Onscreen Frame Times w/FCAT
When capturing output frames in real-time, there are a number of eccentricities which wouldn’t normally be picked up by FRAPS but are nonetheless important to take into account. For example, some graphics solutions can either partially display a frame or drop it altogether. While both situations may sound horrible, these so-called “runts” and dropped frames will be completely invisible to someone sitting in front of a monitor. However, since these are counted by its software as full frames, FRAPS tends to factor them into the equation nonetheless, potentially giving results that don’t reflect what’s actually being displayed.
With certain frame types being non-threatening to the overall gaming experience, we’re presented with a simple question: should the fine-grain details of these invisible runts and dropped frames be displayed outright or should we show a more realistic representation of what you’ll see on the screen? Since Hardware Canucks is striving to evaluate cards based upon and end-user experience rather than from a purely scientific standpoint, we decided on the latter of these two methods.
With this in mind, we’ve used the FCAT tools to add the timing of partially rendered frames to the latency of successive frames. Dropped frames meanwhile are ignored as their value is zero. This provides a more realistic snapshot of visible fluidity.
Here and on other sites, there has been a monumental amount of discussion about AMD’s frame timing issues when using Crossfire. As we can see, the problems haven’t cascaded down into single card configurations as in most cases the HD 7970 GHz easily matches the fluidity of NVIDIA’s GTX 780. As usual, AMD’s problems in Far Cry 3 persist with extremely distracting intermittent stutters but that was its only real misstep.
The 780 does hold an advantage in some situations but from an overall fluidity perspective, there really isn’t that much to distinguish one card from another.
Onscreen Frame Times w/FCAT
When capturing output frames in real-time, there are a number of eccentricities which wouldn’t normally be picked up by FRAPS but are nonetheless important to take into account. For example, some graphics solutions can either partially display a frame or drop it altogether. While both situations may sound horrible, these so-called “runts” and dropped frames will be completely invisible to someone sitting in front of a monitor. However, since these are counted by its software as full frames, FRAPS tends to factor them into the equation nonetheless, potentially giving results that don’t reflect what’s actually being displayed.
With certain frame types being non-threatening to the overall gaming experience, we’re presented with a simple question: should the fine-grain details of these invisible runts and dropped frames be displayed outright or should we show a more realistic representation of what you’ll see on the screen? Since Hardware Canucks is striving to evaluate cards based upon and end-user experience rather than from a purely scientific standpoint, we decided on the latter of these two methods.
With this in mind, we’ve used the FCAT tools to add the timing of partially rendered frames to the latency of successive frames. Dropped frames meanwhile are ignored as their value is zero. This provides a more realistic snapshot of visible fluidity.




Here and on other sites, there has been a monumental amount of discussion about AMD’s frame timing issues when using Crossfire. As we can see, the problems haven’t cascaded down into single card configurations as in most cases the HD 7970 GHz easily matches the fluidity of NVIDIA’s GTX 780. As usual, AMD’s problems in Far Cry 3 persist with extremely distracting intermittent stutters but that was its only real misstep.
The 780 does hold an advantage in some situations but from an overall fluidity perspective, there really isn’t that much to distinguish one card from another.
Last edited: