Feedback on GeForce 6800U Preview

Originally posted by LegendKiller

You have done so in your reviews and I find that truly insightful. While there are people who will always have to measure themselved by a yard stick, you have shown some a way to measure not quantity but quality.
Click to expand...
How are we supposed to measure image quality with respect to performance using hardocp's review?

My questions went unanswered by either Brent or Kyle, so maybe you can answer them. Help me get it through my "thick skull." Using hardocp's review, how do you tell how much better the image quality (as it relates to performance) for the 6800u is than the 9800xt?

Originally posted by Brent
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.
Click to expand...
My response to Brent's post:
Ok, so where do we see how the 6800u's image quality at 1280x1024 4XAA/16XAF compares to the image quality of the 9800xt at 1280x1024 2XAA/8XAF?


Another couple of questions:

In Battlefield Vietnam, how am I supposed to know how much better the 6800u at 1280x960 4xaa/8xaf looks than the 9800xt at 1024x768 0xaa/8xaf without screenshots? What good is a screenshot of the 9800xt with 4xaa when the only benchmark is not using any aa at all? What good is a screenshot of the 6800u running at 1024x768 while the benchmark is done at 1280x960?

Anyone, feel free to answer. They are simple questions.
 
Originally posted by cornelious0_0
I didn't miss anything, the one thing I'm still getting at is not once did I see any benchmarks at 1600x1200 with AA and AF cranked up, which shows the cards true power. BTW, at those ultra high settings it is STILL the best performer, and makes fools out of everything else on the market.
Click to expand...

Call of Duty - 1600x1200 4xaa/16xaf http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2LDg=

we played the games with the resolution and quality settings that were playable, if 16x12 with aa and af wasn't playable, we didn't play at that setting and graph it

common sense, we played each game at the highest playable settings

There is another thing I don't understand, and that's how your benchmarks don't match up with a number of the others out there. Take for instance Unreal2k4 in your preview. You guys showed the 6800 running at 1280x1024 res with 4xAA and 16xAF.....with an average fps of 46.5.....whereas the review over at the firingsquad has it running at 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 8xAF.....but at 65.6fps. I know for certain that not even my 9800XT takes a 20fps hit from going up to 16xAF. Either you guys are using different methods of testing or something is up.
Click to expand...

I haven't read their review yet so I don't know their methods or what kind of demo they used.

But I do know what kind of demo we used, and it was a real recorded multiplayer onslaught battle in ons_arcticstronghold with 16 players, and was extremely intense.

We urge you not to put so much effort into comparing the avg fps to another website's avg fps who's methods and demo are different, but concentrate on the fact that ut2004 can be played at 1280x1024 4xaa/16xaf which is the more important fact.
 
they've already said they're going to change/combine the benchmarking method.

So lets stop yapping about the past(last review).....
and move on to the future... get a new review posted (of the 420/X800 compared to 6800!!)

and we'll bitch some more then if its not perfect for EVERY single person's taste. :) lol

thread closed, by my imaginary MOD skillz
 
I have to say that when I first went to the review I was somewhat confused, like (I suspect) many I went straight for the graphs, and there was a sort of moment of "Wha...?", but once I'd figured out what was going on the review told me exactly what I needed to know in exactly the detail I needed to know it.

As I think was said in the preview if you just want apples to apples comparisons you are spoilt for choice elsewhere.

I think Brent got it spot on, I took one look at some of the epic novels that passed for reviews on other sites and was instantly turned off.

The only other review that I rate was Anands, and that's largely because he used my current card, 9700pro as a comparison, so It gives a clearer Idea of what I'd be gaining.
 
Here is my opinion, take it as you will.

1. I like what you did. It's nice seeing the max playable. It helps a lot.

2. I also like seeing a graph of straight speed, no aa, no af, at 1600x1200 or 1024x768. Why? Because I buy when I can get a 40% increase in speed from buying a new card (the new one at stock speed only, I don't count overclocking at first). I can't tell that on your review, so I have to go elsewhere and read some more.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
Here is my opinion, take it as you will.

1. I like what you did. It's nice seeing the max playable. It helps a lot.

2. I also like seeing a graph of straight speed, no aa, no af, at 1600x1200 or 1024x768. Why? Because I buy when I can get a 40% increase in speed from buying a new card (the new one at stock speed only, I don't count overclocking at first). I can't tell that on your review, so I have to go elsewhere and read some more.
Click to expand...

yeah, i've thought about that

compare say just 16x12 noaa noaf which would definitely be "apples to apples", that would get rid of the different aa and af methods factor and make it pure apples to apples
 
Exactly, and since there are many people who really want the pure comparo, it would make just about everyone happier, and not take a whole lot of extra work on your part. Plus, the unchanged pure HP numbers are always nice. That way we can compare efficiency vs brute stregnth...

And thanks for looking for our feedback! It's always nice knowing that people consider what their readers think.
 
When I first read the preview it did leave a sour taste in my mouth, but after sitting on it for a couple days I decided I really prefer this style. I saw the max playable settings on a new card on the most intensive parts of the most intensive games. I took that and looked at my current hardware (9800 pro) and see a huge increase in quality while maintaining framerates I'm used to. Thumbsup on the review and keep up the good work.
 
I enjoy the format [H] now use. It gives me a better idea on how the cards actually perform and look. DX9 and Shaders have not been introduced to give us higher FPS, but Eye Candy.

Isn't that what we all want folks? After reading that review I saw that the 6800 was playable at much higher settings than the current cards and they also included what maximum settings you can expect to use while playing each game.


No other review site on the web with their canned benchmarks and graphs can answer those questions!!!!!
 
I’m sure my reply to this review is a few days too late… and everything has been said.

However, I’m not an Nvidia fan and I really like ATI videocards. But as an ATI card owner I do feel that this new style of comparing cards is very misleading and extremely subjected to the whims and opinions of the article writer.

There are too many variables these days it would seem to make a true apple-to-apple review. So I can fully understand why someone would want to move away from this way of thinking in benchmarks.

You are only going to confuse people into thinking that the new Nvidia cards are not running better than the current day ATI cards. I can tell you right now that my ATI card can’t give me 14K 3dMark2003 scores or play some of these new games at 30 ~ 60FPS. And for many of us die hard pc fans this matters more than anything else. To be very honest I came to love [H]ardOCP for their dry and cut apples-to-apples benchmarks. Now that this is a thing of the past I’ve found myself reading places like Toms hardware to get a better idea of these new cards. This can’t be a good thing [H]ardOCP!!

So the real question I have for you today is where are the slow factors shown into your benchmarks? When my new ATI card is flopping around at 10FPS trying to show off it’s IQ and looking pretty retarded doing it nice and slow kind of takes the fun right out of playing games. So as a “nice looking and playing style factor benchmark” why don’t we see more of these benches showing off my ATI card having unplayable frame rates?

These last few days I’ve had to beat down people using the 6800 - [H]ardOCP links. They ran around laughing like little schools kids while saying the new Nvidia card sucks! Then we go out of are way and waste time to point out what was said in the very first post of this thread, “not apple-to-apple”. And as you guessed it their faces go white and the post is dropped. So [H]ardOCP’s new style is only creating drama and being used in such away that these benchmarks are misrepresenting numbers to those people with lower IQ’s that have already adopted the more popular way of comparing new PC hardware. Not only does this force [H]ardOCP to write more in their defense each time because the world fails to understand you. But now there is 2 times the work for each Article and 2 times the drama of those other people that can’t follow.

Man, this brings a whole new meaning to my profound love of apples-to-apples benchmarks. It might not be much, but it’s all we got!
 
I don't think the graphs are misleading once you take time to read what settings are running on each different card.
 
Originally posted by cornelious0_0

I know that you're not really a dumb guy but these reponses you've been coming up with are a little pathetic FrgMstr, you actually expect me to buy any of this. I'm not going to take you (or the site) seriously if you keep turning my words around, underminding me, and talking like you know what's best for us. That last one isn't directed at you personally, moreso at [H].....because its just teh feeling I'm left with after reading that preview.
Click to expand...


I am sorry you are upset with me personally and my answers. I stand behind our cotent 100%. If you feel as though it has no benefit, please feel free to not use HardOCP as a free resource.

I fully believe in what we are doing as being the right thing. Again, I am sorry that you don't.
 
Originally posted by 101998
When I first read the preview it did leave a sour taste in my mouth, but after sitting on it for a couple days I decided I really prefer this style. I saw the max playable settings on a new card on the most intensive parts of the most intensive games. I took that and looked at my current hardware (9800 pro) and see a huge increase in quality while maintaining framerates I'm used to. Thumbsup on the review and keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

First off, thanks for giving our preview a second chance. You are right though, this new format can be a turn off when you are first exposed to it. Let's face it, the way we are doing things goes against YEARS of conditioning on what we have come to expect.

We certainly do not expect for it to be become all the rage overnight, but I fully feel as though our more intelligent readers will give it a chance and try to see the pure value in what we are representing. And that is gameplay performance analysis. cornelious0_0 above keeps telling me about how wrong [H] "benchmarks" are. Sooner or late he will realize that we did not even show any benchmarks. We showed what our gaming experience really was in a real world situation. To even compare an average framerate from another site is REALLY the apples and oranges comparison...

I think we have a long row to hoe in the way we are doing things, but I think it will be better for people that buy video cards to play games at the end of the day, and that is really what is important to us.
 
Originally posted by MemoryInAGarden
I don't think the graphs are misleading once you take time to read what settings are running on each different card.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the graphs are misleading, I think they are worthless. It doesn't matter how much time you take to read them, they are worthless without corresponding screenshots. Just as the screenshots are worthless without corresponding benchmarks. As far as I'm concerned, this "gaming experience" that Kyle keeps referring to should consist of both performance AND image quality. Not performance OR image quality.

I hate doing what feels like beating a dead horse, but considering that I have yet to receive any answer at all, the proverbial horse hasn't been put to death yet. So I'll pose the question for the third time.

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2LDc=

Battlefield Vietnam:

Benchmarks:
6800u - 1280x960 4xaa/8xaf
9800xt - 1024x768 0xaa/8xaf

Screenshots:
6800u - 1024x768 4xaa/8xaf
9800xt - 1024x768 4xaa/8xaf

Kyle or Brent, please tell me, how am I supposed to know how much better the 6800u at 1280x960 4xaa/8xaf looks than the 9800xt at 1024x768 0xaa/8xaf without screenshots? What good is a screenshot of the 9800xt with 4xaa when the only benchmark is not using any aa at all? What good is a screenshot of the 6800u running at 1024x768 while the benchmark is done at 1280x960?
 
Honestly, the whole 'it's all about the game experience' stance seems like an excuse to not have to do as many benchmarks as any of the other sites.

Yes, benchmarking takes time, but lots of other sites didn't seem to have trouble getting articles out with record numbers of tests... We're talking about a major GPU launch, for goodness' sake. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual writing of the article was put off until the last minute like a term paper.
 
We're talking about a major GPU launch, for goodness' sake. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual writing of the article was put off until the last minute like a term paper.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go quite THAT far, come on, give the guys a little credit. A lot of work/writing went into that GeForce 6 series history article [H] put up and I really did enjoy that read.

I fully believe in what we are doing as being the right thing. Again, I am sorry that you don't.
Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry.....I was acting WAY out of line, and I'd like to apologize. I jumped the gun in judging [H] and what they were doing, I guess I'm just a little more immersed in the benchmark world then a lot of guys around here, and it took me a little longer to come to terms with what was going on.

I'm giving you guys another chance, as I owe you at least that much.
 
So Kyle and Brent, two questions.

1. Given there are still some graphical errors on the NV side of the house with still using PS1.1 extensions on PS2.0 games, but how much did the gaming experience compare to the 9800ProXT. I'm sorta critical of not only 3d, but 2d as well and always found the GF3 and GF4 to be grainy. I like what I have seen from the 6800 and see a spot in my case for it but really need to hear what you think AND see what the 420 does!

2. How was your trips to Canada? Did you see anything you like? ;)
 
Originally posted by MemoryInAGarden
I don't think the graphs are misleading once you take time to read what settings are running on each different card.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that people don't like to read. Most people will not take the time and are only looking for the apples-to-apples benchmarks. I say it's misleading because there are those people that will skip to the benchmark and play them off as apples-to-apples. So there is nothing magical about the problem here, it's just the way people are and I see no need to change things. So basicly you either use the Apples-to-Apples benchmarking the way they are done today or do reviews without any benchmarks at all.

Just my 2 cents...;)
 
Originally posted by Tivon
So there is nothing magical about the problem here, it's just the way people are and I see no need to change things.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is moreso what I'm starting to believe.....I guess it's nice that [H] is "making a stand" like this and doing things differently then anyone else, which really does distinguish them from the croud. There are certain straight facts that I can get (a little more easier) from you guys, but there's always everyone else out there who has the "big picture" to show me for other comparisons.
 
Originally posted by gb25
I don't think that the graphs are misleading, I think they are worthless. It doesn't matter how much time you take to read them, they are worthless without corresponding screenshots. Just as the screenshots are worthless without corresponding benchmarks. As far as I'm concerned, this "gaming experience" that Kyle keeps referring to should consist of both performance AND image quality. Not performance OR image quality.

I hate doing what feels like beating a dead horse, but considering that I have yet to receive any answer at all, the proverbial horse hasn't been put to death yet. So I'll pose the question for the third time.

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2LDc=

Battlefield Vietnam:

Benchmarks:
6800u - 1280x960 4xaa/8xaf
9800xt - 1024x768 0xaa/8xaf

Screenshots:
6800u - 1024x768 4xaa/8xaf
9800xt - 1024x768 4xaa/8xaf

Kyle or Brent, please tell me, how am I supposed to know how much better the 6800u at 1280x960 4xaa/8xaf looks than the 9800xt at 1024x768 0xaa/8xaf without screenshots? What good is a screenshot of the 9800xt with 4xaa when the only benchmark is not using any aa at all? What good is a screenshot of the 6800u running at 1024x768 while the benchmark is done at 1280x960?
Click to expand...

Ditto that... if you are going to benchmark the cards at different settings/resolutions.... then show the IQ screenshots of the with those same "playable settings"

At least that would make your approach... make sense to me.

I'm a pretty smart guy so I can easily grasp what you are doing!! lol .... but as you scale up resolutions and AA/AF settings.... the amount of work grows exponentially... its hard to tell just how much better one card is than the other. But if you at least show the IQ at those diff. settings at least I could see the difference in the 2.

Another main concern is the lines on the graph almost match up in most cases since you're shooting for the same minimum "gaming experience" so whats the point of a graph then?
 
Originally posted by Tivon
The problem here is that people don't like to read. Most people will not take the time and are only looking for the apples-to-apples benchmarks. I say it's misleading because there are those people that will skip to the benchmark and play them off as apples-to-apples.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of sites that will dumb it down for you if that is what you need.
 
Originally posted by chrisf6969
Another main concern is the lines on the graph almost match up in most cases since you're shooting for the same minimum "gaming experience" so whats the point of a graph then?
Click to expand...


We actually considered and discussed getting rid of frame rate graphs all together. (You will notice though that we do cut the top of the graph off in most as we think FPS over 60 really does not matter. Can't beleive that nobody has complained about that yet. :D ) But doing that is just as bad as relying on an average frame rate. So while many of the frames per second comparisons do closely follow the same curves, they are hardly straight and do tell a story IMO. In fact, I think they go to show you how worthless and average frame rate number is in many cases.

Frame rates are a very important part of gaming and the fact remains that you have to have them at a certain level to have a playable game. So folks can live with 20, so have to have 60+. With the graphs there you can see what REAL gaming is like on the card at the described level of play.
 
Originally posted by Tivon
The problem here is that people don't like to read.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I don't know if this new review style is the be all and end all of video card reviewing, but I think it's definitely a step in the right direction.
The pure speed and framerate benches we're used to seeing do leave alot to be desired, and have been abused and compromised in the past, as has been well documented here on the [H].
It's not like Kyle and Brent just woke up the other day and decided they were going to change everything just for the [H]3ll of it.
They were talking about changing the way benchmarking was done, IIRC, about a year and a half ago during the big Nvidia/3DMark fiasco.
Who else has made any real changes since then?
Sure, it may have a few bugs, but they'll be worked out over time.
Once again Kyle is taking the lead, bucking the trends, refusing to follow the rest of the herd.
If he never took any risks, he wouldn't be truly [H]ard, would he?
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
There are plenty of sites that will dumb it down for you if that is what you need.
Click to expand...

And you aren't dumbing it down for us? Not only have you basically presumed to tell us what resolution/settings we should be running at for each video card, but you haven't even bothered to show us what kind of image quality to expect. You have dumbed it down just about as much as it can get.

In yet another example, let's take a look at Far Cry:

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2LDQ=

Assuming that I was considering buying a 6800u, mainly for playing Far Cry. Your review only has any value to me IF I will be running at 1024x768 4xaa/8xaf. What if I want to run at 1024x768 2xaa/8xaf? Or 1280x1024 2xaa/8xaf? Or any other combination of resolution/settings? As a result of the lack of information provided in your review, I have no idea of whether or not the card is worth purchasing, unless I plan on running at the resolution/settings that you used in the review.

Also, what about people using lcd's with native resolutions other than 1024x768? Let's say I have this lcd. I imagine that it's a fairly common lcd. I don't actually have one, but I believe the native resolution is 1280x1024. I think it would make sense that I would want to play games using my lcd's native resolution if possible. Maybe even if it means dropping aa a notch. So, how does your representation of your "gaming experience" have any value to me? Or are you suggesting that I should run at 1024x768 even though my lcd's native resolution is 1280x1024? Or are you just completely disregarding people like me?

Instead of trying to tell everyone what resolution/settings we should play at, why don't you just give us the facts and let us decide for ourselves? The facts being performance numbers and screenshots to go along with those performance numbers.

By the way, nice job on avoiding answering my questions. I would think that if someone were pointing out flaws in my reviewing method, I would at least address them. Even if it were a generic response such as "we're looking in to it." But I guess it isn't an issue for you. Apparently you don't care that we aren't able to judge image quality with respect to performance. And you wonder why some people are questioning your new reviewing methods. Hmmm, I can't imagine why.
 
gb25, your concerns about the image quality comparisons have been noted :)

i have been following this whole thread and listening to the feedback
 
Originally posted by Brent
gb25, your concerns about the image quality comparisons have been noted :)

i have been following this whole thread and listening to the feedback
Click to expand...

Good to hear. Now if you can work on providing a little more information for the people expecting to run at resolutions/settings other than what you choose to use, you should have a good reviewing method. In my opinion, the easiest and best way to do it is a more traditional review comparing all cards performance at the same settings and then showing screenshots also using the same settings. But apparently you and Kyle are set on finding a different way of doing it, so more power to you. I'll be impressed if you manage to come up with a different reviewing method that becomes widely accepted.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve

And thanks for looking for our feedback! It's always nice knowing that people consider what their readers think.
Click to expand...

Actually, if I could go off topic for a moment about this...

<RANT>
I don't think Kyle gives a shit about what we think. Oh, he might think so to himself, and deny it flat out, but in the end he only follows his own head. These threads aren't looking for feedback, they're looking for justification, and when that justification and asslicking isn't forthcoming accross the board, the yes-men get little pats on the head and the guys with critique get a lashing of Kyle's ascerbic, and utterly predictable, wit (or lack of it).

The biggest irritation I have is Kyle's patronising sarcasm with the usual invitation to leave or look elsewhere for info, y'know, crap like "If you don't like it, then click the little X at the top right", and so on.

I find that kind of response immature and distasteful. DO YOU or DO YOU NOT want our readership and input?

Originally posted by FrgMstr

Then I suggest you stick with other sources for your information. No hard feelings.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by FrgMstr

If how the game really plays means nothing to you , then I suggest you do not read our articles.
Click to expand...

and my personal favourite, Kyle's little trump card

Originally posted by FrgMstr

I am sorry you are upset with me personally and my answers. I stand behind our cotent 100%. If you feel as though it has no benefit, please feel free to not use HardOCP as a free resource.
Click to expand...

Kyle seems to think he is something special because he offers a free service. Hello, this is the internet. You do not have a monopoly on being a "free resource". I always find the "free" bit laughable, and it ALWAYS comes up in these kinds of debates, always.

If you compare Brent's replies to Kyle's you can easily see that Brent is the more mature and forthcoming of the two. Having personally been the target of Kyle's arrogance on more than one occasion, I know that Kyle does not like criticism. Not at all. He'll come up with crap like "You have the right to disagree", etc, but then he contradicts it with the little "Click the X..." BS.

Kyle, understand this. We love the [H], we really do. We offer critique because we care about the site. What would you prefer, that we did not give a shit and followed whatever you wrote like sheep?

</RANT>
 
When I read reviews I want to be able to get to the bottom line quickly w/o wading thru a bunch of needless info
and yes I care about image quality, and driver features, and the dozen or so other details one can delve into in a review, but the ease in which I can see the performance results is clouded by the way they are (currently) graphically represented

1. The "cardiogram" graphs are hard to read, and really don't mean much unless you take the time to truly interpret them,
I mean geez just use bar graphs.
2. The numbers below them could be used to make a simple graph that is fast and easy to read, to compare the cards in question
3. Just set all cards to the "same" settings, 2X, 8X or whatever the corresponding equivelant is, and if there isn't one, the closest setting to it. Setting one card to 4x and the other to 8x doesn't really give us something to guage with,
Why not overclock one, and not the others and say it was capable and the others werent as overclockable?
Just get to the numbers. keep it consisntent, and make it something that within 30-9 seconds I can know the facts and get on with the next article or news bit, etc.
 
Originally posted by gb25
And you aren't dumbing it down for us? Not only have you basically presumed to tell us what resolution/settings we should be running at for each video card, but you haven't even bothered to show us what kind of image quality to expect. You have dumbed it down just about as much as it can get.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by PhyberOptik
Actually, if I could go off topic for a moment about this...

<RANT>
I don't think Kyle gives a shit about what we think.
</RANT>
Click to expand...

If I did not, I would not spend time reading this, and I sure as hell would not spend my time answering folks replies. If you read through, you will see that we have taken the replies to heart and will be changing some things, but you seem to think that since a few folks do not understand what we are trying to accomplish, or do not like the evaluations, that we are going to change the whole program. We have internally defined a direction that we are very sure of. What we are asking for here are ideas that will help us to fine tune it.

As for my answers about not changing and reminding folks they can leave, they are very valid answers. What those people are specifically asking for can be found on ten or more highly popular sites that are easy for them to access. I may be an arrogant prick, but I am being realistic too in not leading people on letting them think they are going to get something that we are not going to provide.
 
Originally posted by The T-man
When I read reviews I want to be able to get to the bottom line quickly w/o wading thru a bunch of needless info
and yes I care about image quality, and driver features, and the dozen or so other details one can delve into in a review, but the ease in which I can see the performance results is clouded by the way they are (currently) graphically represented

1. The "cardiogram" graphs are hard to read, and really don't mean much unless you take the time to truly interpret them,
I mean geez just use bar graphs.
2. The numbers below them could be used to make a simple graph that is fast and easy to read, to compare the cards in question
3. Just set all cards to the "same" settings, 2X, 8X or whatever the corresponding equivelant is, and if there isn't one, the closest setting to it. Setting one card to 4x and the other to 8x doesn't really give us something to guage with,
Why not overclock one, and not the others and say it was capable and the others werent as overclockable?
Just get to the numbers. keep it consisntent, and make it something that within 30-9 seconds I can know the facts and get on with the next article or news bit, etc.
Click to expand...

If quick is what you are looking for, I would suggest simply reading the Conclusion page and not bother with graphs at all.

1. Yes, there is a lot of information on those graphs. If you look at the table in the bottom, there are some hi/low and average values there.

2. The numbers below are so simple, I would suggest no graph is needed.

3. No thanks as that does not evaluate what the real gameplay experience would be in our eyes.
 
Originally posted by The T-man

3. Just set all cards to the "same" settings, 2X, 8X or whatever the corresponding equivelant is, and if there isn't one, the closest setting to it. Setting one card to 4x and the other to 8x doesn't really give us something to guage with,
Click to expand...

I believe that most people are going to turn the settings up as high as they can without sacrificing playability. A certain setting may not stress a certain card very much, but would bring another card to its knees.
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
As for my answers about not changing and reminding folks they can leave, they are very valid answers.
Click to expand...

Kyle, you do not see others making that kind of comment. I'm not saying that you're being an arsehole out of hand, what gets me is the uncalled-for vitriol. It's entirely possible to argue and disagree with people without telling them to sod off elsewhere, even if that's what they really ought to do. It makes you look like a dumbass that is being petulant.

Argue with reason and motive, not sarcasm and acidity. We know you can, Kyle, you sure are not a dumbass.

PS What time is it over there? Damn, you should be catching some Z's
 
Originally posted by PhyberOptik
Kyle, you do not see others making that kind of comment. I'm not saying that you're being an arsehole out of hand, what gets me is the uncalled-for vitriol. It's entirely possible to argue and disagree with people without telling them to sod off elsewhere, even if that's what they really ought to do. It makes you look like a dumbass that is being petulant.

Argue with reason and motive, not sarcasm and acidity. We know you can, Kyle, you sure are not a dumbass.

PS What time is it over there? Damn, you should be catching some Z's
Click to expand...

First off, I do not base the things I say on other's and the kinds of comments they make.

If you go back and read this thread you will note that any time I have suggested to folks that they might go elsewhere for their information, the topic has already been discussed. I am not going to reargue and explain every point every single time someone posts it.

Please show me a point that has not been addressed by me. This thread was posted to get feedback so we could figure out how to polish our current format and listen to feedback on it. The thread was not posted to buckle under the comments of a few folks and go back to doing it in a way that we think has limited value.

And for the record, this post is way off topic. Should you wish to discuss how I reply to folks, please go start another thread. Thanks.

Now can we get back to the subject?
 
As instructed, please start another thread that addresses your dislike for my attitude. I would like to get this one back on topic. Consider this your warning.

Kyle
 
i want to what You and Brent were doing in Toronto.

B.T.W

I think the new review format is great.Not the same old sh**, like anands or Toms, But a real world I.Q & performance review.I like it!!!
 
Originally posted by gb25
Good to hear. Now if you can work on providing a little more information for the people expecting to run at resolutions/settings other than what you choose to use, you should have a good reviewing method. In my opinion, the easiest and best way to do it is a more traditional review comparing all cards performance at the same settings and then showing screenshots also using the same settings. But apparently you and Kyle are set on finding a different way of doing it, so more power to you. I'll be impressed if you manage to come up with a different reviewing method that becomes widely accepted.
Click to expand...

So will I, and I think they are VERY close to it. I use this one, Anand's, and the one from Sharky or Firingsquad to make my determination. Anand has straight graphs for everything, Firingsquad babbles, and these guys show me gaming power. Now, I agree that each should have at least one apples to apples comparo (the thing I discussed with Brent earlier, one 1600 noaa, noaf comparo for speed on the system being tested on), but add that and the IQ comparison at the levels tested, and I would have nothing to wish for. :)
 
Originally posted by FrgMstr
Please show me a point that has not been addressed by me.
Click to expand...
In Battlefield Vietnam, how am I supposed to know how much better the 6800u at 1280x960 4xaa/8xaf looks than the 9800xt at 1024x768 0xaa/8xaf without screenshots? What good is a screenshot of the 9800xt with 4xaa when the only benchmark is not using any aa at all? What good is a screenshot of the 6800u running at 1024x768 while the benchmark is done at 1280x960?
Click to expand...
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.


Assuming that I was considering buying a 6800u, mainly for playing Far Cry. Your review only has any value to me IF I will be running at 1024x768 4xaa/8xaf. What if I want to run at 1024x768 2xaa/8xaf? Or 1280x1024 2xaa/8xaf? Or any other combination of resolution/settings?

Also, what about people using lcd's with native resolutions other than 1024x768? Let's say I have this lcd. I imagine that it's a fairly common lcd. I don't actually have one, but I believe the native resolution is 1280x1024. I think it would make sense that I would want to play games using my lcd's native resolution if possible. Maybe even if it means dropping aa a notch. So, how does your representation of your "gaming experience" have any value to me? Or are you suggesting that I should run at 1024x768 even though my lcd's native resolution is 1280x1024? Or are you just completely disregarding people like me?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top