Feedback on GeForce 6800U Preview

Originally posted by MrHappyGoLucky
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.
Click to expand...

Except that "same old" method is what myself and many others do truely prefer, and have grown used to. I feel kind of cheated over here.....I guess I'll just have to keep going elsewhere for my video card reviews. Every other kind of review on here in terms of mobo's, sff pc's.....whatever has been awsome.....but the video card reviews leave me wanting more.....and I go elsewhere to get the BIG picture, 'cus I can't get it here.....anymore. :(
 
I like they have been steering away from the typical and looking deeper into IQ and such. I never buy just because it's the fastest card on the planet. I could care less if it scores 18k on 3dmark if the IQ looks like crap or isn't displaying properly. I will always buy because it plays todays games at a decent resolution and look KILLER. I want to have each new card make me feel like when I got my first 3DFX card and almost #hit my pants over the quality of gaming. I get that information from these reviews.

What I really took from this review is this.

1. The 6800 is a MAJOR improvement over their last generation.
2. The 6800 has a much improved IQ, but not up to ATI yet. It also still has issues properly displaying games even with the "The way it's meant to be played" sticker.
3. The 6800 plays games at a higher resolution with AA and AF than anything currently out.
 
Originally posted by cornelious0_0
Except that "same old" method is what myself and many others do truely prefer, and have grown used to.
Click to expand...

I see the problem with that is all these sites become "also rans" or "me too". How many sites do you want to visit to see 3dmark and all the typical benchies? To me that is pooring. The only thing that sets them apart is what motherboard and cpu they use. [H] is taking a bold step to differentiate themselves from all the other review site.
 
I could care less if it scores 18k on 3dmark if the IQ looks like crap or isn't displaying properly. I will always buy because it plays todays games at a decent resolution and look KILLER.
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense, and why wouldn't it? I don't just like the old reviews to get the raw fps.....I still consider IQ just as important.....which is why I'm runnin' my 9800XT right now instead of a 5950. ;)
 
Originally posted by MrHappyGoLucky
Hah! Me too.... I ended up putting my 5950 in the wifes computer :D
Click to expand...

Well as long as SOMEONE is enjoying it. ;)

The one thing I do like about the reviews is the use of FRAPS instead of flyby demos and such.

I'm actually thinking of passing some of my time by running a VERY LARGE scale of benchmarks on my system, using FRAPS for the games to get a very wide range of results.....and then comparing it to the GF3 Ti200 in my parents computer. ;)

I'm gonna sit down here and start "gathering" benchmarks now. ;)
 
I like the new review style that the [H] is doing myself. If you actually read the intire review, look at all the graphs/screen shots, you got everything you need. Several of the screenshots comparing iq show you the fps at the same settings along with showing iq stuff. I think alot of the problem people are having, most are not reading/looking at all the info that was giving to them.

I saw someone post about the lower scores in the [H] review compared to other sites also. Did some looking and yes on average they are lower. Got me to thinking about it and I think it might be with the way they are actually doing the testing now. Not using fly bys and using fraps might show lower scores...but could show what you actually are getting in PLAYING the game. I am not saying this for sure, but was just thinking that could be what is up with it, I by no means think that Brent or Kyle are sell outs though.

With all that said, I would not mind seeing some avg fps graphs for same settings thrown is as well, but I completly understand the time it takes to do a review like this and if you dont have the time...well you just dont.

Keep up the good work guys, will be reading your reviews just like I have for years now.
 
I understand what you guys are trying to do with trying to review the cards in a new way, but it seems like it is still a bit misleacing to people (like myself) who just skip down to the graphs.

What I suggest might work better is have a bar graph that shows how high the resolution and aa/af settings can be while still running at a smooth framerate. This would mean that you would have to set standards for yourself such as what is an acceptable fps is along with a scale for resoltution, aa and af. This would be able to still show the reader what the best gaming experience that they could expect for the new card.

Example would be that card A runs an average of 35fps at a max res. of 1024 x 768 while card B will run at the same fps at 1280 x 960. The graph would have card B with a taller bar to represent that resolution to show that it has a better overall performance. I think it would help those who like to skip right to the graph to determine which card has the best gaming experience, rather than have the reader worry about the extra fps that they would not notice.

There is my $.02
 
My personel preferance is to benchmark at the same resoultions. Then do a "maximum playability" benchmark. Then add a couple screen shots so we can see exactly whats going on.

I personally dont care if you bench say, aax2 with each card as they're differant methods. However benching at standard resolutions without aa/af i would still like to see. Other than that i liked it.

Maybe what blind sided everyone is we're so used to the "old" way then one day (at least in my case) out of the blue its all differant.

It IS really cool to know that H is forward looking. Id also like to see more screenshots of aa/af in action in games.

Oh yea, Americas Army would make an awesome benchmark :D


OR (just off the top of my head), go completely in the oppsite direction and give a playability scale.

By that i mean sure the 6800 runs xxx game at xxx with xxx settings, but how much better does it look over the current xxx at xxx resolution. Is 2xaa at 1600 with 2x af with all the bells and whistles turned on in the game make enough of a differance?
 
Originally posted by cornelious0_0
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.
Click to expand...

What exactly was "way off"? Please be specific.
 
Originally posted by Bad_Boy
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...

Yes, to get the full impact of one of our reviews, you would need to read also. I do not see it as just who is fastest anymore. It is about what card delivers the best gaming experience for the dollar.
 
it'd be nice to screenshots of the game using the benchmarked settings. like if the radeon was running at 1280, 8xAF, show a shot of that along with the graph in addition to the regular iq comparison shots.
 
Yeah Fugu, that would be great. Being able to see how the game looks at the highest playable res/eye candy would be a great bonus.
 
Originally posted by MrHappyGoLucky
[H] is taking a bold step to differentiate themselves from all the other review site.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words, but do please keep in mind this. We are not following this way of doing things we simply want to be different; we are doing this because we truly feel as though we are delivering what is important and that is an evaluation of the gaming experience that the equipment can deliver.

The first time I realized the way we were doing things was "wrong", was when I got done with a video card review not too long ago. Two days later I was supposed to go on The Screen Savers and talk about the card and what it could do. It was then that I realized that the video card review process we went through missed one thing. I had never played a game on the card and that is exactly what they are purchased for.

It was at that moment that a light bulb went off over my head and I realized that through all the data we were generating that we were missing what exactly we should have been doing. And that is evaluating the gameplay experience delivered by the video card.

Another thing that is interesting about this journey is that we have been doing video card reviews this way for months and getting excellent feedback. It is only at this junction that we got such a hostile reply. It seems to me that everyday folks that visit our site in order to try to figure out what to buy that week have been very happy with our new format.


Keep the opinions coming. I want to hear the good, the bad, and the ugly. I have yet to read anything that makes me want to change formats. Brent and I did decide on the way home yesterday that we would add a couple of the newest games with apples to apples data, but we would not spend a lot of resources on information of that such.
 
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...

You found us out. It was a conspiracy to make NVIDIA look bad by showing playable framerates at high resolutions with superior image quality.
 
Kyle, you told it to us from a gamers point of view. And knowing that you are a true gamer, I respect your opinion and the way that you choose express it. Congrats on the review, to you and Brent. You guys never cease to amaze me. Keep up the hard work, some of us here do appreciate it.
 
Originally posted by cornelious0_0
Except that "same old" method is what myself and many others do truely prefer, and have grown used to. I feel kind of cheated over here.....I guess I'll just have to keep going elsewhere for my video card reviews. Every other kind of review on here in terms of mobo's, sff pc's.....whatever has been awsome.....but the video card reviews leave me wanting more.....and I go elsewhere to get the BIG picture, 'cus I can't get it here.....anymore. :(
Click to expand...

I actually think you have pointed out the biggest problem you have with our new format. You are not used to it. The format change requires you to do a bit of work and adapt. It requires you to think a little about the content you are soaking up. Trust me, I do know that many readers, espeicially the "hardcore" tech guys, would not like it at all.

I do however think it will grow on you and come to be of more of a value than what you are used to now. Give it a chance and see how it pans out please. Also, as noted above, there are tons of others that will give you pages and pages of synthetic benchmarks and apples to apples.

I belive in what we are doing and it is really THE WAY that is should be done. If thousands of video cards are sold to provide a gameplay experience, I think that is exactly what should be evaluated. And quite frankly, the gameplay experience and immersion into that world is not bound by frames per second as it used to be.
 
Originally posted by MrHappyGoLucky
I want to have each new card make me feel like when I got my first 3DFX card and almost #hit my pants over the quality of gaming.
Click to expand...

You just made me stop and think about the first time I had that huge impact factor slap me in the face. It was when I got my Voodoo2 SLI setup. But what amzed me about it, was not the fact that I got the incredible frame rates, it was the fact that I got to play Quake 2 at 1024x768. That looked amazing.
 
Originally posted by fugu
it'd be nice to screenshots of the game using the benchmarked settings. like if the radeon was running at 1280, 8xAF, show a shot of that along with the graph in addition to the regular iq comparison shots.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by DaxE
Yeah Fugu, that would be great. Being able to see how the game looks at the highest playable res/eye candy would be a great bonus.
Click to expand...

Kyle?

Care to respond here? :p

I proposed something like this to you a few months ago, and I think it would really work beautifully. Have you seen how Rage3D do it?
 
Originally posted by DaxE
I saw someone post about the lower scores in the [H] review compared to other sites also. Did some looking and yes on average they are lower. Got me to thinking about it and I think it might be with the way they are actually doing the testing now. Not using fly bys and using fraps might show lower scores...but could show what you actually are getting in PLAYING the game. I am not saying this for sure, but was just thinking that could be what is up with it, I by no means think that Brent or Kyle are sell outs though.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words DaxE!

You have pointed out something here that I wanted to hear from someone else first instead of from us. Amazingly enough, it looks as though many times the benchmarks that are being run "around the net" do not show what frames per second are like in the real gaming situation. We have noticed this for months now and it really seems to bring up a couple of questions.

First, is the way [H] is evaluating gameplay working right and showing realy values that would be experienced in the real game. Well, I can say this, we have spoken at length with ATI and NVIDIA and neither of them has yet taken a moment to point out that our evaluations are not properly representing their products. And trust me, when they think that is the case, they both will say something.

Second, if ours are right, does that mean the rest are wrong? I will let you guys be the judge of that.
 
Originally posted by fugu
it'd be nice to screenshots of the game using the benchmarked settings. like if the radeon was running at 1280, 8xAF, show a shot of that along with the graph in addition to the regular iq comparison shots.
Click to expand...

I think this is a great idea and is something that can be done. One thing that I really like is cutting strips from screen shots and then placing them side by side, so you can see the differences on one screen. I have talked to Brent about doing more of this and you should see more of it in the future.
 
here's what I'm thinking...there's 2 resolutions most people play games at.
1024x768x32 for people with ~17" CRTs or people that want 60fps+ for online deathmatches.
1600x1200x32 for people with 20" LCDs or people that can stand 30fps average.

So how about benchmarking at 1024x768x32 with all IQ settings maxed out and max AA/AF. This would show if the hardwear is going to leave you hanging in the middle of a large battle.
Then run the benchmark at 1600x1200x32 with as high IQ/AA/AF settings you can, still getting 30fps average. That will make the native 1600x1200 people happy.

So what do you think?

And the [H] preview wasn't bad...it just wasn't what I was looking for.

Edit: And yes, we need full resolutions screen shoots to see what this thing can really do!
 
Originally posted by neisius

So what do you think?
Click to expand...

I think we will probably strive to represent the best gameplay experience that can be delivered by the card and not limit ourselves.
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
I think we will probably strive to represent the best gameplay experience that can be delivered by the card and not limit ourselves.
Click to expand...
ok I admit I just said that because I have a 17"crt and am thinking about getting a 20"lcd
:D
 
i understand the reviews, and i understand why they would be useful over the conventional review of the cards mere power.

my only concern is that different people prefer different things to determine playability. [H]ard|OCP is assuming what is most important to the most people. and there is probably going to be some alienation of those who have different priorities.

it has always been my understanding that anisotropic filtering provides more (IQ) benfit at a lower resolution, and provides little benefit at higher resolution, especially considering the computational cost. and my personal preference is similar.

and i also recently purchased a 1600x1200 "gaming" LCD from dell, so the 16x12 native resolution is important now , and your graphs were all but useless to me. though i acknowledge i am the minority, but this minority is growing.

there should be some way to determine what the masses prefer, or give them the option via javascript to configure what options have priority, though discussing this in an article would become a impossibility except to point out interesting points.

i do absolutely love the max min graphs over time, its what i care about as a gamer definately. though i would prefer some transperancy in the graphs to increase line legibility during the very spikey graphs.
 
I say great review Brent.And its good to see the [H] is the only site that currently doesnt get bogged down in a pissfest over 3dmark scores and FPS compatitions.But gives you a good review on how the card will actually be in REALWORLD usage;)
Great work an keep it up some do like it:)
 
I understand the [H] approach to their testing and graphing methodology, and I really appreciate what they are trying to achieve (and what they are trying to avoid, as @trapine mentions above).

The problem here is with people not taking the time to fully analyse the graph - and it's easy to understand why. FPS is easy to quantify in your mind, but not if you attempt to keep the FPS the same (at a minimum acceptable level, with max IQ), and the legend for the graph (the IQ) is inconsistent...

See, the FPS is easy to grok from looking at the graph, but not the image quality, which is what you are really trying to measure. See what I'm getting at? Can you tell how much better 1600 2xAA/8XAF@~60fps looks than 1280 8XAA/16xAF@~60Fps just by looking at the performace graph? No, you can't, and that is the problem - the graphs are attempting to measure something that cannot be represented with a timed graph.

That is why different ("traditional") graphs all representing a specific IQ and resolution are always preferable.

I like the graphs the way they are now, they give new meaning into the numbers in a way we haven't had before, but perhaps a few more "traditional" graphs would be a welcome addition.

As an aside, I don't buy the "we don't have time to test all the cards at different resolutions" argument. How much experimentation does it take to get the max IQ for a specific playable FPS? A lot, Im sure, prehaps even more than just a straight set of benchmarks.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


Originally posted by onetwo
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).
Click to expand...



I'd have to say I agree with these two. I prefer the apples to apples resolution and quailty settings then tell me why the two aren't the same (i.e. IQ differences/rendering and so on). The other reviews I read (firingsquad, anand and tom's) all took the 6800U to 1600-1200 with AA and AF cranked up and that is usually when the 6800U started to separate from the others. Running tests at 12x10 (which were shown to run fine on the older hardware and be CPU limited in many cases) IMO took away from this GPU review.

edit: sorry about the improper quoting :/
 
What exactly was "way off"? Please be specific.
Click to expand...

None of benchmarks made it clear that:

1) The NV40 is greatly held back by the CPU in most games. The one benchmark that clearly hinted at this wasn't supported by the text or supplementary benchmarks necessary to come to any sort of conclusion.

2) The NV40 is 2 - 3 times more playable at 1600x1200 and up resolutions than exisiting hardware -- many games can have every bell and whistle enabled and still run ~60fps.

3) The new 8xAA implementation results in a massive performance hit and is not to be considered usable.

These are major insights that your 'new' reviewing system failed to impart upon the reader.

IMO, try differentiating yourselves with great text, not unorthodox tests.
 
I thought the Hard review was alright, it took it from a different angle. I don't know why people had such a hard time understanding the way you benched the games Brent looked simple enough to me.
 
It didnt show how the CPU was the limiting factor like other reviews but it did show the maximun resolution and IQ I could expect with the card compared to others cards (which I dont think anyother review did).

I also read other reviews to get a second opinion (such as Anandtech's). You both have merits in your reviewing method.

Keep it how it is. People should read more than 1 review of a product anyways! ;)
 
Originally posted by onetwo
None of benchmarks made it clear that:

1) The NV40 is greatly held back by the CPU in most games. The one benchmark that clearly hinted at this wasn't supported by the text or supplementary benchmarks necessary to come to any sort of conclusion.

2) The NV40 is 2 - 3 times more playable at 1600x1200 and up resolutions than exisiting hardware -- many games can have every bell and whistle enabled and still run ~60fps.

3) The new 8xAA implementation results in a massive performance hit and is not to be considered usable.

These are major insights that your 'new' reviewing system failed to impart upon the reader.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about, it fails to show what the card really is and what it can really do. If I'm gonna spend over $700 on a video card I wanna know how it performs ACROSS THE BOARD, not just what it gets at it's "best" settings, which are already decided for me.....which is a bad idea IMO. Only showing how the card performs at a certain resolution/detail setting in a game is a horrible idea because I really don't like to be told what is the cards best settings to game at. I have different preferences and different ideas of what is right.....using your method I really don't get an idea of anything, because i NEED to see the rest of the information.

I think that something like Firing Squad's review was overall MUCH better, for one main reason.....it gives me the WHOLE picture.....not just some pre-determined "best" gaming settings. I think the people who are swearing by "our" review need to go check out my link.....you'll get the WHOLE story, and much more usefull information. Oh, just FYI, scroll back a couple pages and they go into just as much detail comparing AA and AF on the three cards and show gains in the technology as well. I'd hardly call something like this "just another" review.....it's one of the best, most comprehensive I've seen for a new card in awhile. This is the kind of thing I need to be able to see to be able to make an educated decision on which card to buy.....being told what SINGLE setting is best for each game does absolutely nothing for me, and frankly, means jack squat.

If all video card reviews turned into what [H] is doing I think I'd have to cry.....'cus there'd be nobody out there to really help me. What [H] is doing isn't helping me at all or making things easier, it's just making myself (and others) go out and read ANOTHER review to get my head back in the right place.

Come on [H].....stop trying to feed me what YOU think is the "best playable settings" in these reviews.....cus it means nothing to so many of us, and you've lost a number of loyal readers (including myself) over it.
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
You found us out. It was a conspiracy to make NVIDIA look bad by showing playable framerates at high resolutions with superior image quality.
Click to expand...
Run the benches the same across the board. It's a lot simpler to understand. If people can't tell the differences by looking at the numbers then they don't need to be on the computer in the first place.
 
You can't be all-inclusive with benchmarks. There will be some people who 15FPS is fine for, and others won't accept anything less than 60FPS. The reviews can only try to include most people's tastes. You can't satisfy everyone. To think so is ludicrous.
 
Originally posted by Brent
what do you mean by two year old cores?
Click to expand...

He is a massive fanboy. That's what he meant. If 420 came out first, and you showed it owning the 5950, he'd say it was a fair comparison.
 
Originally posted by Rocket_Magnet
Run the benches the same across the board. It's a lot simpler to understand. If people can't tell the differences by looking at the numbers then they don't need to be on the computer in the first place.
Click to expand...

:cool:
 
The new type of "review" sucks. Others in this thread have already pinpointed out why. Trying to equalize framerates and comparing the resulting image quality settings is morally bankrupt, and hides the fact that the GeForce 6800 Ultra is blisteringly faster than current cards.
 
The big problem that I have with this style of reviewing is that it's hard to quantify performance differences between the cards. Looking at the graphs, I can tell that the 6800 is faster than the others, but by how much I can't tell when all three are running at different settings. In other words, it's hard for readers to imagine what kind of performance hit 4xAA brings about compared to 2xAA. This is basically what the new reviewing style is forcing us to do since FPS values were the for all 3 cards in most of the benchmarks.
 
The big problem that I have with this style of reviewing is that you it's hard to quantify performance differences between the cards. Looking at the graphs, I can tell that the 6800 is faster than the others, but by how much I can't tell when all three are running at different settings.
Click to expand...

Exactly, people need to know which card is FASTER, flat out.....and you shouldn't deny them of that. You might be showing which card is faster, but when you use different details settings on each one it doesn't mean anything. To say that this preview wasn't hiding the true performance of the 6800 Ultra would be an utter lie. I guess the FiringSquad just values its readers a little more, that's all.....it much more clearly showed who the real leader was, and the main thing.....by how MUCH. If you keep changing the settings on teh cards until they're performing the same how the hell is a person supposed to say that this card wins at this resolution, and this one at the other??? It is true that the 6800U is neck and neck wiht the XT at lower resolutions and almost being outdone, but it is the high res/high IQ settings that DO show it being 2-3 times faster then it's competition. I don't remember seeing any numbers 2-3 times higher on [H]'s "preview" do you??? Didn't think so........because [H] felt it necessary to "level the playing field" and set the cards up so it looked like there wasn't much of a difference at all.....explain the logic behind that. This system really needs to be killed off. If you're running the 6800 at 1280x1024 in almost all the tests, what does that tell people that game at 1024x768 or 1600x1200 resolutions??? Or what about people that don't like gaming with AA or AF and wanna see just how fast it is without any frills??? Or how about the people that simply CAN'T game at certain resolutions??? Some people have either older monitors or eyes that cannot stand 1280x1024 res on a 17" screen.....you expect them to buy a new monitor just so they can understand your "benchmarks". :rolleyes:

I dont know what else I can say that I havne't already except I hope that [H] starts using their god given brains and realise that they're pissing off more people then they're pleasing with this new system. I refure to give [H] any of my time with their so called video card "reviews" anymore.....it simply isnt worth it.
 
Originally posted by cornelious0_0
Exactly, people need to know which card is FASTER, flat out.....and you shouldn't deny them of that. You might be showing which card is faster, but when you use different details settings on each one it doesn't mean anything. To say that this preview wasn't hiding the true performance of the 6800 Ultra would be an utter lie. I guess the FiringSquad just values its readers a little more, that's all.....it much more clearly showed who the real leader was, and the main thing.....by how MUCH. If you keep changing the settings on teh cards until they're performing the same how the hell is a person supposed to say that this card wins at this resolution, and this one at the other??? It is true that the 6800U is neck and neck wiht the XT at lower resolutions and almost being outdone, but it is the high res/high IQ settings that DO show it being 2-3 times faster then it's competition. I don't remember seeing any numbers 2-3 times higher on [H]'s "preview" do you??? Didn't think so........because [H] felt it necessary to "level the playing field" and set the cards up so it looked like there wasn't much of a difference at all.....explain the logic behind that. This system really needs to be killed off. If you're running the 6800 at 1280x1024 in almost all the tests, what does that tell people that game at 1024x768 or 1600x1200 resolutions??? Or what about people that don't like gaming with AA or AF and wanna see just how fast it is without any frills??? Or how about the people that simply CAN'T game at certain resolutions??? Some people have either older monitors or eyes that cannot stand 1280x1024 res on a 17" screen.....you expect them to buy a new monitor just so they can understand your "benchmarks". :rolleyes:

I dont know what else I can say that I havne't already except I hope that [H] starts using their god given brains and realise that they're pissing off more people then they're pleasing with this new system. I refure to give [H] any of my time with their so called video card "reviews" anymore.....it simply isnt worth it.
Click to expand...

I agree that there should be more raw speed comparisons, but benchmarking at a lot of different resolutions and different AA/AF settings would be incredibly time consuming and frustrating for Kyle and Brent. I'm sure they have better things to do than benchmark at a plethora of different settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top