Seriously, they've beeen doing it for years now. I don't care what fps i get in doom 3. I don't care if i get 140 fps in half-life 2. And I don't care if i score 20392302853058340 points in 3dmark05.
How about you benchmark some games you know.. that we all play and are curious to see. Ones that make are computers crawl on max, so we can see what card to buy. Oblivion, stalker, need for speed: carbon, maybe tomb raider legend, Titan quest, supreme commander. You know, games that have came out atleast in the last year. NOT 3 year old games like doom 3, hl2, farcry.
Hi guys there seems to be a bit of a mix up here mythoss im thinking is looking at toms england and ireland and jeff 2087 seems to be looking at a american or poss canadian variation,all adds are in dollars anyway.
I have just googled to check this out as i thought it strange you (jeff 2087) had a different list of games .
The problem is that if they are constantly updating their tests every time a new game comes out then it invalidates the old comparisons and they have to retest old cards on new systems to make the tests relevant. By using games for 1-2 years they can give accurate displays of relative power without having to completely redo their tests of older cards every 6 months. I want to know how well the new cards stand up to the older cards like mine as well as how well they go against each other, I want to know if it worth it to upgrade not just which card is the best to upgrade to.
Also, more people have the older games since they've been out longer and can relate better to them. I'm not usually one to go out and buy the latest game for $50 or more as soon as it's released when I can play my year old game I just picked up for $20. FSX was the exception and it about killed me, $70 was the most I've ever paid for one game.