
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
To demonstrate that there is a difference. Given tr's change to latency-based benchmarks is still relatively recent, they're still playing with the best way to present the results. They've previously provided time-beyond graphs at 16.7ms, 33.3ms and 50ms, with some justification, but I imagine there's a lot of work goes into producing their reviews and I don't begrudge them picking charts that show differences. They're very transparent about it, pointing out where they've had to move to a lower threshold to show the difference between cards, and they could've decided just to go for a flat 16.7ms (~ 60fps). Instead, they use a sensible measure for the cards and games they're reviewing, altering it from game to game as necessary (e.g. in the linked review, MoH:Warfighter uses 16.7ms threshold).