Feedback on GeForce 6800U Preview

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...

^^^ Im with that.
 
Originally posted by CrimandEvil
Haven't read all of the thread so I'm sorry if it this has been posted but I would like to see some context as to the graphs. What I mean is that I would like to know what was going on in the game when the FPS bottoms out, I remember seeing that once when you used CoD as a benchmark. Without context the graphs mean nothing to me. Other then that I have no problem with your review style, I actually like it.
Click to expand...

True, context would be a great thing. For example, a benchmark might bottom out for a split second or for some irrelevant reason that wouldn't really be much of an issue for most of us. If you tell us that it ran at 35fps for about 10 seconds straigh in this one area that'd be cool, otherwise it's kinda hard to tell what/when/why the reading are the way they are.
 
As a writer myself, I find how some people are crapping on the review not only rude, but downright offensive. Writers, editors, and everyone that goes into putting out a piece of writing (including but certainly not limited to computer hardware reviews) put a lot of time and hard work into making the piece worthwhile. Offering constructive criticism is fine, but the people choosing to crap the thread should consider what they're doing. At least Kyle and Brent are trying to make some progressive change in the rather stagnant arena of hardware reviews. There are all types of reviews. You can go read a short review, a long technical review, or whatever. But just because you don't agree with this style doesn't give you a right to thread crap.

*gets off soapbox*
 
Originally posted by gb25
1. I asked them three times, and you didn't address them once. You took the time to repsond to all the flames and ass kissing, but you didn't bother to respond to a few valid questions. Like I said in my last post, I guess you don't care that we aren't able to judge image quality with respect to performance.

2. Instead of giving me your generic disclaimer that does absolutely nothing to answer any of my questions, why don't you actually try to answer my questions. On second thought, don't even bother trying to answer. I can tell that you don't want to answer them. You just want to continue to tell everyone what resolutions/settings they should be using.

Bottom line, I don't really care if you change your reviewing methods or not. Like I said earlier, I don't have any problems with going to other sites for reviews. I just don't like all the hypocrisy that's going on. You keep saying that you are trying to "provide our readers with information that should help you understand what level of gameplay experience" but you aren't really doing that at all. You are only doing it for a select number of your readers who happen to use the same settings as what you used in your review.

Then you go on to say that you have addressed all the points made in this thread, but you failed to address any points that I made. Instead, true to form, you suggest that "There are plenty of other sources for you utilize" just like PhyberOptik said you would. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

So, I guess now you can go ahead and tell me that if I don't like the hypocrisy here I can just go elsewhere. After all, that would be an easy way for you to avoid answering my questions. I wouldn't want you to have to answer questions that are so completely worthless, like mine apparently are.
Click to expand...


1. This issue was addressed by Brent on screenshots that reflect the ingame settings we use. I see this being added in some capacity.

2. I am sorry if you find no value in the numbers we use. But if you argue that, certainly giving you average frame rates will show you no more. I think that most of our readers understand the impact of turning off and on certain quality options. It is simply not feasible for us to show every level of quality option settings. This is why explain that what we are showing what we consider the "best" quality option for the game.

I run LCDs for gaming that are native 1600x1200 and I have no issues running them at non-native resolutions.

I hope that aswers your questions.
 
Originally posted by CrimandEvil
Haven't read all of the thread so I'm sorry if it this has been posted but I would like to see some context as to the graphs. What I mean is that I would like to know what was going on in the game when the FPS bottoms out, I remember seeing that once when you used CoD as a benchmark. Without context the graphs mean nothing to me. Other then that I have no problem with your review style, I actually like it.
Click to expand...

If you read the text under our graphs we do discuss real gameplay. If this is not what you are want please explain what exactly you are looking for. Can you provide an example of this?
 
Originally posted by cornelious0_0
True, context would be a great thing. For example, a benchmark might bottom out for a split second or for some irrelevant reason that wouldn't really be much of an issue for most of us. If you tell us that it ran at 35fps for about 10 seconds straigh in this one area that'd be cool, otherwise it's kinda hard to tell what/when/why the reading are the way they are.
Click to expand...

I am very sure that we have explained repeatedly that we are selecting levels that we think are not "easy" on the cards. We do give the levels that we are one and explain how we captured the data. Please give an example of exactly what you are wanting please.
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
1. This issue was addressed by Brent on screenshots that reflect the ingame settings we use. I see this being added in some capacity.
Click to expand...
Yes, after asking the same questions three times, Brent finally answered, and I thanked him for it.

2. It is simply not feasible for us to show every level of quality option settings.
Click to expand...
I understand that it's not really feasible to show every possible combination of resolution/settings. I just don't see how limiting your review to only one combination of resolution/settings per card gives an accurate repsresentation of what the card is capable of. Apparently you see otherwise, and I don't really expect you to explain why. I guess I'll just wait and see how this all works out. Obviously there is a method behind the madness. I just have yet to see it.


I run LCDs for gaming that are native 1600x1200 and I have no issues running them at non-native resolutions.
Click to expand...
The only issues I have with running an lcd at non-native resolution is that the display is noticeably blurrier than it is when running at native resolution. Maybe it's just me though. Or maybe my lcd just sucks.

I hope that aswers your questions.
Click to expand...
Good enough. Thanks for finally answering some of my questions.
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
I am very sure that we have explained repeatedly that we are selecting levels that we think are not "easy" on the cards. We do give the levels that we are one and explain how we captured the data. Please give an example of exactly what you are wanting please.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying and I appreciate the fact that you choose "tough" levels.....but there may sometimes be area/times in a test that are more stressfull then others. I guess what I'm trying to get at is it'd be nice to know HOW extreme the low points are. I've done some custom FRAPS runs in my day too.....sometimes a low is for a half second, but sometime it goes on for a few seconds. I'm not sure how detailed you can be in describing each run though.
 
Originally posted by cornelious0_0
I understand what you're saying and I appreciate the fact that you choose "tough" levels.....but there may sometimes be area/times in a test that are more stressfull then others. I guess what I'm trying to get at is it'd be nice to know HOW extreme the low points are. I've done some custom FRAPS runs in my day too.....sometimes a low is for a half second, but sometime it goes on for a few seconds. I'm not sure how detailed you can be in describing each run though.
Click to expand...

thats what the graphs are for, they map out the framerate every second so you can see how long one card stays on a low framerate etc..

but i see what you are saying about explaining at what point in the game does that low framerate occur, that is definitely something we can work on
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
If you read the text under our graphs we do discuss real gameplay. If this is not what you are want please explain what exactly you are looking for. Can you provide an example of this?
Click to expand...

I think he wants you to explain exactly what happened when the framerate takes a big hit/jumps through the roof. Did it drop when you blew something up, or just randomly?
 
Originally posted by Brent
thats what the graphs are for, they map out the framerate every second so you can see how long one card stays on a low framerate etc..

but i see what you are saying about explaining at what point in the game does that low framerate occur, that is definitely something we can work on
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I do see what you're getting at. I guess the reason it took me so long to agree with you guys is 'cus i just DON'T read. ;) :p

JK, thx though
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
And one more thing here that you are actually wrong about. Most HardOCP readers just read the first page and last page of any video card reviews and polling has shown that our conclusion paragraphs tend to be the most important thing to them. Once you get beyond the small minority of hardcore hardware enthusiasts, our readers just want to know our opinions and don't care about how we reached them. That said, our conclusion statements tend to be pretty longwinded and do usually contain quite a summary.
Click to expand...

I can agree with you on many levels here.;)


I think it has been made very obvious more than once that too many people out there have already skimmed the first and last page and still failed to comprehend that data from HardOCP. What is so hard for these people to understand here? When I said people don't like to read that is sort of the truth for all too many. Why would they ONLY read the FIRST and LAST page only to skip everything else and use the benchmarks incorrectly?
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
If you read the text under our graphs we do discuss real gameplay. If this is not what you are want please explain what exactly you are looking for. Can you provide an example of this?
Click to expand...

Next time use Apples-to-Apples first then follow-up with the gameplay benchmarks. Everything else I read is great! Good Luck!:D
 
Originally posted by Tivon
Next time use Apples-to-Apples first then follow-up with the gameplay benchmarks. Everything else I read is great! Good Luck!:D
Click to expand...

If you have monitored this thread, this subject has been beaten and we have responded to it. I would however not expect them to be as indepth as the rest of the content. We will do some apples to apples from the newest games, probably just two or three, and be done with it.
 
Originally posted by Tivon
I can agree with you on many levels here.;)


I think it has been made very obvious more than once that too many people out there have already skimmed the first and last page and still failed to comprehend that data from HardOCP. What is so hard for these people to understand here? When I said people don't like to read that is sort of the truth for all too many. Why would they ONLY read the FIRST and LAST page only to skip everything else and use the benchmarks incorrectly?
Click to expand...


You are right, but one thing we have to keep in mind is that it is certainly partially our fault for "training" our readers to do this. No one likes change and even though we have been doing this for months now, it is obvious that many folks were not aware of it.

So we have to bear the burden so to speak and our goal here is really to better educate our readers, even if they are going to be resistant to it at first. :D No one likes change, but we think the old way of doing things is broken even though nobody wants to really admit it.

DX games differ greatly from one to another and sythetic benchmarks and canned benchmarks seem to mean little as a measuring stick. It has been voiced here several times that our evaluations do not show the same thing as everyone else;s benchmarks. Well, we figured out that the benchmarks do not show gameplay experience and that is why we stopped using them. Once that sinks in, you might smack yourself in the head and go, "DUH!". ;)


I think I feel an editorial coming on....
 
Originally posted by randsom
i still wanna know , what you were up to in toronto.
Click to expand...

Hookers and Beer at the Brass Rail. :eek: What else is there to do in Toronto? :cool:
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
Hookers and Beer at the Brass Rail. :eek: What else is there to do in Toronto? :cool:
Click to expand...
:eek: If I did that I'd get my ass kicked by my chick friends :( (I am so whipped) lol
 
bastard,


come on Kyle, you know and i know, what is in Toronto.

We want the A.T.I dirt

and the hooker stories would be nice too.
 
First, I applaud you guys for taking a new road on graphics card reviews. They say providing the reader something different and new is one way to keep them coming back. My personal experience with the new review style was it took a while to adjust my graph reading habits, but once I wrapped my brain around line X was at 1280x1024 at 8xaa/16xaf and line Y was at 1024x768 at 4xaa/8xaf I really found your graphs very useful, even though I still don't play with AA or AF :D
 
As I said on the second page....

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???
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by randsom


We want the A.T.I dirt
Click to expand...

You and everyone else. If we are going to tell tales out of school, which we never do, I would at least stick it on the front page where everyone will see it. :)
 
How about a "I smell R420 and it smells about the same as NV40"
or "I smell R420 and it smells like a snail (or rabbit)" comment?! :(

snail = slower than NV40
rabbit = faster than NV40

etc

"DO you smell what the ATI is cooking?" = its hot like prescott
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
You and everyone else. If we are going to tell tales out of school, which we never do, I would at least stick it on the front page where everyone will see it. :)
Click to expand...

im sure you understAnd whaT I mean.
 
Originally posted by DeepFreeze
im sure you understAnd whaT I mean.
Click to expand...

yeAh That would be cool If you could Some how hint UndeteCtably Kinda.

OR Answer The Insinuation wIth Some type of FAlSe Testimonial that gave a hidden answer.

I feel like the guy from "A beauTiful mInd"!
 
Originally posted by chrisf6969
yeAh That would be cool If you could Some how hint UndeteCtably Kinda.

OR Answer The Insinuation wIth Some type of FAlSe Testimonial that gave a hidden answer.

I feel like the guy from "A beauTiful mInd"! [/code]
Click to expand...

Looking at the quote of your text gives me a headache.

You make Lopoetve a sadpanda.
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
I think I feel an editorial coming on....
Click to expand...

OMG... Not another HardOCP editorial!:eek:
J/K :D Now the real question is how do you get the apples-to-apples peoples to read the editorial?:p

Maybe we should move back to using Stars then?

"6800 Ultra gets 5 out of 5 stars in gameplay!:)"
"6800 Ultra gets 3 out of 5 stars in price!"
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
The statement was specific to him mentioning that "people don't like to read."

As to our goals with our review, the objective of evaluation is clearly stated. Here it is once again.

"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."

If the way we are testing does not have any value to you, I am sorry. There are plenty of other sources for you utilize.
Click to expand...

oh man, so this is the new way for sure huh? DArn. I'm really disappointed.

Wouldn't it be possible to include a bit of both styles, traditional and the new [H] way? I can see the value in what you're trying to do....but I think alot of the points made by those unhappy with this new reviewing method are valid, especially where you don't use all the resolutions to give us a more apples to apples view (in addition to the maximum playable setting) and also in regards to not showing the qualitative differences in the rendering by screen shots, ie, what do you get at that higher quality/higher resolution 6800 compared to the ati? You did this in some cases, but not in others.
oops, well, looks like you already addressed this issue earlier.
I am sorry if you find no value in the numbers we use. But if you argue that, certainly giving you average frame rates will show you no more. I think that most of our readers understand the impact of turning off and on certain quality options. It is simply not feasible for us to show every level of quality option settings. This is why explain that what we are showing what we consider the "best" quality option for the game.

I run LCDs for gaming that are native 1600x1200 and I have no issues running them at non-native resolutions.
Click to expand...
[quote
 
I personally like the review format to a degree. I do however see an opportunity for enhancement. I think a crystal clear definition of what the [H] considers playable should be definded. As of now based on the what I have read thus far, that seems a bit subjective. I know that you are not going to be able to please everyone but you could at least establish the criterion.

I.E. Gameplay that is fluid with a minimum framerate of 30 and max allowable IQ settings to maintain the preceeding.

I think it would be prudent to also include a like settings comparason. What I mean by this is stick to your gaming experience method for the review of the subject card. However, also do an analysis of the cards you are pitting the review subject against by benching it at whatever settings you have established as playable for the review subject and offer those numbers as well.

I.E. You establish that X800 is playable in FarCry at 1280x1024, 2xAA/4xAF. You are comparing it to the 6800. The 6800 may not be playable at 1280x1024, 2xAA/4xAF, but give the contrasting numbers anyway for a apples to apples data point. In addition, if the 6800 is playable only at 1024x768, 2AA/8AF, show the numbers at the same settings for the X800.

The end result would be that we don't see numbers for every resolution and IQ setting but we would see what the [H] considers the best gaming experience fopr the card and an apples to apples comparason with the competition at those settings.

I believe that is a nice compromise of review styles and I know others have basically said this so just consider it a supporting opinion.
 
I'm just sad that they didn't try booting a SFF machine with the 6800U to see if these machines are up to the task.

Did anyone do this and I just missed it?
 
Originally posted by RAutrey

I.E. You establish that X800 is playable in FarCry at 1280x1024, 2xAA/4xAF. You are comparing it to the 6800. The 6800 may not be playable at 1280x1024, 2xAA/4xAF, but give the contrasting numbers anyway for a apples to apples data point.

In addition, if the 6800 is playable only at 1024x768, 2AA/8AF, show the numbers at the same settings for the X800.

The end result would be that we don't see numbers for every resolution and IQ setting but we would see what the [H] considers the best gaming experience fopr the card and an apples to apples comparason with the competition at those settings.
Click to expand...

Thats the best explanation of what I think should be done. And it should PLEASE EVERYONE.

Edit: BTW, I usually skip to gaming benchmarks (look at graphs), , overclocking, & (actually read) conclusion.
 
If I may interject. As a consumer, who values his purchases and only buys things that do what they advertise or have been proven to do. So benchmarks mean little to nothing as far as I am concerned. What I do value is your opinion, and visual data tests. Such as ACTUAL FPS in a FPS game, or Actual Processes calculated and executed for a CPU or GPU.So tests and reviews you do are good to me and most of hard if they accomplish 3 very important things, with all variables static.

1. Apples to apples, is a good point of view to begin testing.
ie. Radeon 9800 Pro vs. GF5 5900U ...resolution 1280x1024, AA4x, AF8x. all other game settings default.same maps,player etc.
run for an average, not just 1 go around. this to me says, i can accomplish this with such and such card. The rest of the tweaking is up too me. I do not really care how each piece of hardware accomplishes its tasks- BUT, what doe smake a huge difference to me is the Stability at which the item does this, and the Quality at which this occurs.

2.Comparing games support, meaning OpenGL (which I love) and DirectX (which I tolerate). Which cards does so faster and more efficiently?

3. Options and price the cards, or other products go for.Warranty is also good.

These things mean the most to me.:)
 
I really like your review style. I've read all of your video card reviews since you changed your style, and they seem to really convey a sense of what you get with a new card. Infact, your 9800xt comparo to the 8500/ti 4600 is what convinced me to buy a 9700pro (it comes close to similar performance to 9800xt anyways), that and it was dirt cheap.

But in a way the reviews seem almost incomplete. One issue I have has already been addressed (i.e. apples to apples comparison). I think it would be good to have a baseline setting that you compare all cards too. Like say 1600x1200 with no AA/AF, but you are already going to do something similar to this anyways I think. My second issue was real pictures of benchmarked settings (but again this has been addressed in previous posts).

My third issue was the mentioning of different high quality but playble settings in your analysis of each game. A few times you said that a game was playable at say 4xAA/8xAF at 1024x768 and used those results in your review. But then also written you said that 2xAA/8xAF at 1280x1024 was playable but did not include those results in your review. Now this is a matter of opinion but I always try to go for resolution over AA/AF. You on the other hand may prefer it the other way, but I would like to see possibly two highest quality most playable settings for games if applicable. So for example one game only has one highest quality and playable setting so you post only those result. But lets say a game has two highest quality playable setting (the difference may be higher resolution but lower AA/AF), so you then post both results.It could be alot more work, but it would better convey the sense of what settings become available when buying a new card.

Keep up the great reviews.
 
Originally posted by EarthwormJim
I really like your review style. I've read all of your video card reviews since you changed your style, and they seem to really convey a sense of what you get with a new card. Infact, your 9800xt comparo to the 8500/ti 4600 is what convinced me to buy a 9700pro (it comes close to similar performance to 9800xt anyways), that and it was dirt cheap.

But in a way the reviews seem almost incomplete. One issue I have has already been addressed (i.e. apples to apples comparison). I think it would be good to have a baseline setting that you compare all cards too. Like say 1600x1200 with no AA/AF, but you are already going to do something similar to this anyways I think. My second issue was real pictures of benchmarked settings (but again this has been addressed in previous posts).

My third issue was the mentioning of different high quality but playble settings in your analysis of each game. A few times you said that a game was playable at say 4xAA/8xAF at 1024x768 and used those results in your review. But then also written you said that 2xAA/8xAF at 1280x1024 was playable but did not include those results in your review. Now this is a matter of opinion but I always try to go for resolution over AA/AF. You on the other hand may prefer it the other way, but I would like to see possibly two highest quality most playable settings for games if applicable. So for example one game only has one highest quality and playable setting so you post only those result. But lets say a game has two highest quality playable setting (the difference may be higher resolution but lower AA/AF), so you then post both results.It could be alot more work, but it would better convey the sense of what settings become available when buying a new card.

Keep up the great reviews.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the resolution on the AA/AF thing. Aliasing becomes less noticable as resolution increases. I'd rather have 1280x1024 with no AA/AF over 800x600 with 6X/16X.
 
Originally posted by MemoryInAGarden
I agree with you on the resolution on the AA/AF thing. Aliasing becomes less noticable as resolution increases. I'd rather have 1280x1024 with no AA/AF over 800x600 with 6X/16X.
Click to expand...

True, I agree with what you guys are saying about the AA levels that are "needed" at certain resolutions.....but I wouldn't say the same thing about AF. A blurry texture is a blurry texture.....no matter which way you put it. Seeing as even on the 9800XT, 8xAF results in VERY little performance hit.....I can't stand playing without it. I can deal with a few jaggies at 1280x1024 if I'm running along at 100fps in Unreal.....but AF is something that you will/do notice no matter WHAT you're playing.

Just my opinion anyways.
 
I know the first couple of the vid card reviews using this new method had me re-reading the articles and repeatedly looking over the graphs and the settings because it confused me a little. After I actually let my brain do something other than control the blinking of my eyes and think about women and alcohol, the graphs and what they represented came blaringly through.

Until this new review style came out, I used to just glance at graphs to look for a general trend that was happening. I couldn't stand to do anything other than glance and skim since actually studying the multitudes of graphs bored me to death. They really didn't tell me much other than give me some numbers that may or may not actually mean anything. I was at the point where I was skipping reading reviews because there really wasn't much of anything interesting in them, at least from my point of view. The explanations of the new tech and what it could eventually do was about the only thing I found worthwhile. I actually like to make my mind work a little bit every now and then so I feel like my brain cells didn't die for nothing from all the alcohol I've drank. They get at least some kind of workout.

The widely accepted way of benchmarking didn't really tell me much about the cards. There were some nice numbers here and there but they didn't tell me how the card actually performed. An average framerate is a number you can look at but nothing more. It does not guarantee the card is consistant. For all you know, it may score consistantly over 200 FPS in some areas whereas in others it sits at 15 for a while. I have seen some reviews where something similar to this has happened and was pointed it. Sure, it had an average framerate of 150, but in several parts of the level, it was stuck at 15 for a while. That tells me the card can't handle that level at the settings that were used, but the average framerate doesn't tell you that. That is why I like having the current graphs and the "highest playable settings".

Image quality, "highest playable settings" and "faster" are all subjective. I believe the reasons for image quality and "highest playable settings" being subjective are easy to understand and do not need any type of explanation. "faster" is a bit different story. I've seen several people mention that "faster" is not subjective and can't be. Actually, it's easy to explain how it is. The idea of "faster" will be different from person to person. One person may think that the card that can post the highest framerate point in the game is the fastest card. Others will say the card with the highest average framerate is the fastest card. While others will say the card with the highest minimum framerate is the fastest card. In some cases you can have a mix of those too. It is reasons such as this that I believe the newer testing methodology is the better way to go. Obviously, not everyone will agree with me and I sure as hell hope there will never be a point where everyone does agree with me. This is definitely a step towards getting something other than just some numbers that don't really mean a whole lot in the overall picture and moving towards something that actually shows the big picture in the differences in the cards.

I don't believe the current battery of tests and the resulting reviews are perfect. There is a lot of room to grow and a lot things to work on. Then again, there should be. There should be evolution in the way things are done. For too long, reviews have mostly been the same thing over and over with little to no change. Stagnation is one of worst things that could happen to anything. I'm just glad that something is being done about the stagnation. The current review process may not be the end all be all of the changes that need to be made, but they sure as hell are going in the right direction. Don't dismiss what is going on just because you may think the review process is a piece of shit. Changes are being made and I believe before too long, other sites will make their own changes. I don't expect other sites to start trying to be a carbon copy of this one, but I believe this will be a start for others to make their own changes.

I do have one question though. If so many sites have the time and resources to repeatedly do the same benchmarks but at different resolutions and quality settings, why don't they have time to actually think up something different that would catch the reader's eye? In the long run, that can easily be worth a lot more than trying to pump out the most benchmarks than any other site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top