Originally Posted by Andrew Lauritzen
"Smoothness at particular settings" sure, and frame latencies are a good place to start to measure that. Certainly you can argue over whether 99% percentile, time beyond some threshold, quartile graphs, etc. are the best way to present the data, but averaging successive frames is pretty clearly not
a good way to present it. FPS is really only meaningful and interesting if it's metered like on many console games (i.e. a "30fps" or "60fps" game), and even then you still want to measure "dropped" frames and such. FPS really does not add any interesting information over frame times, and I don't think there's a compelling reason that it needs to be used in reviews other than legacy. I'm convinced that the enthusiasts who read these sorts of reviews (don't kid yourself, regular people do not...) can understand and adapt.
But hey, more data is all good in my books
I just don't ever want to see only
FPS numbers for any review that claims to tell me how smooth my gameplay experience is going to be with a specific game, set of hardware, etc.
I disagree FPS averages have no value; if you're gonna show the data then I don't see any value in not showing the computed average especially if you're gonna contrast it to another methodology computed perceived 'smoothness'.
60fps is not the be-all-end-all, some gamers want 90, some want 120, some want 45 - they want to know what trade offs are necessary to get there. Reviewers are ultimately limited on the permutations for testing so it's not possible to find every combination but if you can simply turn off the FPS limiter in Skyrim and get rid of the stutter on the AMD card, shouldn't that be noted? These are enthusiasts who aren't afraid of tweaking .ini files, I postulate, if they're willing to go down the rabbit hole of statistical frame time analysis.