Originally Posted by tsm106
Alatar was talking about how Titans were faster and less expensive by whatever X% and was referring to Erics TItan vs Tahiti 2 card tests. Then the question was asked why not compare against two regular 7970s when Blameless inferred that it didn't matter since an Ares II is two 7970s anyways. And the latter part of his statement is where I entered.
And where does all the whatever come into play here??
I didn't see where he could have written judging by whatever silly review it shows "Two Titans in SLI are is faster than two ARES IIs/7990s, or four 7970s" but we know that that isn't true???
I was actually talking about the guru3d review and saying it was silly like almost all reviews made on the subject by review sites.
After making those comparisons I pointed out to eric's review and said that's the best thing you'll find.
StayFrosty asked me why I didn't compare to normal 7970s because I was using the ARES II cards that were in guru's review for my comparisons. Which is where all this 4-way stuff came from and which is why Blameless' reply to StayFrosty was about the guru3d review.
I purposefully picked on the 4-way configuration in guru's review to show why some examples like the one in this post
are bad. Using the same review to prove a completely different point that cast a completely opposite light on the GPUs in question. I don't really care about ARES II price/perf or quad CFX perf in half the games they tested and I do not claim that the review is indicative of the general performance of the setup. Just like people shouldn't do the same with a single graph.
All I actually want here is that people should stop taking graphs out of context and using a single graph in a single review at a single resolution as blanket statement about general performance of card X. Situations change and you need more stuff than a single BF3 graph to make a statement about general performance. There really isn't even a single correct answer due to all the different applications and configs out there.