Game-debate

Anyone know how accurate game-debate.com is? The site lets you plug in your cpu specs and says how well any game will perform on your system. You can also compare your rig to other peoples and see the differences in percentages.
But what has me baffled is that it rates the 6990M a 10/10 while rating the 580M an 8/10.

 

Probably just angry fanboys or something.
I would have rated a GTX 580m at least 9 out of 10, and the con would be that its still rather pricey.

 

Automatic "rate my system" tools are NEVER reliable and you should never trust them to give you any sort of accurate expectation.

 

^ I agree. There are always issues with detecting the right components, plus the reference is always the minimum or recommended settings, which are hardly trustable.

 

It would be cool if there were some higher level database that didn't rely on the game specifications, but rather user reports.

It might only work with some games and built in benchmarks. Self reporting obviously wouldn't work, since the average user (and even the average user on this forum) has no concept of how to report performance properly.

 

I always thought there should be a way to come up with a scoring system where the game dev or publisher would state a minimum score for compatibility instead of stating specs. Maybe two scores, one for CPU and one for GPU. That way you look at the box and says minimum CPU - 3 GPU - 5. And then of course state minimum required RAM, storage space, and internet connection.

or something like that. Then each component would be given a score and you could even buy components based on those scores.

 

it would just require a lot of coordination and some sort of unbiased scoring system

 

Any rating system can never be fully accurate.

Some games prefer one gpu to another between the brands.

A game that sucks today is awesome tomorrow because of a new driver update.

A game that sucks today is better tomorrow due to a game update.

This person overclocks, that person has 24GB of RAM, this person plays with AA on, that person plays with AA off, santa clause uses a 4:3 monitor, while the easter bunny uses 16:10 and the vikings all use eyefinity.

Too many variables and many of them not constants to ever get accurate data, let along the fact that you would need to test every game at the same settings in the same manner just to even begin collecting good data and its not gonna happen.

 

right. there are a lot of variables (but not actually that many) - and they would need to be tested and maintained. it would be a big project, even for a small number of games

 

someone who has particularly a lot of time in their hands, imo 3dmark is better.

 

I think Microsoft wanted the WEI score to serve that purpose but it never caught on with software or hardware developers.

 

The WEI score is totally useless. But it would be nice if someone came up with something that actually worked.

 

There are a lot of variables in pc specs that was stated above
HOWEVEr there might be rather small difference between lowest and medium, between medium and ultra settings etc. I watched that skyrim video lowest vs ultra — gotto say its rather hard to note if you dont zoom on textures and dont use 30 inch monitors.

All in all when thinking about how good a laptop is i would like to see if its able to run this or that game on 40-50fps with medium settings. This sort of fps can guarantee that i will never drop below 30 which is sufficient and then you know that you can play with settings a bit.

 

They do take in count user feedback. They have a ratings page where users report their settings and FPS using FRAPS. I know this because I am a regular user there. I have used their can i run tool myself with my laptop specs and it has worked well so far.