Results: F1 2012
Let's see how these dual-card setups take on F1 2012, a game we consider to be platform-limited.
Interestingly, despite this title's reliance on processor and memory performance, we see the largest discrepancy between actual rendered frames (including drops and runts) and the practical output you'd actually experience, a 13.1 FPS delta. It's also interesting that Fraps reports results that come closer to AMD's practical output; in theory you'd think the opposite would be true.
Meanwhile, the GeForce boards don't have the large gap separating them, making this story the first time we've seen quantifiable evidence of Nvidia's effort to deliver consistent frames, rather than pushing frames as fast as they can be rendered.
Illustrating frame rates over time gives us a dramatic visualization of runt and dropped frames causing spikes during the benchmark run.
Regardless of those issues, frame time variance appears fairly modest, even at the 95th percentile.
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.