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.
|Silverstone's Strider Titanium PSUs are ready for a high-power future||8|
|VR180 video bridges the gap between YouTube and VR||0|
|Steam 2017 Summer Sale, part deux||13|
|Deals of the week: Z270 mobos, spinning storage, and more||4|
|G.Skill readies up for X299 with quad-channel DDR4 at 4200 MT/s||15|
|Asus' VivoBook S510 is an ultrabook for the budget crowd||14|
|Windows Insider Build 16226 gives users a look at GPU utilization||22|
|Steam's 2017 Summer Sale is downright hot||46|
|Asus XG-C100C NIC breaks the gigabit barrier||34|