Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Benchmark Hardware Comparisons

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 12, 2007 8:14:44 PM

I have noticed a trend that I find disturbing when it comes to benchmarking hardware, especialy graphics cards.
Its not just on Toms, but almost every site that I have looked at that do comparisons between the hardware.

What am I talking about ?

Well, it seems to me that when a new benchmark is done, it is almost always done on GFX cards that are not in the same performance range as the 'new card on the block'.

Explain you say ...

I see 8800GTX / Ultra cards being compaired to ATI HD2400 / HD2600.
Then you get HD2900 cards being compaired to nVidia 8400 / 8600.
Rarely do you see the top end cards from each company being compaired in the same benchmark tests.

Yes it is easy to look at a couple different benchmark reviews and get the information about each card.
But what I want to know is why do the benchmarks get done this way ?
Would it not be more benifitial to everyone if cards were compaired with those of the same range ?

Could some-one please explain to me why 'TOP' end cards get compaired to competitors 'Low / Mid' range cards and almost never with the competitors 'TOP' end card ?
November 12, 2007 8:29:53 PM

Me neither, some sites tend to pit a $100 HD 2600XT GDDR3 against a $150 8600GTS, but that is really the farest off I can think of seeing lately.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 12, 2007 9:31:50 PM

Quote:
I see 8800GTX / Ultra cards being compaired to ATI HD2400 / HD2600.
Then you get HD2900 cards being compaired to nVidia 8400 / 8600.
Rarely do you see the top end cards from each company being compaired in the same benchmark tests.

? I search for and read reviews daily and have never noticed this.


What benchmarks do you want? What cards? Look at most 8800GT reviews and you will see it compared to the previous best high end cards. Often they throw in a midrange card in a high end review, or vise versa just for comparison sake. It's helpful so you can see just what the extra money buys performance wise. For example, throw a X1950 pro, 7900GS, 8600GTS, and HD 2600XT into the 8800GT review and it can help you make a buying decison. The 8800GT will crush them, but that's not the point. Also, the cards they include are usually limited to what they have in the lab as they don't often seek/buy a card for a review.

And last, time limitations often prevent them from being as complete as many of us would like. One example for me is I'd like to see GPU's tested on a few different systems of variosu speed to see just where the cutoff is to the gains of one card over another. Some sited do some CPU scaling to try and answer this. But shoot, to do it on 3 systems is like doing two more reviews worth of benchmarking.
November 13, 2007 9:05:54 AM

Yeah I know when there is a new game out, then most sites compare top end cards.
But when its a new FX card it seems they get compaired to lower end cards.
More of a $$ for $$ comparison and not 'Flagship vs Flagship' thing ..

Hey maybe your right and I'm simply missing the better reviews and benchtests where they do compair the same gen cards with equivelent cards from competitors.

Either way, I still get all the info I need by looking at different reviews / benchtests ..

Maybe I'm just a little out of touch with the current numbering system for cards... lol ..
November 13, 2007 11:24:07 AM

Because ATI doesn't even have a high-end card out yet, the 2900XT is a mid-end card. Right now ATI has the 2900XT and Nvidia has their 8800GTX/Ultra, thats the best ATI can do at the moment. You can only compare with whats aval.
!