Benchmarking with new gen gfx-cards
- Thread starter _xxx_
- Start date
Why wouldn't they cut it?
Besides, to solve your problem just bench with morrowind... I don't believe there will ever be a vidcard made that that fuggin game can't bring to its knees.
Besides, to solve your problem just bench with morrowind... I don't believe there will ever be a vidcard made that that fuggin game can't bring to its knees.
_xxx_ said:
Isn't that what the cards are bought for though, games?
I'm probably going to get flamed for this but IMO games are the best indicator of testing these cards to find out their gaming performance. If a game can't tap the full potential of it oh well, gamers can only play the games that are out there anyways, they can't play future games until they become the present.
Games are indeed the best indicator of a card's gaming performance (isn't this a "Duh"?) but Game Performance is not the same as 3D Performance. Developers work around a card's 3D Performance shortcomings (and so you can have a card with lousy 3D Performance that can still have very decent Game Performance -- Publisher tells Dev : "Stop using so much of this feature because this range of cards suck when you use too much of this feature -- our tie-up with this card's IHV is important", and this no longer even represents Game Performance or 3D Performance but Money Performance). There are sections of the public that is just as interested in Gaming Performance as they are in 3D Performance. A hw review website could/should do what they think their intended target audience wants and stop saying everything else is irrelevant.Brent said:
I'm not going to flame you but hopefully this will not become a revisit of an old topic.
trinibwoy said:
Shall I remind you who the author of that paragraph is?
On topic: yes most reviews I read so far are more than just good. I just wish more reviewers would have used ultra high resolutions as Anandtech did. With resolutions on high end monitors constantly increasing and with ATI's R520 arriving sometime soon (for which I expect to see similar performance improvements in very high resolutions), it might be a consideration for reviewers.
IMHO, reviewing with greater than 16x12 resolutions it's going way beyond (pun intended) what the general consumer (even hardcore) will have at its disposal in terms of monitor resolution support.
If the argument is to test 3D performance and not game performance I'd prefer to see synthethic benchmarks (perhaps based on games) rather than higher than 16x12.
Example: if D3 (or whatever) is too easy at 1600x1200 8xSSAA/16xAF just build a large outdoor custom level with 50 enemies on screen, stick 2k by 2k normal maps in them and cover the entire screen with the motion blur shader from RoE. Think Q2-demo "crusher" type benches.
That way people can still download these custom levels and see for themselves what performance do they have, even if single-digit. If you go with >16x12 you take away this option for the overwhelming majority of readers.
If the argument is to test 3D performance and not game performance I'd prefer to see synthethic benchmarks (perhaps based on games) rather than higher than 16x12.
Example: if D3 (or whatever) is too easy at 1600x1200 8xSSAA/16xAF just build a large outdoor custom level with 50 enemies on screen, stick 2k by 2k normal maps in them and cover the entire screen with the motion blur shader from RoE. Think Q2-demo "crusher" type benches.
That way people can still download these custom levels and see for themselves what performance do they have, even if single-digit. If you go with >16x12 you take away this option for the overwhelming majority of readers.
I'll hold my hand up and admit that the reason I don't do it is because I got rid of my high-end Sony CRT to get LCDs and the biggest LCD I have is 1600x1200.
I made that choice by weighing up what I thought my readers would be using (mostly 1280x1024 LCDs, it seems, if they have the money, and cards that can't really game higher than that anyway if they don't) and what I thought would be a reasonably top-end resolution to play modern games with, using IQ enhancing features. Then all that had to be balanced with with what I personally needed in terms of screen real-estate, which had knock on effects for desk size, power and heat.
I really do need more than one display to work best (for writing, not benching), but I don't have a desk that'll take 2 large CRTs, both in size (depth) or in weight. A triplet of big LCDs is easy to accomodate though, and they cost me less than my old Sony did to run.
Saying that, maybe it's time for me to get a CRT again
Going by our readership, the number of people gaming at over 1600x1200 is really very small, but I have to cater to my fringe readers too, right?
I made that choice by weighing up what I thought my readers would be using (mostly 1280x1024 LCDs, it seems, if they have the money, and cards that can't really game higher than that anyway if they don't) and what I thought would be a reasonably top-end resolution to play modern games with, using IQ enhancing features. Then all that had to be balanced with with what I personally needed in terms of screen real-estate, which had knock on effects for desk size, power and heat.
I really do need more than one display to work best (for writing, not benching), but I don't have a desk that'll take 2 large CRTs, both in size (depth) or in weight. A triplet of big LCDs is easy to accomodate though, and they cost me less than my old Sony did to run.
Saying that, maybe it's time for me to get a CRT again
Going by our readership, the number of people gaming at over 1600x1200 is really very small, but I have to cater to my fringe readers too, right?I would have thought that this is a new niche market that has great potential for growth.
It is just one of those cool features, and this is again a point where CRT can claim its reason for longer existance. LCD's will never be able to follow them in the resolution.
Is there any CRT's with higher than 2048x1536 resolution?
Anyhow with GFX cards so powerfull this would be the way to go, just lift the bar and users with spare money will follow as usual, unless there are some technical problems delivering higher resolutions, but at for start 2048*1536 should be enough. You can have monitors sporting this rez for less than £300I just checked
That is good for the industry, gives everyone a reason to spend and incentive to the companies (gfx/monitor manufacturers) to provide faster/better products. Kill the jaggies
It is just one of those cool features, and this is again a point where CRT can claim its reason for longer existance. LCD's will never be able to follow them in the resolution.
Is there any CRT's with higher than 2048x1536 resolution?
Anyhow with GFX cards so powerfull this would be the way to go, just lift the bar and users with spare money will follow as usual, unless there are some technical problems delivering higher resolutions, but at for start 2048*1536 should be enough
. You can have monitors sporting this rez for less than £300I just checked That is good for the industry, gives everyone a reason to spend and incentive to the companies (gfx/monitor manufacturers) to provide faster/better products. Kill the jaggies
