Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [PCPer] Frame Rating Part 3: First Results
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[PCPer] Frame Rating Part 3: First Results - Page 2

post #11 of 294
The biggest problem I have noticed is that I just don't see what there results produce. I have tri fire 7970s and Just don't see the stutter they are speaking of 80% of the time. Many 680 sli/690 users report the same thing, they just don't see it.

I personally believe that frame time analysis is far too subjective to be an objective measure of performance.

Microstutter does exist and certainly can ruin an experience. The problem is, micro stutter isn't proven to be solely a gpu problem. The amount of variables that can affect microstuttering is well beyond the threshold of being able to use it as a scoring metric.

Not only this, but does anyone notice how completely unexplained each result in each review is with pcper? There is no "good" or "bad" line drawn with frame times, just the assumption that percentile @ x Ms is worse then a lower number yet they give no actual visual review of what they see on the screen.

If they Compared each card visually on screen, review the smoothness without frame latenency #s, then went back and reviewed the latency, it would be a much more solid statistic. Where it stands now, without any sort "real life" review of what you see, these are pointless.

My biggest beef is the use of a slo-mo camera to capture the stuttering. For the love of god, if you can't see it in real time and must use a 240fps camera to capture it, then clearly it doesn't affect what the end user actually sees.
Edited by jomama22 - 2/22/13 at 10:42pm
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
intel 3960x @4.7 ghz asrock extreme9 x79 3x msi 7970 lightnings g.skill ripjawx 1600 cl8 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingMonitor
ssd: kingston hyperx 120gb hdd: seagate barracu... bd-rwh water for cpu benq 2420t 24" 120hz 
Case
mountain mods extended asension 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3960x Asrock Extreme9 2x Sapphire 6950 unlocked G.skill CL8 12800 x4 (4gb) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Kingston hyperx  Seagate barracuda xt 7200/ sata3/ 64 mb cache LiteOn BD-R x12 Watercooling 
OSMonitorPowerCase
win 7 x64 asus 23" 1080p 1000W Thermaltake toughpower HAX 932 Advanced (modified for Radiators on ins... 
MouseAudio
Razer Deathhadder 3.5g sennheiser PC 330, Game blaster with Extreme9 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
intel 3960x @4.7 ghz asrock extreme9 x79 3x msi 7970 lightnings g.skill ripjawx 1600 cl8 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingMonitor
ssd: kingston hyperx 120gb hdd: seagate barracu... bd-rwh water for cpu benq 2420t 24" 120hz 
Case
mountain mods extended asension 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3960x Asrock Extreme9 2x Sapphire 6950 unlocked G.skill CL8 12800 x4 (4gb) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Kingston hyperx  Seagate barracuda xt 7200/ sata3/ 64 mb cache LiteOn BD-R x12 Watercooling 
OSMonitorPowerCase
win 7 x64 asus 23" 1080p 1000W Thermaltake toughpower HAX 932 Advanced (modified for Radiators on ins... 
MouseAudio
Razer Deathhadder 3.5g sennheiser PC 330, Game blaster with Extreme9 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 294
It's completely subjective. Some people wouldn't notice if their hair was on fire either, but that doesn't mean it's not smoking.

Personally, the AMD footage from reviews like this makes my eyes bleed. Just as SLI does at times with microstutter.
Ivypascal
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3570K, 4.6 GHz @ 1.29V Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H eVGA GTX1080 ACX SC 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws X DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Crucial M4SSD2 SATA III (128GB) Windows 10 Pro x64 Viewsonic XG2703-GS & Dell 24' 07WFPHC CM Storm Quick Fire Rapid, MX Red 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair HX850 Coolermaster HAF 932 Logitech G502 
  hide details  
Reply
Ivypascal
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3570K, 4.6 GHz @ 1.29V Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H eVGA GTX1080 ACX SC 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws X DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Crucial M4SSD2 SATA III (128GB) Windows 10 Pro x64 Viewsonic XG2703-GS & Dell 24' 07WFPHC CM Storm Quick Fire Rapid, MX Red 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair HX850 Coolermaster HAF 932 Logitech G502 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 294
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

I dont understand this. What they are saying CF is fake?

What they are saying is that CF throws up a lot of frames that only stay on the screen for a very short time (see the very small line in the bar on the left side of the screenshot) so it is counting frames for FPS that you don't really see. I don't know how much that matters though, but you can clearly see in their screenshots that the Nvidia cards have a more balanced time for each frame to appear on-screen. So you get a 45ms frame, a 15ms frame, and a 5ms frame with AMD, but a 25ms frame and a 35ms frame with Nvidia. At least that's how I read it, but I guess we'll have to wait for the full review.


Quote:
Originally Posted by th3illusiveman View Post

This is just getting silly now... how convenient for Nvidia that they test this only when that ridiculously expensive card needs all the justification it can for it's price since it's performance isn't doing any.

They started this testing weeks ago, before Titan was even announced. It has nothing to do with Titan - they didn't even test Titan with it yet.
Edited by Forceman - 2/22/13 at 10:44pm
post #14 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forceman View Post

What they are saying is that CF throws up a lot of frames that only stay on the screen for a very short time (see the very small line in the bar on the left side of the screenshot) so it is counting frames for FPS that you don't really see. I don't know how much that matters though, but you can clearly see in their screenshots that the Nvidia cards have a more balanced time for each frame to appear on-screen. I guess we'll have to wait for the full review.


They started this testing weeks ago, before Titan was even announced. It has nothing to do with Titan - they didn't even test Titan with it yet.
are you telling me that someone who is getting 25fps-30fps and gets so annoyed by it they go out and buy another $400 GPU to boost performance wouldn't notice that they didn't get any? I'm sorry but if this is true it would have been reported ages ago. They are basically saying that you aren't getting any improvements in FPS when you run CFX and that can't be right. Add to that their latency testing (using Fraps) is worse than any other graph i've seen on the matter.

I have yet to run a CFX solution but i know the difference was night and day when i put a 2nd card in my system to run battlefield 3, it would be impossible to miss and a CFX user would notice the farce.
Edited by th3illusiveman - 2/22/13 at 11:12pm
Bender
(18 items)
 
  
Reply
Bender
(18 items)
 
  
Reply
post #15 of 294
I suggest looking at the original 7970 cfx skyrim test from tr. Then, looking at a follow up with the 13.2 drivers.

Latency/stutter disappears, yet fps stay exactly the same.

So cfx isn't just padding stats, its a implementation problem.
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
intel 3960x @4.7 ghz asrock extreme9 x79 3x msi 7970 lightnings g.skill ripjawx 1600 cl8 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingMonitor
ssd: kingston hyperx 120gb hdd: seagate barracu... bd-rwh water for cpu benq 2420t 24" 120hz 
Case
mountain mods extended asension 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3960x Asrock Extreme9 2x Sapphire 6950 unlocked G.skill CL8 12800 x4 (4gb) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Kingston hyperx  Seagate barracuda xt 7200/ sata3/ 64 mb cache LiteOn BD-R x12 Watercooling 
OSMonitorPowerCase
win 7 x64 asus 23" 1080p 1000W Thermaltake toughpower HAX 932 Advanced (modified for Radiators on ins... 
MouseAudio
Razer Deathhadder 3.5g sennheiser PC 330, Game blaster with Extreme9 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
intel 3960x @4.7 ghz asrock extreme9 x79 3x msi 7970 lightnings g.skill ripjawx 1600 cl8 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingMonitor
ssd: kingston hyperx 120gb hdd: seagate barracu... bd-rwh water for cpu benq 2420t 24" 120hz 
Case
mountain mods extended asension 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3960x Asrock Extreme9 2x Sapphire 6950 unlocked G.skill CL8 12800 x4 (4gb) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Kingston hyperx  Seagate barracuda xt 7200/ sata3/ 64 mb cache LiteOn BD-R x12 Watercooling 
OSMonitorPowerCase
win 7 x64 asus 23" 1080p 1000W Thermaltake toughpower HAX 932 Advanced (modified for Radiators on ins... 
MouseAudio
Razer Deathhadder 3.5g sennheiser PC 330, Game blaster with Extreme9 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 294
I managed to get MSI afterburners frame time thing working, I sit at 8.4ms constantly per frame if i'm vsynced to 120hz which is about right, I don't go above or below, Whatever these people are trying to point out, I'm not seeing it.
MEGATRON
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4710MQ P170-SM-A Nvidia GTX 980M @ 1470mhz 32GB DDR3L 1600mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung SSD 840 EVO Msata 250GB SanDisk SDSSDX120GG25 HGST 1TB Blu-Ray 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
OverCharged Cage fans Windows 8.1 + Virtual Machines Modified 1080P glossy IPS 60hz Stock 
Power
240 Watt Brick 
  hide details  
Reply
MEGATRON
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4710MQ P170-SM-A Nvidia GTX 980M @ 1470mhz 32GB DDR3L 1600mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung SSD 840 EVO Msata 250GB SanDisk SDSSDX120GG25 HGST 1TB Blu-Ray 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
OverCharged Cage fans Windows 8.1 + Virtual Machines Modified 1080P glossy IPS 60hz Stock 
Power
240 Watt Brick 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by jomama22 View Post

The biggest problem I have noticed is that I just don't see what there results produce. I have tri fire 7970s and Just don't see the stutter they are speaking of 80% of the time. Many 680 sli/690 users report the same thing, they just don't see it.
6x0 cards usually have less frame-time latency compared to AMD setups to begin with, so I wouldn't be surprised by that statement. Your trifire 7970 is probably pumping out so many fps that microstutter doesn't even matter anymore. Plus when your pumping out that much fps, it's hard to see microstutter period.
Quote:
I personally believe that frame time analysis is far too subjective to be an objective measure of performance.
Uh...frame-time analysis is objective. You just have to interpret the data to see what it really means. If you have trifire 7970s having microstutter at 5ms-15ms, and your monitor has a 60hz refresh rate (I see you have 120hz, btw), then you're not going to see any of the microstutter because the raw performance of the cards is able to hide it, as well as your monitor not supporting anything over 60fps.
Quote:
Microstutter does exist and certainly can ruin an experience. The problem is, micro stutter isn't proven to be solely a gpu problem. The amount of variables that can affect microstuttering is well beyond the threshold of being able to use it as a scoring metric.
Well, your right, to an extent, but if you take a look at all of the websites that do frame-time testing, you should see a pattern. AMD cards, on average, have more microstutter than NV cards, be it single card or not. The drivers that are being rolled out are slowly fixing that, though, and seeing as we got 7xxx/6xx until Q4, I wouldn't be surprised if the fix microstutter completely by then.
Quote:
Not only this, but does anyone notice how completely unexplained each result in each review is with pcper? There is no "good" or "bad" line drawn with frame times, just the assumption that percentile @ x Ms is worse then a lower number yet they give no actual visual review of what they see on the screen.

If they Compared each card visually on screen, review the smoothness without frame latenency #s, then went back and reviewed the latency, it would be a much more solid statistic. Where it stands now, without any sort "real life" review of what you see, these are pointless.
Well, it's their first time doing this stuff. Not to mention that they're probably expecting the reader to already have at least some knowhow on how to interpret frame-time latency-based graphs. If you know how to read the graphs, then a subjective analysis really isn't needed because all the data that you would need is right in front of you. It's the same thing in the headphone world. If you know how to read the frequency graphs, 500Hz square waves, 50Hz square waves, impedance vs sensitivity, etc. then you should know how a headphone sounds just by looking at the graphs. I will agree with you that having both is the best way to do it.
Edited by airisom2 - 2/23/13 at 1:06am
post #18 of 294
Despite the Nvidia gfx card have a more uniform frametime, the reviewer notes that there could be some sort of smoothing going on before the image is outputted. Hence, why the AMD gfx often time has lower(best) ms time, however it also has consistent jumps from 0 to ~20ms. I am not quite sure if I understand frame rating wholly but from what I understand frame rating does not abide by the conventional Frame Per Second, since you could have frames that last 20 ms, 30 ms, and even 5 ms. The goal of all graphics card should be "0" ms since users want maximum frames, without looking at a single frame for too long, which means no frame lag. In the competitive sense an avg of 20 ms frames vs 0 ms frames can be thought of the same as 20 ms input lag vs 0 ms input lag. You don't want to see one image longer because it may have already been too late to react for the next input.

So, no, frame rating is definitely not subjective. Just because you do not notice frame lag, and it doesn't hinder your perceived performance. On a very micro level it actually does and should definitely be taken into consideration in the same manner your LCD panels are handled with things like refresh rate, response time and input lag. Just because the Nvidia has consistent frame rating which will handle micro stutter better, it could also introduce some sort of frame/input lag, which is also bad.
Edited by ABeta - 2/22/13 at 11:03pm
post #19 of 294
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by th3illusiveman View Post

are you telling me that someone who is getting 25fps-30fps and gets to annoyed buy it they go out and buy another $400 GPU to boost performance wouldn't notice that they didn't get any? I'm sorry but if this is true it would have been reported ages ago. They are basically saying that you aren't getting any improvements in FPS when you run CFX and that can't be right. Add to that their latency testing (using Fraps) is worse than any other graph i've seen on the matter.

I'm not telling you anything. I'm just putting my interpretation of what they say in the article, which is that a lot of frames (when measured at the monitor, which is a significant difference) are on the screen for very small slices of time. And let's be honest, without FRAPS running, how many people can really tell the difference between 60 FPS and 80 FPS?

What they are showing with their screenshots is how long, in each 60ms monitor cycle, the frame is displayed. So that may be different from what other reviewers are getting with the FRAPS frame time-stamping. They show the comparison that illustrates that difference - there is still a portion of the display pipeline that occurs after FRAPS time-stamps the frame, so if the card is doing something at that part of the pipeline to affect the display time, FRAPS won't show it.
Edited by Forceman - 2/22/13 at 11:04pm
post #20 of 294
Well, we'll see. The difference I saw when going from one 6950 to two felt like exactly what the frames suggested -- nearly a 100% increase in performance.

These results just make me feel as though there's something wrong with their methodology.
Trash Box
(15 items)
 
 
G73JH-A1
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 980x @ 4.4GHz Asus P6X58D-E Gigabyte 8GB GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 24GB Corsair Dominators 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveMonitorKeyboard
2x256GB C300's R0 1TB Samsung 850 Pro ASUS MG279Q, Catleap Q270 G19 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair AX1200 Silverstone RV-02 G9x 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 965BE 125W Asus M4A77D Asus 5770 Cucore 4GB Kingston 800MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSKeyboard
2x750GB Seagates 22x LG DVD-RW w7 Ultimate 64-bit  G15 
PowerCase
Antec Earthwatts 430W 80+ Antec New Solution NSK6580B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
720QM AsusTek Mobility HD5870 8GB Kingston 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB C300/500GB Seagate Bluray Combo w7 Ultimate 64-bit 17'' 1080P 
Case
G73JH-A1 
  hide details  
Reply
Trash Box
(15 items)
 
 
G73JH-A1
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 980x @ 4.4GHz Asus P6X58D-E Gigabyte 8GB GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 24GB Corsair Dominators 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveMonitorKeyboard
2x256GB C300's R0 1TB Samsung 850 Pro ASUS MG279Q, Catleap Q270 G19 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair AX1200 Silverstone RV-02 G9x 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 965BE 125W Asus M4A77D Asus 5770 Cucore 4GB Kingston 800MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSKeyboard
2x750GB Seagates 22x LG DVD-RW w7 Ultimate 64-bit  G15 
PowerCase
Antec Earthwatts 430W 80+ Antec New Solution NSK6580B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
720QM AsusTek Mobility HD5870 8GB Kingston 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB C300/500GB Seagate Bluray Combo w7 Ultimate 64-bit 17'' 1080P 
Case
G73JH-A1 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [PCPer] Frame Rating Part 3: First Results