The article is here, the Guru3D example is on page 2 (can't post links yet, you'll have to fix it, or just google "Rzecz o miejscach testowych w grach na przykladzie Far Cry 3"): pclab(.)pl/art58059(.)html Long story short, they're saying that while benchmarking in games, the test should provide repeatable, consistent results and the parts of the game chosen for testing should be representative of the game and demanding for hardware. The bad example is Guru3D's Battlefield 3 test, where Radeon R9 280X and HD 7970 GHz, two versions of the same GPU, basically, got different results (46 and 42 fps, respectively). The reason for that is probably the test procedure, shown on the youtube video (sorry again, can't post links, here's the string): cedwBQpgooE It is too random, the player is inconsistently looking about and shooting. It may be representative of the game, but it's no good for reliable benchmarking. The conclusion is that credibility of tests on other websites (including Guru3D) included is questionable. Then, on the following pages, they explain how they do it. What do you make of it? Are they nitpicking or is there something to it?