Do you understand this graph?

[AltecV1]

i dont like it ,it is too complicated

 

[DrPepper]

Works for me.

 

[El_Mayo]

On second thought (look)
I DO get it
I just don't like it

 

[EastCoasthandle]

It's easy to understand the graph (x,y, etc) but it's very hard to see the plots on the graph itself.

 

[erocker]

It's easy to understand the graph (x,y, etc) but it's very hard to see the plots on the graph itself.

I agree. Perhaps if the graph was simplified a bit so it used rectangles (bars) for each memclock and gpu clock configs.

Or perhaps being able to hover the mouse pointer over it, have a key somewhere, or a popup window next to the mouse cursor on the graph that reads mem. clock, gpu clock and fps. reading the spot of the mouse pointer.

 

[Phxprovost]

graph looks great, i vote for using it

 

[afw]

and where do you put the fps result on your x-y plot?

Something like this ...

EDIT: In addition you can include the % of increase along with FPS in the same cell

 

[_JP_]

You have my approval!
It's easy to read and it's a really better way to insert the data.
Uhm...I just don't like the looks very much, but that can be easily altered...

 

[20mmrain]

I understand.... and it is visually stimulating. But it is not a first glance graph. For example.... if you need information in a hurry ..... it would not be the first graph I would look towards.

But if a person wants more detailed information.... it would be a great graph.

But for a review... IMO I might look for something else.

 

[Wyverex]

Understand it. Don't really like it. No ideas (at the moment) on how to make it better. I do however like afw's chart
Also, if my guess is correct, this would be for one game only? If so, it doesn't really give a really good representation of what OCing does for the card, imho.

But, even as it is (now), it would be a welcome addition to reviews.

 

[Black Panther]

I find it OK.
People want detailed info in a review, and for me that chart just fits.

 

[Maban]

The 3D graph is easy enough to read but I like afw's way better.

 

[Millennium]

I like the graph Wizzard. Just not sure about all the work it means doing with benches etc. But that's up to you of course

 

[Graogrim]

I like how it shows the not-quite-linear relationship between core and memory clocks as they relate to final performance. I wish that the geometry of the graph could be illuminated to enhance the 3D effect--it would really bring the local maximums into focus.

 

[a_ump]

i understand it, but i didn't care for it, but then i saw someone's post about being able to see where the bottlenecks are, n then i saw the brilliance of this graph at least imo. I too agree for average joe might take a minute to understand it. However as also stated, if someone is bothering to look at the oc'ing section and graph they'll either be able to understand it or want to.

I support it

EDIT: shoulda made a pole w1z

 

[Mussels]

seems too complicated for the majority of people who will read the review.


then again, altering the looks may make it much easier to comprehend.

 

[Beertintedgoggles]

Very easy to understand and very useful info.... and prob. very tedious to create. If this format doesn't work well with everyone then I also agree that afw's 2D checkerboard layout would also work fine. I'd just include the color scale with the fps or performance % by coloring the whole square if you ditch the 3D for the 2D route.

 

[Steevo]

Yes I like it, for me physical/visual representation is the fastest way to find the "sweet spot" of data. and judging by your graph it supports my current theory that GPU/Mem speed is also dependent on trained timings, or just regular timings of the memory and the ability to deliver data as needed.


50Mhz more on memory is not better if the timings change to support it, and thus deliver data with a greater latency.

 

[majestic12]

I'd say to use afw's with the use of background colors to further emphasize the differences in performance.

 

[demonbrawn]

I really like the look of the graph, but it is quicker to digest in a 2D format, much like majestic12's above.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The 3D graph is good when you're trying to read it around the perimeter but it is near impossible to figure out anything, except the temp, in the center. It is difficult to figure out where it lands in terms of FPS. Ehm, there's no point of reference in the center.

 

[phanbuey]

No. Pretty but bad in terms of info.

The info of that graph should be able to answer "what FPS per MHZ of memory OC do you get?" or "how much more effective is OCing core vs Memory on this card?".

I think it fails in answering those things clearly.

 

[Marineborn]

iT Made me kinda dizzy and then i had to eat a sammich, i like the old graphs better

 

[Benetanegia]

I agree with ford, it's not very clear in the center. Maybe it would be easier to read if you use 3d bars IMO. Like this:

 

[phanbuey]

I agree with ford, it's not very clear in the center. Maybe it would be easier to read if you use 3d bars IMO. Like this:

http://www.sensorysims.com/images/demo3.gif

Thats still sort of the same thing... Still confusing in the middle since the tilt makes it difficult to judge elevation and the relationships between the bars, especially when two bars are on different rows and columns.