Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: HardOCP Article on Canned benchmarks VS actual gameplay

  1. Registered TeamPlayer SapiensErus's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-22-07
    Posts
    8,917
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4
    #21

    Re: HardOCP Article on Canned benchmarks VS actual gameplay

    I really like to use the charts at Toms, then go read newegg reviews. The charts at Toms rock the house.. although I usually skip the 3dmark chart and just look at the game related charts...

    But yeah; Toms charts are the shizzle.


  2. Registered TeamPlayer
    Join Date
    12-19-06
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    2,176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Stat Links

    HardOCP Article on Canned benchmarks VS actual gameplay
    #22

    Re: HardOCP Article on Canned benchmarks VS actual gameplay

    Quote Originally Posted by ...bigdog...
    with tom's hardware charts, futuremark's global stats, and per-benchmark scores in 3dMark....I stopped reading hardware reviews a long time ago. Toms and anandtech, I skip to conclusions every time (and that's only on motherboard and other un-benchable reviews where most items fall within 5% of eachother).

    Tom's CPU and VGA charts are as unbiased and objective as it can get. Graphics cards tested on identical systems, running dozens of different benchmarks that you can choose at will for multiple resolutions and feature settings. CPU's too. Going back for years.

    So for me......it's nice to hear the guys at HardOCP et al say "oh this card is this and that and oooh and hmmmm and blah blah blah", but we all know that the only think that matters is that it performs well. Meaning standardized benches for framerate, drawing abilities, texture decompression, polygons, dynamic lighting........and the only benchmark that tests all of those at once, as WELL as your CPU, is 3dMark.

    Perhaps aesthetic things, or setup things such as where the IDE slots are, or how close the RAM DIMMs are to the CPU socket, or the size of heatsinks......since those can't be benched....a review is helpful to me.

    But power...capability....performance......the charts win, every time. consistency and simplicity. My favorite.
    so when are you gonna upgrade your rig bd?

  3. Administrator ...bigdog...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    06-10-05
    Posts
    51,240
    Post Thanks / Like
    Stat Links

    HardOCP Article on Canned benchmarks VS actual gameplay HardOCP Article on Canned benchmarks VS actual gameplay HardOCP Article on Canned benchmarks VS actual gameplay
    Gamer IDs

    Steam ID: bigdogttp
    #23

    Re: HardOCP Article on Canned benchmarks VS actual gameplay

    Quote Originally Posted by MaKe_OuT_33

    so when are you gonna upgrade your rig bd?
    yeah.......my AGP platform is pretty much played out. the X1950 was nice.....but not nice enough for the new stuff (though CoD4 runs like a mother fucker on it, surprisingly).

    We'll see.
    Quote Originally Posted by ...bigdog... View Post
    If turd fergusons want to troll their lives away, that's the world's problem. Go read the CNN.com comments section, or any comments section, anywhere. All of the big threads are going to be the crazy people saying stupid shit.

  4. Registered TeamPlayer
    Join Date
    09-15-07
    Posts
    1,559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Stat Links

    HardOCP Article on Canned benchmarks VS actual gameplay HardOCP Article on Canned benchmarks VS actual gameplay
    #24

    Re: HardOCP Article on Canned benchmarks VS actual gameplay

    Before I drop $300+ on a card, I'd like to know what I'm spending my money on. I'll look at the canned reports and Hardocp. It's good to know the relative power from the canned reports but also what you can expect (if you have the exact same game as the benchies) from the Hardocp reports. Knowing what resolutions are "playable" are good. If you try to bump it beyond these and you don't like the framerate/gameplay, you've got an idea why.

    That being said, the new 512 MB versions with the G92 chip from Nvidia seem to be kick butt! The 1 GB version seems to be a waste of 512 MB which is interesting.

  5. togboilKHot
    Guest
    #25

    RBL Checker Match - togboilKHot from 93.174.93.199

    ALERT!

    Someone has tried to register using the IP Address 93.174.93.199 which is MATCHED IN THE RBL DATABASE of the dnsbl.ahbl.org RBL.

    This registration attempt has been allowed and the account has been permanently banned.

    Registration Details: togboilKHot ( melvakeating@gmail.com )

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Title