No announcement yet.

SSD Reviews, benchmark standards and better graphs

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SSD Reviews, benchmark standards and better graphs

    Really enjoy reading Kitguru reviews, but I think there's some room for improvement.

    Firstly, with SSD's, can you include load times for games/game engines e.g. Frostbite, GTA V? Since SATA III, running certain games on an SSD will significantly improve load times; we're talking reductions of 50 - 90% in load times. Personally, as an enthusiast PC gamer, I don't care so much about an SSDs ability to transfer big files, as much as I do about shaving time off of loading a game.

    Also with GPU reviews, could you try to standardise the benchmarks used? It's useful to be able to compare GPU's from yesteryear to today. While it's good to know which 3rd party GTX 1080 is more powerful, ultimately most people will be wanting to know how much more powerful than their existing GPU it is e.g. a 980 to a 1080, or even a 780 to a 1070. However, useful in-game comparisons can only be done if the same benchmarks (and settings) are run e.g. GTA V benchmark. I know for the most case this is true, but if it can be kept up for ~2/3 years, that should cover most gamers upgrade cycle. As a side point, where benchmarks aren't possible, it would be nice if the chosen games were done selected on by the game engine e.g. Frostbite, Unreal, Cryengine etc. That way, if a GPU performs well in one game, it should be inferable that the GPU should perform well in games made with the same engine, without having to do actual benchmarking.

    Finally, is there any chance of making the graphs and results for benchmarks smart? Something like chart.js would make them a lot nicer, but the best feature would be if a reader could create their own graphs by choosing components and comparing them directly.