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.
|AMD reveals suitably massive Ryzen Threadripper packaging||65|
|Asus Lyra forms a small constellation for better Wi-Fi||1|
|GeForce 384.94 drivers are ready to break the law||0|
|Rumor: Specs of six-core Coffee Lake CPUs leak||28|
|Alphacool Eisblock HDX-2 and HDX-3 help M.2 SSDs beat the heat||12|
|Corsair Lighting Pro Expansion Kit lets builders turn up the lights||11|
|Gigabyte SA-SBCAP3350 puts formidable power on a single board||14|
|Adata D16750 power bank is tougher than the average juice pack||16|
|Deals of the week: fast memory, an AM4 motherboard, and more||18|
|Like it'll be that simple?||+13|