Results: Crysis 3
The GeForce cards demonstrate no difference between our hardware and practical results, while the Radeon combo exhibits a 1.3 FPS split. In this case, Fraps actually tracks more closely with the practical result. Just bear in mind that Fraps needs to be run separately, since its overlay doesn't appear to cooperate with the one included in FCAT.
Although there is little difference between the actual rendered frames from AMD's cards and the practical result, we can clearly see the dropped and runt frames when we look at frame rate over time.
Frame time variance is relatively high for both graphics setups on this game. The GeForce cards seemed choppier, based on my experience, but that's a subjective call.
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.
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.
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.