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.
|G.Skill's Ripjaws KM780R gaming keyboard reviewed||4|
|Rumor: Intel Core i7-6950X bares its fangs in Cinebench tests||12|
|Nvidia teases a "Special Event" tomorrow at 6PM PT||47|
|Rumor: Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1080 shows its face in 3DMark||50|
|Chromebooks get multi-monitor support with DisplayLink||5|
|AMD bolsters its budget storage options with its R3 SSDs||20|
|Radeon Software 16.5.1 drivers fix Forza follies||7|
|Fallout 4 gets more love from Bethesda with Far Harbor expansion||20|
|Intel debuts embedded Skylake-R CPUs with Iris Pro graphics||52|