Do you understand this graph?

[W1zzard]

I've been playing around a bit with ideas for future reviews and wondered if people are able to make sense out of the graph above. (not bad if you don't, just want to get an idea)

Yes? No? What could be done to make it easier?

 

[fundayjinx]

Sure do

Yeah it's not difficult to read at all And I kinda like the look anyway...
So I say keep it I like it...

 

[DRDNA]

Its kewl and I do understand the graph, but it is by no means as easy to understand as your normal graphs .
I say 3D your normal graphs instead.

 

[W1zzard]

Its kewl and I do understand the graph, but it is by no means as easy to understand as your normal graphs .
I say 3D your normal graphs instead.

normal graphs will stay, there will be only one graph like above and it goes into the overclocking section.

couldnt find an easier way to present the data

 

[DRDNA]

Well it does give a good amount of data that wouldn't be possible with the old style graphs.

 

[WhiteLotus]

I understand it, but that's not to say I like it. It just doesn't suit my eyes, I feel myself squinting when I look at it, could be the colours or just me.

Also, how is this graph produced? You increase both (memory and core) by 25 each time? Or do you do each one individually? If it's the latter I'm really not sure it's worth the effort, that's going to take a SHIT lot of time to do to each card.

 

[W1zzard]

tested clocks (basically all combinations of 650/900 to 840/1100 with steps of 20):
650/900, 650/920, 650/940, 650/960, 650/980, 650/1000, 650/1020, 650/1040, 650/1060, 650/1080, 650/1100, 670/900, 670/920, 670/940, 670/960, 670/980, 670/1000, 670/1020, 670/1040, 670/1060, 670/1080, 670/1100, 690/900, 690/920, 690/940, 690/900, 690/920, 690/940, 690/960, 690/980, 690/1000, 690/1020, 690/1040, 690/1060, 690/1080, 690/1100, 710/900, 710/920, 710/940, 710/960, 710/980, 710/1000, 710/1020, 710/1040, 710/1060, 710/1080, 710/1100, 730/900, 730/920, 730/940, 730/960, 730/980, 730/1000, 730/1020, 730/1040, 730/1060, 730/1080, 730/1100, 750/900, 750/920, 750/940, 750/960, 750/980, 750/1000, 750/1020, 750/1040, 750/1060, 750/1080, 750/1100, 770/900, 770/920, 770/940, 770/960, 770/980, 770/1000, 770/1020, 770/1040, 770/1060, 770/1080, 770/1100, 790/900, 790/920, 790/940, 790/960, 790/980, 790/1000, 790/1020, 790/1040, 790/1060, 790/1080, 790/1100, 800/900, 800/920, 800/940, 800/960, 800/980, 800/1000, 800/1020, 800/1040, 800/1060, 800/1080, 800/1100, 820/900, 820/920, 820/940, 820/960, 820/980, 820/1000, 820/1020, 820/1040, 820/1060, 820/1080, 820/1100, 840/900, 840/920, 840/940, 840/960, 840/980, 840/1000, 840/1020, 840/1040, 840/1060, 840/1080, 840/1100

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I can read it, but it sure didn't feel natural and took a few moments of analyzing it all to get the rules so to speak. I'd worry about the majority of people having an issue with it, but on the other hand the majority of people wouldn't need to understand it.

 

[kid41212003]

Look at the intersection of the grid (GPU clock vs mem clock) and then look at the color bar for info (estimate).

Conclusion: I don't like it. lol

 

[Batou1986]

I can read it fine, also anyone that particular about gpu scaling on oc should be able to read that as well.

 

[WhiteLotus]

and then bench after every time?

To do that with every card, and i'm assuming every card...? I'm certainly not questioning your quest to differentiate your reviews against others, but isn't this going a bit far... Do you REALLY want to be sitting there and doing that for days on end?

 

[W1zzard]

To do that with every card

just for the reviewed card. 1 graph per review

 

[razaron]

it's easy to understand and looks very usefull. will these be on every new videocard review?

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I think I'd have fudged the data and then asked the question about the graph, then do the work if you decided to use it... unless you were going to use it regardless at least for this review. How long did it take to get that data?

 

[WhiteLotus]

just for the reviewed card. 1 graph per review

hmmmmm

Your sanity!

 

[Frederik S]

I think it is great. I like the fact that you can see were the bottleneck is at different mem and core speeds.

 

[afw]

I too can read it ... but I feel its better to have a 2-D graph (x-axis --> Memory Clock, y-axis --> Core ) in addition to this 3-D graph ... .. just my 2c ...

 

[3volvedcombat]

normal graphs will stay, there will be only one graph like above and it goes into the overclocking section.

couldnt find an easier way to present the data

It Def Shows How much a Core Clock can affect frame rates over the memory clock.

And It slowly rising with the Memory and Core Clock Combined

Then the Key to the Side shows Color codes for FPS helps also.

Pretty Decent Graph

 

[El_Mayo]

Absolutely not

 

[claylomax]

No I don't. It looks "very scientific"

 

[W1zzard]

I too can read it ... but I feel its better to have a 2-D graph (x-axis --> Memory Clock, y-axis --> Core ) in addition to this 3-D graph ... .. just my 2c ...

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

 

[hat]

I can dig it. It would be nice if the grid lines stood out more though... kinda hard to trace as it is now.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

The lines on the colored plot that are white would stand out more being black lines on such light colors.

Of course making it flash so dragging your mouse over every point would have a measurement up to the side of your mouse reticle(if thats the proper word)for accuracy would add a nice interactive nature to it. I am pretty sure it would not come as an option for that software. Just throwing out an idea that would be nice and complicated.

 

[Sasqui]

Impressive. A lot to digest, but it only took a few moments to understand.

The only thoughts I have:

• The memory axis and GPU axis might be better if swapped.
  
• Also, the FPS axis might benefit from a % increase from stock instead of straight FPS. Gives a better order of magnitude.

Only way is to try it and get feedback.

 

[W1zzard]

good idea with the percentages