What resolution are you playing games at?

[SirPauly]

Inferred? I garantee it.

The evidence with all there reviews are staring you right in the face.

Step back and take a look, listen to there attitude, and form your own honest opinion.

Most of the reviews they do, sound like a AMD advertisement.

They have the only review in existance that puts a 6870 above a gtx560ti.
Sad but true.

They have all there readers brainwashed, I argue all the time over there that a 6950 is not faster than a gtx570.

I don't agree with that happy and believe HardOcp is just passionate and their feelings are in the right place.

Kyle and his site have always liked high resolution and not surprised by the passion for higher resolution with multi-monitor gaming. An owner or review has subjective tastes and tolerances at times as well as gamers. Kyle is a passionate gamer that has a pulpit and going to give his opinion.

Considering Kyle's site is using 2560 x 1600 and higher resolutions, the added ram for the AMD product sku's shine. But the key is there is choice for double the ram from the GTX 560, 560Ti, 570 and 580 with a modest premium.

When Kyle's site favored nVidia a lot -- he was accused of bias as well. All you can ask out of someone is consistency and that site is pretty consistent based on Kyle the gamer.

 

[happy medium]

I don't agree with that happy and believe HardOcp is just passionate and their feelings are in the right place.

Kyle and his site have always like high resolution and not surprised by the passion for higher resolution with multi-monitor gaming. An owner or review has subjective tastes and tolerances at times as well as gamers. Kyle is a passionate gamer that has a pulpit and going to give his opinion.

Considering Kyle's site is using 2560 x 1600 and higher resolutions, the added ram for the AMD product sku's shine. But the key is there is choice for double the ram from the GTX 560, 560Ti, 570 and 580 with a modest premium.

When Kyle's site favored nVidia a lot -- he was accused of bias as well. All you can ask out of someone is consistency and that site is pretty consistent based on Kyle the gamer.

Fair enough..:thumbsup:

 

[lol123]

2304x1440.

 

[tviceman]

I don't agree with that happy and believe HardOcp is just passionate and their feelings are in the right place.

Kyle and his site have always liked high resolution and not surprised by the passion for higher resolution with multi-monitor gaming. An owner or review has subjective tastes and tolerances at times as well as gamers. Kyle is a passionate gamer that has a pulpit and going to give his opinion.

Considering Kyle's site is using 2560 x 1600 and higher resolutions, the added ram for the AMD product sku's shine. But the key is there is choice for double the ram from the GTX 560, 560Ti, 570 and 580 with a modest premium.

When Kyle's site favored nVidia a lot -- he was accused of bias as well. All you can ask out of someone is consistency and that site is pretty consistent based on Kyle the gamer.

All of this is a perfectly valid explanation and is nothing that I disagree with. I just think their "here's what we think is valid for playing" is too demanding. -3540 fps average in single player games that aren't using super heavy motion blur (in other words, anything that is not Crysis 1 or Warhead) are not what I'd consider to be extremely fluid gameplay. Playable? Yes. But I personally would much rather hit 50-55fps minimum as the average frame rate when I'm playing a game because in high action situations the frame rate will noticeably drop from that 50 fps average.

 

[Avalon]

1680x1050 on my Dell E2209WA. Great budget IPS screen. Can't believe I've had this thing for two years now.

 

[SirPauly]

All of this is a perfectly valid explanation and is nothing that I disagree with. I just think their "here's what we think is valid for playing" is too demanding. -3540 fps average in single player games that aren't using super heavy motion blur (in other words, anything that is not Crysis 1 or Warhead) are not what I'd consider to be extremely fluid gameplay. Playable? Yes. But I personally would much rather hit 50-55fps minimum as the average frame rate when I'm playing a game because in high action situations the frame rate will noticeably drop from that 50 fps average.

The key to a review process is differentiation, flair, style, individual subjective tastes and tolerances, objective, scientific, apples-to-apples, well, the list goes on. Suppose, many have their favorites that may fit their thinking and what is great is, well, there are many choices to consider when reading about hardware.

Kyle gets points in a way of trying to differentiate and bring something different for gamers. One doesn't have to agree with it but really if you think about it, well, it really takes courage to do something different. To believe so strongly in your message, some admire it, some it may rub them the wrong way.

I appreciate passion in one's work and that site has a lot of it.

 

[zebrax2]

All of this is a perfectly valid explanation and is nothing that I disagree with. I just think their "here's what we think is valid for playing" is too demanding. -3540 fps average in single player games that aren't using super heavy motion blur (in other words, anything that is not Crysis 1 or Warhead) are not what I'd consider to be extremely fluid gameplay. Playable? Yes. But I personally would much rather hit 50-55fps minimum as the average frame rate when I'm playing a game because in high action situations the frame rate will noticeably drop from that 50 fps average.

I believe this is their reply

Whats playable to someone, is not necessarily playable to another, we know that, but generally between 30-40FPS is playable to most people. We look at each game we test, and figure out what range of FPS feels most comfortable, sometimes you need higher FPS in a game, sometimes lower fps is acceptable, depends on the game. As we play through this full game of Dues Ex, we will figure this out, so far, its looking like framerates on the higher side of things are preferred. We always include apples-to-apples settings in all of these evaluations also, so you can compare that way, if you like.

 

[WMD]

Hardocp have their own method that favour high resolution + high AA + low framerates. That was fine really. The problem is they often only test at one resolution and with different settings for each gpu based my what is the best playable settings for each which is entirely subjective. They do have an apple to apple comparison but again only at one resolution and image quality setting with resulting low fps that may not be everyones cup of tea.

GPU nowadays perform very differently at different resolution because of architecture and VRAM difference. A higher performing card at 5760x1200 does not mean it will have the advantage at 1920x1080. If i am not going to upgrade my monitor anytime soon, results at any other resolutions is hardly relevant to me. Besides everyone have their own performance preference. 25fps enough may be enough for some while some might even want 120fps to go with their high refresh monitors.

A good review website is one that provides a wide range of data points so that everyone can find information relevant to their own style of play. A good example will be Tweakpc.de:

http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/test...e_gtx560_ti_oc/benchmarks.php?benchmark=bfbc2

Why I find it so much more useful? Wide variety of games tested in DX11, DX10 and DX9. No AA, 4XAA or 8XAA. Three resolutions to choose from. Large numbers of cards compared. Interactive charts showing relative performance between cards in %. Performance summary of the cards at your chosen resolution and quality settings. Another good review site:

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2011/gigabyte_geforce_gtx560_ti_oc_gv_n560oc/

Again covers so much more.

 

[zebrax2]

^I believe they do at least two resolutions for apples to apples 1920x1200 and 2560x1600

 

[Carfax83]

I'm in love with my 30 inch Samsung 305T Plus

As for HardOCP, their testing methods are B.S.. I've played through Metro 2033 twice, and Metro 2033 is certainly not playable at 2560x1600 with very high and tessellation turned on on any current single GPU.

To play at those settings, you need either SLi or Crossfire, yet HardFAIL continues to use these settings in it's single GPU test bench, which is highly misleading.

 

[AV1611]

I have an ASUS G73 with a 5870M from Best Buy. 1600x900. I think it looks good. That card works well with that res as well. 1080p might be too much for it in many games.

AV1611 out.....