There are already so many game sites. there is only 1 benchmark that comes close to gpgpu in terms of power usage, that's furmark. 3dmark is really a joke there.

Vincent

Kevin G (kevin@cubitdesigns.com) on 4/16/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>MS (ms@lostcircuits.com) on 4/15/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>
>>I personally prefer [H] for graphics card performance, Brent is very good at what he does.
>
>I enjoy HardOCP's content for graphics cards but their testing methodology is the
>exact opposite of what you'd base this type of analysis on. Their real world based
>game play analysis introduces a variance that could skew results. Stuff like 3DMark
>can produce reliably repeatable results. Secondly the bulk of their analysis stems
>from the maximum image quality they can attain in a test while maintaining playable
>frame rates. From a gamer's perspective this works out rather well trying to pick
>between two cards, especially when frame rates are often similar at the same settings.
>They do offer some apples-to-apples comparison but that isn't what they base their
>conclusions on. Thirdly, I don't believe that the data offered by HardOCP isn't
>extensive enough to do the kind of analysis David here is attempting.