Originally Posted by Alatar
Everyone knows a 7990 will get higher fps than a 690 or a Titan. What he meant by trailing is that Nvidia's implementation of frame pacing is still superior and delivers less frame time variance than AMD's.
I can appreciate your opinion that Nividia's implementation of frame pacing is superior when it comes to less frame time variance but as Anandtech said
Ultimately while it’s true this is an absolute metric when it comes to comparing results – AMD experiences more than two times the frame time variation in 5 of the 6 games – keep in mind we’re looking at the variance in frame times, rather than the frame times themselves, a first order derivative. What it means is that AMD clearly still has room for improvement, but AMD’s approximately 20% results are not a poor showing in this metric; for every individual there exists a point below which the frame time variations cease to be perceptible.
But it seems that some choose to only provide half truths and not include the rest of what Anandtech said
While we’re on the matter of this comparison, it’s very much worth pointing out that while AMD can’t match NVIDIA’s delta percentages at this time the same cannot be said for runt and dropped frames. Throughout our tests on Catalyst 13.8 AMD delivered 0 runt frames and dropped 0 frames. This is a massive improvement over Catalyst 13.6, which would regularly deliver runt frames and drop frames at times too. In fact even NVIDIA can’t do this well; the GTX 690 doesn’t drop any frames but does deliver a small number of runt frames (particularly towards the start of certain benchmarks). So in their very first shot AMD is already beating NVIDIA on runt frames, a concept pioneered by NVIDIA in the first place.
It would appear to me IMO that both solutions have pro's and con's and that neither is superior to each other.