Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 352 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s October 18 - 05:53am EDT 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Videocards /
 

  Videocard Ranking Website Compare: Passmark v Tomshardware 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
john albrich Jun 12, 2011, 12:18pm EDT Report Abuse

I'm trying to do something a bit different and add a little value here, by instead of simply saying "look at this website or that website for video card comparisons", looking at two different websites and comparing their performance data in a high feature and performance demand scenario.

I know my study is WAY overkill, but I was bored...but I was also interested in this.
It was triggered by a post from Meats_of_Evil started in this thread at" http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/77569/?o=20#592302

I started this thread so as to not hijack angryhippy's thread.

IMO, my study tends to confirm that test protocols are absolutely critical in assessing a card's relative performance and can result in massive differences in "which card is better" conclusions. You can't just take an arbitrary comparison benchmark, even from a "quality" website, and assume you will get information that applies to your planned usage. With the cost of some of these cards, that can be really important to know.

I decided to look at the tomshardware rankings MOE brought up but specifically for a gaming scenario with high quality settings since that would probably be of more interest to HWAers where we're looking at using the more expensive video cards.

I was surprised that when limited to this specific gaming scenario data, the tomshardware RELATIVE RANKING results compared very nicely with the Passmark overall card rankings with almost no meaningful anomolies.

For a more fair comparison, I TRIED to exclude over-clocked cards data from the list. Not sure I got them all. I also tried to exclude unusually low-ranked and isolated cards as being likely "budget" versions of the typical implementation of a given card. For example, if there are 3 GTX 550Ti cards ranked considerably higher than a lone GTX 550Ti, I used a value from the higher-ranked cards to establish the comparison ranking point for that card (as long as they weren't overclocked/turbocharged/etc). If one had access to the details of the specific card, one might find the card had less or slower memory and/or was clocked lower than the "standard" card model to reduce costs.

With just a few anomolies, almost all the cards appear to pretty much hold consistently cross-ranked positions between Passmark and tomshardware, or any difference in the raw performance was so close it could be easily considered noise introduced by the test protocols.

Note that on tomshardware, the HD6990 performance (82) is almost TWICE the performance (47) of the GTX 580 AND TWICE the performance (45) of the HD6970. This relative performance is consistent with a couple other sites I examined in which high game quality settings were involved (e.g. 2560x1600, 4X-AA, 16X-AF). However, Passmark rates the HD6990 "overall" performance as lower than the GTX 570. I conclude from this that the HD6990 and its drivers are extremely well optimized for high-quality game playing.

Note: raw performance values and rankings can change as data are updated on the respective websites.

To help show the consistency (or any lack thereof) between Passmark and tomshardware ratings (for their specific test scenarios) I created a baseline performance comparison by calculating the percentage performance of each card self-relative to the GTX 580. The closer the percentages match between tomshardware and Passmark for a given card, the more consistent the results. If the percentages differ significantly, it suggests there is an unknown difference in card specification or the test protocol introduced an anomoloy. But keep in mind that what I am MOST interested in is whether the relative RANKING of the cards is consistent between Passmark and tomshardware.


Passmark raw performance ratings are in xxxx format, while tomshardware are xx.xx format.
(Data from 20110611 or 20110612)
tomshardware metrics were for THIS SPECIFIC scenario. Note: tomshardware didn't provide a rank number.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011-gaming-graphics-charts...,2668.html
Aliens vs. Predator - Enthusiast
Maximum Settings (1920x1080, 4xMSAA, 16xAF, SSAO)


Raw.Rank.Card ID
3867 01 GeForce GTX 580 (100% of Passmark GTX 580).
47.00 * Geforce GTX 580 1,53 GB GDDR5 (100% of tomshardware GTX 580)

3549 02 GeForce GTX 570 (92% of GTX 580)
41.00 * Geforce GTX 570 (87% of GTX 580)

3236 06 Radeon HD 6990 (83% of GTX 580)
81.80 * Radeon HD 6990 4GB (174% of GTX 580)

3132 07 Radeon HD 6970 (81% of GTX 580)
42.50 * Radeon HD 6970 2GB (90% of GTX 570)
(Note: the tomshardware being 90% v. 81% is probably due to tomshardware card having the 2GB RAM config)

3108 08 Radeon HD 6950 (80% of GTX 580)
37.90 * Radeon HD 6950 1GB (81% of GTX 580)

2955 10 GeForce GTX 560Ti (76% of GTX 580)
32.70 * Geforce GTX 560 Ti (70% of GTX 580)

2843 12 Radeon HD 6850 (74% of GTX 580)
27.60 * Radeon HD 6850 1GB (59% of GTX 580)

2664 17 GeForce GTX 560 (69% of GTX 580)
31.70 * Geforce GTX 560 1GB GDDR5 (67% of GTX 580)

2501 22 GeForce GTX 465 (65% of GTX 580)
no entry, tomshardware (n/a)

2497 23 Radeon HD 5850 (65% of GTX 580)
27.60 * Radeon HD 5850 1 GB (59% of GTX 580)

2353 25 GeForce GTX 460 (61% of GTX 580)
24.90 * Geforce GTX 460 1GB (53% of GTX 580)
21.90 * Geforce GTX 460 768 MB (47% of GTX 580) (included to show difference likely due to RAM config)

no entry, Passmark
23.50 * Radeon HD 6790 1GB GDDR5 (50% of GTX 580)

1864 40 GeForce GTX 550Ti (48% of GTX 580)
22.30 * Geforce GTX 550 Ti (47% of GTX 580)

1658 48 Radeon HD 5770 (43% of GTX 580)
19.80 * Radeon HD 5770 1GB (42% of GTX 580)

1442 56 GeForce GTS 450 (37% of GTX 580)
17.10 * Geforce 450 GTS 1 GB GDDR5 (36% of GTX 580)


Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
jen mendoza Jun 15, 2011, 08:47am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Videocard Ranking Website Compare: Passmark v Tomshardware
if you really want to see a real video card ranking from nvidia to ati cards then I suggest you go to this site..



precise ranking..



http://www.istorya.net/forums/computer-hardware/236728-graphic...daily.html

john albrich Jun 15, 2011, 02:00pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Videocard Ranking Website Compare: Passmark v Tomshardware

jen mendoza said:
if you really want to see a real video card ranking from nvidia to ati cards then I suggest you go to this site..
precise ranking


jen,

That's really not what I had in mind when creating and providing this thread.

All I see is you pointing (without adding any value) to just yet one more among dozens of websites that CLAIM to rank "graphic card performance".

Finding a video card ranking website isn't a problem. Determining if the rankings make sense...if there's any consistency...or major inconsistency...IS a problem.

I admit I didn't spend a lot of time on the thread you pointed to, but here's what seems to be the case...

re: "precise ranking"
1) I'd hardly call the istorya.net webpage a "precise" ranking as there's no way to compare them on a quantitative basis. (e.g. card-A is 30% faster than card-B in a given scenario)
In addition, as far as I can tell, there is no indication of the test methodologies used, and any source website references point you to the global domain name, and not a specific webpage so you can examine the data in detail. For all one could tell, all the author did was look at a given clock speed and rank the cards based on that. If I'm going to be plunking down $150+ for a video card, I want more information on HOW they tested it...not just a position in a list.

re: data value
2) If you want to add value, you COMPARE how different websites rate the cards to see if there is some consistency or if people need to do more research before they blindly accept the "precise ranking" of a given website.

That way, you can help weed-out those websites that provide CRAP ranking information...and were possibly created by marketing people with specific sales agenda.

For example, you would have taken the relative ranking positions of the cards on that website, and COMPARED THEM to the relative ranking positions of the two websites that I identified (or other independent website), and POINT OUT any significant differences For example, I haven't checked all the relative rankings, but for the GTX550Ti at least, your list is consistent with both tomshardware and Passmark lists. ALL THREE lists show that GTX460 > GTX550Ti. > HD5770.

But only tomshardware and Passmark show you how MUCH better the GTX460 is than the GTX550Ti and the HD5770. Also, only my comparison of the websites shows that Passmark rates the HD6850 > GTX560 but tomshardware rates GTX560 > HD6850. A ranking "glitch" that tells any potential buyer there is more research needed before making a purchase of a HD6850.

Additional example of value-add:
2843 12 Radeon HD 6850 (74% of GTX 580)
27.60 * Radeon HD 6850 1GB (59% of GTX 580)
provides value-add by showing the tomswardware and Passmark websites rate these cards in the same relative positions among the other cards, BUT that relative to the GTX580 (within eqch site) the relative performance is drastically different in a given scenario. That also suggests more research into finding out WHY there is such a major difference in assessed performance would be prudent before spending a lot of money.


edit:
fix format error

Michael C Jun 15, 2011, 02:06pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Videocard Ranking Website Compare: Passmark v Tomshardware
Yeah Jen, pretty damn sure I made up that list when I was like 13.



 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.