Originally Posted by blibba
Manual playthroughs vs. automated tests have their advantages and disadvantages, and I think arguments can be made for either.
However, I am entirely sold on frame time testing rather than FPS. I've always considered FPS a misleading metric, and I'm delighted that someone is actually measuring something more meaningful. I no longer need to bother with FPS-based reviews, which is ideal.
It is not more meaningful. FPS along with frame latency is useful, frame latency on its own is almost useless.
Edit: In that test, it shows the 660 getting a higher FPS, I thought the 7950 had a higher FPS originally.
it was actually originally less.
This is a very interesting discrepancy:
How did they get a higher FPS?