FragBox 2 Failure Ruffles Falcon Feathers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Morley said:
Originally Posted by Beniled
Actually they did test THAT system with THAT game. One of the subjects covered in the other thread is that they did infact test BF2 on the system ordered with [H]'s cd key.

I'm also open to the possibility that the error didn't show up until after we received the system...of course there's plenty of possibilities we all still do not know EXACTLY what the problem was.
Click to expand...


True i was just correcting the statement that they hadn't tested this system with BF2. Hell the system could have had bumpy ride for all we know, a lil ESD, who knows.
 
Bottom line is that the system was delivered unstable. Period. As a consumer, I would not have dealt with even a week of tech support hell. I would have tried my hand with tech support for a day or two MAX then sent the system back and went with either another rig from Falcon or I would have went with another manufacturer. What caused the problem is a moot point...the bottom line is that it didn't work as advertised.

Let THEM figure out what the problem was and fix it for the next guy. Since the reviews are written from the consumer perspective, I think it went TOO FAR in trying to figure out what the problem is. WHO CARES? IT DIDN'T WORK 100% RIGHT...that is the only conclusion that matters to the consumer...

From that point of view, the review should stand...as it is...good job!

Peace...
 
Diseaseboy said:
Would have been interesting if you accepted Falcon's offer of getting the system back with both the new and "faulty" video card and tested the "faulty" videocard in a non-ATI chipset motherboard using the rest of Falcon's components to see what would happen.

Scott
Click to expand...

But I can understand why the [H] guys didn't want to do that. There is no way to know what they had done to the machine. The [H] wanted to be absolutely sure that the machine was fixed through the normal RMA process, for the same reasons they don't let the manufacturers know that it is them purchasing the unit. They don't want any cherry picked, best case scenario, super tested configuration. They wanted to be sure the company didn't try and impress them with a handpicked unit.

If they had accepted the unit back, what guarantee can there be that the unit didn't have the motherboard and or other components besides the video card replaced?

I think the best thing to do, would be to redo the review a month from now or so, using the normal proceedure and just work through the process as normal. The key is making sure that Falcon Northwest doesn't know that it's the [H] doing the buying, just as with this time. But I agree with Kyle's assessment of the Xpress 200 chipset in general.

I also disagree with Falcon's choice of that motherboard for the Fragbox 2.
 
FrizzleFried said:
Bottom line is that the system was delivered unstable. Period. As a consumer, I would not have dealt with even a week of tech support hell. I would have tried my hand with tech support for a day or two MAX then sent the system back and went with either another rig from Falcon or I would have went with another manufacturer. What caused the problem is a moot point...the bottom line is that it didn't work as advertised.

Let THEM figure out what the problem was and fix it for the next guy. Since the reviews are written from the consumer perspective, I think it went TOO FAR in trying to figure out what the problem is. WHO CARES? IT DIDN'T WORK 100% RIGHT...that is the only conclusion that matters to the consumer...

From that point of view, the review should stand...as it is...good job!

Peace...
Click to expand...


totally agree with ya
 
Like Kyle said in the article, they should have just returned the system and let FNW find the problem, fix it and send the system back without identifying themselves. This would have let us see how FNW's service works, what the turnaround time was, and also identify the real problem. That cock-up aside, why not just order another system to evaluate and see how it performs? I understand time may be an issue (and $$?), but seeing how [H] made the initial foul up in not just going through the FNW service dept to fix the problem without identifying themselves and hence not being able to evaluate the repaired system properly, it seems starting over would be fair. A lesson learned for future reviews, I guess(and also for FNW on their system testing front).
 
Seemed like [H] got off on having the oppertunity to blast ATI yet one more time. Who would have thunk it was the beloved BFG 7800GTX causing the problem? I would at least expect an post on BFG's potential quality control problems.
 
R1ckCa1n said:
Seemed like [H] got off on having the oppertunity to blast ATI yet one more time. Who would have thunk it was the beloved BFG 7800GTX causing the problem? I would at least expect an post on BFG's potential quality control problems.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that the BFGTech card was never considered (by us or FNW) even possibly be an issue, up to the very end, is in fact a testament to BFGTech quality. As for problems with their cards seemingly much easier to find in our own forums now, I might point out that BFGTech seems to be selling many more cards than anyone else.

So you show me problems with BFG's quality control, and we will talk about it, but quite frankly, I do not see it.
 
R1ckCa1n said:
Seemed like [H] got off on having the oppertunity to blast ATI yet one more time. Who would have thunk it was the beloved BFG 7800GTX causing the problem? I would at least expect an post on BFG's potential quality control problems.
Click to expand...
maybe cause there aren't any... and i doubt anyone was getting anything off against ati especially when said parties have been favorable towards them. Why doesn't anyone realize that it is what it is?
/edit reason: kyle beat me

I for one love this "drama" that has been happening lately and in turn makes it more worthwhile to check [H] 10x per day. It's almost like the soaps.
 
This does seem like a case of compromise on FNW's part. From my experiences with FNW, and to my knowledge FNW has always used the very best components.. you know, those components that most [H] readers are able to buy themselves from any reputable online retailer. The fact that FNW used the ATI Express 200 board, must be one of compromise, in which no mATX NF4 board was able to fit insdie the fragbox2 (as another has mentioned already.)

Quite literally as I was reading the original evaluation, I was feeling that exact same way about the writers comments regarding FNW + ATI Express 200... "Why??" The only conclusion I can come up with based on numerous reviews is... compromise. I'm left a bit dumbfounded about the whole thing. The fact that most [H]ard readers - and all the other computer geeks out there are able to become educated (through sites such as this, and others) and are able to hand pick each component and build a box that is capable of blowing away BF2 for possibly much less than $3200 boggles my mind when it comes to deciding to build that type of rig upon a Express 200 platform.. again the only solution = compromise.

[H]ardOCP gave FNW respect where it was due(in this OEM evaluation process).. and they pointed it out over and over that FNW's tech support is "second to none", other than BF2, the system was great. However the system was bought for the purpose of BF2.. and the fact that this "ordinary" Joe got a $3200 system that could not play BF2 ruins THE CUSTOMERS experience out of the box. Thats like buying a PS2 that could only play audio CD's.

Overall I much appreciate this evaluation, and the follow up(s) that will proceed. As mentioned in both articles.. it kinda scares me knowing that FNW has HAD issues with their configurations based on the Express 200 before.... compromised for size :(
 
This article just makes me think about how much the market needs a high-quality, high-end mATX motherboard!!!

Good article, good overall recommendation, but I think there should be an addendum or whatnot to the end of the article at least *linking* to the follow up posts and articles... forgive me if this has already been done -- I haven't had time to look yet.
 
For $3200, their shouldn't be a problem with the rig when it comes to your door. I believe the [H] guys were correct for calling an apple an apple. I wouldn't wait weeks to play my favorite game.
 
Personally, I think that the offer being made to send back the box with new video card and old one to verify it was the video card is pretty fair. If the old card isn't stable again, then you know they didn't change anything.

Suggestion (if you're interested):

Like has been pretty much covered above, once you start getting into more than the regular tech support/RMA procedure and communicating with company officers, you've moved beyond the realm of the average person buying the computer. However, when trying to review the computer from the perspective of the average buyer (perhaps a naive goal in light of who is doing the reviewing?...not trying to be too critical here), perhaps the input of an average "Dell-type" consumer should be sought. This person can find the stability issues in normal gameplay and then they can interact with RMA/Tech Support people. Once the experts get involved (on both sides), the "integrity" of the review process is shot (in my opinion).

At that point, you might as well take the card and box back and retest (time issues not withstanding). Just my $.02 based on more on 30 seconds of thinking about the philosophy of the process...wish I had that 30 seconds back :D.
 
It is interesting to see how ATI, in their statement, passes the buck to AMD as far as any sort of memory stability issue.

This is just preposterous... any system builder will tell you that different motherboards and chipsets have entirely different memory quirks! Same CPU, same memory, different chipset = way different behavior. Everyone knows this, why would ATI try to play on the potential ignorance of their customers.

The raedon xpress200 chipset needs work... The usb2.0 problem is pretty terrible, and any (obvious) memory problems too... ATI, suck it up and make a better raedon xpress 300 or something.

Nvidia did not have a hit with their original nforce1 chipset but that did not stop them from eventually getting it right.
 
AACDIRECT said:
HMMM.... knowing that. They have no excuse for not finding the error. From what I read there was two issues. Sound problems and the crashing. They should have at least found the sound issue which was fixed with a simple update.

Pre installing with the customers CD...that is a great idea.....I will have to offer that to my customers. :cool: Then all they have to do is power on and play. Awsome idea.
Click to expand...
Yeah man, I used to offer that as a value add when I was in the game...it adds a bit of overhead, extends production queues, but ultimately solidifies your relationship with the customer...good stuff and sounds like it'd fit right in with what you guys do.
 
I hate to point it out, but this is hardly the first time that HardOCP has trashed a product based on a faulty review sample. Some part of their Crossfire review platform was clearly defective; no other site on the internet had half the problems they did with bleeding, shimmering, etc.

Frankly, I appreciate that you guys share your experiences with faulty hardware, but to then turn around and savage the product is silly, and does a disservice to the community and the manufacturer. In my mind, that is no less dishonest than reviewing a CPU, getting a 50% overclock out of it, and giving it an amazing rating knowing full well that your sample was the exception, and that the vast majority of those particular CPUs could barely overclock at all.

And seriously, guys, "lots of people have told me that this chipset is bad" is pretty lame.
 
LyCoS said:
i think it's ashame, you guies should have held off publishing before getting the whole thing settled, it would have avoided this kind of situation. Now ATI is pissed off, falcon is pissed off, readers like me are pissed off (i don't want to have to hear this kind of stories between intergrators, manufacturers, and review sites). Rushing to conclusion never solved anything really, i understand Chris Morley might have been pissed off by an unstable system, but you really should have held off publishing... once you get the whole picture, that's when you publish. Standing behind your opinions about the ATI chipset isn't going to make you right. You where wrong about the diagnostic, the graphics card was to blame, falcon could demonstrate it, from there on i hope everyone has learned their lessons...

Falcon for comercialising an imature system,
hardocp for publishing an imature (it was not finished) article...
Click to expand...


I totally agree. Why didnt HardOcp work the RMA channel? As consumers, I think all systems should be evaluated based on what channels consumers must use to fix problems. Not all systems are perfect, even ones that cost many thousands. I feel like HardOcp should be less stand-off-ish here. There's nothing wrong with dinging FNW because they sent you a borked machine, and that it took them "more than a week" to finally take the box back and fix the problem. However, they DID fix the problem, it turned out to be something HardOcp didnt even think of (let alone a consumer)! I dont see a problem with a revisited review of this system, you dont have to change the past, but since you didnt work through RMA channels, and published too soon, you've made falcon look bad for an issue that it fixed according to its own process that you agreed to when you bought the pc!

-D
 
R1ckCa1n said:
Seemed like [H] got off on having the oppertunity to blast ATI yet one more time. Who would have thunk it was the beloved BFG 7800GTX causing the problem? I would at least expect an post on BFG's potential quality control problems.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't know me and you obviously haven't read all the pertinent information regarding the article and the follow up. I do not arbitrarily bash anybody. I have spent 7 years delivering systems to customers, and all that matters to me is stability and quality, and over the years I have found that from companies like MSI and ATI.

But before you start making accusations about my intentions, please read about how FNW spent a week telling me the problems they had with the motherboard when designing the FB2, and then there's this gem of an email from FNW's support:

"I'm not sure if it does interest you - but I do have some background information pertinent to this issue:The problem is specific to the ATI chipset and Corsair TwinX memory. We originally ran into it while stress testing the ATI/Corsair platform in the Serious Sam: SE demo. The faster CAS timing would cause a blue screen error fairly quickly in this particular game."


 So even FNW believed this was a motherboard/ATI issue!
 
I commend the H for an objective review, but I can't say I approve of their conclusion, nor the way they handled the follow up.


"You've had a full week to test the system"

Doesn't anyone realize how much it would cost a company to devote a tech full time on a single system for a whole week? Come on! If I was a tech working in a shop, and my boss would see that I'm "testing" the box for more than 20 minutes on a single game, I think I'd just get fired (you slacker!).

So what's a good measure of Quality control here? 4 hours of play? What if the game would hang after 5 hours?


"If H had agreed to test the system after the fact, there's no telling what FNW would have done to the system before".

Well, FNW agreed to send back the system with a new card AND the faulty video card. It would have been pretty trivial to test FNW's claims, as long as the good and defective cards were the same brand and type.

I'm also pretty sure the H has plenty of spare hardware around, so it would have been easy to test with other cards as well: if no card other than the "defective" card has an issue with the setup, then the card is obviously defective. If the game has problems with multiple cards, then the chipset is obviously defective. End of story. Kyle, being boneheaded and just saying that you "feel" it's actually ATI's fault is not an objective comment.


"I spent X$ it should have worked"

Yes, it should have worked, but problems exist in the best of products. Like brand new cars. Like brand new luxury cars. Like brand new exotic cars. And brand new F1 cars. And god knows how much QC they spend on those puppies. So was it FNW's fault for not finding the problem with the BFG hanging after 4 hours? Gee, I'm not sure. After 10 minutes, perhaps. After 4 hours? not so sure.


Personally, I commend FNW for the way they handled the case. It's too bad the H got a lemon of a video card. It's probably not even representative of the majority of shipped FragBoxes2s.

I think FNW has been extremely competent and proactive in trying to fix the problem, diagnosing the problem to the video card. I also think the H has been excessively stubborn by not accepting to review the system with the old and new video card.

I would have like the H to leave the article, leave the follow up comments, behind the scenes comments, leave the original score, but actually GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS since as it stands we STILL DON'T KNOW. HardOCP had an MSI with an ATI chipset here, it would have been easy to test with other/different hardware.

I remember the days where the H found a problem with the i820 or some problem with a P3 1.13ghz. That was very good investigative journalism, which even led to a recall from Intel.

As it stands now, FNW has the last word because they can point to a faulty video card component, and the H is burying its head in the sand "feeling" the ATI chipset is "bad". If you feel the ATI chipset had issues, you certainly missed the chance to prove it.

You want to be objective? Then be objective. Don't be a pigeon who drops a poop and then blissfully files away.
 
I have to commend hardocp for their system reviews, as far as i know there is no other place to read a blind system review. Almost every review in every magazine and website is set up way in advance then coated in PR.

I used to build review systems for 2 different manufacturers and the amout of special treatment that these systems get is way beyond just cherry picking components. I would easily spend 4 hours or more on the internal wiring making it look absolutely perfect, in fact in many cases it would look almost wireless. The average customer build gets 15-20min for wiring and though it always looked good it wouldn't be what the review machines got. Cherry picking is a nice term for what would happen with parts, if i found a video card that i felt was a cut above the rest it would pull it from whatever it was in and save it for review. Same goes for memory, mobos, cpus, etc. I would burn these parts in for over a week with all of the latest games to ensure the utmost in stability.

These systems get the absolute best of everything including the person who built them. Generaly someone higher up on the food chain will build these systems, usually the person that designed the configuration. I would personally build and set up review systems from scratch, by myself. No one else was allowed to work with the system, for fear that they might screw it up.

Hardocp's method is great because it gives you a true perspective on how the company builds systems, if they use 18 year old kids that make mistakes that will be exposed in a review like this. It also gives you great immpression of how their tech support performs on a day to day basis.

I would like to state that i do not and have never worked for Falcon Northwest. What i have said should not be taken as commentary on how they do business, It is simply my experience working in the computer industry for other companies. However, i don't think that a bad video card would have gotten by their review machine builder. That problem would have been sorted out long before the system was ever shipped.
 
Morley said:
I was frustrated to the point of returning it, and that was my feeling as a consumer who spent $3K on a system and several days of troubleshooting on it. At the point I cut the eval period off was when I decided that I would have sent the system back for a refund. I have no doubt that Falcon Northwest would have taken care of me as a customer and supplied me with a different solution, and enumerated as such in the article.
Click to expand...
21 days to receive the product... I would have expected it to be 100%. I would have expected that anyway, but with a prep time that long my expectations rise.

1 week or more of troubleshooting a brand new product? No thanks. I think you were right to cut it off after that amount of time. That's when us as consumers say "No thanks, I'll go with product B."

It would have been worth it to try the overnight replacement they offered... I mean, hell, you sure paid for it at a $3200 price point. And that is a unique service.
 
justice said:
I commend the H for an objective review, but I can't say I approve of their conclusion, nor the way they handled the follow up.

...

I remember the days where the H found a problem with the i820 or some problem with a P3 1.13ghz. That was very good investigative journalism, which even led to a recall from Intel.

As it stands now, FNW has the last word because they can point to a faulty video card component, and the H is burying its head in the sand "feeling" the ATI chipset is "bad". If you feel the ATI chipset had issues, you certainly missed the chance to prove it.

You want to be objective? Then be objective. Don't be a pigeon who drops a poop and then blissfully files away.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%, unfortunately, those days are long gone. I admire [H] for speaking their mind, and not being afraid of lawyers, or anyone else. But being stubborn just because, well it doesn't help anybody. FNW fixed the problem, have them send you the fixed machine and retest it. No big deal. Then the whole "well he said, they said we thought" crap don't really matter...
 
Being an avid reader on [H] and I think I have read almost every review ;) I see no problem for the way everything was handled. Yes, it would have been nice to see the RMA process etc. for the rest of us consumers as it’s always great to know what the companies RMA is like. I do not think [H] should re-evaluate the system. . I still think FNW is a great company in many ways; they just produced a bad product. I also think after this, every computer component and system manufacture has put up flags for Kyle and Chris to show if they order something... To make sure a kick ass product is delivered every time! :D This is what a review is, real life problems and situations that the public should know about.
 
Chas said:
It WAS settled. The techs were pretty much adamant that it was a problem with the motherboard. And the system was, subsequently, returned. As would any $3200 system that was unstable, in spite of numerous attempts to troubleshoot it with help from Techsupp.

it would have avoided this kind of situation.

Not really. HardOCP is testing systems AS SHIPPED TO THE END USER. They got the EXACT same experience as any other private end user would.



What rush? Chris had a DEFINITIVE (though wrong) answer from the techs at Falcon.

Troubleshooting and system tweakage after the fact is irrelevant. If you, Joe-Bob Enduser, returned a $3200 machine to Falcon, would YOU aceed to requests to take the machine back later on because they swear, up and down, that they've fixed it NOW?



You are missing the point of the reviews. They're not just reviewing the system. They're reviewing the customer experience. After they returned the machine, the customer experience ended. Done. Finis. Time to drop a paper.

If it turns out, later, that something like this was erroneous, you DO NOT EDIT THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE.

You do exactly what HardOCP did. You post an update on the situation, complete with the quotes from all parties involved.
Click to expand...


ok just one thing -> the fact that there is an add-on editorial + update -> the review was posted prematurally. They should have waited for the system to come back from RMA, re-evaluated, and only then draw conclusions. When consumers fall on a screwy system, they don't call the boss whom they know for explanations. They send it back to warranty, if it doesn't come back working flawlessly, then they complain.

Falcon on the other hand should have burn tested their system a little more, that could have detected the flaw befor it got to review...
 
kirbyrj said:
Personally, I think that the offer being made to send back the box with new video card and old one to verify it was the video card is pretty fair. If the old card isn't stable again, then you know they didn't change anything.
Click to expand...

Not true, they could have changed other components, like a mobo that they knew worked with BF2. Not to mention the amount of tweaking they could have done to the OS and bios to insure that they get a little better system back to [H] then you or i would get. The fact is we don't know for sure what they may or may not have done sense it left [H]'s control. What if they had taken it back and it preformed wonderfully, could we really be sure that it is because the system was good minus bad video card, or because they did a little extra tweaking. Their are many things one can do to make any system run better then it does out of the box, regediting, turning off processes, a little ocing here and there, shit the average computer user does not know how to do. We forget that we are a minority in the computer useing world, the average user still refers to the box on their desk as the CPU. Ask the average user what CPU they run and you get Dell as an answer. We throw around terms like Front Side Bus, Northbridge, PCIe bandwidth like they are nothing. But we might as well be speaking sandscript to the average majority user. And it is for this reason that companies like FNW and Dell exist. This is the reason this website and all others like exist. It is our duty as elites in the computer world to help others understand how their system work and why they do what they do. While checking for these tweaks might be something we can do and fix, one or two might get by and influence the article. Personally i would not have trusted the review had they taken the system back, and [H] felt the same. And to think of it i don't really agree with the idea of getting a second Fragbox 2 later under anonymous ordering and doing a second review. That would be setting a very bad precedent. They would then, in all fairness, be required to test atleast two systems from every company that had a bad system. I did originally think of this as a good idea but on second thought, no. I say let this review stand as is. The system recieved acted like it did, the review is valid. Order a different system from FNW, as i am sure [H] will, and if that system has problems go through the RMA and returns as normal, as i am sure you will. Thank you.
 
ATI’s Radeon Xpress 200 series looks to be a chipset that will be a worthy competitor in the enthusiast retail motherboard market. If ATI can be a success with the computer hardware enthusiast, ATI can move into any market it chooses. There is no doubt in my mind that the Radeon Xpress 200 will be a “winner” for ATI on a scale they have yet to see in the motherboard chipset market.

However, ATI’s current implementation of their chipset misses the mark. My enthusiasm for the Radeon Xpress 200 was simply misplaced. We have yet to see a true enthusiast product produced with this chipset, and if you ask ATI, they will tell you that the Radeon Xpress 200 chipset is not positioned at the high end of the market.
Click to expand...

Oh?
http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2572
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813136165 (in stock as of writing)

ATI’s placement of the chipset has very much changed over the last year, quite possibly due to its performance. We of course chalk this up to personal experiences with the Radeon Xpress 200 that have been frustrating at best. The chipset has never performed up to our levels of expectation based on our experience with retail products based on it.

So while ATI might be building the perfect chipset, it seems as though no company can build an enthusiast level motherboard using the Xpress 200.
Click to expand...

I still firmly stand by our opinions of the ATI Radeon Xpress 200 chipset. I would neither use one in my personal system, nor any system that I might build due to the stability issues I have seen with it in the past. The chipset might be fine for email and Web surfing boxes, but it is not a good solution for gamers. When I pay $3200 for a gaming computer, I simply expect to be supplied with a powerful solution and not one that even its own manufacturer doesn't consider to be high end.
Click to expand...

Why do I get the feeling these statements will be nullified in a few days/weeks on the frontpage of [H]?:

http://us.dfi.com.tw/Product/xx_pro....jsp?PRODUCT_ID=3669&CATEGORY_TYPE=LP&SITE=US
 
little note : no one here is criticising BFG for stability, even though it was the BFG card that was at fault (and that was a demonstrated fact, not an opinion)...
 
I still firmly stand by our opinions of the ATI Radeon Xpress 200 chipset. I would neither use one in my personal system, nor any system that I might build due to the stability issues I have seen with it in the past. The chipset might be fine for email and Web surfing boxes, but it is not a good solution for gamers.
Click to expand...

This part right here is very important. Just what I was looking for since I am in the early planning stages of a new box. I sure wouldn't want to deal with the headaches that Chris & Kyle did. I am sticking with NF4 now.
 
THE JEW (RaVeN) said:
Oh?
http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2572
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813136165 (in stock as of writing)





Why do I get the feeling these statements will be nullified in a few days/weeks on the frontpage of [H]?:

http://us.dfi.com.tw/Product/xx_product_spec_details_r_us.jsp?PRODUCT_ID=3669&CATEGORY_TYPE=LP&SITE=US
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Kyle's sentiments come from hands on experience with retail product, not some specs on a website.
 
LyCoS said:
little note : no one here is criticising BFG for stability, even though it was the BFG card that was at fault (and that was a demonstrated fact, not an opinion)...
Click to expand...

One card, in one system, on one game. Yes, that is plenty of reason to question BFG for stability....

Send that card to BFG and you would be playing games much sooner than if you were to send that whole box back.
 
It may have been the BFG card, but who really knows what to make out of it?
Good Post Beniled
 
I completely stand by [H] here...

all these vendors are trying to pass the buck... FNW says it's BFG... ATI says it's AMD!

I have no doubt in my mind that the ATI chipset played a part in this. the PCIe implimentation could easily be a little screwwy... the BFG card may have needed a bios update...

but really the fact of the matter is... [H] pretended to be a real customer and got a bad system... you know if they were upfront about who they were, that system would have gone through more rigorus testing.

this shows that regular customers *could* get a bad system. plain and simple. and [H] had the balls to write a review saying so.

spending 3500 dollars is a huge deal.

and regardless of what happened... [H] has ALWAYS had a gamer's interests in mind.
 
Sorry for not having read previous reply's :

My thoughts on the review / ATI chipset. What hasn't been considered here is that the Fragbox requires a mATX motherboard. There are only a handful of such motherboards available. Most of the s939 PCI-e mATX boards are ATI Xpress 200 motherboards. In fact to my knowledge aside from the very recently released Geforce 6100 solution, the only nVidia option are boards by Foxconn.

FNW might very well have chosen the best gaming m-ATX motherboard available at the time. I think [H] should have considered that before mindlessly flaming FNW on their choice of an ATI Xpress based solution. Clearly their choice of the MSI board wasn't completely bad because MSI worked with them to solve issues...who knows if Foxconn would have done the same. Perhaps now that Geforce6100 based boards are available those will be made an alternative option.
 
hardocp seems to become more and more of a personnal soap box all the time it seems. Right or wrong an "impartial" page shouldnt be posting things like this under the guise that they are trying to clear things up. Im sure ill get banned for this or something lol
 
Morley said:
"I'm not sure if it does interest you - but I do have some background information pertinent to this issue:The problem is specific to the ATI chipset and Corsair TwinX memory. We originally ran into it while stress testing the ATI/Corsair platform in the Serious Sam: SE demo. The faster CAS timing would cause a blue screen error fairly quickly in this particular game."


 So even FNW believed this was a motherboard/ATI issue!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make the ATI chipset bad. DFI NF4 motherboards have problems with half the PSUs on the market, and now it seems they have harddrive corruption issues too. Intel motherboards don't work quite as well with TCCD as they do with other types of ram. I'm sure everyone else here knows of at least one more example. Neither of these conflicts makes a product bad, it means buyer beware. Maybe FNW shouldn't have used known bad memory in their setup, but don't blame ATI.
 
I have played Battlefield 2 since the day it came out until the last patch. I find it a total disappointment that EA has a total lack of commitment to properly fix this game. I am not gonna argue with the article's findings, however I find that [H] chose such a poorly written game (full of bugs) as a test bed of do or die for a system evaluation to be lass than acceptable.

BF2 v1.0 Memory leak
BF2 v1.1 Memory leak not really fixed
BF2 v1.2 Memory leak fixed, but still some issues (tickets for ranks set too high etc...etc..)
BF2 v1.3 Net code screwed beyond recognition in an attemt to make people loose interest in core game in leu of upcomig expansion pack. Ranks screwed up for same reason. Players who are autoballanced still appear in red as enemies to their team members. The list goes on and on......

I have a real problem with the EA Shovelware as of late. In-fact I have sworn them off for good. A company who continually puts out beta software for $60 imo needs to be bankrupted by unsatisfied customers.

Botom line.
Next time maybe choose a game we know is rock solid, or better yet several.
 
THE JEW (RaVeN) said:
Oh?
http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2572
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813136165 (in stock as of writing)





Why do I get the feeling these statements will be nullified in a few days/weeks on the frontpage of [H]?:

http://us.dfi.com.tw/Product/xx_pro....jsp?PRODUCT_ID=3669&CATEGORY_TYPE=LP&SITE=US
Click to expand...


We refused the sample provided by ATI directly and have purchase our own board as of last week. We will share our opinion when we have formed one.
 
I'll bet they have an OEM deal with corsair... I have noticed that alot of the boutique builders use this brand. I am not sure if it is worth the trouble to shave a few dollars off the final cost though.

I would go with a brand that has been doing 2gb kits for longer the corsair...
 
Super strokey said:
hardocp seems to become more and more of a personnal soap box all the time it seems. Right or wrong an "impartial" page shouldnt be posting things like this under the guise that they are trying to clear things up. Im sure ill get banned for this or something lol
Click to expand...


Sorry, the fact is that if we did not have opinions, there would be NO reason for HardOCP to even exist. I respect the fact that you might think our opinions are wrong, but we generally say exactly what we mean and do not sugar coat it so the fan boys do not get pissed off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top