Message from @sum
Discord ID: 481903018934140938
closest you're getting to benchmarks for now
benchmark what does not really tell what is measured
sure is marketing at its job
as far as i consider that chart its "dropped framed per second"
or "suddent fps drops"
Also as usual to nVidia, no numbers at all
Just vague "1 1.5 2"
Wonder if they gonna go again with the good ol' X scale so fucked they make 5% look like 50%
aint that already it
give stable line at 1 > then throw 2x+ there
what they could have done is drop that 1 line 1 block downwards
and make the segments in smaller increments
so that he differences look even more ridiculous
but yeah marketing being marketing there
I knew it
its performance difference
No matter what you point out, no matter how shitty nVidia will act
mmmmh
So what are you gonna say about Arkham Knight
no matter what gets posted, you will still attack them
And the **fact** nVidia sped up the gameplay
Since it wasn't 60fps
But they claimed it was
notice the part where i said >closest you're getting to benchmarks for now
implying it's not actual benchmarks
>calling nVidia graphs """""benchmarks""""""
It's not, and shouldn't be called benchmark
the second image is relative performance differences, same settings
except for dlss obviously
what was the base setting used is the problem
why does it matter
relative is relative
due things are handled way differently in lowest settings and highest settings
in terms of performance and stress on card
2x on lowest does not equal to 2 x on ultra
and what people are interested about is ultra
If they really made an amazing card, wouldn't it make more sense to showcase as much as possible