Why oh why would you benchmark like that!?

[O9B0666]

pubg is used alot, and fortnite doesnt even require much to play, and isnt demanding of a system. If this is the case, why6 dont they test phantasy star online blue burst for me? theirs still servers going i play it, you dont need much to run it onboard can max it....they choose those cause there most demanding like others said. Minecraft is like running a 8bit nintendo game for pete sake.

[Mira Yurizaki]

39 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

“This GPU should run any game at 1080p on high or ultra”. 

The problem is that it's vague and subjective at best. If I wanted to be technical, I could claim a GPU from 7 years ago can run any game at 1080p on high or ultra. It'll be a slideshow for modern games but technically it still runs the game.

 

This is why you need actual scores and data, so you have something to compare it to. Not only against other hardware, but to your own requirements as well.

[kokakolia]

30 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The problem is that it's vague and subjective at best. If I wanted to be technical, I could claim a GPU from 7 years ago can run any game at 1080p on high or ultra. It'll be a slideshow for modern games but technically it still runs the game.

 

This is why you need actual scores and data, so you have something to compare it to. Not only against other hardware, but to your own requirements as well.

If a game is choppy, nobody can say with a straight face that “it runs”. Yes it technically works. A subjective experience can always be more detailed. Does the game run smoothly? Is it a great gaming experience? I am talking about more relative words over raw numbers. 

 

[kokakolia]

48 minutes ago, O9B0666 said:

pubg is used alot, and fortnite doesnt even require much to play, and isnt demanding of a system. If this is the case, why6 dont they test phantasy star online blue burst for me? theirs still servers going i play it, you dont need much to run it onboard can max it....they choose those cause there most demanding like others said. Minecraft is like running a 8bit nintendo game for pete sake.

I recall people joking about Minecraft being easy to run. But it’s deceivingly hard . It takes a lot of CPU power, even compared to games like Skyrim which I would argue is less resource heavy. 

 

But the last time I played Minecraft was 6 or 7 years ago. It may be different now. Hardware is different now. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, kokakolia said:

If a game is choppy, nobody can say with a straight face that “it runs”. Yes it technically works. A subjective experience can always be more detailed. Does the game run smoothly? Is it a great gaming experience? I am talking about more relative words over raw numbers. 

 

And again, everyone's take on what is "smooth" or "playable" is subjective. I've seen people who are fine with 30FPS and people who demand 100+. 

 

Sidestepping to get another example, there was a PC hardware site that did regular build articles. Their budget build started at like $800 or something. A lot of people complained that $800 is hardly considered "budget". But they basically said everyone's view on "budget" is different and that's what they came up with.

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just noticed how nobody has mentioned this yet so I guess I might as well add it?  

 

Why do reviews still use ROTTR, shadow of mordor or GTA V yet they are all pretty old games you ask? It is so they can use results from older generations of hardware in order to do comparisons, regardless of whether they have time to retest the older hardware or if they even own the hardware anymore at all. 

[Ashleyyyy]

according to the requuirements of Fortnite: https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/fortnite/15349

you can run it on a hd4000 gpu and a core i3... 

 

so you could use a system with a cpu from 2008 and a gpu from 2006... 

 

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GeForce-8800-GTX-vs-Intel-HD-4000-Desktop-115-GHz/m9271vs2169

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q9650-vs-Intel-Core-i3-2100/m1706vsm41

 

there's no need to benchmark a 1060 or 1070 on Fortnite.. there's no point. if an 8800gtx is fast enough any decent modern gpu will be for sure.. 

[O9B0666]

3 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

according to the requuirements of Fortnite: https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/fortnite/15349

you can run it on a hd4000 gpu and a core i3... 

 

so you could use a system with a cpu from 2008 and a gpu from 2006... 

 

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GeForce-8800-GTX-vs-Intel-HD-4000-Desktop-115-GHz/m9271vs2169

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q9650-vs-Intel-Core-i3-2100/m1706vsm41

 

there's no need to benchmark a 1060 or 1070 on Fortnite.. htere's no point. if an 8800gtx is fast enough any decent modern gpu will be for sure.. 

I know that's why I don't under stand this post. 

[Ashleyyyy]

2 minutes ago, O9B0666 said:

I know that's why I don't under stand this post. 

yeah.. if you want benchmarks LTT isn't the only source.. 

[Splatacake]

On 6/22/2018 at 10:09 PM, SwagLord314 said:

So I feel obligated to begin this by saying; I am very bias in my game selection, this influences my argument greatly. That being said this issue is a long time frustration of mine that I am curious to know if I stand alone on.

 

The bulk of the problem is with "PC Tech Reviewers". When they benchmark an item often they use a list of games that have very little correlation to (my type of) consumer interest. Let me explain. Some of the most common review benchmarks include: LOTR Shadow of Mordor, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and DOOM. At the time of writing this; not one of these were in the first 3 page folds on twitch. In fact DOOM (the first of these examples) is 85th on the list.

 

So why are they using this as an example for viewers to compare things to. I can understand the argument that so long as the tests are using the same game then you can see the difference. But I, as a consumer, don't really care how something CAN perform. I care about how it WILL perform in my use case. So to me it seems silly that no one is using Fortnite as a standard test. For better or worse Fortnite is being played more than almost any other game out there. Beyond that its free. Meaning anyone can load Fortnite up on their computer and run their own test.

 

Fortnite does not stand alone I think some other great titles could include: Overwatch, H1Z1, PUBG, Heck even Minecraft makes some sense to me!?

 

Games like this provide a much more realistic benckmark as opposed to a theoretical benchmark.

 

i think because games like DOOM and Rise of the Tomb Raider have settings in them such as Super sampling that can make it impossible to max out on a single top of the line GPU  where fortnite can probably run on a toaster at max settings and doesn't even have half the settings these more graphically demanding games have, meaning if your PC can max out games like DOOM/RotTR you can play lesser demanding games with no problems and there is no point benchmarking them because they wont even push the GPU

 

 

[Yoinkerman]

On 6/23/2018 at 11:18 AM, kokakolia said:

And this is why I don’t take these “tech review channels”. They are comparable to car salesmen who try to up sell you on features you don’t really need.

 

The fact that only the most power hungry and unoptimized games are benchmarked gives the viewer a skewed perception of the product. In effect, pc gamers tend to over build their gaming rigs because anything below a GTX 1060 won’t yield good FPS in these tough benchmark tests. 

 

This isn’t too bad because of future-proofing. Further, it is generally accepted that the cost of a decent gaming setup is usually around the $1000~$2000 range anyway. However, this just makes PC gaming seem a lot more inaccessible due to cost. If more people knew how much mileage they could get out of an old PC + GTX 1050 then there would be more PC gamers. 

 

It’s kind of the same story with other hobbies. Watch collecting is definitely the worst. If you watch any of the YouTube watch reviewers you’ll think that you’re a loser for not having a Rolex on your wrist...or a mechanical Seiko at the very least. 

 

 

 

 

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

 

YouTube channels aren't selling us reviews, they're selling us entertainment.

 

If they made videos with solid benchmarking in games people actually play at balanced settings where they check and see if higher settings make any real fidelity difference, no one would watch them because the YouTube kids either don't care or aren't knowledgeable enough for the review to mean anything.

 

Tl;dr channels chase higher view counts because they have to 

[Liquid_Z]

@SwagLord314"Older" games are sometimes used because then you have a good comparison for the hundreds of other benchmarks done with older hardware. I think a combination of new and old is the right approach. I hope you see my point. If benchmarks are only done with the latest games, then we'd loose our ability to compare to older benchmarks with older hardware, which I think is an important aspect to doing the benchmarks in general. 

[Lathlaer]

31 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

YouTube channels aren't selling us reviews, they're selling us entertainment.

Well it depends on the channel.

 

Gamers Nexus YT channel is almost as old as LTT. Now compare the number of subscribers and you'll see what people want to see ;-)

 

Hint: It's not super accurate case thermal and noise tests

 

[Underi]

The fact that some game isn't the most streamed one on twitch doesn't mean that it is unpopular.

 

Graphics intensive games like Rise of the Tomb Raider and DOOM are used because they are more or less consistent unlike games such as fortnite, pubg or some other multiplayer game where actions by other players influence the FPS. Also, if a rig can run rise of the tomb raider and doom on high settings with over 60fps, you can pretty safely assume that it will run overwatch or h1z1 too.

[kokakolia]

4 hours ago, Yoinkerman said:

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

 

YouTube channels aren't selling us reviews, they're selling us entertainment.

 

If they made videos with solid benchmarking in games people actually play at balanced settings where they check and see if higher settings make any real fidelity difference, no one would watch them because the YouTube kids either don't care or aren't knowledgeable enough for the review to mean anything.

 

Tl;dr channels chase higher view counts because they have to 

I mean for the most part Youtubers like Jayztwocents and Bitwit do an OK job. It’s just annoying that they typically review more expensive stuff and that they’ll never review the cheaper models of GPU. I mean good luck finding a review of the Zotac Mini 1060. But you’ll never have any trouble finding reviews for overpriced, over-engineered Asus Stryx 1060 with triple fans. 

[ravenshrike]

On 6/22/2018 at 9:32 PM, Jurrunio said:

Give us a way to test these 4 games in a repeatable fashion with consistent results.

Eh, you can bench Overwatch by taking the average of 10 runs from bot play and dropping the highest and lowest of each configuration.

On 6/23/2018 at 1:17 PM, Dan Castellaneta said:

You think CS is shit, try TF2. I guaran-fucking-tee you'll drop below 60fps.

Look, all those hats with their unique particle effects are very demanding.

[Jurrunio]

1 hour ago, ravenshrike said:

Eh, you can bench Overwatch by taking the average of 10 runs from bot play and dropping the highest and lowest of each configuration.

On 2018/6/24 at 2:17 AM, Dan Castellaneta said:

That's good enough to compare multiple cards (say, what card is better than what card by some %), but bot match is different to PvP gameplay. The results will only be relevant to those playing bot matches mostly.