Posted July 13, 2014
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4816f/4816fc6607ac21d7930c8d58ba1af356facab48a" alt="avatar"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/28989/28989a8fda83c85108e358f72b5b9c26ff3df50c" alt="avatar"
What's worse the naming schemes for products don't do much to help a person out with determining that. AMD can be pretty bad with the GPUs as moving to a higher number chip might not increase performance at all as they have multiple lines of chips and the entry level isn't necessarily that much faster than the previous generation's top of the line.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5caf3/5caf3988ff7b8d4e877bb22499d95274fcbf91d0" alt="avatar"
To test it I inquired about a number of games I had running and known to be working well enough, and they pretty much all turned up as not runable. There may be some disparity between what companies say the minimum requirements for a game are, and what will work, but if the site isn't doing much more than comparing your stats to the official requirements, then I'm not sure it provides any real useful information to someone that knows what all those numbers mean.
Maybe that is the point. It's really just a rough guide for all of the people that don't know what computer stats translate into and can't do the comparison. Most people are probably in that group, so it's probably useful to them. I wish it was based on something a bit more real world that it feels like, but I'm probably a difficult to serve minority, and "runs"is pretty subjective even before you start talking to opinionated know it all's
Post edited July 13, 2014 by hedwards