[H]ardOCP VR Review Chart Addition

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,598
Been listening to you guys and thinking that maybe an addition such as this might be welcomed? Feedback please.

upload_2016-9-25_20-50-13.png
 
I'm not sure it is 100% necessary, but for those who want to compare raw numbers side-by-side I can see it being very useful.
 
I'll say that I've found the existing leaderboard to be too simplistic or generic, however you want to put it. Not sure if this is the answer, but more info than what the current one gives is definitely needed.
 
I have to say I do like the chart because it's easy to see all the results side by side. The simple leader board is fine for reviews to keep it concise but I'd definitely like to be able to find that chart on occasion.
 
Just looking at the table, it's unclear why Fury X would be last. The article text explains that it's because of the poor perf/$, but I think that consideration should either be mentioned in the picture, or the ordering should be based purely on performance.

Also how's this going to look after 10 more reviews?
 
You can get the Fury X for less then $400 pretty consistently now and even a Fury for $309. So the standings maybe should change a little. Still looking at the 1060 and FuryX - they are not that much different in performance, one winning over the other and visa versa.

Fury X - Newegg.com
 
There is an error in the Render Time numbers in that chart for the Titan X Pascal in Space PT. You used 1.4x SS numbers, while the other GPUs are using 1.0x SS numbers. For a simple comparison chart like this to make sense, everything should be apples to apples.
 
People have been asking for more data, so more data is what you get. :)
noko said:
You can get the Fury X for less then $400 pretty consistently now and even a Fury for $309. So the standings maybe should change a little. Still looking at the 1060 and FuryX - they are not that much different in performance, one winning over the other and visa versa.

Fury X - Newegg.com
Click to expand...
Well I guess if price were the only consideration, but it is not.
 
Cyberbeing said:
There is an error in the Render Time numbers in that chart for the Titan X Pascal in Space PT. You used 1.4x SS numbers, while the other GPUs are using 1.0x SS numbers. For a simple comparison chart like this to make sense, everything should be apples to apples.
Click to expand...
Nope, all are at apples to apples for the chart. I will go back and make sure however that the data is correct.

Edit: And checking, you are correct on that summary chart,,,,,that is not published in any review. I will go back and check all the math for sure. Thanks for the heads up.

Fixed...moving forward for sure.

Chart on the article has been updated with the correction and is noted. Many thanks Cyberbeing .
 
Last edited:
noko said:
I wonder if AMD ever got back with you on their VR performance or lack thereof?
Click to expand...
No they have not done that in the last month. AMD wanted me to have the discussion with Scott Wasson, and I told them that I thought that was a conflict of interest since he owned TechReport.com and worked for AMD as well. They told me he "works for AMD." I asked if I could have NVIDIA join me on the call as well since conflict of interest was not an issue. Have not heard back from AMD. But I have followed up twice to forward the conversation without Scott. Seems no one else at AMD is versed to talk to us on VR except the owner of a competing tech site that does not cover VR performance.
 
Not sure how much work this would be, but is it possible to have a table like the one above but have it be "active" on the site? Like, be able to sort values by game column, for instance?
 
MavericK said:
Not sure how much work this would be, but is it possible to have a table like the one above but have it be "active" on the site? Like, be able to sort values by game column, for instance?
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
Kyle, this is what I was talking about. Project cars is an oddity in that only the Titan "did well". So, it skews the "average" numbers in your original summary chart. It would be like putting the original Crisis, at the time, in an average with other games...it would make all the cards look like shit when it was really just that "one game" making things look bad.

this.png
 
Trepidati0n said:
Kyle, this is what I was talking about. Project cars is an oddity in that only the Titan "did well". So, it skews the "average" numbers in your original summary chart. It would be like putting the original Crisis, at the time, in an average with other games...it would make all the cards look like shit when it was really just that "one game" making things look bad.

View attachment 8238
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand what you are saying. However that does not change the facts. As we test more games it will become statistically insignificant.
 
Trepidati0n said:
But as you test more games drivers/programs get updated/patched and thus old data may not be correct. That one odd duck can really screw with the results especially with reprojection. The easy way to handle "odd data" is to throw out the high and low values when displaying averages for small data sample sets.
Click to expand...
Thanks for you input.
 
Since all the data is there, one can calculate as they see fit. I rather everything was included. Now having separate final score throwing out the highest and lowest in the footnote or something might be an option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top