Better vs Value

[Trepidati0n]

I keep seeing all these "which is better" on vid cards. The word "better " is subjective. Wouldn't it be possible to have "buyers" determine and which quality or budget they have and then just simply divide the FPS of a card for a couple of desired games by its cost. That way you can quickly determine the cost value. That way you can simply say "I payed X dollars per 1 FPS".

I play all my games at 1280x1024. I like games at ~60FPS. This is my base point (if the card doesn't do it, I don't buy it...or I change my requirements). I took the games I "might" play and ran the dollar value. If the card goes above the 60 FPS it is capped at 60FPS and if the card goes below it gets a penalty mulitplier. In my case (about 2 months ago) it was the 6600GT AGP from XFX for WoW. It cost me $3.25 a FPS. The X700Pro was about $4 FPS w/ penalty. The 6800NU was $4.10 and the 6800GT was a whopping $6.50 a FPS. For the FPS req you can make it a window like 40-60FPS which can make the multiplier penalities for weaker cards less.

This method is bullet proof (in my mind...get that point before you make a remark back) and does not lie. It also allow you to easily make a direct cost percent increase for those extra FPS's. However...I guess this doesn't matter since people would rather pick a side of the fence and bash each other. Let the bickering continue.

Another thing that bothers me is I don't think any person with a few ounces of common sense would buy a video card now for a game that comes out in the future (the HL2/Doom3 people are exempt because of flat out lies by the game vendors). You spend money now on a card for a game you can't even play. I know it is cool to have the next greatest card...but you just threw away performance or dollars depending on which way you look at it. You can either buy a better card for the same dollar or spend less dollars for the same performance. Again...lost $$$ value. The SM3.0 fights are a prime example.

For the enthusiast I don't think $$$ matters, but for the budget minded I think you need to apply some math other than post_count = post_count + 1.

-tReP

 

[pxc]

Good comment.

One of the most common replies to that common question is "what's your budget?" It's also sad that 1600x1200 performance is almost exclusively used to determine which card is best when most people don't even have 1600x1200 monitors. IMO, people could save a lot by more carefully considering the resolution they will be running games.

 

[ameoba]

$/FPS marginalizes the value of IQ.

You say you want to play 1024x768@60FPS, but with what levels of AA and AF? If you start turning these things up, the card that's best value at one level is quickly going to dive into penalty range.

 

[Imitation]

$/FPS marginalizes the value of IQ.

You say you want to play 1024x768@60FPS, but with what levels of AA and AF? If you start turning these things up, the card that's best value at one level is quickly going to dive into penalty range.

Excellent point, but I would say that average gamers that aren't looking for breakneck performance aren't worried about AA or AF anyway. When I bought my 6600GT I knew it wouldn't play D3 hl2 and farcry with the AA on or the AF all the way up at a high res. I just had to have enough fps at a decent res such as 1280x1024 to make it playable. Yes AA does make games look very stunning, but these newer games have higher polygon counts and better textures than previous games, making them look better anyway. My 2 cents.