- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,535
The official [H]ard|OCP theme song by Logiene from many years ago.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That was awesome. but it doesn't explain the link you posted 0_0
and what of jenkins mctwentypacs like myself?
it doesn't take sobriety to comprehend a [H] review. just basic grade school english.
oh, right....
there is so much more information to be gathered from a concisely written paragraph accompanied with a graph than from a colorful graph which has a sentence below describing only the outcome of the graph.
i want to know why. [H] lets jerry streetweed know WHY... assuming they didn't cheat on their grade 6 book reports.
that was fantastic! haha
it would genuinely fit right in the middle of the album i'm workin on
Hate to say that's the same smell I go from the article.Who gives a shit? This is just another chance for [H] to polish their ego.
Yep, the site targets the technically minded. Does a fair job of it too, in my opinion. But no need to 'diss' on Joe. Joe's cool. He shouldn't be dismissed or disparaged just because people don't know how to speak his language!
Tim would be writing the article for three weeks if that was the case.
Real world testing falls far short of what can be provided by extensive direct comparison benchmarking -- period. I can see where real world testing could be beneficial, but that's only when doing a limited number of tests (more specifically, one given test per game). Personally, I prefer Anandtech's reviews (I only use this site for news anymore -- which you now seem to be just recycling over and over... ). Nothing beats their extensive reviews; which start with a several-page well-written editorial covering the new technology, and end with a dozen or so more pages of extensive benchmarking, with multiple tests per game and at several levels of AA or AF.
Fact is, if you guys want to hack together a quickie 2 page article to be the first ones to the press, real-world benchmarking is about the only way you could come out with a decent review. But if you want to take the time to create a truly insightful and informative article, your going to have to do a little more than one canned benchmark each from a handfull of games.
IMO, the 'real world' testing let's the gamer know what settings he can expect to be able to run at with the specified game.
the benchmarking that Kyle dislikes tells the game developer how to structure his code to make best use of the card. It also allows comparison between specific subsystems of the card.
In short: Kyle, get off your high horse. There is no wrong way to benchmark (there is no right way either).
Whilst I agree with that in large part, I don't necessarily agree that it's all beyond the comprehension of the average user. That's predominately in the telling of it, and techies often get so caught up in the technicalities of the technical terms that they fail to communicate to anyone other than those similarly equipped with technical expertise, and assume that the reason is because "Joe Average" is of lesser ability to comprehend. It's been my experience and feedback, from the past 3 years or so of writing specifically for a 'Joe Average' audience, that if you discard the technical jargon and instead talk in more everyday language, Joe is usually capable of absorbing far more than he's given credit for. Bombard a bloke with jargon and you'll usually be met with a blank stare. Get rid of the jargon and use the bloke's own language and the reaction can be quite different indeed.
Apples to apples is by far a better way to review a card if what you want is performance numbers and comparison.
Hi 0mega,I flat out asked bindibagi on there forums, why it was dropped, and replied by saying they couldnt be bothered as it was too expensive. i think there is every right to discredit what they do now... I hate to stir up trouble, but that is just dishonest if i've ever seen it. it's a dis service to the readers over there, and it seriously irks me.
There previous reviews were my only source of backup towards [H]'s results to reassure me as to what i felt, and they dropped them because they couldn't be bothered. its disturbing...
Thank you Kyle, for not being a sell out. *slautes*
Unfortunately for AMD, R600 just isnt that special because not only is Nvidias performance crown still intact, the card AMD has chosen to attack the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB has come away with all but a few chinks in its armour.
Thats not to say that R600 is a particularly bad card, its just not going to set the world on fire (well, it depends which way you look at it Ed.) when it comes to performance. There are undoubtedly scenarios where it does perform fantastically and much to our surprise one of those scenarios is OpenGL a territory that was once an Nvidia fortress. Not anymore, it would seem.
Performance in Oblivion started off really well without anti-aliasing enabled, but once anti-aliasing was appled, Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB blitzed past the HD 2900 XT. Even worse is the fact that the Radeon X1950 XTX manages to outperform the Radeon HD 2900 XT at 1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF. Because ATI was touting HDR-plus-AA as the only way to play Oblivion, it appears to have come back and bitten its backside.
Hi 0mega,
Just to correct what was actually said (you obviously chose to read what was said differently and then sensationalised it). We said that it is physically impossible for me to shut myself away for days on end to test graphics cards for a comparison because I have taken over the role of Editor at bit-tech.
My phone rings, hourly, and as I am sure Brent and Mark can testify, real world comparisons require a hell of a lot of concentration. You are the "demo" and it's being run by you, not by the computer. You don't see Kyle writing these reviews, do you? That's because I'm sure his phone like mine, rings a lot.
So, it's not that I can't be bothered, it's that I can't afford the concentration - I still have the same time available, it's just hands off time rather than hands on. I could continue doing real world testing with a considerable sacrifice in the quality (and depth) of the reviews or I could opt for a more hands off approach. I chose the latter because I've never agreed with the former. HardOCP is also a bigger organisation than bit-tech too - Kyle can afford to throw money at two dedicated graphics card reviewers, I do all of bit-tech's graphics reviews myself.
In the past, a launch review would take me two to three weeks to complete and this particular one actually took me longer to complete. The method I'm using now is more hands off, but I still sit there while every benchmark is being run, often to the very early hours of the morning. It's not that *I* can't be bothered, it's that it is physically impossible for me to do my job and write reviews in the same way that I did in the past. Believe me, I am still a firm believer in real world testing and if I could shut myself away for days on end, I would.
There is also the fact that in a recent reader survey we conducted, the majority of the readers that responded said that they preferred apples to apples benchmarks. We actually implemented that back in February, so R600 isn't the first review we've done with "apples to apples".
On to the review itself... While I didn't quite come to the exactly same conclusion as HardOCP (in that R600 is a flop - which I personally think is a bit strong in its early days), I did state the following:
I only used one of the games that Brent used in his review: Oblivion, and I had this to say about R600's Oblivion performance:
What I will say to end is that I've come to virtually the same conclusion, stating that it isn't a recommended buy (we gave it 7/10 overall - an 'average' score) and that those with GTX or GTS cards should definitely not be disappointed.
Sorry about the double postHi 0mega,
Just to correct what was actually said (you obviously chose to read what was said differently and then sensationalised it). We said that it is physically impossible for me to shut myself away for days on end to test graphics cards for a comparison because I have taken over the role of Editor at bit-tech.
My phone rings, hourly, and as I am sure Brent and Mark can testify, real world comparisons require a hell of a lot of concentration. You are the "demo" and it's being run by you, not by the computer. You don't see Kyle writing these reviews, do you? That's because I'm sure his phone like mine, rings a lot.
So, it's not that I can't be bothered, it's that I can't afford the concentration - I still have the same time available, it's just hands off time rather than hands on. I could continue doing real world testing with a considerable sacrifice in the quality (and depth) of the reviews or I could opt for a more hands off approach. I chose the latter because I've never agreed with the former. HardOCP is also a bigger organisation than bit-tech too - Kyle can afford to throw money at two dedicated graphics card reviewers, I do all of bit-tech's graphics reviews myself.
In the past, a launch review would take me two to three weeks to complete and this particular one actually took me longer to complete. The method I'm using now is more hands off, but I still sit there while every benchmark is being run, often to the very early hours of the morning. It's not that *I* can't be bothered, it's that it is physically impossible for me to do my job and write reviews in the same way that I did in the past. Believe me, I am still a firm believer in real world testing and if I could shut myself away for days on end, I would.
There is also the fact that in a recent reader survey we conducted, the majority of the readers that responded said that they preferred apples to apples benchmarks. We actually implemented that back in February, so R600 isn't the first review we've done with "apples to apples".
On to the review itself... While I didn't quite come to the exactly same conclusion as HardOCP (in that R600 is a flop - which I personally think is a bit strong in its early days), I did state the following:
I only used one of the games that Brent used in his review: Oblivion, and I had this to say about R600's Oblivion performance:
What I will say to end is that I've come to virtually the same conclusion, stating that it isn't a recommended buy (we gave it 7/10 overall - an 'average' score) and that those with GTX or GTS cards should definitely not be disappointed.
I actually prefer apples to apples over 'real world testing', but do like to take both in consideration.
The only benchmarks that matter to me anymore is how a card performs at 1920x1200, and for now i am holding out until the 8900GTX at a minimum before I make my DX10 upgrade purchase.
I currently own 3 Ratpadz (not sure if that directly or indirectly helps, but I love my ratpadz!) and have bought a few others for family/friends getting new hardware. I also try to click on any ads that may/may not be of interest to me. Would a subscription directly help? Is there any more we can do; i.e T-Shirts, Stickers, etc. Or is it really all up to the sponsors at the end of the day?
Would a subscription directly help? Is there any more we can do; i.e T-Shirts, Stickers, etc. Or is it really all up to the sponsors at the end of the day?
I run Firefox 2.0 as my main browser of choice, so it's the one that accesses [H] the most. Having said that, I do rely heavily on a great add-on called No-script for some security protection (apologies if this breaks any forum rules, delete me if necessary), BUT, with sites I come to trust and rely on I do allow any script (read: ad) to run globally on those sites -- as a budding web developer I understand and respect the need for click-through advertising, just wish it was more standardized.
The moment I install the browser and the moment I navigate to [H]OCP I let all your you ad-click banners though, as well as click the actual banners when ever I remember to purchase something from one of your supporting vendors; now I probably don't click the banners _everytime_ I need to purchase something, but I'll make sure to from here on out.
Good enough! As soon as this post is submitted, I'll be entering my CC info.
I love this site but would never pay for subscription. I think all your other ways of supporting the HardOCP crew is viable.
By the way... way too go [H]!
There is also the fact that in a recent reader survey we conducted, the majority of the readers that responded said that they preferred apples to apples benchmarks. We actually implemented that back in February, so R600 isn't the first review we've done with "apples to apples".