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 4

post #31 of 294
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murlocke View Post

You need to compare a SLI/CF rig getting around the same FPS as a single GPU rig to see the results. The SLI/CF will typically not seem as smooth, and sometimes even a single GPU system getting less frames will feel smoother than a SLI/CF rig getting higher frames. There are a lot of factors... drivers/games/cards/etc.

I think this may be a key part of it. Most people don't have access to both setups they can use side-by-side (or at least in a short time window). With nothing to compare to you can get used to anything because "it is what it is". How many people use TN monitors and don't even realize their limitations (like viewing angle) because they've never seen better?
post #32 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by james8 View Post

they aren't using any camera they are using a high-end capture card coupled with enterprise SSD. very expensive hardware and a lot of labor to measure this data so I think they deserve more respect than this.
tr used slow mo cams in there original piece. It has a purpose to better explain microstutter, but shouldn't be used as a visual statistic.
     
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 #33 of 294
What's up with all this non-sense? Same people coming here spewing the same dribble when it's been proven time and time again by multiple sources AMD cards have more of a problem with frame times. How is this subjective? Read the article and try again.

This is one reason why I will never go with CFX until AMD fixes this problem.
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #34 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

Finally? CFX has been out since 2005. If there was something to be done its should already been resolved. I have tried the single GPU path man many times. Its not enough for everyone. Bought a 1440p monitor. Tried GTX580 not enough, Tried HD 6970 not enough. Moved to HD 6990 and was good enough. Got a single HD 7970 not enough. got 2 x 7970 good enough. Now even 2 x 7970 are not enough for Crysis 3. No matter how much smother single card is 30 fps with single card is pathetic. No matter how much smother it then 40-45 fps dual GPU setups both will suck unless over 60fps.

Read my above edit, I replied to you above. smile.gif

Even with Frame lag, SLI/CF systems are far superior assuming they are achieving much higher FPS than an alternative single GPU solution. There's a point where your FPS is so much higher that, even with frame lag, your game will feel much smoother than a single GPU solution. If your on a high end resolution monitor, SLI/CF is the only path as well. I totally agree.

When your talking a GTX580 versus 2x 7970, the CF system will (even with the frame lag) destroy the 580 in sheer FPS and smoothness. Now when your comparing a Titan to 2x 7970, that's where you get some debates as some recent tests show that "actual" smoothness is higher on a single Titan.

I'm not saying that's true or not because I haven't seen 2 systems with those cards to compare. However, I did upgrade from a 5970 to a 580 at one point. Most people on here told me I was crazy, but even though the FPS was lower the smoothness was much much more enjoyable and I didn't regret my purchase at all. These cards basically traded blows but one was a dual GPU and the other was a single GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129 View Post

What's up with all this non-sense? Same people coming here spewing the same dribble when it's been proven time and time again by multiple sources AMD cards have more of a problem with frame times. How is this subjective? Read the article and try again.

This is one reason why I will never go with CFX until AMD fixes this problem.

I wouldn't go that far, NVIDIA has had it's frame latency issues in the past and on certain cards.. they've just been improving it especially with the last 2 generations. AMD has been slower to resolve it, which is another reason why we should accept that these things matter. As soon as the community acknowledges they care about frame latency, the more the companies will try to improve it. thumb.gif

Accepting these things exist, and letting the companies know we care about this is a win for everyone. AMD Fans, NVIDIA Fans, SLI/CF Fans, Neutrals, etc. Everyone win. The people denying that it exists just because it doesn't "favor" their current builds or situation are doing nothing to help improve the situation. thumb.gif
Edited by Murlocke - 2/22/13 at 11:46pm
The Leviathan
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700k @ 4.7GHz MSI Z170A Gaming M7 12GB NVIDIA Titan X (Pascal) 32GB G.Skill Ripjaws V (DDR4 3200) 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
2x 1TB Samsung 960 PRO 193TB unRAID Server 3x 140mm Noctua NF-A14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro x64 65" LG 65E6P (4K OLED) Ducky DK9008 Shine 3  Corsair AX860 
CaseMouseAudioAudio
Corsair Obsidian 750D Logitech G502 Proteus Sprectrum Denon X7200WA (Receiver) 2x Klipsch RF-7 (Front Speakers) 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
4x Klipsch RS-62 (Surround Speakers) Klipsch RC-64 (Center Speaker) 4x Klipsch CDT-5800-C II (Atmos Speakers) 2x SVS PB16-Ultra (Subwoofers) 
  hide details  
Reply
The Leviathan
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700k @ 4.7GHz MSI Z170A Gaming M7 12GB NVIDIA Titan X (Pascal) 32GB G.Skill Ripjaws V (DDR4 3200) 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
2x 1TB Samsung 960 PRO 193TB unRAID Server 3x 140mm Noctua NF-A14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro x64 65" LG 65E6P (4K OLED) Ducky DK9008 Shine 3  Corsair AX860 
CaseMouseAudioAudio
Corsair Obsidian 750D Logitech G502 Proteus Sprectrum Denon X7200WA (Receiver) 2x Klipsch RF-7 (Front Speakers) 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
4x Klipsch RS-62 (Surround Speakers) Klipsch RC-64 (Center Speaker) 4x Klipsch CDT-5800-C II (Atmos Speakers) 2x SVS PB16-Ultra (Subwoofers) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #35 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by jomama22 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by james8 View Post

they aren't using any camera they are using a high-end capture card coupled with enterprise SSD. very expensive hardware and a lot of labor to measure this data so I think they deserve more respect than this.
tr used slow mo cams in there original piece. It has a purpose to better explain microstutter, but shouldn't be used as a visual statistic.

First, they did a 660Ti vs 7950 boost review. People blew up on it, and some were saying they were biased, so they did an actual video recording it. TR, by any means, does not use high speed video to measure frame-time latency in their reviews. That time was just a case of, "If you don't believe us, then see it for yourself." Think of it as a compliment to the original review.
post #36 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129 View Post

What's up with all this non-sense? Same people coming here spewing the same dribble when it's been proven time and time again by multiple sources AMD cards have more of a problem with frame times. How is this subjective? Read the article and try again.

This is one reason why I will never go with CFX until AMD fixes this problem.

The question is if it's been proven that it actually matters to the end user. Not saying it does or doesn't, arguments can be made on both sides, but obviously people have had CFX and havent had much of an issue.
Bubbles
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 3570k @4.7 GA-z77x-ud5h Crossfire 7950's / Heatkiller GPU-X³ 79X0 16gb Samsung 30nm  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung F3 OCZ Vertex 3 XSPC Raystorm EK Coolstream 360 + XSPC RX240 
OSMonitorKeyboardCase
Windows 8 Pro Crossover Q27 CM Quick Fire Rapid (Reds) NZXT Switch 810 
Mouse
Roccat Savu  
  hide details  
Reply
Bubbles
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 3570k @4.7 GA-z77x-ud5h Crossfire 7950's / Heatkiller GPU-X³ 79X0 16gb Samsung 30nm  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung F3 OCZ Vertex 3 XSPC Raystorm EK Coolstream 360 + XSPC RX240 
OSMonitorKeyboardCase
Windows 8 Pro Crossover Q27 CM Quick Fire Rapid (Reds) NZXT Switch 810 
Mouse
Roccat Savu  
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 294
Can someone tell a noob what "the original 7970 cfx skyrim test from tr" refers? A link to this "TR" would be awesome.
post #38 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forceman View Post

How many people use TN monitors and don't even realize their limitations (like viewing angle) because they've never seen better?

and how many people instantly think IPS is better when TN and VA have progressed really far also? you get clouding on IPS, often hideous backlight glow and this effects low light scenes in games. to top it off the pixel response gives you a nice smudge on movement.

in fact this is relevant to the discussion because if you factor in response time & input lag then your average IPS will be worse for gaming vs 120hz or even 60-70hz TN or VA panel.

for static images and movies IPS is better but for most types of fast gaming they are not even though people will claim they dont see smearing on IPS panels its exactly the same argument when people dont see frame latency!

all of this is about the individuals perception on the experience
post #39 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129 View Post

What's up with all this non-sense? Same people coming here spewing the same dribble when it's been proven time and time again by multiple sources AMD cards have more of a problem with frame times. How is this subjective? Read the article and try again.

This is one reason why I will never go with CFX until AMD fixes this problem.

I don't think anyone is doubting the data. I can attest to micro stutter happening and know it can really hamper gaming.

The problem begins when many users, including myself, do not see the micro stutter when there "should" be. It begs thr question then what exactly are "poor" "acceptable" and "unnoticeable" frame latencies.

Not only this, it is hard to translate frame latency into a performance measurement that truly equates to what you see. Fps at least has rough guidelines; 60 = target, 120 = ultra smooth, <30 = unplayable. Fps is a much less subjective measurement because of this.

I am not saying this shouldn't be used to test or review cards or setups. I think these tests only help to improve the cards themselves (7970 skyrim performance before and after tr report). But the methodology at this time is flawed in relating what you see with what the data shows.

I want a review to be subjective to an extent, I mean, it is a review right? So take those opinionated journalist, and have them tell me what they see on the screen. If you want to say your data shows there should be massive stuttering, then tell me what you actually saw. This would provide a much better springboard into determining how we measure frame times by how they affect the end user performance and enjoyment.
     
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 #40 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murlocke View Post

*snip*
well that was predictable, next we will have Alatar, Cloudfire and StayPuff and all those other people who tried soo hard to justify the TITAN come in a blow the same horn.

I'd wait for more websites to do this kind of testing before it holds any water.
Bender
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Core i5-2500k @ 4.6Ghz Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3 Sapphire AMD R9 290X Tri-X (1050/1300mhz)  EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 (How do you OC?) 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOS
8GB 1600Mhz OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD windows 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus MG279Q Logitech G510  Corsair TX750 CM II 690 Advanced 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
CM Sentinel Advance  some big corsair one beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro 250 Ohm SoundBlaster Z Soundcard 
  hide details  
Reply
Bender
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Core i5-2500k @ 4.6Ghz Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3 Sapphire AMD R9 290X Tri-X (1050/1300mhz)  EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 (How do you OC?) 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOS
8GB 1600Mhz OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD windows 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus MG279Q Logitech G510  Corsair TX750 CM II 690 Advanced 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
CM Sentinel Advance  some big corsair one beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro 250 Ohm SoundBlaster Z Soundcard 
  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