What Sucks About HardOCP Video Card Reviews

I'd like to see one card from an older generation included to be compared to newer cards. Say, a GTX670 or 680 or 7970 and a 780ti or equivalent AMD card. I know it adds a lot of extra work but it's just a couple of extra cards and would only need to be done when a new generation is released and not for every "390x/970ti with a 10mhz clock bump" review. For instance, I currently have a 4GB GTX670 which will still run pretty much any game at 1080p and max settings (barring things like high levels of MSAA and hair effects) with a minimum of 30fps. I'd like to look at a review of a newly released card and be able to say, "Sweet the new Radeon 490x will increase my FPS in new games by 200%" without doing all of the "Well a 970 is roughly the same as a 780ti in these old games but 20% faster in these new games and the 780ti is 10-20% faster than the GTX680 in said games and the GTX680 is about 5% faster than the GTX670 and so on" mental gymnastics.

So in essence, yo guys could just do one review a generation where you grab a 580, 680, 780, 980, and compare them to the 1080 or 7970, 290, 390, to the 490, etc and chart the performance increase in newer titles along with possible power savings.
 
To be honest I read your review constantly because it's different than the rest and, in my case at least what you guys find playable is usually what I get from what I buy. Sure sometimes i can turn a few notches up or down depeding on preference but 98% of the cases it's the same ballpark. I coudn't give a shit if the in game benchmarks scorse my card at 100fps avg but the game runs significantly worse and need to turn down settings.

As said by others on a few ocasions I would have liked if you could have included an older card in your comparisons (for instance when i got my 970s i had a 680, and wasn't sure if one 970 would do it for me). Other than that kep doing what you guys do best. Play the games, give us your guys impression, along with data (so that people can make up their own mind on what's good for them). Other than that, haters gonna hate!
 
DJS4000 said:
...i also know that [H] is a site for enthusiasts. but i'd still like to see comparisons to somewhat older cards, like a 770, to establish a baseline. i mean, 1080p is still the standard resolution for most people, so seeing the cards perform at this resolution would add immense value, i'd wager...
Click to expand...

warpedmedia said:
...I've always wished that whenever [H] does a new gen GPU review they would include a few older equivalent reference cards, that way peeps can have a more exact idea of what an upgrade will net them. I know the reviews generally exist and we can go find them separately but it would be so fantastic if the data was right alongside the current gen...
Click to expand...

I think this could provide some useful information as well. And I think this could actually be somewhat easily accomplished, I have a few ideas:

Just do this once a year. The Gathering of the data on the older GPUs.

Use the same CPU/MOBO/RAM base system for all video card reviews, for at least a one year period. So for that years' GPU reviews, the base system has no changes.

At the beginning of the year, do some reviews on the base system, of whatever current games that are being used for reviews, on a few older generation gpus. Then that same data can be added all year long to new reviews on new gpu's, without the cards having to be re-tested. You might have to pick playable settings that the older GPU's can handle, and all year long retest at those settings on the high end GPU's, to allow us to see the performance delta, but you wouldn't need to retest the old GPU's each time. The only added time the rest of the year would be to add those old gpu playable settings as another of the test runs. This will be valid for a few reasons, mainly because once a GPU is considered matured, future drivers do not usually affect it's performance, and certainly not likely when going from 364.25 to 364.52, etc. Those optimizations are happening on the new GPUs. Occasionally a major driver change will come along that does, but its not that often. So maybe when nvidia goes from something like 364.x to 370.x, something big has changed and it could possibly add to older cards. A quick re-test with a newer driver would reveal that though. Most likely, it would be no different, meaning the initial review data is still valid. I would anticipate maaaybe once a year, the initial tests on the older cards might need to be repeated, if something major in the drivers comes along. Or perhaps if a major patch to a game in the test suite comes along, new data on just that game might need to be gathered.

On top of all that, having the performance changes between drivers (or between patches to a game in the test suite), when it actually DOES happen, is also valid data to report, and something many of us would value. So adding one new process can result in new valuable data on multiple fronts. Performance increases in a driver, performance increases in a game due to a new patch, plus older still in use GPU's pitted against the best and the brightest, on todays' games.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but if you got a 3440x1440 monitor you could not only test at that resolution but also at 2560x1440. Two birds with one stone and would be much appreciated. Not too many are benchmarking with that res and it is a definite growing group of users. Although You already have a 2560x1440 monitor that you're using obviously.. so kind of nullifies my post.. still.. You will also like it. ;)
 
I don't know of this is usefull anymore but back in simpler times where i did graphics card reviews/benchmark i actually did a both a non vsync and a vsync and even with multi wait times (in quake3) to show how card behaved in different fps areas. back then most ppl where concerned about average FPS
But if card af was swinging between 20 and 80pfs with a averages of 60 it would look better than card B that only went 50-55 aka the average measurements did not take into account if your fps was stable

By enabling vsync or capping fps you put a high value on fps improvements in the lower fps range. Which i believe help alot more on removing stutter then extra fps when you are running 200fps anyway.
That way bith the avegr and the capped average gave a god indication of both FPS speed andtability

ofcause now you have fancy graph that show how dips and valleys in fps play out
 
"What Sucks About HardOCP Video Card Reviews"?

Well, they suck because they are not VIDEO card reviews! I mean, they are all like text and some graphics.

Now, if you hired some sexy texan girls and boys*, and produced a video of said card reviews, it would be so much better!

But if you insist in keeping them text based, I think they are as good as a text based review is ever going to get.

One thing I would add is "best playable setting" for some of the lower priced cards. They are used by a lot of people that the [H] readership tends to help select cards for. So it would be really helpful.

* 18+ of course
 
Last edited:
SpeedyVV said:
Now, if you hired some sexy texan girls and boys*, and produced a video of said card reviews, it would be so much better!
Click to expand...
If you're asking them to just hire some good looking chick (or guy if that's your thing) to be eye candy for reviews, I can't disagree more. I don't care if the person is only delivering the content, while video is a great idea I want the person on film the person that did the review.

As for my suggestion, several years ago (I think in response to a GTX 9800 review) I suggested something like reviewing video cards with lower end CPU's because not everyone has a high end, OC'd CPU, and lower end CPU can have a big impact for Highest Playable. That idea was dismissed.

I just bring it up again because I understand that with very high end CPU's your getting the absolute most out of the card, but even then, that's still not necessarily real world highest playable because people have many different (and sometimes much lower) CPU's. You're Highest Playable is only highest playable for someone with that exact setup, so really, what good is that type of review for everyone else with different CPUs? Maybe it would be worth it to do reviews on a few different platforms, both higher and lower CPU's.
 
Last edited:
Not much... Except the lack of recorded game play. Telling me is one thing. Showing me is another.
 
Bankie said:
I'd like to see one card from an older generation included to be compared to newer cards. Say, a GTX670 or 680 or 7970 and a 780ti or equivalent AMD card. I know it adds a lot of extra work but it's just a couple of extra cards and would only need to be done when a new generation is released and not for every "390x/970ti with a 10mhz clock bump" review. For instance, I currently have a 4GB GTX670 which will still run pretty much any game at 1080p and max settings (barring things like high levels of MSAA and hair effects) with a minimum of 30fps. I'd like to look at a review of a newly released card and be able to say, "Sweet the new Radeon 490x will increase my FPS in new games by 200%" without doing all of the "Well a 970 is roughly the same as a 780ti in these old games but 20% faster in these new games and the 780ti is 10-20% faster than the GTX680 in said games and the GTX680 is about 5% faster than the GTX670 and so on" mental gymnastics.

So in essence, yo guys could just do one review a generation where you grab a 580, 680, 780, 980, and compare them to the 1080 or 7970, 290, 390, to the 490, etc and chart the performance increase in newer titles along with possible power savings.
Click to expand...
Honestly this...
It's tough but it is a killer feature.
 
Please make it a point to included the previous generation model.

For example, during the review of the GTX1070 I couldn't figure out how much improved over the 970 it is.

Sure I could find a 970 to 980 review and then compare the 1070 to 980 but that is far from accurate.

Its incredibly valuable to show users a wider range of comparison. Also, I'd rather not look up another sites review to get this info.
 
Why isn't Battlefront used as an example of new engine performance expectations for FB3 engine and BF1 performance.
 
Bankie said:
I'd like to see one card from an older generation included to be compared to newer cards. Say, a GTX670 or 680 or 7970 and a 780ti or equivalent AMD card. I know it adds a lot of extra work but it's just a couple of extra cards and would only need to be done when a new generation is released and not for every "390x/970ti with a 10mhz clock bump" review. For instance, I currently have a 4GB GTX670 which will still run pretty much any game at 1080p and max settings (barring things like high levels of MSAA and hair effects) with a minimum of 30fps. I'd like to look at a review of a newly released card and be able to say, "Sweet the new Radeon 490x will increase my FPS in new games by 200%" without doing all of the "Well a 970 is roughly the same as a 780ti in these old games but 20% faster in these new games and the 780ti is 10-20% faster than the GTX680 in said games and the GTX680 is about 5% faster than the GTX670 and so on" mental gymnastics.

So in essence, yo guys could just do one review a generation where you grab a 580, 680, 780, 980, and compare them to the 1080 or 7970, 290, 390, to the 490, etc and chart the performance increase in newer titles along with possible power savings.
Click to expand...
If they kept the data from old reviews, the games, and kept the same bench configuration, this would be easy to do without any retesting. You just compare the new card to the older card that ran on the same bench config.
 
How about like a graph that comes with a drop down and you can pick A gpu H has reviewed and it will show you those scores alongside the new gpu. They might be dated using old drivers but it's better than nothing.
 
re a 1070 vs 970 comparison, I think people are wanting to know if that "70% improvement over 970" claim is true. that's why they are pressing the issue. I know i'd like to see if it's true or not. is a 980 35% faster than a 970? if it is and the 1070 is 35% faster than a 980 then it would be the 70%(35+35) improvement they claim.
 
bigdogchris said:
If they kept the data from old reviews, the games, and kept the same bench configuration, this would be easy to do without any retesting. You just compare the new card to the older card that ran on the same bench config.
Click to expand...

That kind of goes against how they do reviews though. Game updates, OS updates, driver updates, can all change performance. When everything is different that makes it an invalid comparison. Think of it as an actual scientific study. You have to have unchanging dependent variables compared against independent variables that change. In this case game, game version, OS version, drivers (per company), and most hardware are all the dependent variables. They remain constant across the independent variables. The video cards themselves are the independent variable. The settings and frame rate are the outcome of the study (benchmarking). Too many independent variables throws off the comparison, especially when it makes the output invalid. Any site that compares across game and driver versions is doing a piss poor job at reviewing.
 
I would like more video cards compared in the review. I know usually you guys go for three cards: the new one, the one that's being replaced and the competitor.

I would like to see a complete birds eye view of all the cards in the family and how they compare. This will eliminate spending time trying switch between forum threads, or looking for your previous review via Search or Google for older ones. Just one big chart of all the cards tested with that game to date, just how many other sites do. Sometimes, the reader may want to move up or down a GPU family depending on the game. If I only see the GTX 1080 being compared to the Fury X and GTX 980Ti, I wouldn't know how much better it is than a 980, 970, 780Ti which I probably own. Jumping between reviews for data that has already been recorded by [H] gets annoying.

Like the split GTX 1070 review now. I read the full review but it only has comparisons between the 980 and Fury. Why not carry over 980TI and FuryX from the Preview as well? Now I had to switch between reviews and hopefully remember what each of them said, or use two windows. Either way this needs to be within a single review.
 
Last edited:
Derangel said:
That kind of goes against how they do reviews though
Click to expand...

Just because it's how they do things, doesn't mean it's still working for the user of today. If the community thinks the status quo "sucks" then certain techniques of the past should be revisited, thus the creation of this thread.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Just because it's how they do things, doesn't mean it's still working for the user of today. If the community thinks the status quo "sucks" then certain techniques of the past should be revisited, thus the creation of this thread.
Click to expand...

Which would be why I took the time to explain why that isn't a good idea. At least in my opinion.
 
The Gonz said:
Please make it a point to included the previous generation model.

For example, during the review of the GTX1070 I couldn't figure out how much improved over the 970 it is.

Sure I could find a 970 to 980 review and then compare the 1070 to 980 but that is far from accurate.

Its incredibly valuable to show users a wider range of comparison. Also, I'd rather not look up another sites review to get this info.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the information, I should note once again, as I also did in the review, the GTX 970 was launched at a different price point compared to the GTX 1070. It may have a "70" in the name, but the two GPUs were launched at very different price segments. GTX 970 was launched at $329. GTX 1070 at $379-$449. The card we actually reviewed in the aforementioned review, is the $449 GTX 1070 FE, a far cry from GTX 970 pricing. GTX 970's are as low as $300 now, or even under with rebates. That was our reasoning.
 
Last edited:
the GTX 1070 is the successor to the 970 so they should be compared...price points are basically the same give or take a bit for inflation (and not including that Founders Edition version)
 
pendragon1 said:
re a 1070 vs 970 comparison, I think people are wanting to know if that "70% improvement over 970" claim is true. that's why they are pressing the issue. I know i'd like to see if it's true or not. is a 980 35% faster than a 970? if it is and the 1070 is 35% faster than a 980 then it would be the 70%(35+35) improvement they claim.
Click to expand...

It'd actually be 1.35*1.35 or about 82%.

Anywho I remember the 980 being 18% faster than the 970.

Neither of the above change the point of your post. :)
 
I use [H] as supplementary to TechReport and PCPer. I noticed Tom's started to make interesting reviews, and I started watching Digital Foundry. I used to use AnandTech, but they fell behind in GPUs reviews. [H] is nice for the pants of the seat view, that can't be always found elsewhere.

One thing I am looking for when actually going to buy a card is not how it performs in games I played yesterday, but how it will perform in games I will buy next year. And your reviews focused basically on in-game settings are not particularly helpful in that respect. Considering this, I would appreciate knowing, which setting is particularly bad for a given card, compared to possible competition.

What is important for me are scenes where guns are blazing, lot of characters are running aroud, stuff is exploding, spells are flashing, etc. In those situations, I need good framerate most. Imagine World of Warcraft test - flying on wywern vs. 25 man raid bossfight - what really counts?

I also like frame ratings, and I do not like pure maximums and minimums (as there can be outliers). I love to see something like 1-10% slowest frames. You could also replace your min/max figures by top/bottom 1%. Or get rid of top, no one cares about fps when looking in the sky. I particularly like PCPer's chart with bottom 50% frametimes.
 
ppi said:
What is important for me are scenes where guns are blazing, lot of characters are running aroud, stuff is exploding, spells are flashing, etc. In those situations, I need good framerate most. Imagine World of Warcraft test - flying on wywern vs. 25 man raid bossfight - what really counts?
Click to expand...

This is the biggest thing I could ask for. While I assume [H] plays each game to simulate what we would expect to see from each respective game 'on average', but I'd like to know exactly what portion of the game was tested. I can get ~40 FPS on Doom at 4K with most settings maxed out, but can easily drop to the 20's for extended periods of time when in the Hell levels. Alternatively, I can run the opening sequence of Doom (waking up and putting on the armor) with all settings maxed at 4K at about 45 fps.

Just a short blurb at the top of each page for each game would be helpful. Something like: "We played 30 minutes of Kadingir Sanctum in Doom at the following settings." This information could be easily supplemented with screenshots from the games a particular areas of note. Such as explaining a massive frame dip due to a large amount of enemies on-screen for a short amount of time.
 
Krixon said:
This is the biggest thing I could ask for. While I assume [H] plays each game to simulate what we would expect to see from each respective game 'on average', but I'd like to know exactly what portion of the game was tested. I can get ~40 FPS on Doom at 4K with most settings maxed out, but can easily drop to the 20's for extended periods of time when in the Hell levels. Alternatively, I can run the opening sequence of Doom (waking up and putting on the armor) with all settings maxed at 4K at about 45 fps.

Just a short blurb at the top of each page for each game would be helpful. Something like: "We played 30 minutes of Kadingir Sanctum in Doom at the following settings." This information could be easily supplemented with screenshots from the games a particular areas of note. Such as explaining a massive frame dip due to a large amount of enemies on-screen for a short amount of time.
Click to expand...
or like I suggested before, get a vid cap of a typical run in each game so we can see it to replicate it.
 
Krixon said:
TJust a short blurb at the top of each page for each game would be helpful. Something like: "We played 30 minutes of Kadingir Sanctum in Doom at the following settings."
Click to expand...

I believe [H] already do most of that in most cases, though not in such detail.
 
pendragon1 said:
or like I suggested before, get a vid cap of a typical run in each game so we can see it to replicate it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I lIke so much eurogamer/digital foundry videos with framerates and frametimes.. we know what they are testing and how the frames are behaving. Sometimes you see spikes of frametimes not totally noticeable in the FPS numero directly (stuttering).
 
Brent_Justice said:
Thank you for the information, I should note once again, as I also did in the review, the GTX 970 was launched at a different price point compared to the GTX 1070. It may have a "70" in the name, but the two GPUs were launched at very different price segments. GTX 970 was launched at $329. GTX 1070 at $379-$449. The card we actually reviewed in the aforementioned review, is the $449 GTX 1070 FE, a far cry from GTX 970 pricing. GTX 970's are as low as $300 now, or even under with rebates. That was our reasoning.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point. Your system may compare cards at specific price points, but what if the reader wants to spend more or less on their next card and would like to see how the card being reviewed stacks up against something that cost a little more or a little less than what they spent last time? If we were buying a new card and already had 1 or the other, your reviews would be great for comparing that, but it doesn't do squat for comparing what we may be upgrading from.
 
bigdogchris said:
I think you missed the point. Your system may compare cards at specific price points, but what if the reader wants to spend more or less on their next card and would like to see how the card being reviewed stacks up against something that cost a little more or a little less than what they spent last time? If we were buying a new card and already had 1 or the other, your reviews would be great for comparing that, but it doesn't do squat for comparing what we may be upgrading from.
Click to expand...
Your thoughts are noted.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Thank you for the information, I should note once again, as I also did in the review, the GTX 970 was launched at a different price point compared to the GTX 1070. It may have a "70" in the name, but the two GPUs were launched at very different price segments. GTX 970 was launched at $329. GTX 1070 at $379-$449. The card we actually reviewed in the aforementioned review, is the $449 GTX 1070 FE, a far cry from GTX 970 pricing. GTX 970's are as low as $300 now, or even under with rebates. That was our reasoning.
Click to expand...

Most of us will be getting the models at around $380. It is ~$50 more, give or take, depending on the model. I paid $350 for my MSI GTX 970 so it is not so far off. I also don't think price range matters much, because some people may want to move up or even down a tier. I know you can't include everything, but a simpler Apples to Apples comparison between some of the previous generation popular models (960, 970, 980, 980ti) along with a 1070 and 1080 in a single benchmark would be nice.
 
No 3DMark2001 bench scores!!! Can you imagine the bungholio marks on today's cards?!?

lol
 
SpeedyVV said:
"What Sucks About HardOCP Video Card Reviews"?

Well, they suck because they are not VIDEO card reviews! I mean, they are all like text and some graphics.

Now, if you hired some sexy texan girls and boys*, and produced a video of said card reviews, it would be so much better!

But if you insist in keeping them text based, I think they are as good as a text based review is ever going to get.

One thing I would add is "best playable setting" for some of the lower priced cards. They are used by a lot of people that the [H] readership tends to help select cards for. So it would be really helpful.

* 18+ of course
Click to expand...


Like nude weather girls lol ;) I will vote one up for that !
 
I just thought of something as well, now that this thread was bumped.

Pictures, MAN! You show useless graphs comparing two video cards with completely different in-game settings and claim that the actual settings are what really matter and 'improve the gameplay experience' yet we have no actual visual confirmation of what those improvements are. What we DO have, as I said, is a statistically useless graph of FPS that is not comparing cards apples-to-apples. So all cards had minimums over 50FPS, cool story, why do we need a graph?

Show us screens of the game running at those 'smooth gameplay' settings. [H]ardOCP believes that we should compare hardware based on how it improves the actual experience, which is awesome! But many people are still left scratching their head when they try to imagine what those ACTUAL improvements are. Higher settings are great, but those are just words and numbers. Show us what the actual improvement is PER CARD.

"We already have visual and image quality demonstrations per-game" Cool, that's pretty useless when comparing new cards. As I don't want to open a new tab and start wrestling with HardOCP's pretty clunky site-map to try to find the actual article that compares the different settings in an isolated fashion for 5+ different games. Then I have to use my **imagination!** to figure out what those settings look like in the exact combination of configurations that were used to achieve a video card's particular maximum gameplay experience.

"Thats a lot of work" Yeah, not really. I'm not asking for a play-by-play breakdown of every visual effect's impact on the experience. I'm asking for two, maybe three sets uncompressed screen-captures that compare the video quality observed by each card evaluated per game. Set A: character at location A looking west as seen on each video card with the settings as described above. Set B: character at location B looking south as seen on each video card with the settings as described above. Once you get the settings nailed down to a level that you feel comfortable with, move the character to location A, look west: dump a screenshot, move character to location B, look south: dump a screenshot. Repeat for other cards as they are benched, Upload and call it good.

"But screenshots only tell so much" Welp, more than a damn FPS graph comparing different hardware at different settings, at times at different resolutions: Yet I see that motherf***er on every page.

"Different people have different opinions on what improves the experience" Well, Then we may as well just shut this site down. If we are going to go down the "how much cards improve the experience" route, then we need to stick to our guns, be men and make the claim that the experience on Card A is quantifiably and observably better than Card B, no hippy back-pedalling by saying "but, you know, its all up to **opinion!**."


Thats my rant of the hour. I love this site. Sometimes I think it needs tough-love.
 
pendragon1 said:
Love the reviews the way they are, no bs!
Only thing I'd like to see would be run threw videos for each game in the test suite. That way people can see what sections you're using and the the course you take. You could just record one run from each game, doesn't matter from which card or even what settings it's at. It'd be just for demonstration purposes. Then have a link in the game info section. You'd only have to do this once for each game and reuse the video with each gpu review. At least until you replace a game in the test suite. Then make a new one during the next gpu review you do. Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...
Thats an outstanding idea...I hope kyle considers it
 
KazeoHin said:
I just thought of something as well, now that this thread was bumped.

Pictures, MAN! You show useless graphs comparing two video cards with completely different in-game settings and claim that the actual settings are what really matter and 'improve the gameplay experience' yet we have no actual visual confirmation of what those improvements are. What we DO have, as I said, is a statistically useless graph of FPS that is not comparing cards apples-to-apples. So all cards had minimums over 50FPS, cool story, why do we need a graph?

Show us screens of the game running at those 'smooth gameplay' settings. [H]ardOCP believes that we should compare hardware based on how it improves the actual experience, which is awesome! But many people are still left scratching their head when they try to imagine what those ACTUAL improvements are. Higher settings are great, but those are just words and numbers. Show us what the actual improvement is PER CARD.

"We already have visual and image quality demonstrations per-game" Cool, that's pretty useless when comparing new cards. As I don't want to open a new tab and start wrestling with HardOCP's pretty clunky site-map to try to find the actual article that compares the different settings in an isolated fashion for 5+ different games. Then I have to use my **imagination!** to figure out what those settings look like in the exact combination of configurations that were used to achieve a video card's particular maximum gameplay experience.

"Thats a lot of work" Yeah, not really. I'm not asking for a play-by-play breakdown of every visual effect's impact on the experience. I'm asking for two, maybe three sets uncompressed screen-captures that compare the video quality observed by each card evaluated per game. Set A: character at location A looking west as seen on each video card with the settings as described above. Set B: character at location B looking south as seen on each video card with the settings as described above. Once you get the settings nailed down to a level that you feel comfortable with, move the character to location A, look west: dump a screenshot, move character to location B, look south: dump a screenshot. Repeat for other cards as they are benched, Upload and call it good.

"But screenshots only tell so much" Welp, more than a damn FPS graph comparing different hardware at different settings, at times at different resolutions: Yet I see that motherf***er on every page.

"Different people have different opinions on what improves the experience" Well, Then we may as well just shut this site down. If we are going to go down the "how much cards improve the experience" route, then we need to stick to our guns, be men and make the claim that the experience on Card A is quantifiably and observably better than Card B, no hippy back-pedalling by saying "but, you know, its all up to **opinion!**."


Thats my rant of the hour. I love this site. Sometimes I think it needs tough-love.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which....they actually have done articles with stuff like this. Although it was comparing the different visual mods for fallout 4. If its a time thing maybe they could add it to a part 2 of the articles for when time permitted
 
thnx! to me it just makes sense. whenever I get a new card or build a system I always look to [H] reviews for an idea of what settings to use and where to start tweaking to get similar results. having a vid cap of their run will help with that. other than this everything [H] is perfect the way it is. it is literally the only site I start at and I only follow links from the front page or forum. It has been my go to, my hardware gospel, for like 18 years. yeah maybe I'm a [H]fanboy...
 
What goes along with gaming cards are gaming monitors, FreeSync/G-Sync monitors and playability. I was almost shocked at the difference FreeSync can make with the smoothness of a game. Meaning the 50fps standard here maybe can be lowered using Free/G Sync ??? In fact 40fps with FreeSync looks better than 55fps without FreeSync in my opinion. This opens up more card options for games I would say or does it? Which kinda reminds me - where are the gaming monitor reviews here? That is almost if not more important then the video card.

DX12 - Maybe a current rundown of DX12 titles available (Doom with Vulkan I think would apply too). This is the future and a are important APIs to include. WarHammer is looking awesome, so is Quantum Break (after all the patches). Most of the DX12 games have been advance via patches (Except Tomb Raider) in a rapid succession of updates making previous reviews obsolete. Digging into video cards/driver ability to work well in DX12 I say is very important for a current review of a graphics card.

Virtual Reality displays, games etc. rundown? This is maybe more of a future coverage when games will start supporting VR more besides just the VR only games.

Maintaining the quality review testing with a broader focus maybe a new challenge but would make HardOCP more interesting and a more go to place to get high quality reviews.
 
Lack of numbers is huge problem for DX12 titles in current reviews

My personal obsession but it would be nice to get article with performance targeted at 144 Hz monitor owners- so the same thing as currently but with performance setting chosen to hit 100+ fps. Most websites don't do it so it would interesting field to explore and pretty [H] thing to do :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top