MSI GTX 760 HAWK 2 GB

[cadaveca]

the topic of frametime consistency problems on single GPU became a huge issue with techreport's article on AMD HD 7950 last dec.

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/11

after that a lot of sites have started bringing in fraps or fcat based frametime benchmarking.

All reviewer FCAT systems were supplied by Nvidia. FCAT was developed and is published by Nvidia. The fact W1zz doesn't use this form of testing shows his lack of bias, I think.

 

[Ikaruga]

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.

Not that Wizzard would need my defense here, but I seriously think that you are missing the point, so here I go:
Do you really think that Wizzard and others on this site are only reading TPU and we never see other reviews, or we don't know about things like fraps and fcat, etc? I mean (but seriously...) do you really think that's what actually happens, like it's only you who goes to other sites and read reviews? Just think about it for a second please.

Now that being sad... my take would be:

1. He is comparing cards out there on a scale like nobody else does.. period. Yes, his method might be a little inaccurate sometimes (on a small case in some games, but it's not synthetic benching anyway), but try to look at the big picture please, or go and try to do it better if you can.
2. He was reviewing a single Nvidia card, which has non of the frame-time/latency/drop issues you are so worried about, that was always purely an AMD and/or MultiGPU "feature".
3. I have to agree with you that minimum fps is indeed very important when it comes to serious gaming experience (but lets say the lowest 5% what matters and not just a few bad frames).

ps.: Thank you very much Wizzard for the great review again, and please keep up the good work

 

[EarthDog]

All reviewer FCAT systems were supplied by Nvidia. FCAT was developed and is published by Nvidia. The fact W1zz doesn't use this form of testing shows his lack of bias, I think.

Heh, we looked into buying a system for it... saw the price of the hardware, talked it over within the team again, and decided that even if it was cheap, we weren't going to do it due to how quickly the issue would be resolved and how much of a non issue it really was to the VAST majority of users (considering it was only CFx, which not many use in the first place compared to single GPU users, and it didnt affect all... at least not everyone noticed). Not to mention, we do not review a lot of SLI/CFx setups in the first place. I have probably reviewed 3 or 4 sets of cards like that over the past 3+ years.

 

[fullinfusion]

http://fim.413chan.net/art/src/131634164930-oh-he-mad.jpg

Hey brandon, I think buddie has his cranky panties on lol..
Great review wizz but I'm happy to have what I haz.
Just a question, why not try the amd 13.8 b1 for testing as they seem to work well for me over all other amd drivers?

 

[rysyndrome]

I used the 326.xx beta driver that is at the Nvidia site, and 3DMark (Firestrike) worked just fine. We do not test Metro:LL though, sorry.

Thanks for the suggestion. I tried the beta driver and 3DMark is still crashing on me. I also noticed and "squeal or whine" coming from the PSU as soon as I start the benchmark demo. It's weird cause I don't hear that with any other benchmark/stress test that I have tried. PSU is a EVGA 750 bronze unit so should be sufficient at least I thought. Oh well, I'll just stick to games...

 

[tom_mili]

Nice review as always
Another card that uses NCP4206, that means moar voltage
I think it has something to do with MSI supporting NCP4206 implementation on their latest AB Beta

 

[BiggieShady]

stop benching cards which cost USD 170 and USD 700 at same settings

... because not being able to compare is so much more fun!

All reviewer FCAT systems were supplied by Nvidia. FCAT was developed and is published by Nvidia. The fact W1zz doesn't use this form of testing shows his lack of bias, I think.

Your alignment has shifted towards neutral good ... but it's fair to say that there is no nvidia magic in FCAT setup, tech is simple and public knowledge.
Setup is expensive only for its high write speed requirements for storage because it needlessly writes content of every frame along with the colored bars (useful for seeing tears and microstutter in slo-mo).
For result graphs, only the vertical colored bars are needed ... one pixel wide.
RAW fcat data could be written to a storage with around 2000 times lower write speed.