fps/$75.99 = 5.11 fps/$
4550 157.50fps/$59.99 = 2.62 fps/$
...which is again predictable to anyone who knows anything about graphics cards. Eventually, the performance drops are more severe than the price drops. This is extremely easy to spot though simply by looking at fps/$. This is exactly the same thing that happens with the 9500GT.
The point that you keep missing is that your recommended values are in fact your opinion based on your interpretation of Moore's Law.
1) Moore's Law is concerned with the number of transistors, and it is well known then video card performance is not always in direct correlation with the number of transistors in the gpu.
2) Your recommend figure changes. Absolute truths generally don't. Pi, for example, has not changed my entire life, while your truth seems to have undergone a metamorphosis in just one weekend:
...it's your opinion. Nothing wrong with posting your opinion in a forum, but accept the fact that some will disagree with you or find less value in it than you do.
The first value that I came up with was PRIOR to my rather extensive statistical analysis regarding a generational progressive rate. I admit that I sorta just guesstimated the first value based on the thinking that the value will be significantly lower than a 2x theoretical increase and at least as good as what the best of SLI can muster (70%). That's how I came up with the original 70-90% real-world performance figure.
My new figure is not an opinion. I already told you how I came up with the 1.4-1.6x rate. It's not so much moore's law as it simply is a fact that there is a certain progressive rate which can be gleaned through statistics (using real-world performance figures). Like I said before, I tend to favour my pragmatic and empirical interests over some theoretical figure (i.e., statistics based off of real performance data).
Like I said, what makes this guide/tool so useful is the fact that this figure should be timeless (barring some unforeseen massive performance changes unlike any we have yet seen).
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
That is exactly why it isn't timeless... A timeless figure (constant) would not change regardless of the situation, no matter how extreme. Pi is Pi regardless of how big the circle is, even if its size is unprecedented. To successfully use your tool a year from now (assuming that it is currently correct), someone would have to re-calculate this value.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter