🚀 go-pugleaf

SilverBack wrote:
> You just don't get it do you?
> If I get 42 fps at 1600x1200 and 50 at 640x480
> then the benchmark is null and void because at 640x480 the ceiling is
> capped!

No, SilverBack, *you* just don't get it. The Phobia demo is a valid
benchmark. Remember, we're not testing one aspect of the hardware/software;
rather, we're testing all of them. CPU, video card, drivers, game engine,
etc. Every benchmark has a different purpose, which is why as consumers we
need to focus on those benchmarks which apply to us personally. Frankly, I
don't care how my computer performs as a server, because it doesn't function
as one! Likewise, I don't pay any attention to benchmarks consisting of
tasks which I don't do, like using a database. But I do care about my
computer's performance in UT. Hence, I use the Phobia demo. Logical, eh?

The results you listed are perfectly normal, and at 640x480 indicate
limitations of the game engine, drivers, and even the CPU.
"<Gasp>, limited with my expensive new Athlon 750?!"
Yes. Welcome to the real world. :-)

And about your initial comment: you simply reveal your ignorance when you
say:
> It's also well known that the UT benchmarks are bogus.

If you mean, "UT benchmarks cannot be used to test just one component", or
"UT benchmarks only tell about peformance in UT", then yes, you're correct.
And that's true of *any* benchmark.

In fact, as an educator, I can tell you that's true of most standardized
tests, too! One's score on the ACT only tells us how good that student was
at taking the ACT. And only his/her ACT test-taking ability on that one day.
We can still draw conclusions based on such scores, as long as we remember
the limitations of such a test.

Bold