Calculating Value: Performance per Dollar

Have you ever wondered what you get for your money? Well, I suppose that's a silly question, as anyone reading this page could guess. There are a couple of ways to present this data, and we wanted something simple to understand. It is important to remember that the way we've presented this information, absolute performance is not accounted for at all: the only metric we are looking at on this page is how much you get for the money you spend. Keep in mind that a good deal on 25 frames per second might not be what you are after: absolute performance is important too and we'll be looking at that in the next section. In general, more expensive solutions perform higher, so even if there is lower "value" the performance increase could be worth it to some buyers.

We will be using these prices for this calculation.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 SLI700
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 SLI630
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 SLI400
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI290
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295500
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285350
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280315
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 core 216225
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260200
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2300
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+145
ATI Radeon HD 4850 X2290
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB CrossFire350
ATI Radeon HD 4850 CrossFire290
ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2440
ATI Radeon HD 4870 1GB220
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB175
ATI Radeon HD 4850145

These prices were gathered from newegg.com and google and do NOT include mail-in rebates.

Our method here is to look at the performance you get for every hundred dollars spent. Specifically this answers the question: how many fps do you get in a specific game for every hundred bucks you spend on a particular graphics card. To calculate this data, we divided our performance data in average framerate by the cost of the card and then multiplied the result by 100. This isn't really a number that means something tangible: it's more just a metric that helps us relate the value of cards within a specific test. You can't compare any of these numbers between games, or even between resolutions, except in terms of relative order -- you need to look at one test and one resolution at a time.

To help out, if all the cards in a test had a score of "10", that would mean for every hundred dollars you spend you get 10 frames per second of performance in our test. Of course, though our value chart shows all the cards on equal footing, more expensive cards will have proportionally higher performance: if you wanted 30 frames per second in that specific benchmark you would need to spend at least $300.

So this isn't the bottom line in what to buy. These benchmarks are an indication of relative value outside absolute performance. Absolute performance is also a value metric: higher performance is more valuable and may be disproportionally more valuable if it crosses a playability threshold. These graphs will help show how much of a premium or a deal you are paying or getting on your absolute performance relative to other parts.

In general, multiGPU solutions will show less "value" than single GPU counterparts because we see less than linear scaling. If a two card solution costs twice as much while performance scales at less than 2x, we'll see a lower "value" result. The single card multiGPU options have a better chance at improving value than two card solutions, as they can sometimes be found for less than twice the cost of their nearest single card single GPU derivative.

Who Scales: How Much? The Test
Comments Locked

95 Comments

View All Comments

  • DerekWilson - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    It really is a great looking game for an MMO. It's not the most played MMO around, but it is definitely the easiest to test. There is an area near the beginning where the player is alone in the environment and it's always the same time of day and all that stuff ... It takes out some of the factors that make getting consistent data out of other MMOs incredibly difficult.

    I've never had any real "issues" with it or with the results either. It's been very consistent as well. It does add value, and it's clear that games can be coded in a way that looks really good and perform like this one, so we feel it's important to getting a better feeling for what's out there and what's possible.
  • IKeelU - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    Not really a big deal, but could you cut out the offhand game review comments when introducing benchmarks? I.e.: "Crysis Warhead, while not the best game around..." It feels out of place in a hardware analysis.
  • SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link

    And Derek disses Far Cry 2 and Oblivioin where nvidia slaughters ati - then derek praises Bioshock where ati has an edge.
    Derek CAN'T HELP HIMSELF.
  • SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link

    Oh yes, and below don't forget the age of conan that favors the ati card - Derek can't stop drooling all over the place.
    Then come to COD, where nvidia once again slaughters - red blood everywhere - Derek says "do we really need another war game~" or the like.
    Derek is red fan central and cannot stop himself.
  • The0ne - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    This game is poorly programmed in the first place, does it deserve to even be included in the benchmark tests? Yes, it has the programming necessary to for the test but they're poorly programmed.
  • IKeelU - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    The fact that CryEngine 2 is taxing on today's hardware (and that Crytek will no doubt use derivatives of it in future games), makes it very useful in benchmarks. I hope reviewers keep using it. But by all means, feel free to disassemble Crytek's binaries and point out their code's weaknesses.

    Yeah, I thought not.
  • poohbear - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link

    what do u mean they shouldnt include crysis warhead??? its the seminal game to see how graphics performance is to get an idea of how a particular video card will perfrom in the future. Cryengine2 is the most advanced graphics engine on the market. If a video card can provide 30 fps on a cryengine @ your resolution, then its good to last u for atleast 2 years.
  • Razorbladehaze - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link

    Yeah.... NO.

    I totally disagree with it being the most advanced. It is a decent game engine especially for benchmarking, but....

    In all reality the STALKER Clear Sky revamped xray engine is far and away more advanced and superior in almost every way. It is about the same or better in regards to taxing the system (low frame rates does not necessarily translate to the game is taxing the system.). Being that these are also used in similar FPS titles they would make a interesting comparrison.

    I would really like to see Anand include or swap a clear sky bench (there is a premade one available), for the Crysis or Crysis warhead. Either way no big deal many other sites post results with a CS bench that view all the time.

  • DerekWilson - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    i'll take care of it.
  • Stillglade - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    I would love to see more info about the 4850 X2 1GB version. For over $50 cheaper, is the 1GB memory enough to compete? Is it worth paying 24% more for the 2GB version that you reviewed here?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now