Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Challenging FPS: Testing SLI And CrossFire Using Video Capture

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
March 27, 2013 7:40:00 AM

Hopefully someone besides Nvidia develops this technology. If no one does, Nvidia can charge whatever they want...
Score
-12
March 27, 2013 7:42:52 AM

kajunchickenHopefully someone besides Nvidia develops this technology. If no one does, Nvidia can charge whatever they want...


FCAT isn't for end users, it's for review sites. The tech is supplied by hardware manufacturers, Nvidia just makes the scripts. They gave them to us for testing.
Score
20
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
March 27, 2013 7:45:44 AM

kajunchickenHopefully someone besides Nvidia develops this technology. If no one does, Nvidia can charge whatever they want...

And actually, it'd be nice to see someone like Beepa incorporate the overlay functionality, taking Nvidia out of the equation.
Score
15
March 27, 2013 7:46:35 AM

I wish there were an easy way to make my frame rates not dip and spike so much. A lot of times it can go up to like 120fps but then dipts down to 60 -70. It makes it look super choppy and ugly. I know I could limit it at 60 frames a second, but wouldn't that just be like vsync? Would that have input lag.
Score
-10
March 27, 2013 8:05:54 AM

Good review, but honestly I wouldnt use a tool touched by Nvidia to test AMD hardware, Nvidia has a track record of crippling the competition's hardware every chance they have. Also, i was checking prices in Newegg and to be honest the HD7870 is much cheaper than the GTX660Ti, why didn't you use 7870LE (Tahiti core) for this test? The price is much more closer.
The problem i have with the hardware you picked for this reviews is that even though, RAW FPS are not the main idea behind the review, you are giving a Tool for every troll on the net to say AMD hardware or drivers are crap. The idea behind the review is good though.
Score
20
March 27, 2013 8:06:38 AM

Vsync would only cut out the frames above 60FPS, so you would still have the FPS drops. but 60 or 70 FPS is more then you need (unless you are using 120Hz monitor and you have super awesome eyes to see the difference between 60 and 120FPS, that some do). No, the choppy felling you have must be something else not the frames.
Score
10
March 27, 2013 8:09:31 AM

Does it really matter? Over 60 FPS there will be screen tearing. So why is this sudden fuss? I guess nvidia marketing engine is in full flow. Only explanation is that Nvidia is really scared now, trying everything in there power to deceive people.
Score
-15
March 27, 2013 8:20:01 AM

I enjoyed the artical and it was very informative, I look forward to more testing of other GPU-s in the future.
Score
1
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:22:23 AM

Great article.

But as great as the review is, I feel one thing that review sites have dropped the ball on is the lack of v-sync comparisons. A lot of people play with v-sync, and while a 60hz monitor is going to limit what you can test, you could get a 120hz or 144hz monitor and see how they behave with v-sync on.

And the toughest thing of all, is how can microstutter be more accurately quantified. Not counting the runt frames gives a more accurate representation of FPS, but does not quantify microstutter that may be happening as a result.

It seems the more info we get, the more questions I have.
Score
14
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:28:13 AM

@DarkMantle, exactly my thinking. I don't want to sound like a paranoid goof who thinks everything is a conspiracy but a test suite created by Nvidia to test AMD hardware doesn't sound like a very trustworthy test. I'm not saying that the results here are all false but Nvidia has had a slight history in the past with attempting to present the competition in an unfair light.
Score
1
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:28:32 AM

BigMack70It would also be interesting to see how much using a framerate limiter through something like Afterburner helps things... my experience is that framerate limiter + vsync = no (or almost no) perceivable stutter, even where it may have been really awful beforehand.That's a good deal of extra work and data to present, though...


Yeah, that is a big part of why I'd like to see v-sync used in a review some time. It also removes tearing, and is the primary way I play; v-sync on a 120hz monitor.
Score
4
a c 192 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:29:30 AM

This will take considerable time to digest, but my quick take on it so far is that I am very glad I have never wasted time or money on a [midrange] Crossfire setup. SLI looks a lot more viable, but nVidia is no less guilty than AMD of releasing the occasional bum drivers.
Particularly after re-reading pp1-2, please clarify, runts [and drops] are not an issue in single-card setups?
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:32:36 AM

rene13cross@DarkMantle, exactly my thinking. I don't want to sound like a paranoid goof who thinks everything is a conspiracy but a test suite created by Nvidia to test AMD hardware doesn't sound like a very trustworthy test. I'm not saying that the results here are all false but Nvidia has had a slight history in the past with attempting to present the competition in an unfair light.

The test is one that AMD wanted as well. Well, at least that is what they are saying now, because it tests the output, not the start of the rendering process. I'm not sure how this type of test could skew results, as it just takes the frames like a monitor does, and shows us what the monitor shows.

The part you could possibly quibble over is what quantifies a runt frame.
Score
6
a c 89 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:36:22 AM

love the article, though it mostly measures the unmeasurable in ways the eye can't tell the difference. I appreciate the reviewer's honesty when he admitted only 2 titles where he could tell the poorer performing card in the test were performing poorer... this tells me the settings for the test... or what the test is measuring is largely undetectable and of questionable value.

What needs to be done with FPS/FRAPs/whatever is a practical tested and verifiable standard needs to be created which accurately portrays the playable experience. sorta a meta rating which incorporates all these sub criteria into a number... which will let us know how silky smooth the play experience will be with a gaming title.

of course, there is the added issue with an nvidia program being used to measure an AMD part... with the way intel used to (or might still according to some people) influence certain benching programs it's beyond problematic, especially with the way NVidia has played in the past with certain competition, to use a software program made by one of the competitors. if their methodology has value, it should be re-engineered to insure impartiality, and to prevent the obvious and expected fanboy mistrust.

That said I agree with the author's general point... this is an exciting time to be an enthusiasts.
Score
2
a c 107 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:38:06 AM

I too would like to see vsync comparisons.
Score
4
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:38:36 AM

krneki_05Vsync would only cut out the frames above 60FPS, so you would still have the FPS drops. but 60 or 70 FPS is more then you need (unless you are using 120Hz monitor and you have super awesome eyes to see the difference between 60 and 120FPS, that some do). No, the choppy felling you have must be something else not the frames.

I read an article on Techreport recently that explained another big component to choppy game play is time syncing. One that no review site has ever tried to tackle. It is one thing to have evenly spaced frames, but what if those frames are not synced to the action? That would have more unsettling results.
Score
1
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:42:44 AM

Um, i'm still reading Batman:AC, two things:
1. No FRAPS for Nvidia? How do we know FRAPS isn't causing an issue there?
2. The Minimum FPS for the FRAPS measurement is actually lower than the hardware and practical. What's going on there, if FRAPS counts present() calls, then shouldn't it be more than the hardware FPS at the very least (unless i'm missing something, i think it should be the same at least).
Score
5
a c 128 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:47:29 AM

BS MarketingDoes it really matter? Over 60 FPS there will be screen tearing. So why is this sudden fuss? I guess nvidia marketing engine is in full flow. Only explanation is that Nvidia is really scared now, trying everything in there power to deceive people.

No tearing on 120Hz monitors until you get over 120fps and even then tearing is no longer perceivable until you hit the mid 400s.

Also, that is not the point of the article.

This is a great article. It's consistent with others I've read on the subject. It is consistent to what is being published regarding information AMD is also supporting.

I look forward to seeing what you do with the tweaks of the FCAT software to further define what equates to a "runt" frame. Seems like that could make an even greater difference. Defining a runt frame seems somewhat subjective. Seems like many more than 21 scan lines or less could define a runt and would seem dependent on the resolution somewhat?
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:50:02 AM

BS MarketingDoes it really matter? Over 60 FPS there will be screen tearing. So why is this sudden fuss? I guess nvidia marketing engine is in full flow. Only explanation is that Nvidia is really scared now, trying everything in there power to deceive people.


You can get screen tearing regardless of what FPS you have. You might get it even at 40FPS and you might not get it at 200FPS. Just because you're over 60FPS doesn't necessarily mean that you'll have screen tearing just as being under 60FPS doesn't mean that you won't get screen tearing.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:51:21 AM

ingtar33love the article, though it mostly measures the unmeasurable in ways the eye can't tell the difference. I appreciate the reviewer's honesty when he admitted only 2 titles where he could tell the poorer performing card in the test were performing poorer... this tells me the settings for the test... or what the test is measuring is largely undetectable and of questionable value.


I would think finding 2 out of 9 games to have poor performance would be enough to change your mind on what video cards to buy. If I knew ahead of time that over 20% of the games I play would give a poor experience, I'd look for another option.
Score
1
a c 107 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:52:01 AM

blazorthon said:
BS MarketingDoes it really matter? Over 60 FPS there will be screen tearing. So why is this sudden fuss? I guess nvidia marketing engine is in full flow. Only explanation is that Nvidia is really scared now, trying everything in there power to deceive people.


You can get screen tearing regardless of what FPS you have. You might get it even at 40FPS and you might not get it at 200FPS. Just because you're over 60FPS doesn't necessarily mean that you'll have screen tearing just as being under 60FPS doesn't mean that you won't get screen tearing.

FACT!
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:56:00 AM

ubercakeNo tearing on 120Hz monitors until you get over 120fps and even then tearing is no longer perceivable until you hit the mid 400s.


I have a 120hz monitor, and I notice tearing immediately after I disable v-sync. I don't use adaptive-vsync either, because I see tearing when below the refresh rate.

Without vsync on, there is nothing stopping the video card from writing to the screen buffer while it is being refreshed.

What you notice is another thing. If you don't turn fast, it is hard to see, but if you are turning in a 1st person shooter, or moving in an isometric game, you see the tearing a lot more, and the higher your FPS go over your refresh rate, the more noticeable it often is.
Score
2
a c 128 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 8:57:40 AM

nukemaster said:
blazorthon said:
BS MarketingDoes it really matter? Over 60 FPS there will be screen tearing. So why is this sudden fuss? I guess nvidia marketing engine is in full flow. Only explanation is that Nvidia is really scared now, trying everything in there power to deceive people.


You can get screen tearing regardless of what FPS you have. You might get it even at 40FPS and you might not get it at 200FPS. Just because you're over 60FPS doesn't necessarily mean that you'll have screen tearing just as being under 60FPS doesn't mean that you won't get screen tearing.

FACT!


Can someone explain how you'd get screen tearing on a 60Hz monitor if it is only being fed 40FPS?

I've never peronally seen tearing unless I'm using a 60Hz monitor and the FPS output exceeds 60FPS. Isn't this why a v-sync cap is effective at dealing with screen tearing?

How can you get tearing with framerates under the refresh rate?

I really don't understand this?
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:02:00 AM

ubercakeCan someone explain how you'd get screen tearing on a 60Hz monitor if it is only being fed 40FPS?I've never peronally seen tearing unless I'm using a 60Hz monitor and the FPS output exceeds 60FPS. Isn't this why a v-sync cap is effective at dealing with screen tearing?How can you get tearing with framerates under the refresh rate?I really don't understand this?


Screen tearing happens when the video card is writing to the screen buffer mid way through the time the monitor is refreshing its image on the monitor. Without v-sync on, there is nothing stopping the video card from sending a new frame during the that time, and as a result, tearing does occur, but as you eluded to, you personally do not notice it until it is really bad. I notice it a lot easier, it seams.
Score
4
March 27, 2013 9:02:25 AM

ojasUm, i'm still reading Batman:AC, two things:1. No FRAPS for Nvidia? How do we know FRAPS isn't causing an issue there?


Good point. We don't! Not for sure, yet.
However, the similarity between the Nvidia hardware and practical FPS is so close there's no reason to believe FRAPS would fall out of line. It certainly stayed very close to the boundaries set by the Radeon hardware and practical results.


ojas2. The Minimum FPS for the FRAPS measurement is actually lower than the hardware and practical. What's going on there, if FRAPS counts present() calls, then shouldn't it be more than the hardware FPS at the very least (unless i'm missing something, i think it should be the same at least).


There are a number of factors. Primarily, we can't run FCAT and FRAPS on the exact same run and there's bound to be a bit of variance per run. Having said that, the variance in Batman is more than it should be. Unfortunately, we have no way of being 100% sure what the deal is, we can only show our results.
Score
3
a c 89 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:09:36 AM

bystanderI would think finding 2 out of 9 games to have poor performance would be enough to change your mind on what video cards to buy. If I knew ahead of time that over 20% of the games I play would give a poor experience, I'd look for another option.


except that the reviewer claimed it was one title with the nvidia, and one with the radeon, the rest of the time he couldn't tell the difference.

I don't think its debateable that anecdotally SLi provides a smoother play experience with less micro-stutter then XFire... however the benches have never really supported this argument. The slightly lower results from the radeon in this article tell me we're getting closer to a solid benchmark to review smooth gameplay experience, however you can't claim these results are anything but equivocal due to a number of reasons (some of which being that this is a nvidia manufactured test, and the inability of the reviewer to verify results visually).

we're closer to a solid all encompassing game play experience benchmark, but we're not there yet.
Score
1
a c 128 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:10:48 AM

BigMack70 said:
ubercakeFACT!
Can someone explain how you'd get screen tearing on a 60Hz monitor if it is only being fed 40FPS?I've never peronally seen tearing unless I'm using a 60Hz monitor and the FPS output exceeds 60FPS. Isn't this why a v-sync cap is effective at dealing with screen tearing?How can you get tearing with framerates under the refresh rate?I really don't understand this?


Tearing occurs anytime the frame gets refreshed during the middle of a monitor refresh cycle; so it can happen regardless of your FPS - it's an issue of how the frame is timed relative to the monitor's refresh cycle.[/quotemsg]

So it seems like this is managed better between the GPU and monitor when the framerate is lower resulting in no (or less) noticeable tearing. So you could theoretically run 60fps constantly and if your gpu feeds your monitor frames between the monitor's refresh cycle, you'll see continuous tearing?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:11:03 AM

cleeveGood point. We don't! Not for sure, yet.However, the similarity between the Nvidia hardware and practical FPS is so close there's no reason to believe FRAPS would fall out of line. It certainly stayed very close to the boundaries set by the Radeon hardware and practical results.There are a number of factors. Primarily, we can't run FCAT and FRAPS on the exact same run and there's bound to be a bit of variance per run. Having said that, the variance in Batman is more than it should be. Unfortunately, we have no way of being 100% sure what the deal is, we can only show our results.

Thanks for the response!

Though i dunno. I just feel Nvidia should have been subject to a FRAPS run as well, because the FRAPS data for AMD was sort of all over the place. Thing is, if FRAPS has a tendency of making AMD look better than it should, i guess it could do the same for Nvidia, despite the practical-hardware similarity (FRAPS for the Radeons didn't really show a predictable pattern, it was lower, it was higher, it was in between).
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:15:26 AM

ubercakeSo it seems like this is managed better between the GPU and monitor when the framerate is lower resulting in no (or less) noticeable tearing. So you could theoretically run 60fps constantly and if your gpu feeds your monitor fames between the monitor's refresh cycle, you'll see continuous tearing?

Yes, if the GPU ends up sending its updated images during its refresh cycle, then you'll have a tear. It is during vertical retrace mode that it is safe to write to the buffer without a tear, which v-sync forces the GPU to wait for.
Score
4
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:17:42 AM

ubercakeSo it seems like this is managed better between the GPU and monitor when the framerate is lower resulting in no (or less) noticeable tearing. So you could theoretically run 60fps constantly and if your gpu feeds your monitor fames between the monitor's refresh cycle, you'll see continuous tearing?

Yeah, if the present() calls aren't synced to the vertical refresh rate (or its multiples/factors) you'll get tearing, regardless of fps, even if the fps is the same as the refresh rate. They must be synced.

Adaptive Vsync doesn't prevent tearing below the refresh rate. I know Nvidia's marketing may have made it sound like that, because it confused me too. What it does is, below the refresh rate, VS gets turned off so that frames don't fall to the next factor of the refresh rate. Doesn't prevent tearing, though it prevents stuttering.
Score
3
a c 128 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:18:29 AM

bystander said:
ubercakeSo it seems like this is managed better between the GPU and monitor when the framerate is lower resulting in no (or less) noticeable tearing. So you could theoretically run 60fps constantly and if your gpu feeds your monitor fames between the monitor's refresh cycle, you'll see continuous tearing?

Yes, if the GPU ends up sending its updated images during its refresh cycle, then you'll have a tear. It is during vertical retrace mode that it is safe to write to the buffer without a tear, which v-sync forces the GPU to wait for.


Thanks.
Score
1
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:22:41 AM

bystanderI would think finding 2 out of 9 games to have poor performance would be enough to change your mind on what video cards to buy. If I knew ahead of time that over 20% of the games I play would give a poor experience, I'd look for another option.


You're taking what was said in the article out of context. One of the titles with a seemingly noticeable difference had Nvidia losing to AMD, not the other way around. If it happened once, then it's entirely possible that it happens in some other game or games too. I don't think the reviewers ever said that performance was ever poor. They only mentioned small differences.

Just because these differences were noticed in the exact system and test settings as used by Tom's doesn't mean that they'll necessarily translate to every other such situation even with the same games. That Tom's X79 system wasn't behaving very well with anything lately is proof enough of that IMO, especially in the GTX 650 Ti Boost article where it specifically had a problem with Nvidia's 314.21 driver despite Nvidia saying that they couldn't reproduce the result and it seems that the issue is only caused by that driver with that system.

Remember, this article is a proof of concept. It is not irrefutable and absolute proof that everything will function exactly as it did in here.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:25:26 AM

blazorthonYou're taking what was said in the article out of context. One of the titles with a seemingly noticeable difference had Nvidia losing to AMD, not the other way around. If it happened once, then it's entirely possible that it happens in some other game or games too. I don't think the reviewers ever said that performance was ever poor. They only mentioned small differences.Just because these differences were noticed in the exact system and test settings as used by Tom's doesn't mean that they'll necessarily translate to every other such situation even with the same games. That Tom's X79 system wasn't behaving very well with anything lately is proof enough of that IMO, especially in the GTX 650 Ti Boost article where it specifically had a problem with Nvidia's 314.21 driver despite Nvidia saying that they couldn't reproduce the result and it seems that the issue is only caused by that driver with that system.Remember, this article is a proof of concept. It is not irrefutable and absolute proof that everything will function exactly as it did in here.

I wasn't trying to slam any particular card. Only saying that if review sites found poorer experiences from one or the other card, you'd probably want to adjust your purchase decision based on it. Though I was only going off the quote I had, which I guess I misunderstood the numbers, but the point still remains. If the problem was only in 20% of the games, or even 10%, it still would affect my decision.
Score
2
a c 192 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:29:06 AM

Well, I'm not sure it matters on single cards (or could go either way), but this article pretty much rules out Crossfire for me.
Score
1
a c 128 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:36:43 AM

ubercake said:
bystander said:
ubercakeSo it seems like this is managed better between the GPU and monitor when the framerate is lower resulting in no (or less) noticeable tearing. So you could theoretically run 60fps constantly and if your gpu feeds your monitor fames between the monitor's refresh cycle, you'll see continuous tearing?

Yes, if the GPU ends up sending its updated images during its refresh cycle, then you'll have a tear. It is during vertical retrace mode that it is safe to write to the buffer without a tear, which v-sync forces the GPU to wait for.


Thanks.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but there must be some kind of hand shake or sync that takes place between a monitor and GPU otherwise tearing would be a constant problem; even without V-sync. Isn't this why we specify a resolution and monitor refresh rate in Control Panel or Catalyst? At some point, timing between a monitor and GPU syncs up. Correct?

It seems like tearing at lower framerates would be far more noticeable because the frames with the tears would be on-screen for a longer amount of time. Somehow, with framerates lower than the refresh rate of the monitor, I've never seen tearing, but I have seen it when fps were above 60 on a 60Hz monitor?

If tearing is common when fps are lower than the monitor's refresh rate, it would also be contrary to a solution like Nvidia's adaptive v-sync solution where the framerate cap only applies when the fps exceed the monitor's refresh rate.
Score
-1
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:41:42 AM

Testing AMD cards with nvidia software is like running my M3 on a regular.
Score
-7
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:44:23 AM

bystanderI wasn't trying to slam any particular card. Only saying that if review sites found poorer experiences from one or the other card, you'd probably want to adjust your purchase decision based on it. Though I was only going off the quote I had, which I guess I misunderstood the numbers, but the point still remains. If the problem was only in 20% of the games, or even 10%, it still would affect my decision.


I wouldn't take it that far. Keep in mind that even playing in different settings in the same games can greatly affect how much Nvidia or AMD is favored over the other and there are many other factors. Also keep in mind that this is far from a conclusive review. It's more of a proof of concept IMO, proof that further research needs to be done. It didn't even paint AMD nor Nvidia in a particularly bad light, granted Nvidia often had small, advantages that either went unnoticed or were still only minor.

That this has only been tested in Crossfire/SLI with the GTX 660 Ti and the Radeon 7870 and doesn't affect single GPU setups means that it's not likely to affect purchasing decisions for another reason: Most people won't buy these setups. They may upgrade to them later on, but by that point, this review is almost completely irrelevant and might not be remotely accurate anymore.

Point is that it's very interesting and we should look further into it, but you seem to be putting to much weight into what it means.
Score
-2
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:45:03 AM

ubercakeThanks.Hate to beat a dead horse, but there must be some kind of hand shake or sync that takes place between a monitor and GPU otherwise tearing would be a constant problem; even without V-sync. Isn't this why we specify a resolution and monitor refresh rate in Control Panel or Catalyst? At some point, timing between a monitor and GPU syncs up. Correct?It seems like tearing at lower framerates would be far more noticeable because the frames with the tears would be on-screen for a longer amount of time. Somehow, with framerates lower than the refresh rate of the monitor, I've never seen tearing, but I have seen it when fps were above 60 on a 60Hz monitor?If tearing is common when fps are lower than the monitor's refresh rate, it would also be contrary to a solution like Nvidia's adaptive v-sync solution where the framerate cap only applies when the fps exceed the monitor's refresh rate.
[/quotemsg]

There is a system in place, it is called v-sync. It is possible to do another solution, which I think Unigine Heaven does, which is to render the frames as fast as it can, but it won't send a frame unless the monitor is in retrace mode. This is different than normal v-sync, in which the GPU waits for v-sync after the frame is rendered.

You notice it less often when the FPS is lower than your refresh rate, because the odds of sending a frame during the time the monitor refreshes its image is lower than as your FPS increase. You may only get tearing on every other frame, or less, depending on how things work out.

I've always noticed the tearing below 60 FPS when I had a 60hz monitor. I notice with a 120hz monitor too, but another factor into noticing it is what is happening on the screen. If the two frames which result in tearing change very little, you might not see tearing. Depending on the type of game you play and how much the images change, you may see less tearing than another person playing a game like Diablo, scrolling the view across the screen as he runs.
Score
0
March 27, 2013 9:47:16 AM

What next? How many CPU instructions used by driver to render a frame? How much dust collected by GPU Fan? Size of the driver setup? installation time of the driver? This is very lame by Nvidia. If you care about screen tearing use VSync. It is a known fact that when VSync disabled it causes screen tearing. That is the sole purpose of Vsync. Who cares if a fames is drawn 16 lines 20 or whatever per frame when the framerate is higher than 60 on a 60Hz monitor? imagine if the frame rate is 290 or something like that, how many frames will be dropped on a 60Hz monitor? I understand micro shutter but this is very silly and sounds like sore looser unable to accept defeat.
Score
-11
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:48:48 AM

ubercakeIf tearing is common when fps are lower than the monitor's refresh rate, it would also be contrary to a solution like Nvidia's adaptive v-sync solution where the framerate cap only applies when the fps exceed the monitor's refresh rate.

I forgot to mention adaptive v-sync before. The purpose of adaptive v-sync is not to always eliminate tearing. The purpose of it is to find a balance between performance and fixing tearing. As you may know, v-sync can hurt performance a lot when you cannot maintain your refresh rate in FPS. So people often play without v-sync when they are struggling to get good FPS in a game, yet when they get very high FPS, they use v-sync. Adaptive v-sync bridges the gap. It'll use v-sync when you have excessive FPS, and turn it off when you are struggling, to help maintain smooth game play.
Score
3
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:52:25 AM

Anyway a fair comparison would 660Ti against 7950 they are in the same price range not the 7870.
Cheapest 660ti is $280, cheapest 7950 is $270, and cheapest 7870 is $195
Why didn't you compared 7970 agaist 660Ti? For same reason you should not have choose 660Ti against 7870.
Score
2
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 9:55:58 AM

maxinexusAnyway a fair comparison would 660Ti against 7950 they are in the same price range not the 7870.Cheapest 660ti is $280, cheapest 7950 is $270, and cheapest 7870 is $195 Why didn't you compared 7970 agaist 660Ti? For same reason you should not have choose 660Ti against 7870.

I think the point was more about showing a new testing methodology and get some general SLI vs CF comparisons, than to compare specific cards, though I think you may have looked up the 7850, as $195 is much lower than anything I can find.
Score
2
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 10:07:44 AM

BS MarketingWhat next? How many CPU instructions used by driver to render a frame? How much dust collected by GPU Fan? Size of the driver setup? installation time of the driver? This is very lame by Nvidia. If you care about screen tearing use VSync. It is a known fact that when VSync disabled it causes screen tearing. That is the sole purpose of Vsync. Who cares if a fames is drawn 16 lines 20 or whatever per frame when the framerate is higher than 60 on a 60Hz monitor? imagine if the frame rate is 290 or something like that, how many frames will be dropped on a 60Hz monitor? I understand micro shutter but this is very silly and sounds like sore looser unable to accept defeat.

I believe this paragraph was meant for you:
Quote:
As a rule, human beings don't respond well when their beliefs are challenged. But how would you feel if I told you that the frames-per-second method for conveying performance, as it's often presented, is fundamentally flawed? It's tough to accept, right? And, to be honest, that was my first reaction the first time I heard that Scott Wasson at The Tech Report was checking into frame times using Fraps. His initial look and continued persistence was largely responsible for drawing attention to performance "inside the second," which is often discussed in terms of uneven or stuttery playback, even in the face of high average frame rates.
Score
6
March 27, 2013 10:18:18 AM

DarkMantleGood review, but honestly I wouldnt use a tool touched by Nvidia to test AMD hardware, Nvidia has a track record of crippling the competition's hardware every chance they have. Also, i was checking prices in Newegg and to be honest the HD7870 is much cheaper than the GTX660Ti, why didn't you use 7870LE (Tahiti core) for this test? The price is much more closer.The problem i have with the hardware you picked for this reviews is that even though, RAW FPS are not the main idea behind the review, you are giving a Tool for every troll on the net to say AMD hardware or drivers are crap. The idea behind the review is good though.


I don't go quite as far in questioning nVidia's design of the FCAT tool as deliberately biased against AMD. But the fact that almost every test shows a wider disparity in the AMD configuration makes me wonder if nVidia did have issues coding for the AMD architecture. I await a similar tool from AMD or a neutral party for comparison.

On the other hand, this could simply be an issue with Crossfire data interchange vs. SLI and the fact that the 7870 is inherently slightly less powerful than the 660 Ti.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2013 10:27:01 AM

bwcbwcI don't go quite as far in questioning nVidia's design of the FCAT tool as deliberately biased against AMD. But the fact that almost every test shows a wider disparity in the AMD configuration makes me wonder if nVidia did have issues coding for the AMD architecture. I await a similar tool from AMD or a neutral party for comparison.On the other hand, this could simply be an issue with Crossfire data interchange vs. SLI and the fact that the 7870 is inherently slightly less powerful than the 660 Ti.

I'm not sure if it matters, they're simply inserting a mark on the frame where fraps does (start of the pipeline) and then collecting it at the end of the pipeline.

It wouldn't matter whether AMD did this too, results should be the same.
Score
3
March 27, 2013 10:28:56 AM

So what effect would running VirutMVP have on this testing method?
My understanding is that it eliminates the dropped on runt frames from ever being generated and freeing up the GPU power assiciated with each frame. Would this just even out the lines between hardware and experienced FPS or would this generate an actual improvement in experienced FPS?
I've tried VirtuMVP and either didn't do it right or it didn't have any real effect. Based on this testing method it sounds like it would go hand in hand with it.
Score
2
!