Why are reviewers so lazy? ( Not talking about TPU!!! )

[Aquinus]

But... effectively these games ARE revisited with every GPU review, all you need to do is grab an old review and put it side by side.

Sure. With that said though, I expect the next GPU review to be using 18.12.3 for AMD cards and not 18.8.2 because the OP is correct in stating that performance tends to get improved with newer driver releases. So long as the latest drivers are used at the time that the cards are being tested, I don't really care when doing a review for new cards. Occasionally though, it might be nice to do a review like Phoronix does where they do a "how have drivers changed in the last year," kind of reviews like this one.

I’m just not sure you realize that the service you demand for free is handled by one man, who is darned well entitled to also have a life.

I'd say most reviewers aren't lazy. W1zz and Michael at Phoronix certainly aren't.

 

[qubit]

That's simply not humanly possible, unless you hire several people benching for you all the time on multiple identical rigs (which introduces a lot of variation).

You forgot that everything should be tested on: Intel + Intel HEDT + Ryzen + Threadripper.

Yes, but you're inhuman.

 

[JRMBelgium]

But... effectively these games ARE revisited with every GPU review, all you need to do is grab an old review and put it side by side.

Well ok then. Let's put them side by side.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_1060_6_GB_GDDR5X/7.html

Dec 17 2018. Battlefield 1 1080p. 156fps for Vega 64, 128.7fps for Vega 56

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2080_Gaming_X_Trio/8.html

Sep 19 2018 Battlefield 1 1080p. 156fps for Vega 64, 128.7fps for Vega 56

And you can basicly look at every review between those dates. Now two options. He doesn't revisit teh games with every GPU review ( wich he already confirmed btw ) or it's magic and he's able to get the exact same framerate every single time. It must be magic...

 

[Vayra86]

Well ok then. Let's put them side by side.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_1060_6_GB_GDDR5X/7.html

Dec 17 2018. Battlefield 1 1080p. 156fps for Vega 64, 128.7fps for Vega 56

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2080_Gaming_X_Trio/8.html

Sep 19 2018 Battlefield 1 1080p. 156fps for Vega 64, 128.7fps for Vega 56

And you can basicly look at every review between those dates. Now two options. He doesn't revisit teh games with every GPU review ( wich he already confirmed btw ) or it's magic and he's able to get the exact same framerate every single time. It must be magic...

You really gotta learn to read. Here's a hint, go to the Test Setup page and compare the rigs.

We don't recycle scores through test system revisions. Every time the test system is updated every single card is rebenched with the same hardware, driver, everything

Let me help you some more @JRMBelgium

Take a look at the 980ti. Note that spectacular performance difference across over a year TWO AND A HALF YEARS of driver updates! 0.3 FPS :O

Or the Fury X, which gained a whole 2 average FPS.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/22.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_1060_6_GB_GDDR5X/27.html

 

[JRMBelgium]

Here you go. Five seconds on Google...

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-nvidia-driver-updates-performance-tested,5707.html
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvidia-16gpu-jan2018&num=2
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-01/geforce-treiber-test/2/

And, as for TPU? Members do the work.
@Artas1984
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-353-62-vs-376-33-vs-398-36-vs-411-70.248256/


Bottom line, stop whining, start improving your interwebs skills. I guess you're just another example of Youtubers being blundering fools? Its a real pattern.

PS. if you want to attract subs and viewers, this is how NOT to do it. You just invalidated everything you produce on your channel for the entire TPU community.

You posted exceptions and in no way make an argument that this is the way reviews are done in general.
Look at Toms hardware most recent GPu review:
- No benchmark at 1080p ( still the most played resolution )
- Games are run at highest settings ( not the most used setting among gamers )
- Battlefield 1 gets tested on DX12 wich in unplayable online for 90% of all BF gamers since it causes mass stutters. You only know this if you actually play the game and are active on the BF forums.
- The charts contain benchmarks from 4 different Nvidia drivers and an AMD driver wich was already more then two months old at the time of writing

And not that I don't appreciate what some TPu users do here, because I love it, but the post you mentioned has about as much views in 3 months then a YouTube reviewer gets in his first hour.

My point is that reviewers in general, I'm talking about 90% what people click on when they search in google are just posting benchmarks witht the purpose of earning money and in no way have an actual intrest in finding out how the hardware actually performs. They also have no intention of informing the people that reall need that info, the people on a budget. And gamers on a budget mostly play on 1080p and they will not put all their settings on Ultra.

You really gotta learn to read. Here's a hint, go to the Test Setup page and compare the rigs.

I know how to read. But it's unrealistic to post benchmarks taken months ago while many drivers updates passed by including ones that improved performance in games that are included in the review. Then comparing those old results with recent benchmarks in the same chart with the only argument "I haven't upgraded my CPU" doesn't make any sence. Gamers update their drivers. If they don't do it manually they get pushed by the driver itself, windows update or other 3rd party software. Why would a Battlefield V gamer keep on playing with an old driver when the more recent one provides 8-9% better performance?

 

[Vayra86]

You posted exceptions and in no way make an argument that this is the way reviews are done in general.
Look at Toms hardware most recent GPu review:
- No benchmark at 1080p ( still the most played resolution )
- Games are run at highest settings ( not the most used setting among gamers )
- Battlefield 1 gets tested on DX12 wich in unplayable online for 90% of all BF gamers since it causes mass stutters. You only know this if you actually play the game and are active on the BF forums.
- The charts contain benchmarks from 4 different Nvidia drivers and an AMD driver wich was already more then two months old at the time of writing

And not that I don't appreciate what some TPu users do here, because I love it, but the post you mentioned has about as much views in 3 months then a YouTube reviewer gets in his first hour.

My point is that reviewers in general, I'm talking about 90% what people click on when they search in google are just posting benchmarks witht the purpose of earning money and in no way have an actual intrest in finding out how the hardware actually performs. They also have no intention of informing the people that reall need that info, the people on a budget. And gamers on a budget mostly play on 1080p and they will not put all their settings on Ultra.



I know how to read. But it's unrealistic to post benchmarks taken months ago while many drivers updates passed by including ones that improved performance in games that are included in the review. Then comparing those old results with recent benchmarks in the same chart with the only argument "I haven't upgraded my CPU" doesn't make any sence. Gamers update their drivers. If they don't do it manually they get pushed by the driver itself, windows update or other 3rd party software. Why would a Battlefield V gamer keep on playing with an old driver when the more recent one provides 8-9% better performance?

If you're focused on a single game, look towards game specific performance reviews/benchmarks. You're looking at hardware benchmarks and you're using the logic of a gamer that only plays one shooter. Here's a news flash: F*ck Battlefield. There are tons of games that run on Frostbite and if you want a strong indication of what each card does on Frostbite games, you can pick any review at any point in time. As much as drivers get updates, so do the games. And it usually are the GAME updates that make the big difference. Not GPU drivers. And guess what, even when that happens and its worth spending time on, TPU has an article ready for you:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews...attlefield_V_Tides_of_War_RTX_DXR_Raytracing/

That is the point you are missing here. You're reading reviews on the most basic, simple level and interpret the results on the basis of 'today'. You don't buy a GPU for today. You buy it for one, or several years. So what you want in a GPU review is a comprehensive benchmark selection that covers a wide range of game types and engines. That is the data you should buy a GPU on. Not the performance of one shooter at a specific point in time.

This is precisely the problem with Youtube. People get a bunch of views and think that makes their argument legitimate because its backed by masses. I hate to draw a Godwin out, but you can look at how masses are manipulated in history and how even millions of people can be completely wrong. Numbers don't make bad ideas good ones. And thát is why TPU has an unrivaled value in tech land when it comes to GPU reviews. Its consistency, and trustworthiness, plus a healthy selection of games. A no-nonsense approach, if you will.

Last but not least, you're carefully avoiding the sources I've produced for you, but there is no getting around the fact that you failed to compare reviews on TPU and look into my arguments at all. I've screenshotted two reviews with a considerable length of time between them, and they confirm that the overall performance gain from driver updates is negligible.

You need to face the fact you're wrong and you made a topic without doing the proper research. No amount of Youtube views will change that fact.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

okay so your asking a guy that works on GPU-Z, does GPU reviews *typically on launch day has multiple GPU reviews ready for the various vendors, rebenches with updated drivers on occassion, does PCIe scaling reviews, handles SSD storage reviews, CPU reviews, etc.

Now you tell me where the magical fucking free time to enjoy life comes in?

I handle coolers / desktops / mini-pcs / laptops Coolers on average take 8+ hours if there is no complications, Laptops takes about 20-30 hrs, desktops take about 15-20 hrs
Some of us here have day jobs and other responsibilities.

Could W1zz retest and do what your asking? Sure but then you will only get a very limited selection of cards tested. Considering the difficulties with various DRM schemes which limit hardware changes thus delaying testing (BFV vs BF1) BFV has a hardware change limit while BF1 does not.

If money is no object sure hire a bunch of scrubs to run tests, But then again with that many GPUs your now shipping them all over the world or the people have to be local. One of the things that makes TPU unique is our world wide readership which is helped by reviewers / news posters / forum members all being from different parts of the world.

The other issue is literally finding people willing to stick with it and prove to be trust worthy. You would think that wouldn't be difficult but in all honesty its a challenge to find people willing to slog through reviews constantly. Everyone thinks its fun and games and wonderful well let me burst your bubble its not.

Simple fact is what our asking for is essentially absurd considering the current workload. W1zz literally does more than just about anyone else I know in terms of review work. During the 2000 series launch he had 8 Graphics card reviews ready to go. Withing another 7 days he has 3 more articles 1 reviews / PCIe scaling and NVLINK scaling same time frame he finished 2 SSD reviews. 13 reviews in 30 days.

Now when you consider the time necessary to cover that I don't know when the guy has time to get anything done lol. Dude is a machine.

So yes keep complaining about how lazy we are. I just so love being told I and others that produce the content don't deserve time to ourselves and have actual lives and family.

 

[droopyRO]

I will just leave this here:

 

[JRMBelgium]

If you're focused on a single game, look towards game specific performance reviews/benchmarks. You're looking at hardware benchmarks and you're using the logic of a gamer that only plays one shooter. Here's a news flash: F*ck Battlefield. There are tons of games that run on Frostbite and if you want a strong indication of what each card does on Frostbite games, you can pick any review at any point in time. As much as drivers get updates, so do the games. And it usually are the GAME updates that make the big difference. Not GPU drivers. And guess what, even when that happens and its worth spending time on, TPU has an article ready for you:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews...attlefield_V_Tides_of_War_RTX_DXR_Raytracing/

That is the point you are missing here. You're reading reviews on the most basic, simple level and interpret the results on the basis of 'today'. You don't buy a GPU for today. You buy it for one, or several years. So what you want in a GPU review is a comprehensive benchmark selection that covers a wide range of game types and engines. That is the data you should buy a GPU on. Not the performance of one shooter at a specific point in time.

This is precisely the problem with Youtube. People get a bunch of views and think that makes their argument legitimate because its backed by masses. I hate to draw a Godwin out, but you can look at how masses are manipulated in history and how even millions of people can be completely wrong. Numbers don't make bad ideas good ones. And thát is why TPU has an unrivaled value in tech land when it comes to GPU reviews. Its consistency, and trustworthiness, plus a healthy selection of games. A no-nonsense approach, if you will.

Last but not least, you're carefully avoiding the sources I've produced for you, but there is no getting around the fact that you failed to compare reviews on TPU and look into my arguments at all. I've screenshotted two reviews with a considerable length of time between them, and they confirm that the overall performance gain from driver updates is negligible.

You need to face the fact you're wrong and you made a topic without doing the proper research. No amount of Youtube views will change that fact.

When that happens and its worth spending timeon, TPU has an article ready for you?
Yep, another review with Ultra settings, wich people don't play on. And offcourse only performance improvements by Nvidia get reviewed even if that improvement is only available on products that cost more then 550$ and have about 0.01% market share. Oh yeah, don't forget to combine that 550$ card with other hardware that is above budget for 90% of the gamers population. And let's forget about the frametimes in DX12 raytracing with ultra settings. Not important at all ( sarcastic ). The fact that AMD improved performance in both the RX and Vega cards by 5-10% in one of the drivers after BF V release is not important and is not even mentioned in the review.

You screenshotted one game, a game from 2015. And yes, in many cases driver updates don't offer much. In other causes they improve performance greatly.
Strange Brigade, Battlefield V, Wolfenstein 2, Doom all got 5-10% performance increases in the last few months, just by updating the driver.
I remember playing Fallout 4 the week after release. Some time later a single driver updated increases performance by 20-30% on my R9 390x.

And you are correct. Game patches are more likely to impact performance then game drivers. But honestly, somethimes the difference between Nvidia and AMD is only a few percentages. So why not show the actual difference instead of mixing old benchmarks with new benchmarks in one chart.

And let me make one thing clear. This topic was not stated to attack or insult the TPU reviewers. I am sure they are hardworking people, working with limited recources. The same can not be sad about other reviewers.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Yep, another review with Ultra settings, wich people don't play on.

How are you completely unable to look at how a graphics card plays at Ultra and easily extrapolate how that card will do at medium? Cards have to be tested at their limits, otherwise no one will know what the card can do.

I’ve got news for you, just because you play on medium doesn’t mean “people don’t play on” Ultra settings. Quite a few people do. Many believe in seeing a game exactly as it was envisioned and developed. Many want a game to look as good as possible while also enjoying a good story and /or gameplay.

 

[droopyRO]

Except in high school, when my parents payed for the PC. I only play on Ultra as long as i can get 30 fps in that game and the resolution i play it at. Since i got a job, more than 10 years ago, rarely did i play on anything other than the highest settings. Only for multiplayer do i lower the details, so that the frame rate matches my refresh rate.
Who said no one is playing at Ultra ? Far Cry 5 runs great on Ultra with HD Textures on my 1070 Ti at 1440p, it stays above 60 fps. Why would i play on medium ? OP is forgetting that there are people(like me) who play games for singleplayer and enjoy the graphics and sound as much as the gameplay.

 

[JRMBelgium]

How are you completely unable to look at how a graphics card plays at Ultra and easily extrapolate how that card will do at medium? Cards have to be tested at their limits, otherwise no one will know what the card can do.

How are you completely oblivious to the fact that your statement is 100% false. In some games yes, in other games HELL no.
So looking at these results, anyone would say even a 1070Ti is better for 4K gaming compared to the Vega 64. But let's ignore the fact the framerates are practicly unplayable wich makes the entire chart useless.
Now test the same game on medium on 4K and what do you know, now the game can actually be played on a budget and the Vega 64 is only loosing to the most expensive cards on the market.
Now, 4K gamers that buy this game, are they more likely to run it on Ultra, or on Medium?

And no it's not the only game, have a look at the latest tombraider:

Ultra, 1070Ti wins against Vega 56 and Vega 64 is eaqual to GTX 1080, but framerates are barely OK by todays standard.
Medium, Vega 56 wins from 1070ti, and Vega 64 beats GTX 1080 and framerates are enjoyable.

Now you can offcourse start an argument that you don't need 60fps or higher and that PC gamers want quality over framerate. Well then, then I have no counter argument becides the fact that almost every best selling monitor in Amazons Top 50 at the moment is a 1080p high hz monitor with one exeption, a 4K Freesync monitor. that's right, freesync, not Gsync.

I’ve got news for you, just because you play on medium doesn’t mean “people don’t play on” Ultra settings. Quite a few people do. Many believe in seeing a game exactly as it was envisioned and developed. Many want a game to look as good as possible while also enjoying a good story and /or gameplay.

Offcourse people play on Ultra settings. I'm not saying they don't. But do you dare to make the statement that Ultra is the most selected setting out of them all? Or do you dare to admit that low/medium is probably more likely based on the most selling hardware ( looking at amazon for example, or looking at steam hardware survey )?

 

[Toothless]

I was playing Project Cars 2 on ultra last night. I must not be a gamer or something because I play on ultra.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Offcourse people play on Ultra settings. I'm not saying they don't.

So now you are arguing with yourself, because that is exactly what you said. The quote of that was one of my earlier posts here.

 

[JRMBelgium]

So now you are arguing with yourself, because that is exactly what you said. The quote of that was one of my earlier posts here.

Now you are just argumenting about nothing. When I say "people/gamers don't play on Ultra" you know I'm talking about the majority and not about every living person in the world. I myself try to play on Ultra. But if I can find settings that increase my framerate by 30%, without any visual difference, why wouldn't you change that one setting. It also depends on how old the game is and basicly the graphics in general. There are games that run on ultrao with 200fps, so why not? But those are not the games you see in hardware reviews.

I was playing Project Cars 2 on ultra last night. I must not be a gamer or something because I play on ultra.

You own a GTX 1080Ti. Represents about 1.68% market share on steam. You clearly speak for most gamers with that card.
Not that I'm saying I am. But it's like people on this forum live in a dome, forgetting about the 90% of gamers who don't have a 500$+ because they simply can't afford it.
And yes, many gamers don't care about techforums or techwebsites and only do some research when they are about to buy something.

 

[phanbuey]

the problem with this is every hardware combination performs differently with different settings... have a 4GB card? works great at medium, crank the settings, and it gets crushed because it runs out of ram etc.

You would have to pick a point of optimization (which HardOCP does do) to compare hardware; and even then you don't want average FPS, you would want FPS consistency and .01% lows - so i think you would want more reviews like the [H] ones. A card can have solid "Average" fps and still feel like total garbage when actually playing the game.

Also Mr. PCmasterrace from GamersNexus does solid reviews of GFX performance (including undervolting results) at different quality settings.

I think alot of these sites lack good review automation so they have to pick one set of settings and stick to them consistently, so they just go for the highest ones.

These tend to be my favorite reviews, also their conclusions are usually very detailed; and they really focus on the USER EXPERIENCE over the raw numbers for a piece of hardware.

 

[AlienIsGOD]

this thread is becoming pointless as OP refuses to believe anything other then HIS opinion.

 

[cadaveca]

this thread is becoming pointless as OP refuses to believe anything other then HIS opinion.

Well, he kinda started off saying that places other than TPU do a poor job. Then we have everyone defending TPU results. But he wasn't talking about TPU directly...? So it is not surprising that this seems like a big circle jerk because there are two very different conversations going on here.. one by the OP, which gets sidetracked by the one everyone else is having....

There was the direct feedback to TPU about not using ultra settings only. That's a fair request, since not everyone uses ultra, so the results given are only relevant to those users that would use ultra. That's fair. Maybe it wasn't presented in teh best of ways, but the point is valid.

 

[silentbogo]

Well, he kinda started off saying that places other than TPU do a poor job. Then we have everyone defending TPU results. But he wasn't talking about TPU directly...?

It kinda started with his last paragraph in the opening post (title was edited later). OP just cannot decide what he wants and where to direct his concerns.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Now you are just argumenting about nothing. When I say "people/gamers don't play on Ultra" you know I'm talking about the majority and not about every living person in the world.

Nope I don’t know that. I do know that you show up and start a thread attacking all reviewers, including TPU (although for late arrivals you try to hide that fact by adjusting your thread title), and have little to offer other than no one plays at Ultra and reviews should be at medium too, because obviously reviewers have too much free time.

So, I come here for enjoyment, not arguments and stress from internet warriors, so welcome to the ignore list.

Well, he kinda started off saying that places other than TPU do a poor job. Then we have everyone defending TPU results. But he wasn't talking about TPU directly...?

Actually, you are wrong. Unless he edited it out to make himself look good, he specifically devoted a negative paragraph straight at TPU and the GPU reviews. He further went to chastise and argue with W1zzard later.

 

[LFaWolf]

Your Title -
Why are reviewers so lazy? ( Not talking about TPU!!! )

And your last paragraph -

I have a problem with the fact that so many review website don't update their game collection and don't revisit older reviews one year later.
Here's a nice example:

What games does he use? Battlefield 1 ( while Battlefield V population is already 3 times bigger ), F1 2017 ( while F1 2018 population is 5 times bigger ) and an old Tombraider game. The numbers are there, the games tested or not getting played a much as the newer titles wich is normal offcourse. But another problem I see is that all the improvements AMD has done over the years, are not being displayed by using old benchmarks or by benchmarking older titles.

In BF1, at release the GTX 1080 wins from Vega 64. This is not the case in the latest version of BF1.
In BF V, the Vega 64 wins from the GTX 1080. But you still see reviewers referring to their older BF1 benchmarks and simply not using Battlefield V for benchmarking.

In F1 2017, at release, the GTX 1070 wins from Vega 64. This is no longer the case. Now the Vega 64 is even faster then the GTX 1080, just like in F1 2018.

And in the latest tombraider, the Vega 64 beats the GTX 1080 again, unlike the results from previous tombraider games at the release.

I hope at some point, Techpowerup can make the difference and starts revisiting older reviews one year later. Because in a years time, game patches and driver updates can make a big difference in the actual performance.
Also, when a new title gets released in a franchise and the new title has a bigger gamer population, they should simply stop benchmarking the older title or at least benchmark the older + the newer title.
And last but not least, if a title can be played in both DirectX 11 and 12, both should get tested. Because when Hardware unbox benchmarked Hitman only in DX11, it pissed me off because this is the reality:
Hitman DX11
GTX 1080 8% faster then Vega 64
Hitman DX12
The exact same performance

And this feedback is aimed at Techpowerup directly, stop benchmarking at the highest quality settings and start benchmarking at medium. The amount of gamers that play on Ultra only represents 10% at most. There are settings like shadow/lighting or post processing that almost every gamer turns down for the big performance impact or the disadvantage it gives in visibility. So why benchmark settings that 90% of gamers will not use.

And I am not sure which way you are leaning. Do you?

1. 1070 ti @49 fps at Ultra is very playable. I have a 4k monitor max @60Hz and paired along with an EVGA GTX 1080. I have no problem if my games play at 50fps.
2. Reviewers use very high end CPU so that the CPU will not become a factor in the benchmark for GPUs.
3. There are just not enough time of the day to benchmark so many different games, different combination of test settings, and different cards and drivers version. Look at it this way - benchmarks are just guidelines. They are not absolute and the old saying - your mileage may vary. Use them to kind of approximate the performance of the components that you will get in your own system, if you do get them.

Hope this helps.

 

[cadaveca]

It kinda started with his last paragraph in the opening post (title was edited later). OP just cannot decide what he wants and where to direct his concerns.

I agree with this, but I think I understand where he's coming from, if you feel me, and with that, his idea is rather vague, yet specific.

Reviews, in general, give a particular perspective, and that perspective isn't always what the general public needs. Such as using Ultra settings.

As someone that has spent a decade doing reviews here on TPU and elsewhere, I think I see what prompted the OP to make a post in the first place.

Actually, you are wrong. Unless he edited it out to make himself look good, he specifically devoted a negative paragraph straight at TPU and the GPU reviews. He further went to chastise and argue with W1zzard later.

Well, I don't feel that I am. I didn't miss anything here... I'm merely taking a step back, looking at what's going on, and thought about it a little, and thought to myself "hey maybe this guy has something good to say here" yet I think it needs to be a bit more fleshed out and hence the seemingly mixed message given.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Well, I don't feel that I am. I didn't miss anything here...

As you can see, all kinds of assertions and “facts” about gamers, preceded by demands of TPU. There aren’t two conversations. There is one, and the OP is pretty clear that his needs are not being met, so TPU (aka W1z) needs to step up and put a little more effort into this in lieu of living a life:

And this feedback is aimed at Techpowerup directly, stop benchmarking at the highest quality settings and start benchmarking at medium. The amount of gamers that play on Ultra only represents 10% at most. There are settings like shadow/lighting or post processing that almost every gamer turns down for the big performance impact or the disadvantage it gives in visibility. So why benchmark settings that 90% of gamers will not use.

 

[Toothless]

Now you are just argumenting about nothing. When I say "people/gamers don't play on Ultra" you know I'm talking about the majority and not about every living person in the world. I myself try to play on Ultra. But if I can find settings that increase my framerate by 30%, without any visual difference, why wouldn't you change that one setting. It also depends on how old the game is and basicly the graphics in general. There are games that run on ultrao with 200fps, so why not? But those are not the games you see in hardware reviews.



You own a GTX 1080Ti. Represents about 1.68% market share on steam. You clearly speak for most gamers with that card.
Not that I'm saying I am. But it's like people on this forum live in a dome, forgetting about the 90% of gamers who don't have a 500$+ because they simply can't afford it.
And yes, many gamers don't care about techforums or techwebsites and only do some research when they are about to buy something.

Ive ran ultra settings with single and dual GTX780s. Ive ran ultra on a 660, the 750th in my other desktop. Ive ran all sorts of settings on all sorts of hardware. You can't exactly peg me for having a strong card now that you know this now.

 

[cadaveca]

As you can see, all kinds of assertions and “facts” about gamers, preceded by demands of TPU. There aren’t two conversations. There is one, and the OP is pretty clear that his needs are not being met, so TPU (aka W1z) needs to step up and put a little more effort into this in lieu of living a life:

Remove the "he" and "us" and whatever from the conversation though. That's what I am saying. There are two conversations here for sure, but you have to take a moment to understand them both, perhaps.

With that done, there is a definite lack of coverage of GPU performance under all settings and circumstances. The way things are done now, there is a what I see as a huge "placebo" effect given by reviews, since the majority tend to offer the same performance metrics, only with minor variation. This means that there is a huge part of the user base that isn't covered directly.

That lack of coverage, to me, is a problem. We can try to go into the details as the OP did to try to explain our stance on this subject, but that doesn't change the facts. W1zz does his reviews in a specific way, and as such, if you do anything that isn't exactly "his way", the information offered by the benchmarks is actually rather meaningless, because it doesn't relate to your situation, it only relates to W1zz's. W1zz also tweaks his test system OS in ways that maybe most users do not. Maybe he sets his ram up differently... whatever... whatever the case may be, what is offered by his reviews is very specific. We can say that the time it takes to do the job as requested is too much or whatever else to defend w1zz's perspective here, and all those comments are valid, but it doesn't change the fact that what we get is what W1zz thinks we need to see, and nothing else.

I mean, sure, w1zz doesn't need to meet the needs of any individual... that's truly impossible. But that doesn't mean nobody should try... and it'd be nice that when different people try, they try to meet those needs in a different way, instead of the same thing you get from everyone else. It's not a matter of W1zz doing the wrong thing... yet at the same time, is exactly that. We can make excuses for how PC parts are tested and reviewed, but in the end, those excuses will still remain excuses, justified or not.

I'm not saying I think W1zz does a poor job or needs to change anything, but I do see how the entire industry of review stuff needs to change, and that's ultimately why I left it. It has nothing to do with W1zz or TPU.

Ive ran ultra settings with single and dual GTX780s. Ive ran ultra on a 660, the 750th in my other desktop. Ive ran all sorts of settings on all sorts of hardware. You can't exactly peg me for having a strong card now that you know this now.

Lately I've been running ultra settings on many games with a 1950X and a HD7970. I'm actually quite impressed at how well the 7970 holds up compared to my 1080s. The actual difference is quite shocking, to be honest, to see how the 7970 holds its own for me. BF:V @ 2560x1600 on a 7970? Yeah, I'm doing that.