In keeping with our desire to refresh our GPU test suite periodically, we’re going to be redoing our GPU test suite to rotate in some more modern games, along with rotating in some DirectX11 games capable of taking advantage of this generation of GPU’s full capabilities. And while we already have a pretty solid idea of what we’re going to run, we wanted to throw out this question anyhow and see what responses we get.

What games would you like to see in our next GPU test suite, and why?

What we’d like to see is whether our choices line up with what our readers would like to see. We can’t promise that we’ll act on any specific responses, but we have our eyes and ears open to well-reasoned suggestions. So let us know what you think by commenting below.

POST A COMMENT

240 Comments

View All Comments

  • Hardin - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link

    I'd like to see a lot of modern dx 11 games. Like Call of Pripyat, Bad Company 2, Metro 2033, Aliens vs Predator and Battleforge. I know most of those are first person shooters, but they are usually the most graphically intensive. Reply
  • Hardin - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link

    Oops I forgot to mention Dirt 2 sorry folks. Reply
  • doittoit - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link

    I'd like to see video encoding benchmarks via CUDA/Stream, ideally baselined against a particular CPU. Also, you could use some portion of SETI@home as well (they have CUDA support). Reply
  • bnajbert - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link

    Stop testing with rediculous processors that no one can afford. I understand that you don't want the CPU to become a bottle neck but honestly I don't need to read reviews about a processor being used in a video card review that no one in their right mind can afford.

    Just my $.02
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link

    I'm fine with using very fast CPUs for these tests. I want to know what the GPU is capable of. And I don't care how much the CPU used for testing costs - this amount of power could be easily accessible via OC or could be affordable in 1 or 2 years. And there's no point in seeing all GPUs being capped at the same fps due to a CPU limit - other than "get a faster CPU". Showing CPU-limits belongs into CPU reviews. Reply
  • CaptNKILL - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link

    Agreed.

    My Q9550 at 4Ghz is faster than any stock i7 (unless hyperthreading is fully utilized) and it only cost me $175. I don't think its unreasonable to show what a $500 graphics card is capable of when a top of the line CPU is used if a good CPU can be had for under $200 and overclocked beyond the speed of anything available at retail.
    Reply
  • SloppyG - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link

    If they also included:
    -tools to easily compare picture quality between cards at different AA/AF levels
    -tests that might identify SLI/Crossfire setups that experience micro-stutter (if that's even possible...)
    -Automatically show performance changes with CF/SLI OFF, enabled at different resolutions/AA levels.. While the end number presented to the user is pretty pointless, the difference between 2x AA and 32x CFAA might be interesting.

    Presenting a user with some largely irrelevant 5 digit number doesn't really benefit anyone.
    Reply
  • tynopik - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link

    I know Flight Simulator X is not the newest, but it's still top of its genre and quite demanding, especially at higher resolutions

    Also it gives some variety, testing the cards ability in other types of games.
    Reply
  • OnTheWeb - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link

    Software like PowerDirector v8 utilizes the GPU to perform HD video encoding via CUDA or ATI Stream. This GPU-assisted encoding can take a process of hours and reduce it to minutes.

    This is an important aspect of aggressively expanding web video now that YouTube and Vimeo have begun supporting HD and Full HD formats.
    Reply
  • Skiprudder - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link

    I've been pleased you've been including some World of Warcraft benchmarks in recent reviews, and I'd urge you to keep doing so for two reasons:

    1) It's just so popular, with something like 12 million current players worldwide, a hell of a lot of folks are playing it and want to know what sort of performance they can get in it when buying a new cpu/SSD/gpu.

    2) It places different demands upon a system than most games out there. WoW isn't particularly graphically demanding by modern standards, and although the graphics will improve with the Cataclysm expansion, I'm pretty sure they'll still be on the low end of things. However, because of the MMO nature of the program, and having to manage tons of other characters around you it places particular demands on the CPU, Memory, and SSD/HDD that other games do not. This is why I think it continues to deserve a place in future benchmarks.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now