Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
mkenyon wrote:(emphasis mine)I don't think any amount of editorializing is going to drive this home, but maybe I'm being too impatient.
Flying Fox wrote:The problem is, fps is by definition an average over a period of time. But the individual frame times are basically a number "at an instant" (loosely). IMO it is even more confusing?
mkenyon wrote:have another 6 months go by where this is swept under the rug as some sort of off the cuff testing that has nothing to do with game performance.
Flying Fox wrote:The problem is, fps is by definition an average over a period of time. But the individual frame times are basically a number "at an instant" (loosely). IMO it is even more confusing?
Captain Ned wrote::lmao: (*≧▽≦)ノシ(`^´)So, in other words, you're so wedded to FPS that you'd prefer Scott's latency graphs to be converted from time per frame into FPS because all you understand is FPS, even though each GPU review gives the explanation of how to convert time per frame into FPS.
mkenyon wrote:No, I'm not wedded to it in any way. I'm talking about the clear difficulty in getting people to understand what any of it means. Yeah, it's clearly written, but there's a very visible block that people are having in understanding that this is a more accurate measure of performance rather than an alternate measure of performance. Using the different measurement I think contributes to this.
mkenyon wrote:You didn't address anything I said above though. In fact, you wrote most of it off with a fairly snarky retort that betrays lack of comprehension.
Captain Ned wrote:mkenyon wrote:You didn't address anything I said above though. In fact, you wrote most of it off with a fairly snarky retort that betrays lack of comprehension.
The problem is that your solution, i.e. converting 99th percentile frame time to FPS, deliberately obfuscates the original measurement just so that some can read the review without having to think, and also destroys the entire data stream used to create the frame time histogram. Your proposal throws away the high-latency outliers that are the reason everyone swears at their gaming PC from time to time. The 99th percentile is the Good Stuff. What makes things maddening is how badly GPUs deal with the stuff after the 99th percentile and converting 99th into FPS ignores that completely.
Scott's post here makes it clear that he's working with other review sites on this and also makes it clear that there will no longer be one single number to pull out of a GPU review to allow noobs to make bad decisions. You're trying to boil GPU reviews down to a single number. Sorry, but you're going to have to read and grok the reviews before buying instead of looking for a single number to make your decisions for you.
just brew it! wrote:Yup, I agree. If (as seems apparent) raw FPS is a poor measure of gaming performance, an entirely new metric is needed, and it needs to be clear that it is a new metric. Don't try to force the new metric to conform to the old paradigm, it will add to the confusion rather than reducing it.
Captain Ned wrote:Ugh. Despite your trashing of my comments you still want an FPS number to fall back on.
FPS died the instant Scott posted the first frame latency article. Get used to it. The metrics are going to change and FPS will no longer be one of those metrics. The noobs will actually have to learn something.
mkenyon wrote:I'm simply talking about presentation of the findings in a format that is easier to digest. That doesn't change the data gathered, tested, and displayed. It is simply changing the information to help reiterate that this is a replacement for the standard FPS metrics that have been in place for years.
Captain Ned wrote:mkenyon wrote:I'm simply talking about presentation of the findings in a format that is easier to digest. That doesn't change the data gathered, tested, and displayed. It is simply changing the information to help reiterate that this is a replacement for the standard FPS metrics that have been in place for years.
Because you're still looking for a single-number metric by which you can rank GPUs. We're trying to tell you that that approach is no longer valid. FPS IS DEAD. Get that through your microcephaly. Oh, and keep insulting my intelligence. I love the abuse.
Captain Ned wrote:mkenyon wrote:I'm simply talking about presentation of the findings in a format that is easier to digest. That doesn't change the data gathered, tested, and displayed. It is simply changing the information to help reiterate that this is a replacement for the standard FPS metrics that have been in place for years.
Because you're still looking for a single-number metric by which you can rank GPUs. We're trying to tell you that that approach is no longer valid. FPS (or any other single-number metric) IS DEAD. Get that through your microcephaly. Oh, and keep insulting my intelligence. I love the abuse.
For example, on the 'Time Spent Above' graphs, the data could be 'Time Spent Below X/Y/Z FPS'. The 99th Percentile is easily converted as outlined above. I do think, at first glance, the Frame Latency by Percentile graphs are most definitely best served by continuing on as is. While it is important to make a distinction between these tests and the previous second based polling of FPS, I think the different stats communicate that sufficiently without needing to also display the measurements in 'milliseconds to render frame'. It of course works great for people who get it, but there are just so many people that don't nor care to. Giving them something familiar to ease into the transition might make this an easier point to get across.
just brew it! wrote:I don't see how saying "here's something that you need to *pretend* is FPS" helps at all; it just causes confusion between the "old" FPS and the "new" FPS. You need to convince people that FPS is the wrong measure, and that there's something entirely different that is a better measure of performance.
just brew it! wrote:I think if you want to stress that it is a new (and better) way of looking at things, you need to call it something else. Something that does not have "FPS" in its name.
mkenyon wrote:So far, that hasn't panned out too well. I'd say an overwhelming majority of folks that I talk to about this view it as a way to capture something else entirely which isn't quite as important as FPS.
Flying Fox wrote:The problem is, fps is by definition an average over a period of time.
Captain Ned wrote:Get that through your microcephaly. Oh, and keep insulting my intelligence. I love the abuse.