- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
Hey guys,
I'm just looking for some concerns that you all have regarding graphics card reviews. What do you not see that you wish were included in a review?
In other words, some input for "follow up" reviews. Most sites have their initial reviews of new cards, and sometimes afterward, may publish follow ups if newer drivers come out, or an image quality comparison.
I want to know what you want to know. Keep in mind that initial reviews take up HUGE amounts of time, and not everything you wanted to see may have been included. So we have follow up reviews for certain aspects of the initial review not covered to satisfaction.
Give me some ideas.
Thanks,
Keys
Comments:
Where bottlenecks are. Sweet spot for games with lower speed CPU's.
Keep in mind that something like this can turn into an IMMENSE review. There is almost an
unlimited combination of CPU/GPU out there, so I would just stick to identical CPU's and the only variable be the graphics cards.
Power Consumption
This is done on most initial reviews.
Links to benchmark or benchmark methods used for members to try out themselves to compare.
Good Idea. Offers the members a chance to see how their rigs compare with repeatable benchmarks.
A round up of different manufacturer's cards like which gt is best at what from evga, xfx, bfg, ect...
Basically, with only a few exceptions, all the manufacturers card are designed after a reference model and stick to it. Both Nvidia and AMD. So using up huge amounts of time to compare say an 8800GT from eVGA, XFX, BFG, MSI, would yield next to nil differences, excluding overclocked models.
Include various ranges of AA and AF at all resolutions.
Yes, good.
I'm just looking for some concerns that you all have regarding graphics card reviews. What do you not see that you wish were included in a review?
In other words, some input for "follow up" reviews. Most sites have their initial reviews of new cards, and sometimes afterward, may publish follow ups if newer drivers come out, or an image quality comparison.
I want to know what you want to know. Keep in mind that initial reviews take up HUGE amounts of time, and not everything you wanted to see may have been included. So we have follow up reviews for certain aspects of the initial review not covered to satisfaction.
Give me some ideas.
Thanks,
Keys
Comments:
Where bottlenecks are. Sweet spot for games with lower speed CPU's.
Keep in mind that something like this can turn into an IMMENSE review. There is almost an
unlimited combination of CPU/GPU out there, so I would just stick to identical CPU's and the only variable be the graphics cards.
Power Consumption
This is done on most initial reviews.
Links to benchmark or benchmark methods used for members to try out themselves to compare.
Good Idea. Offers the members a chance to see how their rigs compare with repeatable benchmarks.
A round up of different manufacturer's cards like which gt is best at what from evga, xfx, bfg, ect...
Basically, with only a few exceptions, all the manufacturers card are designed after a reference model and stick to it. Both Nvidia and AMD. So using up huge amounts of time to compare say an 8800GT from eVGA, XFX, BFG, MSI, would yield next to nil differences, excluding overclocked models.
Include various ranges of AA and AF at all resolutions.
Yes, good.