Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

7870 or 660ti?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics Cards
December 18, 2012 2:49:25 AM

Hello, Guys i am wondering which one will be the best to buy and which one will out preform the other and buy how much % thanks

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item...
or
http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=4...

More about : 7870 660ti

a c 193 U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 2:51:27 AM

the 660ti is a good amount faster, but more expensive
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 18, 2012 3:20:03 AM

660Ti! It's a beast of a card! SLI as needed.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 3:23:08 AM

Personally I prefer the AMD cards since I'd rather pick up a 7950 if I was spending 660 Ti money, but now it is a bit more.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 3:25:07 AM

I'd still avoid AMD cards like the plague since they usually have hiccups....

the 7950 looks good on paper and reviews with average speeds and stuff... but still the 660 ti still performs better due to way lesser frame render spikes...

http://techreport.com/review/24022/does-the-radeon-hd-7...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 3:31:02 AM

Not that pathetic thing again. I'll believe it when they do a review on this site, it honestly seems to me it's just something for a stats man to do when he got bored to keep his job.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 3:37:16 AM

andrewcarr said:
Not that pathetic thing again. I'll believe it when they do a review on this site, it honestly seems to me it's just something for a stats man to do when he got bored to keep his job.


lol... you do realize they require different equipment right? and as far as I'm concerned, most review websites are too cheap to buy new equipment.

and how is that stats lol. it's clearly quantifiable... don't tell me that you'd rather have a higher fps with slight hiccups that drops down to 30-20 fps (pretty much the same thing as lag in online games but in a offline game lol.) for a couple frames then pick up again???



As far as i'm concerned, AMD cards are ONLY worth it if you're overclocking it (cause they all overclock like a beast). Otherwise, stick with Nvidia.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 3:42:46 AM

I was just about to mention the overclock. Because I'd have that bad 7950 running above 670 FPS levels. Also you can't deny their the budget kings. But soon you'll see the 8xxx series and maybe their focusing on that aspect this time around.
m
0
l
a c 112 U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 3:43:09 AM

Get the 660ti not the 7870, the 660 ti is by far better card.
The 660ti is as good as the 7950, but has better drivers, more smoothness, i really recommend going nvidia.
m
0
l
a c 172 U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 3:52:09 AM

The 660Ti is not worth $60 more than the 7870, frame latency issue or not. The performance gap between the two cards does not justify that much extra expense.

In any case, if you somehow think you can see one frame out of thirty being rendered 20ms slower than it should be, and that will absolutely ruin the whole gaming experience for you, the cause for this issue seems to be related to the default Flip Queue Size on the Catalyst drivers. You can use a program called RadeonPro and set your Frame Queue Size to 1, that seems to alleviate this issue for the time being, at least until AMD's driver team does something about it.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 3:53:15 AM

andrewcarr said:
I was just about to mention the overclock. Because I'd have that bad 7950 running above 670 FPS levels. Also you can't deny their the budget kings. But soon you'll see the 8xxx series and maybe their focusing on that aspect this time around.


not with the TERRIBLE drivers AMD puts out lol.

It took them what.... 10 months to get decent drivers out this generation??? It's been like this basically every generation...

I wouldn't touch AMD until they actually put decent drivers out since there is no guarantee that they'll put out decent drivers... for the last few generations (other than this generation), the only reason amd could "claim" the performance crown was because of their release cycle...
m
0
l
December 18, 2012 4:03:07 AM

@killerhurtalot A GTX 660 Ti over a 7950???? No wayy lol.

Anyway I also throw a vote for the 7870, it overclocks like to close to 7950 speeds and the budget just makes more sense
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 5:07:32 AM

I don't get why one to two seconds of lag for every minute you play is all that bad. Secondly I like AMD's drivers and think the interface is much nicer than Nvidia's, although it offers limited overclocking at least it's extremely simple and great for someone with no experience (although MSI afterburner and others will give better results). As for the drivers talking a while to get ironed out, why does that matter? The 7970 outperformed previous generation cards at launch and was even more competitive after the update, although the value with the 670 outperforming it was bad for a while.

killerhurtalot, you obviously like Nvidia and there's nothing wrong with that, I personally like AMD (at least for this generation) and that's just fine too. But I wouldn't advise the OP spending the price difference between a good 7870 and a 660Ti when there are only a few FPS improvement. If you remember the 660Ti used to get the bad rap the AMD cards are getting now but for the memory interface not latency times.

Anyways now the AMD cards are good, and at least they were readily available at launch. Yes maybe the 8xxx series will not perform to it's full potential but at least it will outperform the previous generation cards right away and by the time the drivers are worked out Nvidia will just be releasing their next generation, then the prices of AMD's cards will fall to the point that I don't recommend any of Nvidia's cards (for another year, although last year I regularly recommended the 560Ti) and also at least the AMD cards launched over a much shorter time period, instead of waiting for all the previous generation models to go out of stock.
m
0
l
a c 193 U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 6:30:55 AM

killerhurtalot said:
not with the TERRIBLE drivers AMD puts out lol.

It took them what.... 10 months to get decent drivers out this generation??? It's been like this basically every generation...

I wouldn't touch AMD until they actually put decent drivers out since there is no guarantee that they'll put out decent drivers... for the last few generations (other than this generation), the only reason amd could "claim" the performance crown was because of their release cycle...

i havnt had a problem with AMD drivers along with many other people, speaking from experience not utter BS. There is nothing wrong with their cards or drivers. Occasionally there is a hiccup with both nvidia drivers and AMD drivers where they dont display something quite right at a given resolution with particular settings. but its not hard to change a setting and then wait for a driver patch.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 6:39:03 AM

Get the 7870, much better value. People always put down AMD, which is completely unfair as they put out well priced mid-ranged GPU's.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

You will notice that there is no GTX 660 (Ti) located in there? or anywhere on those reviews?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 6:41:32 AM

Normally it's just problems when games are first released. The next patch it's normally fixed. Same problem is for both AMD and Nvidia as you said.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 7:50:57 AM

killerhurtalot said:
not with the TERRIBLE drivers AMD puts out lol.

It took them what.... 10 months to get decent drivers out this generation??? It's been like this basically every generation...

I wouldn't touch AMD until they actually put decent drivers out since there is no guarantee that they'll put out decent drivers... for the last few generations (other than this generation), the only reason amd could "claim" the performance crown was because of their release cycle...


Am I the only one to notice 90% of people who rant against AMD drivers are Nvidia card owners?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 8:14:13 AM

Apparently, techreport was paid by nvidia dearly to make an obviously biased article with cherry picked games and inconsistent testing method. They even conflict with their older articles. And that testing method, dont get me started on that. They are the only rviewers doing these tests AND this much of test is TOO few to generalize it. This isn't a scientific method to prove something, ya know. And the only game they recorded to prove their point was Skyrim. And they made the record with a god damn video camera sticked in front of the screen. Which aspect of idiocy of them should i tell here? if i write about it, it will be like 2 pages. What i suggest: i am not saying that 7950 is/isn't flawed. I am saying that NV fanboys jump to conclusion too fast before anything is scientifically proven. Apparently, Nvidia couldn't fight with their awful performing cards with premium price, and they came up with this "psychological war".

Edit: There is no way i can recommend any card other than GTX 660 and GTX 670 from Nvidia family this generation. Because AMD's marketing strategy and variety of cards cover any price corner that Nvidia may suggest. 660Ti? Why pay that premium while you can get a GTX 660/ HD 7870 much cheaper and get only 5-7% less performance? Why not pay for a GTX 670/HD 7970 if you can afford? GTX 670 is Nvidia's castle imo, the best balanced Kepler
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 8:52:30 AM

+1 to djangoringo and killerhurtalot about GeForce performance consistency. What's interesting about the results is not how badly the Radeons do (that's nothing new) but how well the GeForces do. Previously, both companies were putting out inconsistent performance. Radeons were most consistent in some cases, GeForces in others. So it's significant that the GeForces are so much smoother now, and my best guess for that is drivers. When TR approached them last year about performance inconsistency (they asked AMD too), nVidia said they're actaully working on a project specifically to address the inconsistency. Maybe that's what we're seeing the result of here?

As for it being only TR, reason is not so much equipment (with the exception of the high-speed cameras) but the time-consuming nature of the testing. It's always a race for tech media sites to be the first with new benchmarks/reviews and traditional frames/sec testing is quick and easy. I've been speaking with Chris Angelini (Tom's Hardware's editor-in-chief for anyone who doesn't read the articles) and that was the main reason up until now for the lack of frame latency benchmarking. But it is coming.

And as for 'one frame in thirty' being slower, it's often a hell of a lot more than that. Constant up/down fluctuations within a very small time scale.

With regards to RadeonPro, Mautari did some really impressive work there! Makes you wonder why AMD have been unable to do this for their own cards (they seriously need to hire this guy!).

There are some drawbacks though compared to the nVidia solution. Most notably the fact that you need to benchmark each game individually and then calibrate RadeonPro for that game according to your benchmark results. Tom's Hardware said in the review that it's a complicated and time-consuming procedure. Do it wrong (even if you're off by just 10fps) and you get some massive lag spikes (right up to 100 millisecond frames, which equates to a drop to 10fps).

With nVidia on the other hand, you don't need to do a thing - the hardware is already designed to deliver consistently smooth performance out of the box. So a Radeon with RadeonPro is definitely an improvement over normal Radeon performance, but it's still not as good as normal nVidia performance, which doesn't require you to recalibrate it for each game.

Finally, +1 to technoholic about the GTX660 and GTX670 being nVidia's strongest value points - I'd personally save a bit and take the GTX660 over the Ti. You'd never notice the difference. Technoholic, would be interested in the article that exposes the nVidia/TechReport bribery? That's a pretty huge deal if it's true.

EDIT: Or spend a bit extra and get a GTX670 - that's a good option too :-) GTX670 is the minimum to max Far Cry 3 at 1080p.
m
0
l
a c 193 U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 9:00:34 AM

technoholic said:
Apparently, techreport was paid by nvidia dearly to make an obviously biased article with cherry picked games and inconsistent testing method. They even conflict with their older articles. And that testing method, dont get me started on that. They are the only rviewers doing these tests AND this much of test is TOO few to generalize it. This isn't a scientific method to prove something, ya know. And the only game they recorded to prove their point was Skyrim. And they made the record with a god damn video camera sticked in front of the screen. Which aspect of idiocy of them should i tell here? if i write about it, it will be like 2 pages. What i suggest: i am not saying that 7950 is/isn't flawed. I am saying that NV fanboys jump to conclusion too fast before anything is scientifically proven. Apparently, Nvidia couldn't fight with their awful performing cards with premium price, and they came up with this "psychological war".


http://techreport.com/review/23527/review-nvidia-geforc... < i can cherry pick to favor AMD too, from the same site you speak of. the nvidia cards dont always get the edge on their site, they judge it as they see it. in the link I provided the nvidia cards have the higher latency in a particular game too. Depends on the game. Yes the skyrim bench of the 7950 is a cherry pick of the year, but they bring up a valid point that fps doesnt = smoothness which was the point they were trying to make, although they do slag AMD more than the evidence displays. If you read all the information and are not a fanboy of nvidia or AMD you will realise its a fair way of testing and doesnt favour either manufacturer (nvidia fans in particular are mislead by information very easily it seems, one fail from AMD means they become emotionally attached to nvidia cards and AMD gets a bashing from them). They also tested with vsync and triplebuffering off, which anyone that doesnt want screen tearing would have on and gives you smooth synced frames. So overall their testing is not flawed, but is incomplete and a little misleading, i dont know if they were paid by nvidia or not, but you can come to a reasonable conclusion if you look at ALL the information, not just "omg amd skips a little in skyrim on a 240fps high speed camera camera and we will slag them and their drivers for being horrible".
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 9:06:26 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Technoholic, would be interested in the article that exposes the nVidia/TechReport bribery? That's a pretty huge deal if it's true.

Is my personal thought, nothing else comes to mind cause of the test methodology they follow, the hand picked/limited amount of games they chose to "prove" something. I'd expect you, at the first, would be approaching the issue with doubt and with a more scientific aspect, questioning the consistency and validity of that test. I showed you how inconsistent/confusing these tests can become and i can show more if you ask
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 9:11:37 AM

iam2thecrowe my reaction is against those whoever take the issue out of the intention. Heck lots of people in this forums believe that this situation applies ALL the Radeon family, which is in fact wrong and can't be generalized. This current issue (if true and if it isn't related to software/driver bug) is only relevant to HD 7950 and not to all Radeons. Would i purchase a HD 7950 now? I think i would have doubts and would not do it now. But it is still too vague to make a conclusion
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 9:17:22 AM

technoholic said:
Is my personal thought, nothing else comes to mind cause of the test methodology they follow, the hand picked/limited amount of games they chose to "prove" something. I'd expect you, at the first, would be approaching the issue with doubt and with a more scientific aspect, questioning the consistency and validity of that test. I showed you how inconsistent/confusing these tests can become and i can show more if you ask


There's actually a pretty decent selection of games there - THG don't typically test on many more games than that? As for previous tests showing inconsistency with both companies, that's exactly what I addressed in the first paragraph ^ :-) I certainly wouldn't suggest GeForces have always been smoother - it's a recent development.

As I say, my best guess is that nVidia's recent driver updates have fixed GeForce inconsistency, but it's anyone's guess. I'm 100% with you that more data is needed, and it is on the way. However, plenty of people are buying now and not waiting for new product lines or new benchmarks. For those people, we just have to go with the limited data we have.

iam2thecrowe is totally right about TR's bias (or lack thereof). You've read all their older roundups so you know they don't have a history of bias. Where nVidia previously delivered less consistency, TR didn't hesitate to highlight that. I really think people need to stop and think before immediately making allegations of bias, bribery etc. That's not something to be suggested lightly or without evidence.
m
0
l
December 18, 2012 9:28:37 AM

well i switched from ati to nvidia first time to evga 600 ftw. actually only cause i already had FC3 and wanted to buy AC3. problem i see with amds are they are underclocked and they want you to overclock. ftw is factory overclocked and has much bigger clocks than amds ain that region. i guess my 660ftw ~ 660ti cause i am really getting great fps with my q9550 and for 1080 its enough. skyrim is over 60, bf3 on 16p maps 50-60fps, on 64 35-60 but mostly averages 42-45. i guess its cause of cpu

pricewise 660ftw was 235eur, 660 ti are around 300 eur and 670 375+, so since ididnt wanted to drop any more money to my lga775 system i did, 35eur 4gb ram, 133eur q9550 second hand, 241,5eur evga 660ftw 3gb -50eur from sale of my old 5750 card

best
revro
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 9:37:11 AM

sam_p_lay said:
iam2thecrowe is totally right about TR's bias (or lack thereof). You've read all their older roundups so you know they don't have a history of bias. Where nVidia previously delivered less consistency, TR didn't hesitate to highlight that. I really think people need to stop and think before immediately making allegations of bias, bribery etc. That's not something to be suggested lightly or without evidence.

I over-reacted, that's about how seriously i take this, and anything other than this accusation is still valid in my eyes, including the bias. It is getting clearer when there is no other card, for the sake of comparison. And every single NV fanboy linking to that article and trying to claim it is the ultimate truth about GCN cards. Almost everything about this article vague. It is also still vague how much this affects gaming experience, especially if someone didn't have the opportunity to even play Skyrim on a 7950. The article managed to also show 7950 in fact worse performer at FPS side, which is also not true. Ignoring the potential of 7950 is something, saying that card is flawed is another thing. At the end no one can claim that Nvidia makes more quality hardware, this would be ridiculous and biased, considering the consistency of tests to prove it. Anyone wants to claim this? he must first play on a R7950 and than on a 660Ti and experience it himself
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 9:45:07 AM

Well the experience thing they tried to show with the high-speed cameras. It's obviously a massively controversial article because it upset so many AMD fans (and especially 7950 owners). TR were under pressure to deliver proof, which they have.

And as I said before, the inconsistency of the 7950 is not the point. It's unexceptional - it's been demonstrated on other Radeons and on GeForces too. What's exceptional is how smooth the GTX660 Ti was. It's a first for either company. My best guess is that drivers are responsible (since the hardware hasn't changed) and that would suggest the entire range benefits (maybe even all ranges). But nobody can guarantee that for sure without more testing.

An angry AMD fan made a comment recently that you'd need 'cybernetic eyes' to spot the latency and that milliseconds are a timing faster than people can think/see. I can totally see where he was coming from and I think most people would at least consider this. Surely our eyes/brains deal in seconds and only electronic systems can deal in milliseconds?

But think about it. If our eyes/brains had a 'refresh rate' of one second, we'd all be gaming happily at 1fps. The fact that we need a minimum of 30fps (and many people would argue as much as 60fps) to create the illusion of fluid motion means our brains are operating at a minimum of 1/30th of a second, which is 33 milliseconds.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 10:10:31 AM

The video is not a proof since at first it is a slow motion movie which can be affected by many many factors. At first, 240/120 FPS to 25-30 FPS transition was made. Heck it is recorded by a video camera sticked in front of a monitor, at last. In fact, when i look at the video, the only thing i can see is that GTX 660Ti skips frames more often (if it does oO) and HD 7950 does that less often. In fact, even if they put there 2 exactly same movies side by side (changing their brightness only) and start them 1 second apart from each-other, you probably wouldn't understand it. Selective perception, you see? You talk about physical perception, but there is the psychological side which affects physical side, you know. The "proof" can thus be perceived differently, even if it the test was done rightly. I mean anyone looking at that video may actually see HD 7950 as the better/smoother card. Frame latency might be relevant and even may be more important than FPS. But the nature of this test is harder to measure than that of FPS. Until a more relevant/solid test is established, this is still vague and about perception. And apart from the difficulties etc, if we want the different reviewers must do these tests
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 10:17:53 AM

I know what you mean... I clearly saw large jumps forward with the Radeon and not with the GeForce, but maybe it was something to do with psychology. Somebody, grab your nearest non-gaming friend/family member and ask them which is smoother :-)

As for the difficulty in understanding the test methodology, I think it's a pretty weak argument... TR have done an excellent job of explaining it in a very easy-to-understand way - it simply requires a reader to take the time to read a single page of explanation. We wouldn't have advanced very far as a species with the "too complicated - screw it" attitude :-)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 10:32:05 AM

sam_p_lay said:
As for the difficulty in understanding the test methodology, I think it's a pretty weak argument... TR have done an excellent job of explaining it in a very easy-to-understand way - it simply requires a reader to take the time to read a single page of explanation. We wouldn't have advanced very far as a species with the "too complicated - screw it" attitude :-)
Mate, i didn't mean it. Arghhhh this English is hard sometimes as it is not my native language :)  What i mean is about the standardizing of the process and using video as the proof. It is about testers side. Nothing wrong with this testing method, in fact frame latency must be standard and must be done by more and more reviewer, as long as it is made in a standard/common way. The gaming experience is about senses and experience. But scientific tests, if involves proving something, must be done in well established methods and with common process and wider range of data
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 10:41:53 AM

technoholic said:
Mate, i didn't mean it. Arghhhh this English is hard sometimes as it is not my native language :)  What i mean is about the standardizing of the process and using video as the proof. It is about testers side. Nothing wrong with this testing method, in fact frame latency must be standard and must be done by more and more reviewer, as long as it is made in a standard/common way. The gaming experience is about senses and experience. But scientific tests, if involves proving something, must be done in well established methods and with common process and wider range of data


Sorry, looks like I misunderstood your point there! Yeah I completely agree about the methodology. If you look over TR's older articles you'll see they were previously looking at number of frames above a certain threshold, which was a bad system, since it actually penalised high frames (since of course faster cards render more frames in total over a given period of time). At a reader's suggestion, they switched to time spent above the threshold (as number of slow frames is less important than how long you're seeing the slow frames).

I think the system they have now is sound. Although the thresholds chosen are arbitrary to some extent and affect those results considerably, they do now give the reader buttons to choose from 3 different thresholds. And the thresholds do line up with logical framerates anyway (50ms being the slow time to line up with 20fps, 16ms being the fast time for 60fps and 33ms for the 30fps equivalent).

Still, we're only looking at one half of their methodology/results here - I'd put most stock in their 99th percentile results. There's no decisions being made with those about thresholds or anything like that - it's purely a measured result.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 11:08:45 AM

Standardized and well-established tests are always welcome. And more sources, different hands/aspects are needed to do these common tests, leaving little/no error margin and leaving no doubt at reader's side. Frame per second, as much as it is criticized, is the common tool for measuring the performance differences now. But i do wish that frame latency be added to the picture as a common method. Now if they conclude this with a video like this (meaning it is the ultimate evidence), it will always become open to criticize and people with different perceptions will get it differently. We shouldn't be discussing how the test is made, we should discuss the outcomes/results
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 11:12:57 AM

In defence of Techreport, I don't think the video was ever the actual test. It was just used to help illustrate the results of the test. Maybe to provide additional evidence to back the frame latency benchmarking. But the video isn't the test itself, just a little extra. When the Radeon 8000 cards and GTX700 cards launch, I think there will be much more frame latency data on those for us to look at, from different sites.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 11:56:31 AM

Yea video is the part of their evidence, proof to show what they mean by smoothness. But the point is that, it doesn't show what they mean clearly. I don't think anyone, without any gaming experience whatsoever, could distinguish between 2 sides. Not the best way to define what they mean i guess. As to what can be done/used to provide evidence for something like this, i didn't think about it nor i am an expert of these testing methods. I just want to see scientific evidence to prove something. Only that time, we can focus and discuss the outcome and how to cope with/avoid a certain issue
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 12:35:38 PM

The forward skipping was pretty noticeable to me... did you watch the whole thing? There's a few seconds between each skip. Anyway I think the OP probably has enough to go on now :-) If they come back, they're gonna have some reading to do! I'm not sure there's much more to say about frame latency that would be useful now. As always though, feel free to PM me.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 12:54:04 PM

I saw almost all video 240 fps and the 120fps one, yes there is slightly skipping forward i saw that at the both sides, difference being 7950 skipping once every few seconds (corrected minutes to seconds lol) and 660Ti doing this more often. Been questioning if i'm not so careful or miss something and if this slow-motion can be applied to actual game play. This is the special thing about these forums, we share our aspects and see different aspects of eachother and everyone can see it, nothing personal you know. If i have things to ask in my mind i will pm you, you know i do :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 12:56:06 PM

Absolutely mate :-) Just this thread is getting pretty huge now... not sure if the OP is even coming back - they haven't posted a second post.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 18, 2012 1:34:54 PM

Ignoring facts because you don't like them isn't an intelligent approach to life...

As for the differences in framerate, are they using exactly the same CPU etc? Are they using exactly the same graphics settings? And above all, are they testing the same part of the game? It's been very well demonstrated that one game can give very different results depending on what part you're in. For an extreme example, compare framerates in any game with a simple, empty room to a wide open area with loads of enemies and combat going on.

EDIT: The really crucial thing for fair testing is that the same spec, settings and test are used for each card. As long as nothing else changes, you've got a level playing field. That's why you can't compare results from different sites, unless all those variables are the same.
m
0
l