Voltage is still limited. I will be testing out the MSI AB beta14 tonight to see if I can get 1.3x volts out of it though. I REALLY want 1400MHz core out of this thing on air... was close at 1359MHz for some benchmarks.
first get your reviewing methodology right. stop benching cards which cost USD 170 and USD 700 at same settings
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_650_Ti_Boost_TF_Gaming/13.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_760_HAWK/13.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_780_TF_Gaming/13.html
you have perf numbers which are meaningless. there is no min fps at all which is one of the most important factors in determining playability. no fraps graph. no frametimes using fraps or fcat. no video of the scene/level being tested as techreport and hardwarecanucks do or even explaining the level and exact gameplay scene being tested as hardocp do. how many benchmarks are actual gameplay benchmarks ? how many are using in game benchmarks which in most cases is not a good indicator of game performance. pick 8 - 10 of the latest and most important games. focus on quality and not quantity. try and bring more credibility into your benchmarking.
and yes if you believe a 760 is better than a HD 7950 run a HD 7950(1150 mhz) vs a GTX 760(1300 Mhz) benchmark faceoff. also do not believe you are the only site on the internet benchmarking GPUs. many sites do a better job than you and there are even end users who do a better job than you. good luck. if you want to get vengeful and ban me goodbye.
Wow...
1. Minimum framerates are important to an extent. Is anyone going to base a buying choice over what one FPS over THOUSANDS through the benchmark are? I think if one were to do a minimum FPS, it should be presented as time below XX FPS which gives one a better idea of how long it is hanging out down there. The value of that metric goes down the higher the FPS are anyway.
2. Is there a point to test single card frametime? Last I heard this problem was with SLI/CFx which, for the most part, has been fixed outside of DX9 and multiple monitors...
3. I would like a more clear explanation of what sections of games are tested. I think he lists it when he adds it? But after that, I don't see a mention.
3a. As far as manual walkthroughs to benchmark. I thought the same thing you did a while ago until I actually sat down and tested it. If you try to do the same things you did on each run through and not deliberately go off course so to speak, it is remarkably consistent. I mean sure you may not reload in the same place or duck for cover or whatever, but the longer that it is tested, the less overall variance you will have between results for the most part. Also, not a lot of games have canned benchmarks either. So do we(reviewers) leave out a AAA title like BF3 because it doesnt have a canned benchmark? That is the question reviewers ask themselves on this issue (well our team anyway, LOL!).
I really think there is a much better way to get your point across than to post in the manner you did. Wizz is a well respected reviewer and his reviews are right up there in places I look first, and many others do as well. If I were to nitpick, my only concern with the reviews, all of them here, is the scoring. I do not think there is an empirical method behind it. For example, what is the difference between a 8.5 and 8.7? How do you take off tenths of points? It just seems 'different' each time. That said, I never look at the scores but the data, which is plenty to make an informed decision off of. On the flip side, the site I review for uses Approved, MEH, and Fail and have each clearly defined.
No review site or method is perfect... we all try to do the best we can to bring the best information to the readers. Give him some slack or be CONSTRUCTIVE in your criticism.
Wizz, keep up the good work you and thousands of others know you do. Don't let punks like this slow you down. 
