• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** Stunning COD Advanced Warfare Benchmarks ***

Interesting on the AMD frame times.

That was one of the core reasons that drove me away from 7970/7990 trifire, such awful variance in frame times.

Looks like XDMA has done wonders for AMD!

Wish more places would measure frame times.
 
rtho782 said:
Interesting on the AMD frame times.

That was one of the core reasons that drove me away from 7970/7990 trifire, such awful variance in frame times.

Looks like XDMA has done wonders for AMD!

Wish more places would measure frame times.
Click to expand...

That bench results was single GPU :D Crossfire is even better.. Going by recent results shown, on other games not going to link or i'll go OT! :D
 
shankly1985 said:
Frame times and Frame rate are not the same thing..
Click to expand...

Yeah, they exactly are, one exrpessed as per second and the other expressed in milliseconds, you can calculate one from the other

If people dont understand the relationship between frame times and frame rates then i really despair at any comment they make regarding perceived smoothness

Likewise any "reviewer" that can post such obviously flawed results
 
Last edited:
With my rig using 2x SuperSampling the cards don't go past 540mhz for the core (60Hz monitor), but the Cpu has all cores used past 85% o.o

Quite happy anyway.
 
razorpakk said:
With my rig using 2x SuperSampling the cards don't go past 540mhz for the core (60Hz monitor), but the Cpu has all cores used past 85% o.o

Quite happy anyway.
Click to expand...

That 540Mz clock is a bug in Afterburner, quit afterburner while in game, then re-load it back up. Should report real core clocks then.
 
andybird123 said:
Yeah, they exactly are, one exrpessed as per second and the other expressed in milliseconds, you can calculate one from the other

If people dont understand the relationship between frame times and frame rates then i really despair at any comment they make regarding perceived smoothness

Likewise any "reviewer" that can post such obviously flawed results
Click to expand...

This is an interesting read on why there not the same thing.
http://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/fps_versus_frame_time.htm

More
http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/frame_time_analysis,1.html
 
Last edited:
Oh dear shanks, re read that article and you'll see it is telling you the exact same thing that I am, that you can convert a frametime to fps and back very easily, a frame time is just an fps measurement expressed in milliseconds instead of "fps"

You cant have a "MINIMUM FPS" of 88, and a maximum frametime of 28.7, if you use the calculation from the link you posted (but in reverse) it is 35fps

You cant have both, by definition a frametime of 28.7ms would be recorded as an instantaneous fps of 35, so should be 35 on both charts, if 88 then max frametime can be 11.36ms
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom