I would ditch Witcher and Elden Ring. Logged on to say that; saw others already did. GJ, guys.
Also, thank you for getting rid of Silent Hill. Suite looks pretty good.
I still kind of miss Control, Plague Tale, and Collisto Protocol; those are really great benches imo and I don't know if they've outlived usefulness.
Also not a fan of counterstrike being in the averages...I've said that already. It throws everything off badly. If you keep it, please make it own section for esports or something. Perhaps same w/ Doom.
Ofc course I don't know how you'll test the new Doom. If it'll be in absurd framerate mode or all-bells/whistles RT etc mode. If the later, it'll probably be okay in the regular list imo.
Maybe add Fortnite and such; maybe Hunt:Showdown and whatever else that scene enjoys. I bet that would make a lot of people happy that are FPS chasers in those games...but don't include them in averages.
Please ignore the guy whom said to remove literally all the pertinent games, because it sucks when that actually happens (because I like your layout but they need to be relevant games), and it sometimes does.
I can't quote him because I have him on ignore bc...well...he says ridiculous things like that.
Glad to see you add SM2, so I can stop looking back to that page and try to figure everything out (given it scales very well in raster and rt).
I will very much appreciate when raster/RT mins are given for new cards in that game. I also think the others are all GREAT additions (Indy, AC. MHW). Every one of those I will massively appreciate being there.
Also, if you're not going to add up-scaling w/ mins across resolutions/methods (which I truly know is a lot of work...but I don't know what to say other than we need it), please add minimums for ray-tracing.
Not having those feels a lot like obfuscation and borderline playing into a certain company's narrative (of high averages and bad lows that people often don't see). I also hate those average up/down graphs.
I can tell you (after talking to many) the 100% positive truth that is people do not understand those in the scope of everything else about cards comparatively, and those graphs give the averages too much weight.
I honestly would prefer the up-scaling/rt 1% and .1% (or minimum) lows over testing more games.
Maybe you could even lose a couple more older titles that most-anything can play at higher than their intended resolution in newer titles.
This is what many other reviewers have done, and I think it's for the best.
I know you pride yourself on having lots of info, and you should take pride in it (I very much appreciate it, even when I sound like I'm complaining), but we need more quality information, not just more information.
If I could ask one more thing, any way you could have a page where which model is used shown for stereotyped testing on the chart?
EX: What does 5080 on the chart mean? A Founders Edition? What about a 5070Ti where there is no FE? I ask so can check clocks of that review to understand real performance (I am in-fact that particular).
Perhaps the model could be added to the TEST SYSTEM page with a hyperlink to each review of that particular card. EX: I want to know if it's a 7900xtx if it's running ~2631 in raster, ~2397 in RT, or WAYY higher.
I think some of these changes would help a great deal, and I appreciate it. As I say, I think 1080->1440p/4k and 1440p->4k (with 1%/.1% and/or minimums) are worth having even if testing 1/2 the amount games. I guess I should refer to them as 1440 'quality' and 4k 'quality' and "performance" up-scaling, if not also 'balanced'. Many cards are, and will be, targeted towards those markets over the next year or so. This will depend upon if using raster, RT, or PT...and people need to know if they can hit/maintain acceptable frames while using those technologies (which often require up-scaling of that exact type).
As long as those games are somewhat current and/or popular and/or particular examples (like Snow Drop/UE5/etc) and don't already hit absurd FR (and/or their cap).
(except in the case of esports titles, ofc).
Thanks for the changes, thanks for hearing me out, and thanks for taking other suggestions from the community. I appreciate all your work (and I know you do a lot).
