what do you think to this method of Benchmarking/testing graphics solutions

[otispunkmeyer]

this is how they test at bit-tech

Please be aware that the way we test our video cards is not a like-for-like comparison, and it is not meant to be. The current state of the 3D world, where Independent Hardware Vendors no longer render things in a similar fashion, dictates that even an apples-to-apples comparison is no longer a true like-for-like comparison. We decided to concentrate on finding the ?Best Playable? settings - this means that we?re finding the best possible gaming experience delivered on each different configuration. There are no time demos used in our evaluations - we?re focusing on the real-world gaming experience, which is, ultimately what should determine your next graphics card?s purchase.

basically they dont do apples to apples, they find the best possible settings for each card, ie the best balance of playability to image quality

i think this is good way to bench....it shows you more about what a cards going to be like. so how it seems more useful than a blanket test of 10x7 thru 16x12.


edit and while your at it, jus read over this review they have on the volari V3XT....its naff at games, and its even naffer at things it was meant for. DVD playback, WMV, HD video (its got HD outputs) and it cant play anything smoothly....almost like a completely useless video card V3XT

 

[otispunkmeyer]

?

 

[Pete]

HardOCP has been doing this for quite some time. Some people like it, some don't. (HOCP also includes the more common "apples to apples" numbers at the end of their benchmark section.)

What I'd like to see is more investigation into minimum framerates. HOCP does so with their chronological graphs, but something like Halo's benchmark captures (X% at 10-19fps, Y% at 20-29fps, etc.) would also be fine.