Howdy, all. I know you've not seen many articles coming out of Damage Labs lately, but I assure you I am hard at work. In fact, I probably shouldn't be stopping to write this post, but I couldn't resist sharing a little tweak I've been considering making to our game performance analysis.
You may know that we've changed the way we test games in order to better focus on frame latencies rather than FPS averages. One of the struggles we've had in this process is finding the best way to convey a sense of frame latency to the reader. We've made the case for looking at the 99th percentile frame latency—that is, the point at which 99% of all frames in the test run were rendered—and we think that's a helpful metric. However, that number is only a snapshot at a single point. I've been wanting to capture the overall latency picture more fully. Here's my latest attempt. See what you think:
I think it tells the story of frame latencies a little more completely, hopefully without information overload. (And yes, obviously, the GTX 560 Ti has a problem here: it's running out of video RAM capacity at the resolution and settings we tested.)
This is one of several new ideas I'm cooking up. We should have them all implemented in a tasty new review soon.
|Brawling my way through Batman: Arkham Origins||0|
|Heavyweight rematch: Gigabyte X79-UP4 vs. MSI X79A-GD45 Plus||0|
|Thursday Night Shortbread||4|
|Acer's Iconia W4 tablet offers Bay Trail, 8'' display for $330||21|
|AMD issues statement on R9 290X speed variability, press samples||103|
|MSI's new gaming notebook has a 2880x1620 screen||26|
|Next-gen Intel SSDs could have 2TB capacities, integrated heatsinks||32|
|Data suggests consumer drives are as reliable as enterprise models||58|
|Valve joins the Linux Foundation||69|
|They had a 40M mail-in-rebate.||+29|