[H]ard|OCP has a new article up about "Benchmarking the Benchmarks". In this article they prove that there is a huge difference between running a Timedemo (Render this demo as fast as you can) and playing the exact same demo (I am controlling my character in real time). They made their own demo (because you can't play the Timedemo included in Crysis) while recording the FPS, then they ran the demo they made. Here are those results:
![[H]ard|OCP image.](http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2720/1202411127prqkp029dt51eq3.gif)
So the HD 3870 X2 saw an increase of 22% ((41.2/33.7) - 1) between playing the demo and running the demo. Using the same demo and settings, they tested a 8800 GTX. The GTX improved by only 14% ((45.3/39.6) - 1). 14% and 21% are not the same numbers. They are not equal. Think hard about what that means, I will give you some time...
If running Timedemos on two cards really did tell you exactly how well both of the cards played the game, then those percentages would be exactly the same. Card A would get 22% more FPS when running the Timedemo when compared to playing the Timedemo, and Card B would get 22% more FPS when running the Timedemo when compared to playing the Timedemo. That is not what is happening though. The percentages are not the same. 22 does not equal 14 which means:
The difference in performance between two cards running a Timedemo does not equal the difference in performance between the two cards playing that same demo (or game). Therefore, Timedemo benchmarks in reviews are worthless to people who play games and are only helpful to people that like to run Timedemos as fast as they can.
Before I get any hate mail about how I am a [H]ard|OCP fanboy, let me say this. I like reading [H]ard|OCP because their content is rooted in logic and common sense. I am a fan of logic and things that make sense, which makes me a fan of [H]ard|OCP. Show me another site that is as logical and "true" as [H]ard|OCP and I will read it.
guest
Its kinda like how I use the little benchmark in half life 2 when the camera is running through certain areas it looks laggy. When I am actually playing it doesn't lag at all. Technically if you have super high frame rates shouldn't it look smoother then ever but even that is not the case with those little timedemo's.
guest
wich proves once again, dont base your purchase/upgrade on a stupid demo :)
n00b
guest
the variables are not constant, and it isn't really representative of a 1:1 run through of the demo
IMO the different is statistically insignificant.
guest
It gives you a general idea on how a card will perform; it isn't meant to be the be-all end-all of benchmarking. Going by the picture above you can see an HD 3870 X2 can play Crysis reasonably well. I wouldn't call the timedemo useless if it can provide information like that.
Senior Member
According to the timedemo in
F.E.A.R. , I shouldn't be having any decent performance.. but when I
play , I rarely see the framerate drop below 40 FPS .
But then again , the framerate largely depends on the area you play in aswell .
The Progenitor
guest
To someone who does not know a lot about pc's or video cards and stuff of that nature are not going to know the difference. They will assume that because of the timedemo that is the benchmark and they are going to expect that performance when in reality it will not be the same in real time when played.
guest
however, the serious lack of content really gets on my nerves. Comparing the HD3870X2 to an 8800 GTX? Nothing else? wtf? Power consumption tests are lacking, heat tests, also lacking, overclocking... the list goes on.
The Progenitor
guest
The Progenitor
guest
My EVGA 8800 Ultra KO has a core of 636MHz and a mem at 1125.
guest
why? my 8800GT (OC'd) does it perfectly.. or at least noticeably higher than 18fps.
something fishy there.
though the logic of [H] does stand to.. er.. logic :)
The Progenitor
1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels
1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
The 18 FPS in that graph is the minimum FPS that the HD 3870 X2 got, not the average and not the maximum.