Guessing someone doesn't know numbers.
6/10 is average, 7/10 is good/positive. It's like movie ratings which taste is subjective, so score doesn't always mean everything either.
Yeah i noticed some inconsistencies too.
I think some of the results for 4K are rather low in the minimum range, so kinda glad i went 1440p 165hz instead of 4K.. i think the true high end 4K cards will be in another 1-2 years that can handle games without much dips, then it will be worth getting a high hz 4K screen.
Same, several months ago went 1440p figuring the frames/HDR/response won't be in 4k gaming for 2-3 years.
Well you would have to be dumb to buy a Titan X when you can get the similarly performing 980Ti. That performs better in practically all DX11 games than Fury X. In DX12 Fury X and 980Ti are shown to be even, just that the AMD cards got a boost and caught up to Nvidia.
Yeah buy a 300 dollar old 290x and get the same performance, stop nvidia mega profits. It's retarding gaming.
I went with a haswell-e when I upgraded recently (actually just a couple of days before skylake came out) the fact remains those extra cores mean very little in gaming at the moment, the higher clock speeds and better architecture will win out in gaming for the time being while games are mainly aimed at dual core with the odd exception taking up 4 cores, if games start to support more than 4 cores then the haswell-e will pull back in front, but ultimately for the time being other than extra grunt with multiple GPU setups they don't offer much advantage over the skylake chips unless you are running other programs that can utilise all the cores and threads, but even so finding something that can use 12 threads out side of professional tools will be a stretch.
as for quad channel RAM in performance tests it's not actually far ahead of DDR3, it will likely play out in future when the price comes down but for now it seems like nothing more than a gimmick.
it's the same with the extra M2 support it has.