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

@sum i know it can be hard for your grasp basic arithmetic

I knew it

its performance difference

No matter what you point out, no matter how shitty nVidia will act

You will still defend them

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

Not show half-truths or graphs of something

thus its 2x more lag spikes or problems

in 4k resolution

for all we know

(or power usage

(or candies eaten while testings)