Jaydip, it is Excel...mate, the chart just doesnt show the graph below 80%, why, because we all know both data series are greater than 80%, why, because the Radeon data is used as the benchmark to compare to, it is the reference and the NV data is showing %# above that of the benchmark card. THis can be done as there is only 2 data series, reference and comparison!...The reason they start at 80%, is because if starting at 100%, you would have anything to visually compare!, the increments are 20% and show 4 values, which provide 3 equal areas.....there is 2 x anything, that is just ignorance people NOT reading the chart correctly....
The part of the graph you see, is the top of the chart, like someone just removed the bottom, thats it!, no trickery and phark me, but the muppets on AT are frothing over it!

are you serious?




in case ppl really dont understand whats going on.......Its sort of like a zoom. We zoom in to the most important part of the data to which you are comparing. We see in the above chart AMD do the exact thing. Whats the issue here? Its a very common charting practice. Why would anyone be interested in seeing the 0-80% anyway? nothing will change there at all, it would be a solid bar?

anyway grown ppl are acting like children. Its bizarre. do you really think there is something unusual in the way the charts are done? this is an efficient valid charting method that everyone uses. Its not a PR stunt at all. Its not a trick. the only way you could be deceived is if your not educated enough to read a chart while being completely illiterate.

why dont you post something like this over there:



and the other chart i posted. Its AMDs version on the same thing, way before this example of nvidia.

but its not even like nvidia/AMD are doing anything devious. Its a common way to chart data

Ocre, I know mate, its doing my head in!.....I cant seem to get them to realise its a zoom as you said and there is no trickery...LMAO...the last line you said
the only way you could be deceived is if your not educated enough to read a chart while being completely illiterate.
is so true....
Someone tried to refer me to some page that demostrates how the graph in made to confuse or something, but the bar chart they used was different in that it wasnt working %, and it was more then 2 data series, so it wasnt benchmark\reference v comparison....

I think Im actually getting a bit tired of posting there.....I might upset someone!

and we have more of course:






it is just the way you do things. If you dont the charts would look like this:



something unprofessional and child like. When you have a small variance its unprofessional to post in such a large scale. You want the data to be clear and easy to read. This above example is how you dont do a chart. the most important data is quantified with completely useless information.

Desperate FanATIcs will be desperate! They'll latch on to anything they can portray nvidia as being evil and deceitful with. This should come as no surprise. Like Ocre said, force a few of AMD/ATi's graphs down their throats.

They are afraid of losing their jobs.


There is nothing wrong with any of the graphs shown as examples in this thread. They b!tch *only* because it is Nvidia.

@Sol I understand the graph buddy but I just don't like this pr gimmick irrespective of the company
@Ocre Irrespective of brand it looks utterly silly to me.And when they continue to do this it seems to have a impact,shame on us really.

Greg, I'm not an AMD/ATI fanatic. So explain my complaints about this chart being used. It pisses me off that anyone uses the cutoff charts that start at 80% where a 25% improvement looks like 125%. It's deceptive bullsh*t is what it is. I don't give a crap if it's Nvidia, AMD, or any other company. This should NEVER be used. Just because it's commonly done doesn't mean it's OK. It's means companies are commonly deceptive.

I never said the graphs were or weren't deceptive actually, just commented on the reaction from certain people. I do happen to agree with you however about that form of graphing.