Jump to content


Photo

ASUS, MSI, EVGA GTX 950 Reviewed


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#25 DanTheGamer11

DanTheGamer11

    Proud noob

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4403 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2015 - 04:47 AM

More detail is always nice


Processor AMD Phenom II X6 1055T @3.2Ghz
Cooler Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo
Memory 8GB 1.48V 1600Mhz DDR3 Crucial Ballistix Tactical
Motherboard Asrock N68C-GS FX
Graphics XFX HD 7950
Storage 1TB WD Caviar Blue HDD, 240GB Kingston Hyper X SSD, Thanks OCC & Kingston, makes a big difference  :)
Optical Disk Drive Sony Optiarc DVD/CD ReWriter
Power Supply Cooler Master GX 650W Bronze
Case Cooler Master CM690, Akasa 4 port USB front panel (MOAR USBs  :woot:)


#26 Braegnok

Braegnok

    Nimrod

  • Folding Member
  • 1551 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado USA

Posted 22 August 2015 - 04:57 AM

This type side by side benchmark clears up any assumptions https://youtu.be/RZZtNqiHXd4,.. but setting up and running side by side video benchmarks for multi-cards for all games would be a lot of work.

 

Personally I like the current methods for testing used on OCC,.. with game description, settings, screenshot of game, and the bar graphs showing results followed by some comments.     


Edited by Braegnok, 22 August 2015 - 02:03 PM.

Intel Core i7-9700K 

Asus Maximus X Apex

Corsair 32GB DDR4

GeForce RTX 2080 Ti

SeaSonic SSR-1000TR

Corsair H115i Extreme


#27 Waco

Waco

    Lab Rat 2

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16508 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Alamos, NM

Posted 22 August 2015 - 06:09 AM



Please do not put words in my mouth on this one. If you want to insinuate that I am falsifying the results I have a few letters for you


Where do you see me saying that you are "falsifying" results?
Nowhere, don't go insinuating yourself please, before making a fit and soft-threat me.
You completely missed the point i was making and you make your own assumptions, don't do that.
Instead, just ask for more clarification, more friendly that way too.


I'l go in more detail, since you missed my point entirely in the previous post.

The point i was making here is that the benchmarks are not really realistic (keyword here since you apparently missed that in my previous comment) in terms of the load the GPU is given, giving a higher result in the end and an unrealistic view of the cards performance. Your description of the bench you do for Crysis 3 proves that as well, the indoor sequence and the small outdoor portion has nowhere near the same load as let's say the starting point of chapter two where you see the grasslands and let the mines explode for example.

When seeing the "60FPS" on the benchmarks, people assume they can attain those frames on those settings at all times when playing with that card, and are disappointed when they reach chapter two where the frames drop well below 40 at times. and will never reach that 60FPS again.

To prevent the above scenario, and give a more realistic view on things, it is smart to give the viewer an idea on what you did to achieve said frames/results. If you would have added that part about how you got those Crysis 3 frames, everyone would understand how you got those frames and how you do your benchmarks for that game, and people can recreate that for themselves to compare.

Nothing more, nothing less, i never meant any "harm" or "insult" to you as a reviewer, i just wanted to say that it may be a good idea to mention what you did for a certain game to get those results, so the readers won't be fooled by the frames with their own assumptions.


Hopefully my point is coming across now...
You're missing the entire purpose of the game benchmarks. They are to show RELATIVE performance between the cards tested. Nobody should compare game tests between sites unless the benchmarks are canned in the game...and even then, test setups vary wildly.

If you can't grok that, please just stop complaining.

Tolerance is a sign of weakness.


#28 WarWeeny

WarWeeny

    Charizard on the streets, snorlax in the sheets

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeuwarden / netherlands

Posted 22 August 2015 - 08:26 AM

 

 


Please do not put words in my mouth on this one. If you want to insinuate that I am falsifying the results I have a few letters for you


Where do you see me saying that you are "falsifying" results?
Nowhere, don't go insinuating yourself please, before making a fit and soft-threat me.
You completely missed the point i was making and you make your own assumptions, don't do that.
Instead, just ask for more clarification, more friendly that way too.


I'l go in more detail, since you missed my point entirely in the previous post.

The point i was making here is that the benchmarks are not really realistic (keyword here since you apparently missed that in my previous comment) in terms of the load the GPU is given, giving a higher result in the end and an unrealistic view of the cards performance. Your description of the bench you do for Crysis 3 proves that as well, the indoor sequence and the small outdoor portion has nowhere near the same load as let's say the starting point of chapter two where you see the grasslands and let the mines explode for example.

When seeing the "60FPS" on the benchmarks, people assume they can attain those frames on those settings at all times when playing with that card, and are disappointed when they reach chapter two where the frames drop well below 40 at times. and will never reach that 60FPS again.

To prevent the above scenario, and give a more realistic view on things, it is smart to give the viewer an idea on what you did to achieve said frames/results. If you would have added that part about how you got those Crysis 3 frames, everyone would understand how you got those frames and how you do your benchmarks for that game, and people can recreate that for themselves to compare.

Nothing more, nothing less, i never meant any "harm" or "insult" to you as a reviewer, i just wanted to say that it may be a good idea to mention what you did for a certain game to get those results, so the readers won't be fooled by the frames with their own assumptions.


Hopefully my point is coming across now...
You're missing the entire purpose of the game benchmarks. They are to show RELATIVE performance between the cards tested. Nobody should compare game tests between sites unless the benchmarks are canned in the game...and even then, test setups vary wildly.

If you can't grok that, please just stop complaining.

 

 

Useful post, right here....oh wait.


You can get the weeny out of the war, but you cannot get the war out of the weeny

Rest in peace my good old gtx 480, you deserved it

 

Thinks he has a weeny worthy of war.

 


#29 ccokeman

ccokeman

    ????????????

  • Reviewer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12447 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2015 - 08:31 AM

This type side by side benchmark clears up any assumptions https://youtu.be/RZZtNqiHXd4,.. but setting up and running side by side benchmarks for multi-cards for all games would be a lot of work.

 

Personally I like the current methods for testing used on OCC,.. with game description, settings, screenshot of game, and the bar graphs showing results followed by some comments.     

 

Thanks! I think we are the only site offering overclocked as well as stock results. 

 

@ Warweeny------Now using that video as an example The video shows multiple scenarios running with vsync on using the same settings I am using and the game being pegged at 60FS. Some scenarios less. I fail to find the flaw in my testing.  

 

 

 

 

 


Please do not put words in my mouth on this one. If you want to insinuate that I am falsifying the results I have a few letters for you


Where do you see me saying that you are "falsifying" results?
Nowhere, don't go insinuating yourself please, before making a fit and soft-threat me.
You completely missed the point i was making and you make your own assumptions, don't do that.
Instead, just ask for more clarification, more friendly that way too.


I'l go in more detail, since you missed my point entirely in the previous post.

The point i was making here is that the benchmarks are not really realistic (keyword here since you apparently missed that in my previous comment) in terms of the load the GPU is given, giving a higher result in the end and an unrealistic view of the cards performance. Your description of the bench you do for Crysis 3 proves that as well, the indoor sequence and the small outdoor portion has nowhere near the same load as let's say the starting point of chapter two where you see the grasslands and let the mines explode for example.

When seeing the "60FPS" on the benchmarks, people assume they can attain those frames on those settings at all times when playing with that card, and are disappointed when they reach chapter two where the frames drop well below 40 at times. and will never reach that 60FPS again.

To prevent the above scenario, and give a more realistic view on things, it is smart to give the viewer an idea on what you did to achieve said frames/results. If you would have added that part about how you got those Crysis 3 frames, everyone would understand how you got those frames and how you do your benchmarks for that game, and people can recreate that for themselves to compare.

Nothing more, nothing less, i never meant any "harm" or "insult" to you as a reviewer, i just wanted to say that it may be a good idea to mention what you did for a certain game to get those results, so the readers won't be fooled by the frames with their own assumptions.


Hopefully my point is coming across now...
You're missing the entire purpose of the game benchmarks. They are to show RELATIVE performance between the cards tested. Nobody should compare game tests between sites unless the benchmarks are canned in the game...and even then, test setups vary wildly.

If you can't grok that, please just stop complaining.

 

Exactly! 


Processor Intel Core I7 4690X  4.3Ghz
Memory G.Skill RipJaws  32GB 2400Mhz
Motherboard ASUS Rampage IV BE
Graphics  GTX TitanX x2
Power Corsair AX 1200,
Monitor ASUS PQ321Q
Cooling Liquid by comittee

Storage  OCZ RevoDrive 350 480GB  Seagate 8TB
Follow OCC on facebook.png