JohnnyBigodes writes: Graphics card and CPU reviewers have a long history of relying on average-FPS and minimum-FPS numbers. While those measures are useful, they don't paint an exact picture, since that game hitches and inconsistent performance can be masked by them. Frame-time analysis started becoming commonplace a while ago, and reviewers are coming up with new ways to show where and how a given system feels smoother and faster than another one, despite showing the same average FPS. The folks at The Tech Report are improving on frame-time methods with histogram graphs for frame rates, and the results are interesting. Check'em out.
JohnnyBigodes writes: "PC gaming still has a few warts, and lack the ease-of-use of consoles, first and foremost when it comes to buying the hardware. And as they say, recognizing and admitting a problem is the first step in solving it. So here are some ideas for improving the platform, ranging from having revival of the 90s-era MPC specification, to better model numbering on behalf of manufacturers. What does the Slashdot crowd think?"
JohnnyBigodes writes: Just how much money should you spend on a graphics card? The latest models for under 100 bucks might surprise you with their potency, both in games and HD video playback. The Tech Report has lined up eight cards, ranging from $60 to $170, to see where the values are. Among the new highlights on this price range are the Radeon 4670, and the GeForce 9600 GSO and 9500GT. Spoiler: yes, nowadays you *can* get away with spending $100 on your graphics card and get really good performance out of it.
JohnnyBigodes writes: With the current age's increasing focus in low-power, good-enough-performance architectures, the Tech Report takes a good look at Intel's Atom and VIA's Nano architectures and test platforms (mobo+CPU), detailing their intents and purposes, making comparisons, and providing performance and power draw benchmarks along the way. The skinny? Low-power desktops are here to stay.