• 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.

***The OcUK Graphics Card Performance & Review Thread***

w3bbo said:
No need for the sly derogatory remarks. Clearly this is a very sensitive subject for you.

It's a BENCHMARK. I don't know how clearer I can say this. It does not give a true representation of what to expect in 'real' games regardless of whether PPU is used. Much the same as 06 and 05.
Click to expand...
Not really, I just don't see it as being a terribly good benchmark when one company has been able to leverage their hardware into giving a result that could never be replicated in a real world application. I am surprised that others do not see it in a similar fashion.

Geez.. All this because I question if posting non sanctioned results by a commercial entity (who would have to be using the professional version) is allowed under the license.

Rroff said:
Hardware physics is part of the benchmark tho... nothing to prevent ATI implementing it... and surely if their stream processors arch is really so good they can take back the crown :D
Click to expand...
I thought you were better than this? Tiresome trolling is not usually your style. (and if I put my pedantic hat on, GPU physics were not part of the benchmark when it was released. :p )

(edit: removed pointless inflammatory comments)
 
Last edited:
I think he has a point to be honest, PhysX is more synthetic at the moment and it's not really being used that much in games....it's probably only in there because NV "demanded" it to be in there....if it's fair, then why don't you supplement the benchmarks with DX10.1 games then to make it fairer? That's also a feature of ATi cards....

The best way is to post more game benchmarks IMO
 
Yup, game benchmarks are the way forward. Futuremark has become so diluted that it is no longer representative of gaming performance, more system performance. I only use them in my reviews because the audience demands it, not becuase I agree with it;).
 
layte -

you obviously know a lot about hardware, and your points and opinions are more than valid

however
this thread was not intended to become a slanging match - i wanted it to be something all users could use for reference
and when i get time, i will do a vantage run for each card with physx off - just to make it even :)

the way i see it - W3bbo reviews hardware for a website, his reviews are in-depth and concise
he has said already that he recognises that this thread shows newcomers what graphics cards can do whilst pointing out my reviewing downfalls which i have said that i will rectify
his comments were appreciated as i will be able to act on them

your comments have come across as needlessly hostile to at least two users - for no other reason than to prove your own opinion to be valid


there are threads every day looking for graphics card advice - i could understand it to be misleading if it was just vantage scores

but there ARE two game benchmarks from recent, popular games that give an indication of performance at a standardised resolution
i could have used a 30" dell screen to bench on - but not everyone has one of those
at least 1680*1050 is common.

my thinking was that people can relate to that easier.

yes it might not be as complex as some review sites - but i did this whilst i was at work, it meant that i couldn't devote that much time to it

some of your comments on here - especially about NDA leaks, could get you in trouble - some of the regular posters have brought this to your attention but you have chosen to ignore it

as stated in the OP - i will be testing new cards on the same rig to give everyone a comparison
and a revised vantage table will be up as soon as i get a chance


the mods on this forum tend to frown upon users who call others a troll

Rroff's comment was fine - but you have chosen to dig at him

you could have questioned his thoughts in a less aggressive way

if you dont agree to the way things have been done in this thread - then there are plenty of other threads for you to check out
 
Any comment about the "perceived" low scores?

I not knocking the validity of your work as they are all relative to each other so if all your scores are low for some odd reason on your system then they still stack up.

I was just asking out of interest as I expected more from an i7 rig at 4Ghz.

Also it might be handy especially as time goes by for you to state which drivers were used for the Nvidia and ATI cards.
 
Rroff is a pretty smart chap. I would have thought he would see my comments as a bit of a jovial dig rather than a scathing attack, that is the problem with forums being written text only, the subtleties of communication get hammered down to raw text and sarcastic smiley pictures.

As for the accusation that I have been needlessly hostile, well I already recognised that and edited some of my posts before (or what I had hoped was before) they were read by the person I was replying to. If anyone was offended by what I said then let me apologise, sometimes the fingers run a bit faster than the brain late at night.

I still stand by my opinion that your benchmarks are not terribly useful though (low settings and resolution, GPU-PhysX enabled vantage scores which are banned by FM, my own machine with lesser specifications recording noticably better numbers etc..), for that I make no apologies I'm afraid. If you feel offended by that I am sorry, but by posting what you did in an obviously semi-official manner you have to open yourself to all responses, positive or negative.
 
Last edited:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it's the way they are stated that can sometimes cause offence. As a reviewer, I have thick skin and I'm used to critisicm of my my methods and theories and tbh, should know better than to bite. However, sometimes I just wish people would take the time to think before they type.

While they might not agree with the methods of the benchmarking, it is really difficult, no impossible, to please all of the people all of the time. rjkoneill has taken the time and effort to produce a set of results to benefit everyone here and for the most part has succeeded (bigger res and AA next time please!). The results are consistant from what I can see. If you or anyone else can do better then please, post your own. If not, feel free to give constructive criticism but do it in a way that benifits the thread, not degrade it.

Keep up the gr8 work Rich.;)
 
thanks a lot w3bbo

i have taken on board everybodies comments and have the following planned to improve the result set in the OP

my first course of action would be to do the vantage run again with the nvidia cards not utilising physx

then i plan on getting some high res + AA results

hopefully that should broaden the spectrum

like i said - the testing was done whilst i was doing my job, so i had limited time - so if i did make any glaring mistakes, then feel free to pull me up on them

@ Greebo

all i can guess is that the gpus at vanilla/stock speeds wouldnt be as fast as their clocked counterparts

i will definatly look into it to make sure i havent missed anything
 
rjkoneill said:
thanks a lot w3bbo

i have taken on board everybodies comments and have the following planned to improve the result set in the OP

my first course of action would be to do the vantage run again with the nvidia cards not utilising physx

then i plan on getting some high res + AA results

hopefully that should broaden the spectrum

like i said - the testing was done whilst i was doing my job, so i had limited time - so if i did make any glaring mistakes, then feel free to pull me up on them

@ Greebo

all i can guess is that the gpus at vanilla/stock speeds wouldnt be as fast as their clocked counterparts

i will definatly look into it to make sure i havent missed anything
Click to expand...

That sounds great. I'll look forward to the updated post :)
 
I thought it was good work personally and easy for most customers to interpret...

I think that an overall sum of the results made into a graph (as a conclusion) using some kinda performance index score rather than realworld numbers would probably be more meaningful to your target audience however.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
I thought it was good work personally and easy for most customers to interpret...

I think that an overall sum of the results made into a graph (as a conclusion) using some kinda performance index score rather than realworld numbers would probably be more meaningful to your target audience however.
Click to expand...

Hmm..

If it's a forum post I'd say that it's probably better to provide slightly more technical information. I'd agree with you if it was something to go on the main website though.

Of course, there's no harm in providing both (if that's what you're suggesting) - just put the non-technical stuff near the top so that those who don't care about the rest of it can get the info without having to dig through the rest of it.
 
good idea guys- im not sure about how i would do that unless i made a price/performance chart then made an average out of all the benchmarks

maths isnt my strong point so i am MORE than open to suggestions :D
 
Maybe it would be handy for you to have the specs of drivers on the test reig as well as the gfx and the specific values of the OC on the cards just so we can get an idea of what the cards are doing and compare the amount of overclock to the other overlocked cards.

i for one am very thankful that you have taken the time and effort to do this, if certain people do not feel the same i would personaly contract the op and say this to them outside of the thread as this is a informative thread not a discussion.
 
Aekeron said:
Hmm..

If it's a forum post I'd say that it's probably better to provide slightly more technical information. I'd agree with you if it was something to go on the main website though.

Of course, there's no harm in providing both (if that's what you're suggesting) - just put the non-technical stuff near the top so that those who don't care about the rest of it can get the info without having to dig through the rest of it.
Click to expand...

The second bit is what I was meaning
 
i will do my best - the cards i have tested were all sample cards

i cant get cards out of stock - so i have to make do with what i am given

will try and get some other cards for when i finish it off :)
 
New Cards

I have been using some new graphics cards
the 4890 1GB and the GTX 275

the cards used were:

reference speed 4890 1GB
XFX 4890 xXx edition
Palit GTX 275

both designed to take the 1680*1050 price/performance crown

the two cards are very closely matched and have been quite impressive

for both cards i have used the supplied driver disk as there were no others available when the cards were tested
there are drivers available now that boost performance for both cards

here are a list of benchmarks i have done with both cards



Synthetic Benchmarks

06.jpg


vantage.jpg


Game Benchmarks: Medium Resolution

The settings for the FarCry2 benchmark tool were taken from the OcUK forums' FarCry2 benchmark thread
Playback (Demo Ranch) DX10, 1680*1050, No AA, Overall Quality - Ultra High, HDR + Bloom enabled, AI:on
FC2-1.jpg


The settings for the crysis benchmark tool were taken from the OcUK forums' Crysis benchmark thread
Benchmark GPU - DX10, 1680*1050, No AA, Overall Quality - Very High
crysis-1.jpg


Game Benchmarks: High Resolution

The settings for the FarCry2 benchmark tool
Playback (Demo Ranch) DX10, 1900*1200, 4X AA, Overall Quality - Ultra High, HDR + Bloom enabled, AI:on
FC219001200.jpg


The settings for the crysis benchmark tool were taken from the OcUK forums' Crysis benchmark thread
Benchmark GPU - DX10, 1900*1200, 4X AA, Overall Quality - Very High
crysis19001200.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom