Skewed graphs in 3d graphics industry

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.

 

BS.

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.

 

Just use pie charts, they auto balance.

 

One of my pet peevs is using graphs that dont start at zero

 

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.

 

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.


And the same thing with the Nvidia slide:

 

It is simple fact, BSing it change nothing.

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.

 

It is not a fact, its intentionally deceptive. Period.

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.

What do you think they are used for? Not necessarily retail customers, but those aren't the only customers.

It demonstrates an advantage exists, it does not demonstrate the actual advantage.

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.

 

If you can't support your argument with anything better than that is there really any point in posting? Give it up.

 

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.

 

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 want to ignore my provious posts is there really any point in replying?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Wrong, as I already explained.