HEXUS.bang4buck
In a rough-and-ready assessment of the cards' bang per buck, we've aggregated the 1,920x1,200 frame-rates for the four games, normalised them* and taken account of the cards' prices.
But there are more provisos than we'd care to shake a stick at. We could have chosen four different games, the cards' prices could have been derived from other sources and pricing tends to fluctuate daily.
Consequently, the table and graph below highlight a metric that should only be used as a yardstick for evaluating comparative performance with price factored in. Other architectural benefits are not covered, obviously.
Graphics cards | PowerColor HD 4870 1GB PCS+ | Force3D HD 4870 512MB | PowerColor HD 4850 512MB | ZOTAC GTX 260 896MB | Leadtek 9800 GTX+ 512MB |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual aggregate marks at 1,920x1,200 | 280.84 |
258.09 | 203.94 |
247.85 | 200.77 |
Aggregate marks, normalised*, at 1,920x1,200 | 253.22 |
235.17 | 185.92 |
239.78 | 181.15 |
Current pricing, including VAT | £210 | £171.99 | £119.79 | £179.93 | £140.98 |
HEXUS.bang4buck score at 1,920x1,200 | 1.21 |
1.37 |
1.55 |
1.33 | 1.28 |
Acceptable frame rate (av. 60fps) at 1,920x1,200 | No (COH:OF) | No (COH:OF) | No (COH:OF, ET:QW, COD 4, GRID) | No (COH:OF, COD 4, GRID) | No (COH:OF, ET:QW, COD 4, GRID) |
* the normalisation refers to taking playable frame rate into account.
Should a card benchmark at over 60 frames per second in any one game,
the extra fps count as half. Similarly, should a card benchmark lower,
say at 40fps, we deduct half the difference from its average frame rate
and the desired 60fps, giving it a HEXUS.bang4buck score of 30 marks.
The minimum allowable frame rate is 20fps but that scores zero.
As an example, should a card score 120fps we treat it as 90fps as only
half the frame rate above 60fps is counted for the HEXUS.bang4buck -
this is the formula: (120-((120-60)/2)). Similarly, should it score
30fps, we count it as only 15fps: (30+((30-60)/2)).
The reasoning behind such calculation lies with playable frame rates.
Should card A score 110fps in a benchmark and card B 160, then card B
would otherwise receive an extra 50 marks in our HEXUS.bang4buck
assessment, even though both cards produce perfectly playable frame
rates and anything above 60fps is a bonus and not a necessity for most.
Similarly, without our adjustments, the aggregated HEXUS.bang4buck
total for two very different cards would be identical if, in a further
benchmark, card A scored a smooth 70fps and card B an unplayable 20fps.
Both would win marks totally 180, yet the games-playing experience
would be vastly different.
A more realistic (and useful) assessment would say that card A is
better because it ran smoothly in both games - and that view would be
accurately reflected in our adjusted aggregation, where card A would
receive 150 marks (85+65) and card B 100 (100+0).
In effect, we're including a desired average frame rate, in this case
60, and penalising lower performance while giving frame rates higher
than 60fps only half as much credit as those up to 60fps. If this
doesn't make sense or you have issue with it, please hit the HEXUS
community.
Here's the HEXUS.bang4buck graph at 1,920x1,200. The graph divides the normalised score by the price.
HEXUS.bang4buck - 1,920x1,200 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
HEXUS.bang4buck | ||||
PowerColor HD 4850 | PowerColor HD 4870 1GB PCS+ | Leadtek 9800 GTX+ | Force3D HD 4870 | ZOTAC GTX 260 |
1.55 | 1.21 | 1.28 | 1.37 | 1.33 |
PowerColor's HD 4870 1GB PCS+ suffers when compared to the cheaper, reference-based HD 4870. It is a situation where the performance gains over the reference design cannot make up for the additional outlay in cost.
Of course, the HEXUS.bang4buck doesn't take into consideration the uprated cooler or more-consistent performance at 2,560x1,600 - which may make PowerColor's offering a better choice than indicated above.