View Full Version : Skewed graphs in 3d graphics industry
I'll give you an AMD example because my meager mspaint skills took too long to do even one graph and its still not too good but it should get the message across
edit: this is not to say Nvidia doesn't do it, quite the contrary!
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6678/200711094eab719d5ee22d6ib5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Here each line could be interpreted as being one frame per second in World in conflict but the graph begins from an arbitrarily high number of 18!
I had no idea how skewed the graph was before I started to rescale it... Notice how they dublicated every value (two "1.2x"s etc :o )
Think of it this way: the difference is actually 1.2x but the graph makes it look like 3.0x!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v472/Mendelbop/hoh3.jpg
now here if you look at it closely this graph begins from 0 and each line represents one frame per second in world in conflict and the scale is much closer to what it should be in a full scale graph that is meant to give you an idea of what the differences in performance actually are, percentage wise.
Now skewing the graphs like they were in that original graph might make it look like the marginaly better card was a whole heck of a lot better even though the data indicates it isn't really...
That doesn't serve the customer, it doens't serve the ihvs and if you ask me, we gotta make it stop!
Just to balance things, here's an nvidia example that I kinda criticized earlier in other thread.
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/3926/88vs670sea5bx5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Right, notice anything wrong here?
Why not go all the way, why not say just *beep* you customers and do this
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3376/loltr9.png
edit:
(imageshack seems to have removed this image :o there should be a version of the above image, skewed a lot further still to make a point)
edit2: for some reason it seems the image is back!
ChrisRay
11-Nov-2007, 05:31
Honestly if the reader actually pays attention to the data represented. It's not that big of a deal. I dont like percentage graphs that dont represent the actual data at the same time though.
Chris
CruNcher
11-Nov-2007, 12:56
Yeah you really have to belive their Marketing guys are super crazy or all psychologists, the truth is some really let get themselves disturbed by this and accept it as the truth without reading it carefully,also alot of times @ such Presentations you don't have time to read it carefully as the next slide is coming very fast, and so you only see the graphs. :D
But really funny is if their Partners then do the same thing for example Leadtek (and especialy the Kids fall for that) hehe the longer the better *cough*
http://www.leadtek.com/eng/3d_graphic/image/winfast_px9900_gt_1.jpg
I would sue them if i would be American should be easy to get them in trouble in the US Law system with this, companies get sued for much stranger things than this in the US hehe.
Honestly if the reader actually pays attention to the data represented. It's not that big of a deal. I dont like percentage graphs that dont represent the actual data at the same time though.
Chris
C'mon, now, that's a bit of a cop-out. There is a reason PR types use this kind of graph, and it's because they are specifically trying to get a "Wow!" reaction out of the unwary. That not everyone falls for the conman's rigged game does not in any way excuse the conman.
John Reynolds
12-Nov-2007, 15:46
C'mon, now, that's a bit of a cop-out. There is a reason PR types use this kind of graph, and it's because they are specifically trying to get a "Wow!" reaction out of the unwary. That not everyone falls for the conman's rigged game does not in any way excuse the conman.
Exactly. And not just companies engage in these games, I've also seen web sites do likewise.
nutball
12-Nov-2007, 16:06
Exactly. And not just companies engage in these games, I've also seen web sites do likewise.
TBH I have more of a problem with websites doing it than the IHVs. The IHVs are marketing a product, we expect them to tell border-line lies. Websites are supposed to be there to keep them honest. If they don't, who will?
Just to note, it seems like the second image of the second post is no longer available in imageshack, I wonder what happened, maybe someone reported the image to imageshack? Maybe it expired? Hope I didn't break any law or rule or anything...Maybe I should only use photobucket in the future.
edit: oh, it's back :o
C'mon, now, that's a bit of a cop-out. There is a reason PR types use this kind of graph, and it's because they are specifically trying to get a "Wow!" reaction out of the unwary. That not everyone falls for the conman's rigged game does not in any way excuse the conman.
It does. People should learn to read the axis, as they do with other basic things.
Exactly. And not just companies engage in these games, I've also seen web sites do likewise.
That is very bad when that happens.
TBH I have more of a problem with websites doing it than the IHVs. The IHVs are marketing a product, we expect them to tell border-line lies. Websites are supposed to be there to keep them honest. If they don't, who will?
This is why I jumped on digi in the other thread for saying 7% is 7%. I want a base value so I know what it means.
It does. People should learn to read the axis, as they do with other basic things.
Yes people should learn, but communicators should not try to lie or obfuscate the point either by making misleading graphs. As I linked in the other thread.
Tufte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte)
is all kinds of crazy about stamping out such things, though I disagree with some of his assertions he definitely has many valid points.
ChrisRay
14-Nov-2007, 00:21
C'mon, now, that's a bit of a cop-out. There is a reason PR types use this kind of graph, and it's because they are specifically trying to get a "Wow!" reaction out of the unwary. That not everyone falls for the conman's rigged game does not in any way excuse the conman.
I dont see how its a cop out. I dont think it's a big deal. When websites start displaying graphs in this form then I'll be concerned. I dont have much sympathy for people who dont do research before they buy things. Most of these presentations ((Not all of them)) are displayed to editors and press. And editors should have enough common sense to seperate fact from bull shit. If they cant then they shouldnt be in this business to begin with.
If when the new cards are released. And anandtech, hardocp, tomshardware, beyond3d, extremetech, techreport all start using similar graphs. Then I'll be concerned. If a person walks into a store and sees that leadtek box. And makes a purchase decision off of it. Then they probably werent all that concerned to do any real research to begin with. I dont know about you guys but I learned how to read graphs in elementary school. And I'd like to assume most people spending 200-300 dollars on a graphic card can read a graph and understand the data represented. I dont like it. But I really dont think people are "That" stupid to where they cant recognise whats being displayed.
Chris
I think it gets used because it *works* --the confuseable are confused. I've certainly seen those kind of graphs on boxes, not just ed day presentations. To throw the easily misled under the bus with an airy wave of the hand that they deserve no better is much too Hobbesian for my taste. YMMV.
Edit: After all, one of the great articles of faith in the graphics market, "the halo effect", is built entirely on the idea that a large part of the market isn't paying all that close attention and can be influenced by factors that really have nothing to do with the purchase at hand.
Yes people should learn, but communicators should not try to lie or obfuscate the point either by making misleading graphs. As I linked in the other thread..
I repeat - there is nothing confusing on the graphs, axis is clearly described.
AlphaWolf
14-Nov-2007, 09:16
I repeat - there is nothing confusing on the graphs, axis is clearly described.
If there's no attempt at obfuscation why don't they start at 0?
Because there is an attempt to draw attention to whatever advantage how ever small it may be. People quickly glancing at the actual graph in full scale might be confused into thinking that there is no discernible difference or that the difference falls within the margin of error perhaps?
I repeat - there is nothing confusing on the graphs, axis is clearly described.
So someday when some joker does a graph in millionsth of an FPS, that'll be just dandy so long as it's marked correctly. There is a reason why "attempted murder" is a crime you know.
The axis isn't clearly labled.
It says 1x in the first chart.
They should state it is a ratio of X to Y and there should not be any Y on the chart in that case.
The goal is to mislead people or they would provide a chart with actual fps. It would not be more difficult to do so. If you can present more information and have the graphic as clear or clearer you should if your goal is to communicate to the reader instead of mislead the reader.
nicolasb
15-Nov-2007, 13:29
I repeat - there is nothing confusing on the graphs, axis is clearly described.The obvious question is: if graphs like this aren't actually able to mislead, why do marketing people use them? If it made no difference, they'd have to nothing to lose by presenting the data authentically. The simple fact that misleading graphs are used as widely as they are proves beyond any possible doubt that marketing people believe they work. Maybe you think you know more about marketing than they do, of course....
Generally speaking, if you lie to somebody and successfully deceive them, the blame lies on you for being deceitful. It is not acceptable to say "well, it's their fault for believing me"; to do so would make about as much sense as saying that, if you shoot someone, you are blameless and the shooting is entirely their fault for not getting out the way of the bullet in time.
They should state it is a ratio of X to Y and there should not be any Y on the chart in that case.
what? - why Y in 1d graphs?
If there's no attempt at obfuscation why don't they start at 0?
Because there is an attempt to draw attention to whatever advantage how ever small it may be. People quickly glancing at the actual graph in full scale might be confused into thinking that there is no discernible difference or that the difference falls within the margin of error perhaps?
Yes the point is to draw attention to differences which may otherwise may be neglected, although they are higher then margin error.
So someday when some joker does a graph in millionsth of an FPS, that'll be just dandy so long as it's marked correctly. There is a reason why "attempted murder" is a crime you know.
There is reason why suicide is not murder.
Generally speaking, if you lie to somebody and successfully deceive them, the blame lies on you for being deceitful. It is not acceptable to say "well, it's their fault for believing me"; to do so would make about as much sense as saying that, if you shoot someone, you are blameless and the shooting is entirely their fault for not getting out the way of the bullet in time.
Your fantasy went too far.
AlphaWolf
15-Nov-2007, 18:24
Yes the point is to draw attention to differences which may otherwise may be neglected, although they are higher then margin error.
Because they (or you) say so? I would prefer to judge that for myself. Sorry, but its just an attempt at deception, nothing else. Its become typical marketing and we have come to expect it, but that doesn't make it right.
I repeat - there is nothing confusing, decieving, lying on the graphs- because axis is clearly described.
In general it does not even have to be marketing. You don't always want 1:1 comparsion.
ShaidarHaran
15-Nov-2007, 19:37
I repeat - there is nothing confusing, decieving, lying on the graphs- because axis is clearly described.
In general it does not even have to be marketing. You don't always want 1:1 comparsion.
You must work in marketing.
AlphaWolf
15-Nov-2007, 19:44
I repeat - there is nothing confusing, decieving, lying on the graphs- because axis is clearly described.
BS.
In general it does not even have to be marketing. You don't always want 1:1 comparsion.
Yes, you don't want a 1:1 comparison when you want to deceive the consumer. I think we've established that. There's a number of ways they could accurately show the data so it would clearly demonstrate the actual advantage at a glance, but choose to go with a skewed graph.
ninelven
15-Nov-2007, 20:24
Just use pie charts, they auto balance.
One of my pet peevs is using graphs that dont start at zero
Just use pie charts, they auto balance.
Not if it's one of those 3D pie charts viewed from an angle. You can still skew the representation by making a slice smaller rotating it further from the viewer and bigger nearer to viewer.
ninelven
16-Nov-2007, 05:55
I believe I wrote pie charts not 3d pie charts....
/only on this forum
Here is an example of all the results in one of the previous graphs standardized and compiled. It gives you and accurate overall representation of the results, simple.
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7843/screenshot1qi2.png (http://imageshack.us)
And the same thing with the Nvidia slide:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9339/screenshot2dg4.png (http://imageshack.us)
BS.
It is simple fact, BSing it change nothing.
Yes, you don't want a 1:1 comparison when you want to deceive the consumer. I think we've established that. There's a number of ways they could accurately show the data so it would clearly demonstrate the actual advantage at a glance, but choose to go with a skewed graph.
See, you guys are too off.
The graph is accurate on first place.
The graph is not used for customers.
It demonstrate the actual advantage at a glance.
There are more reasons then decieveing to go for such graphs, like filling given space nicely, or to cath some trend which may be otherwise barely visible, etc.
AlphaWolf
16-Nov-2007, 07:15
It is simple fact, BSing it change nothing.
It is not a fact, its intentionally deceptive. Period.
See, you guys are too off.
The graph is accurate on first place.
It's not proper use of a graph because when taken out of scale the lines are not representative of what they claim to represent. Proper labeling doesn't change that fact.
The graph is not used for customers.
What do you think they are used for? Not necessarily retail customers, but those aren't the only customers.
It demonstrate the actual advantage at a glance.
It demonstrates an advantage exists, it does not demonstrate the actual advantage.
There are more reasons then decieveing to go for such graphs, like filling given space nicely, or to cath some trend which may be otherwise barely visible, etc.
Nice try, you can try to spin it any way you want, but I doubt you're going to convince anyone (with half a brain) that those skewed graphs aren't, with purpose, intentionally crafted to deceive.
You are saing these presentations are made for people with half brain, who don't know nothing about graphics cards?
For the rest - you are simply in conflict with reality. Period.
AlphaWolf
16-Nov-2007, 07:50
You are saing these presentations are made for people with half brain, who don't know nothing about graphics cards?
For the rest - you are simply in conflict with reality. Period.
If you can't support your argument with anything better than that is there really any point in posting? Give it up.
Yes the point is to draw attention to differences which may otherwise may be neglected, although they are higher then margin error.
Why would these differences have been "otherwise" neglected? Because they're too minimal to warrant notice?
Bar charts are meant to convey at-a-glance information, not second-look reflection. The charts in question show marketers subverting intent/expectation to their goal of differentiation. The point is that if people aren't paying attention, they'll mistake the graphs as indicating a greater difference than there is. There's only one reason for that, and it's not so much to highlight an "actual advantage" as to suggest a greater-than-actual one. It's magnifying the "barely visible" for no other reason than to suggest a disproportional difference.
If you want to argue that it's merely to get one's attention b/c the reality is otherwise unremarkable, then what else is exaggerating the difference except marketing in the form many of us lamenting: a trick to provoke a reaction? It's lame. People here are too sophisticated (a better word would be jaded) to fall for it, but it's not so much done to save time and eyestrain as it is to attract undue attention. Graphs are meant to be a visual simplification of data, and the graphs we're discussing oversimplify to the point of trashing the original intent. They skip right past elegant to skewed.
But you say that b/c "all" the data is there, there's no trickery. The graphs are missing most of the single axis of interest, which makes it hard to say they contain all the data relevant to making an informed decision at a glance. They do contain all the data relevant to highlighting a difference, but there are better ways to do so (indicating a discontinuity in the bar would be a start).
But this huge post is proof that the graphs achieved their goal, much ado about basically nothing, so I guess the marketers win. :razz:
Bar charts are meant to convey at-a-glance information, not second-look reflection. The charts in question show marketers subverting intent/expectation to their goal of differentiation. The point is that if people aren't paying attention, they'll mistake the graphs as indicating a greater difference than there is. There's only one reason for that, and it's not so much to highlight an "actual advantage" as to suggest a greater-than-actual one. It's magnifying the "barely visible" for no other reason than to suggest a disproportional difference.
It cannot be that way because it was intended for informed people. If you try to mislead them they will be not too friendly.
If you can't support your argument with anything better than that is there really any point in posting? Give it up.
If you want to ignore my provious posts is there really any point in replying?
MulciberXP
16-Nov-2007, 11:28
sure there is. your arguments are pedantic and as out of touch with reality as those graphs.
sure there is. your arguments are pedantic and as out of touch with reality as those graphs.
You don't believe the numbers? Or where is the problem, I don't get it.
nicolasb
16-Nov-2007, 13:30
It demonstrate the actual advantage at a glance.No.
At a glance, it "demonstrates" that the 3870 in World of Conflict is three times as fast as 2900XT. To realise what the real figure is, you have to glance more than once. That's the problem.
Now I am starting to think you just have problem with data presented in different way then you are used to.
At glance it shows relative difference between two cards in more games. You can at first glance see 3870 is 20 % faster then 2900 xt in WIC. Thanks to 2900 xt beiing always allign to 1 you can quickly look threw results and get idea of relative values.
How much better is that 20% than the 20% in the previous line that is before the 20% that is the actual result? (See, twice the 1.2x line)
Also, how can Radeon HD 3870 be more than 1.0X as fast as Radeon HD 2900XT in ET: Quake Wars and simultaneously have shorter bar than Radeon HD 2900XT and be slower than the other (faster?) 1.0X of the same card?
Why is the world in conflict Radeon HD 3870 bar three times as long as Radeon HD 2900XT bar for the same game even though the result is only 1.2X faster and simultaneously one more line than 1.2X faster if you look at the slower dublicate 1.2X line...
nicolasb
16-Nov-2007, 15:49
Now I am starting to think you just have problem with data presented in different way then you are used to.
At glance it shows relative difference between two cards in more games. You can at first glance see 3870 is 20 % faster then 2900 xt in WIC. Thanks to 2900 xt beiing always allign to 1 you can quickly look threw results and get idea of relative values.No.
At a glance what you see is that the red bar is three times as large as the yellow bar, and that is all that you see. Reading and interpreting the values on the x-axis requires several glances, plus some previous experience of dealing with misleading graphs of this type.
Personally I have plenty of experience of dealing with misleading graphs, and, contrary to what you suggest, the data is presented in exactly the way that I'm used to: misleadingly. But this graph is intended for those who don't have the benefit of my experience. And to them, it's misleading.
How much better is that 20% than the 20% in the previous line that is before the 20% that is the actual result? (See, twice the 1.2x line)
Allright, this one is confusing, for few second. Obviously one line is 0,05 and the person who marked the axis like this suck a lot. Still I don't think the person tries to lie to us, because it does not change a thing.
But this graph is intended for those who don't have the benefit of my experience. And to them, it's misleading.
Wrong, as I already explained.
I've always resented non-scale correct graphs (unless clearly visualized with a break-line and still holding the correct relative scale) and the subjective representation of these graphs. I remember an xbit review where they did this scaling and purposefully mentioned a 2% advantage in nvidia's hand as a slaughter of the ati card and the ati card performing 11% better being represented as a marginal improvement.
This all, both graphics and text are solely marketing attempts to skew reality for everyone that is in the spur of the moment when it comes to purchasing a new piece of hardware . .after all, you want a card that obliterates the other instead of offering a marginal improvement... these graphs do just that.. represent a marginal improvement as an obliteration..
Not if it's one of those 3D pie charts viewed from an angle. You can still skew the representation by making a slice smaller rotating it further from the viewer and bigger nearer to viewer.
Heh. (http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/11324/12348/Blu-ray-battles-HDDVD-attachment-statement.phtml)
I believe I wrote pie charts not 3d pie charts....
/only on this forum
Here is an example of all the results in one of the previous graphs standardized and compiled. It gives you and accurate overall representation of the results, simple.
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7843/screenshot1qi2.png
And the same thing with the Nvidia slide:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9339/screenshot2dg4.png
Not to be rude, but pie charts are terrible if you have more than one option to compare. In a bifurcated graphics world it may work, but if you want to compare the 3850 to 3870 to 8800gt etc... then you are in a real mess and bar charts or a simple table will convery the information more easily. And you are representing less info unless you also label them with the FPS. And then why not just list the FPS to begin with?
Heh. (http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/11324/12348/Blu-ray-battles-HDDVD-attachment-statement.phtml)
:lol:
Nice
ninelven
17-Nov-2007, 14:30
Not to be rude, but pie charts are terrible if you have more than one option to compare. In a bifurcated graphics world it may work, but if you want to compare the 3850 to 3870 to 8800gt etc... then you are in a real mess and bar charts or a simple table will convery the information more easily. And you are representing less info unless you also label them with the FPS. And then why not just list the FPS to begin with?/boggle Can not comprehend... Anyway, I didn't list the FPS in the charts I provided because they were an overall compilation of all the results (I stated this in the post). Basically, the charts I did would be found at the very end of a review to provide an accurate overall picture of the results. If you simply add up the various frames per second you end up with games/tests being of different values than the others (weighted differently). Thus you have to standardize the results. While, I could have provided the standardized numbers, they would've been essentially meaningless in this context.
EDIT: Since the above may be unclear, a small example of what I did:
HD3870 vs HD2900XT World in Conflict results in 24 and 20 fps respectively.
So if you want the result of this game to count the same as every other game, then 24/(24+20)=.545 and 20/(24+20)=.455. Do this for every game/test and add up the results for an overall picture. Obviously, providing the resulting values is not going to have much significance to the reader.
Now, as for comparing more than one option, it really isn't so difficult - you just make alot of pie charts and arrange and label them coherently.
You do have a point that they do not work very well for anything other than a head to head competition. However, if you just want to primarily compare two cards, I think a pie chart "summary of results" at the end of a review similar to what I provided in this thread could indeed be a very valuable addition to the consumer.
Damn people, not providing all the data still makes it useless.
being 50% faster in a pie chart makes it look neat, but it might still be a single digit pissing match underneath. A lower average of frames might conceal the fact that one of the products has serious problems with maintaining a high minimum frame rate.
Seen in that light, graphs with an X(t) and Y(fps) are simply best because one can easily deduct all useful information through a median for those who are interested and make things glaringly obvious for average Joe because his blue line clearly beats the other guys red line.
I just feel like I don't have all the information at hand anymore.. remember the old UT2003 demo's where nV's performance was lower in bot matches than in flyby's .. I just don't see that kind of benchmarking anymore. I want to see CPU load as well.. hell.. maybe even memory pages from perfmon so that not only the graphics card final output gets measure, but it's position in a systems eco-system as well.
ninelven
18-Nov-2007, 19:29
Damn people, not providing all the data still makes it useless. Damn people... READ. I said it would be an addition at the end of the review. All the individual data would still be available to reader if they were interested.
but it might still be a single digit pissing match underneath. A lower average of frames might conceal the fact that one of the products has serious problems with maintaining a high minimum frame rate. You are confusing problems with the chart type with issues concerning the underlying data. You can make pie charts based on minimum fps, median low, etc...
You are confusing problems with the chart type with issues concerning the underlying data. You can make pie charts based on minimum fps, median low, etc...
A single pie chart can not give me all of those at once, at least not providing a clear, blink of an eye solution
ninelven
19-Nov-2007, 08:35
The word summary. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/summary)
However, if you just want to primarily compare two cards, I think a pie chart "summary of results" at the end of a review similar to what I provided in this thread could indeed be a very valuable addition to the consumer.
A single pie chart can not give me all of those at once, at least not providing a clear, blink of an eye solutionAnd yes, the method I outlined gives you a reasonably accurate picture for a particular set of data. If you can't tell which slice of the pie is larger at the blink of an eye, then I might suggest you visit an optometrist.
Allright, this one is confusing, for few second. Obviously one line is 0,05 and the person who marked the axis like this suck a lot. Still I don't think the person tries to lie to us, because it does not change a thing.
To me it is an issue because it further obfuscates the reader from realizing how much the graph is actually skewed. In fact, I had a rescaled graph made where I added just 9 new lines to the left of the original graph, marked them 0.8x, 0.7x etc and was ready to call it a day when I took another close look, thought about it for a while and yelled WAIT A MINUTE! It's still skewed!
So at the first glance its majorly skewed, at a second glance I still didn't have a clear idea of just how skewed the graph actually was. I think I had to spend along the lines of 15 minutes of mspaint copy pasting and then thinking before I actually realized what the graph is supposed to look like in full scale.
To me it is an issue because it further obfuscates the reader from realizing how much the graph is actually skewed. In fact, I had a rescaled graph made where I added just 9 new lines to the left of the original graph, marked them 0.8x, 0.7x etc and was ready to call it a day when I took another close look, thought about it for a while and yelled WAIT A MINUTE! It's still skewed!
So at the first glance its majorly skewed, at a second glance I still didn't have a clear idea of just how skewed the graph actually was. I think I had to spend along the lines of 15 minutes of mspaint copy pasting and then thinking before I actually realized what the graph is supposed to look like in full scale.
Ahhh, I don't want to be personal but... you don't need to waste your time like that.
Some people learn one way and want to stay like it forever. Full scale is good to show absolute values. Point of this one was to show how one card is performing compared to other. Think like in full scale you have 0 for beginning, in this one performance of 2900 XT is used as zero. Just try. Suddenly everything will be simple and nice.
The point we're trying to make is that absolute values are a pretty good basis for clearly presenting relative performance--the only basis worth using if that's your intent, really. Unless you think something like this (http://www.ixbt.com/video3/images/rv670/pcie20.png) is more useful both in terms of most transparently conveying the data or best doing so in an at-a-glance format. The correct answer is no, a simple table would have been more accurate and concise. (OTOH, I think an agglomeration of data like this (http://www.ixbt.com/video3/images/rv670/cr2-pr.png) would be better served with a bar chart with the relevant %ages overlaid on the end of each bar.) To each his own, according to his intentions and limitations....
As for the implications of 2900 being zero, that makes comparison moot, no? :razz: Much simpler to make it one, which brings us back to my first paragraph.
Ahhh, I don't want to be personal but... you don't need to waste your time like that.
Some people learn one way and want to stay like it forever. Full scale is good to show absolute values. Point of this one was to show how one card is performing compared to other. Think like in full scale you have 0 for beginning, in this one performance of 2900 XT is used as zero. Just try. Suddenly everything will be simple and nice.
Think of it this way, skew the graph even further and at some point the graph doesn't really show anything meaningful, like my edited second picture of the nvidia graph. Is there any point, at which you would agree the graph is too skewed?
If you had 2900XT as zero or very close to it, you would probably have the bar like single pixel wide or not have any bar for it at all (what situation is this? some game the 2900xt can't run at all?), or , then if you only have bar for one product and nothing to compare it to, it doesn't make sense to have any graph at all and only the numerical data becomes of interest.
In one game in the graph they use 18 fps as starting point for the graph. Why? Why is 18 fps significant there? Why should anyone think 24 fps should feel like three times better than 20 fps? What is this difference indicative of?
In this case, to me, once I realized how skewed the graph was, the bars lost all meaning to me, the bars don't accurately describe the difference between two products unless rescaled. That said, I do give them some points back for including the actual framerate numbers. With them, there is some information in the graph left with which to work on.
I used zero to explain difference between this type of chart and full scale. As you can see here, people got so used to zero as referential point they refuse other ways. Yes, to have it allign to 1 is great thing, often better then then full scale. Which brings me again to disagreement. You can tell at glance percentage difference and have this relative difference for more games in one graph. It gets better with more games tested, you get easily average difference between the two. This one number, although not precise, is the one most wanted. Not card 1 have x fps and card 2 have y.
Your link is error 403.
My link? What link?
edit: O I C you mean Pete's links
since you didn't answer my questions, I'd like to repose them
Putas:
1) Think of it this way, skew the graph even further and at some point the graph doesn't really show anything meaningful, like my edited second picture of the nvidia graph. Is there any point, at which you would agree the graph is too skewed?
2) In one game in the graph they use 18 fps as starting point for the graph. Why? Why is 18 fps significant there? What is this difference indicative of?
1 picture tells 1000 words.
Putas, by your arguments, this picture should be about as ok as the first graph (though 2 game results less there)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v472/Mendelbop/testi-1.jpg
However, here the picture is slightly more skewed, now there is absolutely no information in the graph except the numbers, the bars are pointless, agree?
well, to me, the bars are as pointless in the original graph, they tell nothing about the relative performance difference between the two cards.
(edited image quickly to add data below graph)
No, it is actually only about bars, fps numbers are irrelevant :smile:
Your link is error 403.
That usually happens when one links directly to an inline image. Just click in the address bar and hit enter (or click the green 'go' arrow in Firefox).
However, here the picture is slightly more skewed, now there is absolutely no information in the graph except the numbers, the bars are pointless, agree?
(edited image quickly to add data below graph)
To be more specific- the bars carry still the same point, showing 3870 doing about 10% better then 2900 xt.
AlphaWolf
21-Nov-2007, 19:03
To be more specific- the bars carry still the same point, showing 3870 doing about 10% better then 2900 xt.
you're not getting that information from looking at the bars...
True. You get that from bars+axis.
True. You get that from bars+axis.
If, and only if you disregard the axis, the bars hold no information alone, agree?
Is there any particular reason you avoid directly answering my questions in general?
Agree.
I did not answer since you were working with wrong premise.
So it would be something silly like 1) no 2) why not - it is not - nothing
Agree.
Thanks! It is my opinion that in such graph, bars alone should give a graphical representation of differences amongst the products that are being compared.
1) no
So if you look at the third and fourth picture of my original post, you could further skew the bars into oblivion and at no point it would be too skewed, not ridiculous in the slightest?
IMO it is okay to highlight differences, if you do include the starting point of the graph and then imply discontinuity in the graph if you want to cut "irrelevant" parts of it off. ( for layout purposes for example.)
This stuff is teached in high school math class, it's very well thought out, there are standards in how you make a graph for comparing things if you want to be informative. I expect to be treated as a person who wants information. I don't expect to be expected to use photoshop to make the graphs make sense to me :)
Yes, it would be ridiculous and ugly. More so since you excluded negative results. But similar reasons led to skewing- having results only in range of 90-120% why not crop it? It is not a big deal to add axis description, you should check for it everytime anyway. You cannot get rid of it with everytime. Do you have to imply discontinuity? I say no, not necessary, this is no exact science or engineering with its standards described in fat books. Just don't forgot they won't teach you everything in school and think for yourself- you will do fine without photoshop.
Yes, it would be ridiculous and ugly. More so since you excluded negative results. But similar reasons led to skewing- having results only in range of 90-120% why not crop it? It is not a big deal to add axis description, you should check for it everytime anyway. You cannot get rid of it with everytime. Do you have to imply discontinuity? I say no, not necessary, this is no exact science or engineering with its standards described in fat books. Just don't forgot they won't teach you everything in school and think for yourself- you will do fine without photoshop.
the thing is that with cropping (which I agree, should be applied by default on most statistics.. that's the way I learned it) comes the loss of scale. That scale is the reason everyone talks about skewed graphs, simply because the scale of the original graph is gone.
Even if the axis are clearly labeled graphics are easier (and universal) to imprint the (now un-proportionally) big difference between 20 and 22 f/s.
that's why these graphs should scale properly. i.e. with fixed values for x and y (yes. graphs will become big comparing 200 f/s to 20 f/s) or scaling the graph so that the largest value is 100% and all the other results are scaled proportionally.
that's why these graphs should scale properly. i.e. with fixed values for x and y (yes. graphs will become big comparing 200 f/s to 20 f/s) or scaling the graph so that the largest value is 100% and all the other results are scaled proportionally.
I still don't see a reason why graphs showed here should be called improperly scaled.
Your proposition would make comparsion between products harder.
It's just the effect these graphs have when you first take a glance at them. It's this "Hey, that looks like a great improvement, no wait a minute..." factor that kind of offends people.
I don't think there's any problem layout wise using full scale graphs if one does them properly.
If we had a poll about which is better ( or preferred, more informative): the first graph of the first post or the version edited by me (given it some tweaks to make it not look like mspaint job) ... I'd bet good amounts of money that the edited version would be voted winner hands down!
Why? Because the starting point of the original graph is indicative of nothing (as even Putas admitted) whereas the meaning of starting point of full scale graph is self evident.
I still don't see a reason why graphs showed here should be called improperly scaled.
Because they don't fit the expectations of the viewers.
Why? Because the starting point of the original graph is indicative of nothing (as even Putas admitted) whereas the meaning of starting point of full scale graph is self evident.
I admitted under condition of missing description.
Your personal expectation does not set standard for other viewers.
AlphaWolf
27-Nov-2007, 20:09
I admitted under condition of missing description.
Your personal expectation does not set standard for other viewers.
You seem to be the only one with a dissenting opinion, it might be more accurate to say its your expectation that does not set a standard for other viewers.
You seem to be the only one with a dissenting opinion, it might be more accurate to say its your expectation that does not set a standard for other viewers.
hear hear, someone should run a poll and display the results in a non-skewed scale...
c'mon guys.. Putas is just trolling around..
With a name like "Putas"? Say it ain't so.
With a name like "Putas"? Say it ain't so.
geh geh geh...
don't blame me for spanish language please
c'mon guys.. Putas is just trolling around..
I am sorry for spoiling your trolling on innocent graph.
Your personal expectation does not set standard for other viewers.
Fair enough, let's run a poll (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=45678) on the matter.
Might be interesting. But mind you one more time- since the graph is not intended for people of the b3d kind, results are irrelevant to our debate.
Interesting opinion.
I tend to think as follows: If a graph comparing graphics cards is openly shown and released in the internet, it's intended for anyone interested in such content.
edit: Besides, come on, it's a graph comparing high end 3d graphics adapters. If this forum is not target audience for such matters, what is? Who is the graph intended for? And why not to us?
edit: Besides, come on, it's a graph comparing high end 3d graphics adapters. If this forum is not target audience for such matters, what is? Who is the graph intended for? And why not to us?
He would then say it's for the marketeers and resellers as an extra tool to sell their product (the one with the much larger bar.)
Why would you buy a Chevy? this Ford performs *so* much better.
He would then say it's for the marketeers and resellers as an extra tool to sell their product (the one with the much larger bar.)
Why would you buy a Chevy? this Ford performs *so* much better.
Almost there. Just don't be so obsessed with evil marketing.
Almost there. Just don't be so obsessed with evil marketing.
It's just because Mendel's photo shopping skills suck more than that of ATI/nV's PR departments
Might be interesting. But mind you one more time- since the graph is not intended for people of the b3d kind, results are irrelevant to our debate.
And here are your irrelevant results so far:
Graph style a).........4 10.26%
Graph style b)......... 29 74.36%
Neither................5 12.82%
Both...................1 2.56%
Graph style a) here refers to the style of the original graph, b) would refer to full scale graph. (as edited by me, but ignoring it being crappy)
Graph style a) here refers to the style of the original graph, b) would refer to full scale graph. (as edited by me, but ignoring it being crappy)
But mind you one more time- since the graph is not intended for people of the b3d kind, results are irrelevant to our debate.
See.. we've just won! a "who can drive fastest into a concrete bridge pillar" match
digitalwanderer
18-Apr-2008, 21:25
And this week's weiner of the worst graph of the week award IS.........Techware Labs (http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/amd_phenom_9850/index_4.shtml):
http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/amd_phenom_9850/images/fullsize/Crysis_Chart.jpg
Look at that whopping .06 fps difference! :shock:
I want to buy whatever is generating that top chart...
It's so uber...
:lol::lol:
zsouthboy
18-Apr-2008, 23:14
And this week's weiner of the worst graph of the week award IS.........Techware Labs (http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/amd_phenom_9850/index_4.shtml):
http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/amd_phenom_9850/images/fullsize/Crysis_Chart.jpg
Look at that whopping .06 fps difference! :shock:
:O :O :O
Holy shit!
That should get an award!
AlphaWolf
18-Apr-2008, 23:16
The first thing I think of when I see that graph is 1/5th of 1% difference.
New entry:
http://resources.vr-zone.com//newspics/May08/30/gtx200-series-performance.jpg
Hands down the winner compared to the one in the first post. :lol:
Beat this:
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5200/76573863my6.jpg
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1453/9/ecs_a780gm_a_780g_motherboard/index.html
Look to all review. Is hilarious :)
AlphaWolf
09-Jun-2008, 18:44
What's funny is that below the graph they say:
Premiere Elements shows less than 5 seconds between the three platforms. There’s nothing really to discern a winner here.
Zeroing the graph definitely would have shown this more clearly.
Have mercies, it hurts me eyes :/
Glad to see these 48X0 vs 8800 graphs (http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_23897423/tm.htm) properly scaled.
edit: the graph seems to have disappeared from that thread...
Simon F
13-Jun-2008, 10:03
Glad to see these 48X0 vs 8800 graphs (http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_23897423/tm.htm) properly scaled.
Indeed. Now if only I'd continued studying Turkish so the rest made sense :(
ChrisRay
16-Aug-2008, 20:46
Indeed. Now if only I'd continued studying Turkish so the rest made sense :(
http://game.amd.com/us-en/content/images/unlock/radeonhd4870x2/hd_4870_x2_benchmark_chart_02_large.jpg
DISCLAIMER
The Information presented in this document is for informational purposes only and may contain technical inaccuracies, omissions and typographical errors. AMD makes no representations or warranties with respect to the contents hereof and assumes no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors or omissions that may appear in this information. AMD specifically disclaims any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. In no event will AMD be liable to any person for any direct, indirect, special or other consequential damages arising from the use of any information contained herein, even if AMD is expressly advised of the possibility of such damages.
http://game.amd.com/us-en/unlock_radeonhd4870x2.aspx?p=4
P.S. Just pointing out that these marketing graphs are not exlusive to anyone one side.
ZOMG. The red line is 7x as long as the green line! Where do I send my money? Do they take tips too?! If I send them a signed blank check and tell them to fill in what they feel is fair, will that work?
0.8 is a good a place to start as any ;)
Bye bye 8800GTX. I bought a new mainboard, memory, psu and a 4800X2. That graph convinced me!
Simon F
26-Aug-2008, 09:42
0.8 is a good a place to start as any ;)
Why not start at 1.2 so that the competitors appear to score negative?
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.