Fear no evil—further tinkering
On the previous page, we saw that the GeForce GTX 460 and Radeon HD 6850 struggled to some extent with the "high" detail preset, while the GeForce GTX 560 Ti and Radeon HD 6950 1GB seemed like they might be able to do more work.
Let's see how the slower pair of graphics cards performs at the "medium" detail preset. Since we've established that raw FPS numbers can be misleading, we're going to lead with our frame latency graph.
Both cards clearly offer a smoother experience at this detail preset, with frame times hovering closer to, and often below, the 20-ms mark. Our FPS graph corroborates that—52 FPS works out to an average frame time of 19 ms. The FPS result don't tell the whole story, though. Again, the Radeon exhibits more frame latency spikes than the GeForce. When we filter out the 1% of highest frame latencies with our 99th-percentile calculation, the Radeon HD 6850 proves to be a higher-latency solution that the GeForce GTX 460, by a handful of milliseconds. Since we're talking about frame times in the 25-31 ms range, we expect these differences could be perceptible, though not huge.
What about "ultra" detail on the higher-end cards?
So much for that. The GTX 560 Ti and 6950 1GB perform worse at the "ultra" setting than the GTX 460 and 6850 do at the "high" setting, with all too many frames taking 30 ms or longer to render. That might pass muster in other titles, but it severely degrades the experience in a twitch shooter like Battlefield 3.
|Samsung asks ITC to block Nvidia GPU shipments||16|
|The TR Podcast 166 is now available on YouTube||22|
|Chromebooks now come with 1TB of cloud storage for two years||28|
|Deal of the week: Devil's Canyon starting at $179.99, Intel 730 Series for $0.42/GB, and more||37|
|AMD prolongs A-series software deal; price cuts still a work in progress||24|
|Report: Valve lays out new rules for Early Access games||61|
|Intel's 2015 revenue outlook beats Street expectations||53|
|Intel's 3D NAND has 32 layers and 256Gb per die||61|
|Sounds like a good way to conceal the terrible financial performance of the mobile business unit.||+36|