What's more important to you?

[Protomize]

Answer in the poll or here.

 

[toyota]

sorry but this a pretty stupid poll. max framerates would never be the most important and only a moron would choose that. a single minimum framerate is useless but keeping the minimums consistently up would certainly be very important. and the average is almost meaningless if those minimums are not consistently high enough to feel smooth. so in the end what matters is the overall experience which can vary from game to game.

 

[cmdrdredd]

toyota, it is assumed that the minimum fps option is talking about a consistently good minimum fps number. Think about it, when you get a benchmark report that one frame dropped to 10, how many frames dropped to 15 or 20 which in my view is equally as bad? Take the same question but change the numbers to 30 at the lowest, not so bad now is it?

 

[SirPauly]

Sustained minimums.

 

[Arkadrel]

Minimum FPS dont matter nearly as much, esp from reading benchmark reviews where all you see is that.

Why? because if 95% of the time your not near the minimum fps, it doesnt accurately display what type of gameing experiance your getting.

The only way to show minimum fps, where it holds value is by use of a graph.


like this:

Its clear here that a 1195mhz 7950 > 1316mhz 670 , in battlefield 3.
The differnce between 29 fps minimum and 39 fps is huge, and the duration near that is shorter on the 7950.

Dispite this, the avg fps are pretty close.
Without the minimum fps you wouldnt know how much better the gameing experiance would be on a 7950 > than a 670.


some others:

Ask people if a 670 is faster than a 7950 though, and most would probably say the 670.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So you are posting benchmarks with a gtx 670 that was clocked too low in the memory vs a 7950 and you conclude the 7950 is better? There was already a thread about this.....

You actually backed up what I said anyway. Minumums matter...so what was your point?

 

[Arkadrel]

The 670 is clocked @1316mhz (121mhz more than the 7950).

Cherry picked 7950 ? most 79xx/78xx cards can hit 1200mhz.
How many 670's can hit 1300+ mhz core?

 

[cmdrdredd]

How many people leave memory at 6.34ghz and starve the card at 1300mhz core? Really dude???

Plus I have never seen 1200mhz as an average for 7950 clocks. Yeah maybe some cards can do it with the right voltage but I have seen people do 1.2v and report all kinds of glitches and errors whwn trying to go past 1100.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

How many people leave memory at 6.34ghz and starve the card at 1300mhz core? Really dude???

Plus I have never seen 1200mhz as an average for 7950 clocks. Yeah maybe some cards can do it with the right voltage but I have seen people do 1.2v and report all kinds of glitches and errors whwn trying to go past 1100.

I wouldn't call a 1300+ core an average oc either. Still the memory is clocked low for no apparent reason. You really need 7000mhz for a 1300 core oc.

 

[Smoblikat]

Average, the only way for the average to be playable is to have the minimums up to a reasonable level. I never have a problem maxing every game I play with no less than 4x AA @ 60fps though, so I never really notice anything different.

 

[Ferzerp]

Minimums most certainly matter if they're during gameplay (not loading, etc).

"Oh, it runs fine most of the time" doesn't cut it. If that game dips below 50 fps at any point while playing at 2560x1600 with high graphical detail, it is annoying.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Minimums most certainly matter if they're during gameplay (not loading, etc).

"Oh, it runs fine most of the time" doesn't cut it. If that game dips below 50 fps at any point while playing at 2560x1600 with high graphical detail, it is annoying.

I used to be one of those guys. "Hey its playable". I became a bit of a fps snob now though.