Originally Posted by Imouto
The point is and will always be the diminishing returns of some settings or why a GTX 950 is tested @ Ultra settings when that doesn't make any sense. Or the inconsistency of the game suite with some games included/excluded by their popularity/technical prowess.
It may be a single setting that doesn't affect the IQ at all the culprit of the game running like a dog (viewing distance in Dying Light) or a massive difference between two similar cards (insane hair tess in The Witcher 3).
Not giving any reasons for each setting and wholeassing it by choosing a preset is as lazy as it can get.
Best != Good
I'm the best runner in my family and that doesn't mean that I'm any good.
I think I agreed with you already on the mid range and lower cards thing already, that makes sense to me. I can believe how the different cards might react more or less positively to certain features being disabled, its something I'm sure we've all done when trying to run a new game on a mid range or slightly outdated card.
However, they do disable hairworks in TW 3 for example, run GTA 5 with MSAA off, they dont just run everything maxed with no regard, if there's a setting that kills everything they appear to recognize and compensate for that in some way.
Nowhere is going to be perfect. This is the internet theres always going to be a way to pick holes, but I still feel that their results are on a level playing field for all cards, and as such are a good gauge of relative performance.
If people are feeling that they have an Nvidia bias, I'd say as has been pointed out, that Kepler based cards certainly dont appear to be having their numbers massaged at all. TPU tests appear to also show the 390/390x doing pretty well at their price point.*Not affiliated or associated with TPU in anyway