Most important parts of reviews to you?

MichaelM · 24 Oct 2013 at 16:26

With recent GPU releases i've been noticing a pattern in myself to jump to certain parts of each review rather than reading any of them from start to finish.

1. Benchmarks
Metro @ 1080p, the list of games tends to be nothing that I play (even Metro) but that seems to be the most fair for comparison overall.
2. Overclocking
General impression of how much headroom the card has and how they did it with ever increasing complexity of GPU clock controls.
3. Conclusion
See what they gave it overall and any major points they brought up in other sections of the review which I skipped.

How does everyone else tackle launch day reviews?
Just the top 3-5 points of interest please.

Gregster · 24 Oct 2013 at 16:28

I look at specific bench results like BF3 and compare to what I know.

shadow_boxer · 24 Oct 2013 at 16:30

BF3 benchmarks at the resolution I'm using (1440p).
Overclocking and conclusion too I guess.

stulid · 24 Oct 2013 at 16:40

Avg and minimum fps in the most current games for me.

Noise also helps.

Suarez7 · 24 Oct 2013 at 16:41

Game benchmarks, overclocking page and then the conclusion.

MrMarvelous · 24 Oct 2013 at 16:57

Price/performance.

Saitex · 24 Oct 2013 at 17:02

Various games BF3, Metro etc.
Though Temps, Noise, OC is what I usually look at the most, since when looking at the review you already know what performance you should roughly expect, for me it all comes down to the heat and noise the card produces and how much headroom it still has to pull off some decent OC.

arc@css · 24 Oct 2013 at 17:07

stulid said:
Avg and minimum fps in the most current games for me.

Noise also helps.

+1

Noxia · 24 Oct 2013 at 17:09

FPS in games (min/max/avg) and noise.

Uncle Petey · 24 Oct 2013 at 17:11

Ignoring when [H] says a game is unplayable at certain settings when I use those same settings or higher and it's more than playable...

Example:

Moving down to 1080p opens up new possibilities for the R9 290X. We found that at 1920x1080 we were able to play with TressFX enabled and also have 2X SSAA enabled. This gave us an improved experience at 1080p which the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition could not do, it wasn't able to have 2X SSAA turned on. Both the TITAN and GTX 780 also allowed TressFX and 2X SSAA at 1080p.

Cough*bullxxxx*Cough

Zeed · 24 Oct 2013 at 17:14

Game benchmarks (Repeatable ones)
Conclusions.

sieze2 · 24 Oct 2013 at 17:14

shadow_boxer said:
BF3 benchmarks at the resolution I'm using (1440p).
Overclocking and conclusion too I guess.

Exactly what I was going to say.

alex_123_fra · 24 Oct 2013 at 17:16

Average and minimums in games I play too, but can't help but look at the old synthetics (3DMark 11) for a cheeky comparison.

~>Dg<~ · 24 Oct 2013 at 17:17

i cant get why so many reviewers forget basics

a gpu what is it mainly used for 90 percent gamers ! yet many bench at stupid res or dont even use relevant games !

so res for eg

1680,1920,1440p

games

bf4,skyrim,grid 2,wow,black op2 , stuff thats relevant

minimums,max, and avg fps !

microstutter

heat/power useage.

size of card / noise

oc headroom with the standard cooler min and max .

also on win 7 and win 8 comparision

TAZOO7 · 24 Oct 2013 at 17:19

For me its the synthetic result, reason being its a level playing field as games will vary every time, as can 3Dmark, but not by so much, as we dont know for sure what part of the game they benched, take all reviews with a pinch of salt, my take so far on the 290X is its a good card and a good price point, but is it the right card for you? only you can decide, its not for me in its reference design as i have spent a lot on my rig to make its a silent as i can, but if i was water cooled then i would, but then that offsets the price, and brings it in the price range of the 780, which are decent at cooling no matter what one you buy in comparison to the 290X, i think this will be what will make the buy choose one over the other, i have decided to get two 280X toxics, time will tell if that was the right decision or not

now bring on BF4

mmj_uk · 24 Oct 2013 at 17:27

Heatsink design (size, number of fans etc), noise, temp etc.

Obviously performance is important but I'm happy to trade a few frames for a more silent, worry free experience.

My current card is an EVGA 680 and it's great, peaks at about 80C under heavy load and is barely audible, kicks all of the heat out of the back so it doesn't increase CPU temps.

And · 24 Oct 2013 at 17:56

ArmA III benchies would be a helpful comparison, for me at least.

humbug · 24 Oct 2013 at 18:05

stulid said:
Avg and minimum fps in the most current games for me.

Noise also helps.

This

MrMarvelous said:
Price/performance.

weighed up with this.

Rroff · 24 Oct 2013 at 18:21

Pretty much all I want to know when comparing 2 (or more) cards is what percentage of the time was spent under 60fps and under 30fps anything else is pretty much irrelevant - a one off min of say 9fps is meaningless if the other card never dropped below say 15fps but spent a far larger time at 15fps. Sadly most reviewers don't bother with this.

Like OP I generally jump to whatever benchmark I consider the best overall representative test, then skip to overclocking and the conclusion and maybe re-read the rest a bit later.