We tested the next few games using FRAPS and playing through a portion of the game manually. For these games, we played through five 60-second gaming sessions per config and captured average and low frame rates for each. The average frames per second number is the mean of the average frame rates from all five sessions. We also chose to report the median of the low frame rates from all five sessions, in order to rule out outliers. We found that these methods gave us reasonably consistent results.
F.E.A.R.'s graphics quality options were all set to maximum for our testing. Computer performance was set to medium.
We're testing BF2 at an insanely high resolution because it runs really well on just about any of these cards at lower resolutions. Also, BF2 has a built-in frame rate cap of 100 FPS. We didn't want to turn off the cap, but we did want to see some differences in performance between the cards.
Like the two above, we played this game manually and recorded frame rates with FRAPS. In this case, we're playing an online game, so frame rates were subject to some influence from an uncontrollable outside factor. Regardless, I think the numbers below reflect performance pretty well.
|Rumor: Intel Skylake-X and X299 will headline Computex 2017||52|
|Rumor: Nvidia to answer Radeon RX 550 with GeForce GT 1030||18|
|Samsung Galaxy Book tablets blend Windows 10 and Intel CPUs||16|
|Deals of the week: a mighty PSU, mid-range CPUs, and more||27|
|AMD board partners begin tricking out RX 560s and RX 550s||16|
|Dell shows off a pro-grade 4K HDR display and AIO machines||15|
|Rumor: Google to bake ad-blocking into Chrome browser||54|
|EpicGear's Defiant modular gaming keyboard reviewed||12|
|GeForce cards with faster RAM are inbound from multiple locations||19|
|Those power consumption numbers are very fermi-liar||+53|