Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Serf

About urk_alter

  • Rank
  1. I obviously cannot answer for the admins, but - for what it worths - I always found useful such your work: so I hope you'll find some motivation to keep it up to date, regardless of all. With best wishes.
  2. It would look like wrong: 130W? The relevant URL can't help as the bar graph shows 200W and 400W. How about now? Freshly uploaded. They all seem ok to me.Yes, now I can load them properly. Which chart are you referring to? The one sorted by idle power?No it was the one sort by peak 3D power.
  3. Now I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with that chart: just for example, look at the 300W level, around the Intel Larrabee row, there are also the OEM Nvidia GT3XXs, which is undoubtedly not possible (just again for example, pick the GT340 1GB: it should have a FurMark value of about 75W, at least according to the relevant URL1). So, if I'm not wrong, could you kindly fix the current graphs? They are an invaluable reference for any conscious gamer/folder/builder/enthusiast. Thanks a lot in advance.
  4. Hi Mark84, I'd rather to send you a message, but actually I cannot do so, and I have to rely on a public post for my questions. It would look like that right now (2012-05-11, 15:38 CET+1, probably around 11:38 pm in AUS) most of the current chart-images (png) are either corrupted or bring in some errors: eventually I cannot load anything but the standard, peak 3D ordered chart. Moreover this last chart would look like also not properly sorted, so I'm not able to understand whether or not it's reliable. Can you kindly give me some explanation/reassurance about? Regards.
  5. We'll wait: the official launch of the reference Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti (GF116) is scheduled in three weeks' time.
  6. I hope you may update soon with these newer cards in the wild (mostly GTX 560Ti), and thanks for your efforts!
  7. Hi mark. Please pay attention to that code: as an example, every GTS250 512MB's URLs point actually to Radeon HD4770's reviews, while every URL is build up as "http://http://..." so that no URL are currently directly reachable. Hope this helps, kind regards, Urk
  8. Just my 2c... ...I guess currently I prefer the old ASCII bars: I mean they are more easily readable, even if they don't give a us "the big picture", and surely they help me a lot more to perform one-to-one brief comparisons (at least within the same category). About the links to the information sources, may I suggest to publish both the versions (the ASCII one with those explicit sources, along with the newer fancy one)? I dunno if it's an easy fix, but if in case I will appreciate your effort very much! Regards, Urk
  9. Hi mark84, first of all, thanks a lot for your effort! Then, what about this article? http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=4810 Regards, Urk