• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Feedback on GeForce 6800U Preview

B

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
Hey everyone, sorry for the lack of response recently, both Kyle and I were in Toronto these past few days.

We have seen that there is a general consensus about our current reviewing method, and that is that people do not like the fact we are benching each card at different resolutions and quality settings and showing it in a graph. We do appreciate everyone's feedback and are striving to improve the method. We also encourage everyone to sit back for a second and try to understand what we are trying to show.

We put this warning on Page 4 of the Preview: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2LDQ=

Warning!
Be aware that not all results represent "apples to apples" comparisons. We try to find the highest playable resolution, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering settings for each card in each game. Keep that in mind as you look at the graphs and find that each card may be set at a different resolution, AA and AF level. What we strive to illustrate to our readers is consistency in performance and which cards provide the highest level of gameplay performance. Should you need apples to apples benchmarks that focus on average framerates, there are plenty of other hardware sites to deliver that content to you.

HardOCP.com "video card reviews" have stopped being video card reviews. We are truly trying to measure the level of gaming experience the hardware can provide. Average frame rates only tell the real gaming experience story if every frame is "average," and we all know that is far from being the case.

That being said, it is HardOCP's goal to provide our readers with information that should help you understand what level of gameplay experience would be provided by the hardware in a similar computer of your own.
Click to expand...

Now, if that isn't clear enough in explaining what we are doing then I will try to clear that up here.

Basically what it comes down to is trying to figure out which video card offers a better gaming experiencing. A better gaming experience is achieved with delivering the game the way the content developer meant the game to be seen and with the highest image quality possible. The higher the image quality, the more immersive the experience. Performance is also part of that equation. What we strive to do is find the balance on each card that provides the best image quality with playable performance. Then we look at the consistency in performance is achieved on each card at those settings. Then we compare.

What you are looking for in the graph is to see which card can play the games at the highest resolution with the highest quality settings with playable performance.

When looking at the graphs FIRST look at the top of the graph where it shows the Resolution and AA and AF settings achieved with each card. THEN look at the performance in the graph below. Then you can say for example: "Oh, ok, Card A can play at a higher resolution, a higher aa and af quality than Card B and sustain the same amount of performance with Card B at a lower resolution and a lower aa and af setting".

You also must understand different levels of performance are acceptable with different games. Some games 30-40fps is acceptable, some games 60fps or more are the acceptable framerates.

Now, of course we strive to improve the method, it is a constant process. We understand that some people really see value in "apples to apples" resolution and quality settings. One thing you must understand is that you cannot say NVIDIA's AA and AF and ATI's AA and AF are "apples to apples" to begin with. Comparing NVIDIA's 2XAA, or 4XAA or 8XAA, or 8XAF or 16XAF are really not directly comparable because different methods are being used, they are close, but not exactly the same. About the only thing that is directly comparable is resolution.

But we understand that though that fact exists there are still people who insist on seeing the cards compared at the same resolution, AA and AF settings. Ultimately the optimal solution is to show both ways in each review. The problem with that is of course time. Benching 10 games, both ways, on 3 different cards, which perhaps 2 more graphs per game, is a time consuming effort. Nevertheless we do see value in catering to both groups. Therefore in future retail cards reviews we will try to appeal to both groups so that we are sure you are getting the full gamut of gaming experience evaluation. FRAPS will also remain as our main performance measuring tool capturing framerate every second.

So, any questions on the review or tech article themselves? I know there is a 23 page thread here, but that would take a day to read through and respond to :D
 
Great post Brent, great review, kudos! Put on a flamesuit, because there are 200 nvidiots in here that don't feel like you gave them their money's worth. LoL!
 
Originally posted by Brent
Hey everyone, sorry for the lack of response recently, both Kyle and I were in Toronto these past few days.

We have seen that there is a general consensus about our current reviewing method, and that is that people do not like the fact we are benching each card at different resolutions and quality settings and showing it in a graph. We do appreciate everyone's feedback and are striving to improve the method. We also encourage everyone to sit back for a second and try to understand what we are trying to show.

We put this warning on Page 4 of the Preview: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2LDQ=



Now, if that isn't clear enough in explaining what we are doing then I will try to clear that up here.

Basically what it comes down to is trying to figure out which video card offers a better gaming experiencing. A better gaming experience is achieved with delivering the game the way the content developer meant the game to be seen and with the highest image quality possible. The higher the image quality, the more immersive the experience. Performance is also part of that equation. What we strive to do is find the balance on each card that provides the best image quality with playable performance. Then we look at the consistency in performance is achieved on each card at those settings. Then we compare.

What you are looking for in the graph is to see which card can play the games at the highest resolution with the highest quality settings with playable performance.

When looking at the graphs FIRST look at the top of the graph where it shows the Resolution and AA and AF settings achieved with each card. THEN look at the performance in the graph below. Then you can say for example: "Oh, ok, Card A can play at a higher resolution, a higher aa and af quality than Card B and sustain the same amount of performance with Card B at a lower resolution and a lower aa and af setting".

You also must understand different levels of performance are acceptable with different games. Some games 30-40fps is acceptable, some games 60fps or more are the acceptable framerates.

Now, of course we strive to improve the method, it is a constant process. We understand that some people really see value in "apples to apples" resolution and quality settings. One thing you must understand is that you cannot say NVIDIA's AA and AF and ATI's AA and AF are "apples to apples" to begin with. Comparing NVIDIA's 2XAA, or 4XAA or 8XAA, or 8XAF or 16XAF are really not directly comparable because different methods are being used, they are close, but not exactly the same. About the only thing that is directly comparable is resolution.

But we understand that though that fact exists there are still people who insist on seeing the cards compared at the same resolution, AA and AF settings. Ultimately the optimal solution is to show both ways in each review. The problem with that is of course time. Benching 10 games, both ways, on 3 different cards, which perhaps 2 more graphs per game, is a time consuming effort. Nevertheless we do see value in catering to both groups. Therefore in future retail cards reviews we will try to appeal to both groups so that we are sure you are getting the full gamut of gaming experience evaluation. FRAPS will also remain as our main performance measuring tool capturing framerate every second.

So, any questions on the review or tech article themselves? I know there is a 23 page thread here, but that would take a day to read through and respond to :D
Click to expand...

Brent you are a stand up guy. Really, great job responding to the community. I would really like to see you guys go back to old-school reviewing style, though I appreciate what you are trying to do. Would it be possible to incorporate both styles in a review (or maybe a standard one followed by the kind you are doing now?). I like to see absolute differences between vid cards, as well as reports on real-world performance. Thanks!
 
Originally posted by creedAMD
Great post Brent, great review, kudos! Put on a flamesuit, because there are 200 nvidiot in here that don't feel like you gave them their monies worth. LoL!
Click to expand...

Real smart .. you tell a guy he's gonna get flamed and then you call 200 people idiots .. people like you are the reason there are flame wars .. keep comments like that to yourself ..

and Brent .. as for the review .. I don't mind the way you are doing it now .. I still do like the old way better .. but this way isn't bad .. people just need to get used to it ..
 
Originally posted by creedAMD
Great post Brent, great review, kudos! Put on a flamesuit, because there are 200 nvidiot in here that don't feel like you gave them their monies worth. LoL!
Click to expand...

Nvidia fans weren't the only ones displeased with the preview. :rolleyes:

And yes Brent, if you do manage to incorporate both styles into your reviews that would be wonderful.
 
I think something better could be done with the graph, the current one doesn't show anything that the table below doesn't already convey (I don't know where in the game those spikes are, and it's only important to know they exist, which minimum FPS already does). It just looks messy and gives many people the wrong impression.

The SETTINGS need to be front and center, preferably graphed (IMO). Not vaguely scrawled on the side. Or there could possibly be screenshots of each card's quality under the settings used.
 
Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
Nvidia fans weren't the only ones displeased with the preview. :rolleyes:

And yes Brent, if you do manage to incorporate both styles into your reviews that would be wonderful.
Click to expand...

Did I say that it was only Nvidiots? Chose your words better. I chose mine wisely for just that reason. Yet still people don't know how to read. :rolleyes:

It was clearly mostly nvidiots yelling "you don't make the nv40 shine like tom's did!" Even though the [H] did.

There were 20 reviews giving benchmarks the traditional way. And you guys seem that the world isn't complete unless the [H] is just like the other 20 sites.
 
Any criticism means wanting the review to be like every other site out there..? How arrogant of a dismissal can you get. I personally like the [H] method quite a lot, I just feel it still has more room for maturing.
 
Originally posted by creedAMD
Did I say that it was only Nvidiots? Chose your words better. I chose mine wisely for just that reason. Yet still people don't know how to read. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'll let you know when I'm born yesterday.
 
Interesting, but ultimately useless way of reviewing things IMO. I want to see how much better the card is than the older card, plain and simple.
 
Originally posted by V0ltage
Interesting, but ultimately useless way of reviewing things IMO. I want to see how much better the card is than the older card, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Um, but you are seeing that. That is the whole point, to see how much better the card can play the games compares to another card.

For example FS 2004, the 6800U plays it smoothly at 1280x1024 4XAA/16XAF vs. the 9800XT at 1280x1024 2XAA/8XAF, AND with higher performance as is shown.
 
FRAPS graphs are great... it shows you min, max, etc

same "oranges-to-oranges" resolutions/settings are good too. (dont like apples or steve jobs) :)

I look forward to your new combined method.

Glad to see you replied positively to the feedback (ruckus) that was stirring.
 
Its nice to see how they play the same at different settings, but its much better to see how they all play at the same settings, you should do both methods.
 
dderidex had an interesting idea that might be worth looking into. A bit ambitious, but a modified version might be able to satisfy the majority of people who have complained about "oranges" and so on.
 
Sorry to say, but if [H] continues the 'apples to oranges' method, then I will stop reading them. It just isn't my taste.
 
I would have to say as a personal preference I dont like the current way your reviewing and tend not to read anymore. Guess im just too old-skool :(
 
I like my video card reviews like I like my car reviews. I want opinions on drivability and a top speed.
 
I tend to completely understand your reviews and enjoy them. If I want to read the same old-same old, I can read every other review of the card that is online, they're mostly the cookie cutter type reviews. With |H|'s review I get an idea of what the card is going to run like in a variety of real world situations (i.e. when I get it home and put it in my box). Not just some esoteric max FPS number in some part of the game that is irrelevant to actual gameplay. I like seeing the peaks and valleys of |H|'s method, it provides a lot of useful information.

I don't see why people don't understand this review method. The |H| review showed that the card was a decent, marginal improvement over what we have now, but put it in context. It's a great card, it's just not the end all-be all in every game. Maybe more mature Drivers will put more distance between it and it's competitor, we shall see. I think nvidia did a good job, I just don't think they put the maximum SLAM on ATI that some people were really hoping for. And with the r420 about to launch it's still to early to know for certain what ATI has (if anything) to compete with. In a couple of weeks we'll probably know who wins this round, then everybody can throw their $500 in whatever direction they want. Just don't get mad at |H| for not completely gushing over the card like so many of the other review sites did. They weren't dealing with the final product nor final drivers, it was a PREVIEW. There's more to come...

Great review |H|. Keep up the good work.
 
Also....

Hey everyone, sorry for the lack of response recently, both Kyle and I were in Toronto these past few days
Click to expand...

Toronto?

As in, Toronto, Canada?

Isn't that REAL close to Markham, Ontario, Canada?

As in, ATI's HQ, Markham, Ontario, Canada??

Just after finishing the 6800 review???

:confused:
 
The [H] is a business and like any SUCCESFULL business it needs to cater to the needs of it's customers.

You can continue to preview the current way and stand to lose a certain group. Or take the so called oranges to oranges approach and lose some as well. Why not do 2 sections, 1 the old way and the other the current way. Or 1 section that is a huge mixture of both. I am not the first to suggest this but it is a workable solution.

Yes, this is more work but that may be the price you have to pay to stay #1.

I deal with the bitchin' public on my job, bite my tounge & I swallow my damn pride every day. BUT my cusomers are happy, so is my boss and so is my bank account.


:p :p
 
hey i heard on another post that you would be using a diffrent computer for the r420 review when it comes (i know its a rumor but..)

i would just ask if you review another next gen card(r420), could you use the same computer used for the next 6800 review (when they come out). just so we can get a fair comparison of which card has the better performance/IQ.

thanks :D
 
Originally posted by Brent
Hey everyone, sorry for the lack of response recently, both Kyle and I were in Toronto these past few days.

We have seen that there is a general consensus about our current reviewing method, and that is that people do not like the fact we are benching each card at different resolutions and quality settings and showing it in a graph. We do appreciate everyone's feedback and are striving to improve the method. We also encourage everyone to sit back for a second and try to understand what we are trying to show.

We put this warning on Page 4 of the Preview: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2LDQ=



Now, if that isn't clear enough in explaining what we are doing then I will try to clear that up here.

Basically what it comes down to is trying to figure out which video card offers a better gaming experiencing. A better gaming experience is achieved with delivering the game the way the content developer meant the game to be seen and with the highest image quality possible. The higher the image quality, the more immersive the experience. Performance is also part of that equation. What we strive to do is find the balance on each card that provides the best image quality with playable performance. Then we look at the consistency in performance is achieved on each card at those settings. Then we compare.

What you are looking for in the graph is to see which card can play the games at the highest resolution with the highest quality settings with playable performance.

When looking at the graphs FIRST look at the top of the graph where it shows the Resolution and AA and AF settings achieved with each card. THEN look at the performance in the graph below. Then you can say for example: "Oh, ok, Card A can play at a higher resolution, a higher aa and af quality than Card B and sustain the same amount of performance with Card B at a lower resolution and a lower aa and af setting".

You also must understand different levels of performance are acceptable with different games. Some games 30-40fps is acceptable, some games 60fps or more are the acceptable framerates.

Now, of course we strive to improve the method, it is a constant process. We understand that some people really see value in "apples to apples" resolution and quality settings. One thing you must understand is that you cannot say NVIDIA's AA and AF and ATI's AA and AF are "apples to apples" to begin with. Comparing NVIDIA's 2XAA, or 4XAA or 8XAA, or 8XAF or 16XAF are really not directly comparable because different methods are being used, they are close, but not exactly the same. About the only thing that is directly comparable is resolution.

But we understand that though that fact exists there are still people who insist on seeing the cards compared at the same resolution, AA and AF settings. Ultimately the optimal solution is to show both ways in each review. The problem with that is of course time. Benching 10 games, both ways, on 3 different cards, which perhaps 2 more graphs per game, is a time consuming effort. Nevertheless we do see value in catering to both groups. Therefore in future retail cards reviews we will try to appeal to both groups so that we are sure you are getting the full gamut of gaming experience evaluation. FRAPS will also remain as our main performance measuring tool capturing framerate every second.

So, any questions on the review or tech article themselves? I know there is a 23 page thread here, but that would take a day to read through and respond to :D
Click to expand...

you my friend are wise beyond your age. i am looking forward to many great reviews.
thx
jacs:)
 
Originally posted by PopCorn
I tend to completely understand your reviews and enjoy them. If I want to read the same old-same old, I can read every other review of the card that is online, they're mostly the cookie cutter type reviews. With |H|'s review I get an idea of what the card is going to run like in a variety of real world situations (i.e. when I get it home and put it in my box). Not just some esoteric max FPS number in some part of the game that is irrelevant to actual gameplay. I like seeing the peaks and valleys of |H|'s method, it provides a lot of useful information.

I don't see why people don't understand this review method. The |H| review showed that the card was a decent, marginal improvement over what we have now, but put it in context. It's a great card, it's just not the end all-be all in every game. Maybe more mature Drivers will put more distance between it and it's competitor, we shall see. I think nvidia did a good job, I just don't think they put the maximum SLAM on ATI that some people were really hoping for. And with the r420 about to launch it's still to early to know for certain what ATI has (if anything) to compete with. In a couple of weeks we'll probably know who wins this round, then everybody can throw their $500 in whatever direction they want. Just don't get mad at |H| for not completely gushing over the card like so many of the other review sites did. They weren't dealing with the final product nor final drivers, it was a PREVIEW. There's more to come...

Great review |H|. Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

Almost exactly what I was thinking of posting till I got to busy....get out of my mind PopCorn :D
 
i personally didnt feel the review had adequate depth of bench marks and comparisons between cards as i wouldve usually expect from this site. i did take in time restraints and this being a preview as the deciding factors of it being not so indept as i thought it couldve been. there was a lot of negative feed back and i wouldnt blame them however some of it was just a bit too harsh. i honestly dont mind your reviewing process however i would like to have more benchmark scores and as people are saying "apple to apple" comparisons. imho, thats what the review lacked which i'm sure everyone got a bit pissy over.

ty for the post, it gave me a piece of mind that you at least want to cater to different interests here. you really cant please everyone. myself personally i would do away with aa and af and just go with 1280-1900x resolutions. IQ is nice but i want raw fps and full quality (from what the game came with). comparing the different implementations and how they look is always nice dont get me wrong. i'll make my purchasing decision based on IQ and raw fps.

i do not bother with single player games and dont get the luxury of sitting around and comparing different implementations of IQ its of little importance. this of course wont happen since the majority of people probably have 17-19inch monitors/lcd's. i have yet to see a review site benchmark anything 1600x and over quite dissapointing.
 
I do really appreciate the different approach that [H]ard|OCP is taking with video card reviews but I can honestly say (without TRYING to be an ass) that I really did like the old syle better and I rarely read [H]'s video card reviews for the performance of the cards, just the end thoughts and product details (if it's a new card I'm not THAT familiar with).

I like that I can go and read any other video card review on the net and get comparisons of say.....Unreal2k3 at 3 different resolutions, with AND without AA and AF, often seperately.....on all tested cards across the board. Apples to apples.

I don't see why this approach doesn't make any more sense. If you give us the readers enough information (like the example I posted above) we are free to look at all the different numbers and results to compare them for ourselves. No offense but it isn't very hard for me to go read some other review and compare the fps from two different graphs to see which is better in different areas.....most people don't need to be "hand fed" information. I'm not trying to be overly negative here at all but I just don't understand how [H]'s method has ANY advantages over the "competition" with their reviews. Any, and I mean any of the results [H] shows in the reviews can be attained from other sites, along with a hell of a lot more to go along side it as backup.

I'm not trying to discredit the site but the nv40 preview WAS way off. I'm guessing that all the other sites out there with their tests are all wrong then? The reason I'm saying this is 'cus "our" review showed the 6800U right alongside the 9800XT in many cases.....which is entirely NOT the case anywhere else.....even WITH different levels of AA and AF the 6800 is always shown to be the dominant card, and this was the first time I had seen different. I can understand why [H] doesn't use synthetics to benchmark, but even the actual gaming tests are way off from anything else I've seen out there, custom or not.

I'd like to side with [H] on this one but until I see another review show the 6800 THAT close to the 9800XT (when it's FAR outgunning in hardware wise) I'm not buying it. I'm sure that the masses of buyers out there would be more then a little miffed if their new card was this powerful, but fell through so badly.

Flame me if you want, but it's my honest opinion and there's nothing wrong, biased, or rude about what I said.....it's an opinion, not a personal slam.....don't take it the wrong way. I hope we have some clarity to this matter soon though, so I can know just WHO to trust. :rolleyes:
 
what i find funny is like the night the pics got leaked or whatever, everybody was in panic, seeing lots of threads with like "nvidia has failed again!!" and "what happpened?" type threads, then the next day when all the other "apples to apples" reviews came out, everybody seemed impressed.

it kinda shows you that the [H] review was kinda confusing to people who are used to seeing direct comparison with "apples vs apples", either that or they didnt bother to look at the resolution :p
 
Brent,

I like the way you are currently doing the reviews. It tells me exactly what I want to know--wether the new card will give me enough boost over my current card to justify the expenditure. If I want to know if the new card will give me 150 fps at 1280x1040 rather than my current card's 110 fps, I can get that plenty of other places. Except that 110fps or 150fps doesn't matter a damn bit, if that 150 score doesn't allow me to add res or eye candy--which is what your reviews AND ONLY YOUR REVIEWS tell me.


The only suggestion I would make is to include a mid-range card. A 9600pro would have been nice in this latest review, so those folks currently in the mid-range would know if it was worth going to the high end. Though I recognize the amount of work adding another card would entail.

Thanks for the hard work.

LabRat
 
Originally posted by Bad_Boy
what i find funny is like the night the pics got leaked or whatever, everybody was in panic, seeing lots of threads with like "nvidia has failed again!!" and "what happpened?" type threads, then the next day when all the other "apples to apples" reviews came out, everybody seemed impressed.

it kinda shows you that the [H] review was kinda confusing to people who are used to seeing direct comparison with "apples vs apples", either that or they didnt bother to look at the resolution :p
Click to expand...

I actually see it another way: Brent's reviews show a more honest picture of the capabilities of the card. It lets a person ask the question "Is moving up a step in resolution really worth $500 to me?"

For me the answer is yes. But maybe not for others.
 
well the thing is.
the review was good.

but it didnt show how much of a performance leap it had over current top end cards. when new next gen cards come out, people really want to see the gains over current cards.

its kinda confusing on the person says "well i have 500 dollars, but is it worth it to spend on this card? what kind of % diffrence is this card to any other top end card"

this review was great, but i just wanted to know more on the performance gains and not just "sweet it will run at 1080x1024 at this setting perfectly" rather than "if it runs at 1600x1200 with all settings on, its running X times faster than this card".

but if you see it another way, all the better to you then. but lots of people didnt.

it just would have been alot better if it had "apples vs oranges" and "apples vs apples". and the really only apples vs apples was the nfsu, and the review didnt state anything about cpu limitations.

We then got into testing Need For Speed: Underground and FarCry. We were surprised by the closeness in scores in Need For Speed: Underground. All three cards were able to achieve the same resolution and quality settings, but there really weren’t any major differences in performance.
Click to expand...

its almost like the review expected more in nfsu
no mention of cpu-limitations, which could confuse alot of people.
 
Personally I liked the preview, however to people who don't actually read the whole thing and just look at graphs it might have been somewhat misleading. But thats not in anyway your problem. Also I do have to say I would still like to see a direct comparison at similar settings included, even if it didn't include AA and AF, just the cards running at similar resolutions so we can get a quantitative idea of performance difference.

Slightly off topic but after reading the tech article, which was very good btw, I had an idea. What about a comprehensive comparision of the NVidia cards starting with the NV10 and going up to the NV40. Although we do know the differences in the cards by now obviously, I think it would be neat to see how they compare to one another.
 
Originally posted by cornelious0_0
I do really appreciate the different approach that [H]ard|OCP is taking with video card reviews but I can honestly say (without TRYING to be an ass) that I really did like the old syle better and I rarely read [H]'s video card reviews for the performance of the cards, just the end thoughts and product details (if it's a new card I'm not THAT familiar with).

I like that I can go and read any other video card review on the net and get comparisons of say.....Unreal2k3 at 3 different resolutions, with AND without AA and AF, often seperately.....on all tested cards across the board. Apples to apples.

I don't see why this approach doesn't make any more sense. If you give us the readers enough information (like the example I posted above) we are free to look at all the different numbers and results to compare them for ourselves. No offense but it isn't very hard for me to go read some other review and compare the fps from two different graphs to see which is better in different areas.....most people don't need to be "hand fed" information. I'm not trying to be overly negative here at all but I just don't understand how [H]'s method has ANY advantages over the "competition" with their reviews. Any, and I mean any of the results [H] shows in the reviews can be attained from other sites, along with a hell of a lot more to go along side it as backup.

I'm not trying to discredit the site but the nv40 preview WAS way off. I'm guessing that all the other sites out there with their tests are all wrong then? The reason I'm saying this is 'cus "our" review showed the 6800U right alongside the 9800XT in many cases.....which is entirely NOT the case anywhere else.....even WITH different levels of AA and AF the 6800 is always shown to be the dominant card, and this was the first time I had seen different. I can understand why [H] doesn't use synthetics to benchmark, but even the actual gaming tests are way off from anything else I've seen out there, custom or not.

I'd like to side with [H] on this one but until I see another review show the 6800 THAT close to the 9800XT (when it's FAR outgunning in hardware wise) I'm not buying it. I'm sure that the masses of buyers out there would be more then a little miffed if their new card was this powerful, but fell through so badly.

Flame me if you want, but it's my honest opinion and there's nothing wrong, biased, or rude about what I said.....it's an opinion, not a personal slam.....don't take it the wrong way. I hope we have some clarity to this matter soon though, so I can know just WHO to trust. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

EXACTLY.

By doing all of the apples-to-apples comparisons, you're already covering all of the apples-to-oranges benchmarks that you would have to do -- you don't have to spend any extra time benchmarking, just a few minutes making a couple more pretty graphs.

Either the reviewer has a real ATi bias (not very likely), or he was too lazy to go through the motions (which is regrettable, since we're talking about a major GPU launch and there are plenty of sites out there that haven't received hardware yet).
 
Originally posted by Spammy1984
Personally I liked the preview, however to people who don't actually read the whole thing and just look at graphs it might have been somewhat misleading. But thats not in anyway your problem.
Click to expand...

I DID read the whole thing, and what all the graphs were about, and I know others did too. What I'm getting at is the fact that I can get all the same information anywhere else, as they are simply AA and AF comparisons and different resolutions.....nothing outstanding.

Again, I'm not trying to personally bash the site, but I'm just being realistic in saying that I can get all the same facts and information anywhere else, along with a whole lot more (numbers wise). I dont think I'd be alone if I said that it would REALLY be nice if the system was re-designed to incorporate a broader playing field and more facts for the hardware fanatics amung us.
 
I always thought Kyle was an idiot this article only proves it. Way to go numb skull, you ran the Geforce 6800 at a higher resolution to make it appear as if it was having trouble beating the 9800xt. Jeez maybe you should rename your site Tom's hardware. You can ban, block, or whatever I don't care. I'm sick of the crap, I've only got about 50 posts anyways.
 
Originally posted by Rocket_Magnet
I always thought Kyle was an idiot this article only proves it. Way to go numb skull, you ran the Geforce 6800 at a higher resolution to make it appear as if it was having trouble beating the 9800xt. Jeez maybe you should rename your site Tom's hardware. You can ban, block, or whatever I don't care. I'm sick of the crap, I've only got about 50 posts anyways.
Click to expand...

A post so full of logical analysis and intelligent argument that I can't help but be swayed to your side! Good job, sir!
 
I liked the preview but did not agree with using two year old cores to go against something that isn't even ready for retail. Given the situation, I respect and appriciate [H] for trying something different as far as show what each card is truely capable of displaying. If there was R420 to throw in the mix, I'm sure we would have seen a different style of review; more like apples to apples.

Hats off to [H] for not filling the preview with the same exact benchmarks as all the other drone websites.
 
Originally posted by MrHappyGoLucky
I liked the review but did not agree with using two year old cores to go against something that isn't even ready for retail. Given the situation, I respect and appriciate [H] for trying something different as far as show what each card is truely capable of displaying. If there was R420 to throw in the mix, I'm sure we would have seen a different style of review; more like apples to apples.
Click to expand...

what do you mean by two year old cores?

we used nvidia's last generation enthusiast level card the 5950U and ati's current enthusiast card the 9800xt

its absolutely perfect to figure out how much nvidia has increased performance and iq over their previous generation and how it compares to ati's current generation

what else would you have us compare them to?
 
Originally posted by Brent
what do you mean by two year old cores?

we used nvidia's last generation enthusiast level card the 5950U and ati's current enthusiast card the 9800xt

its absolutely perfect to figure out how much nvidia has increased performance and iq over their previous generation and how it compares to ati's current generation

what else would you have us compare them to?
Click to expand...

You are right.. Your dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Like I said, I respect and appriciate [H] for trying something different as far as show what each card is truely capable of displaying. Was a nice change from the same old benchmarks ran over and over again.

I guess I just want a perfect world where you guys got both next gen cards at the same time and let them beat each other up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top