Firingsquad on HardOCP´s "real-world benchmarking"
 

According to [H]ardOCP, "real-world" CPU performance testing means using a variety of AA, AF, resolution and in-game settings to try to average 40fps... or 35fps, or 73fps. Whatever the video card happens to max out at. "Real-world" benchmarks take no notice of your preference to run at a minimum of 60fps, if that's your flavor, or if you prefer lower resolutions and higher refresh rates to make things easy on the eyes, rather than extra eye candy.

the "problem" is that 99% of people out there don't know that you DONT need a super fast CPU to be able to play the latest games, they think that you need that $1200 CPU for gaming. And when they go out to buy a new GFX card they think that more memory on the VGA card is better, and they'll end up with a 512MB 6600GT instead of a 256Mb 7600GT and then complain that the games run bad.

HardOCP has responded with this article:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

It's good that people finally start to question reviews.


I do hate the H is flipping around the settings all the time, I want 1 "gaming settings setup with reasonable amounts of AA and AF at 1280x1024 or 1024x768", 1 "gaming settings at 2407 resoultion", 1 800x600 no AA AF run.

I also want to know how much power a CPU really has for the future therfore a 800x600 no AA AF run is a must have for CPU reviews. The graphs from H would make that very intresting.

I want more low end CPUs compared, especially a 3200+ and a P4 4 GHz, a P D805 and a Conroe 6300. If they want to argue that you do not need a faster CPU, this benches would show it clearly. There H could play their trump card best with the graphs again.

Agreed. While the whole "best playable settings" thing might be informative for people who know nothing about hardware, but enthusiasts probably just want/need a whole lot of hard numbers at different resolutions in different games. I don't need HardOCP's opinion on what's "good enough" for me, I'm intelligent and knowledgeable enough to figure that out on my own.

And Hard's Conroe review was pretty mediocre/bad, so I have no idea why they're defending it so much. They should just let it go instead of resorting to childish name calling against Firing Squad.

one word: "childish." :gay:

both sides are childish, FS should not have responded to [H] "flaming" , and [H] should not have dissed other sites for not using their method of testing which is geared to more mainstream and less tech savvy people. nothing wrong with that, just don't say that other benchmark methods are bad because FS provides benchmark numbers at both low & high detail. But I do agree that FS lacks a bit of detail when it comes down to how they tested.

but it's very entertaining :)