FragBox 2 Failure Ruffles Falcon Feathers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bar81 said:
Well, that would be derailing the topic at hand. We've had numerous "discussions" regarding this. For example, a while ago there was this HUGE front page post about ATI's alleged delivery issues for all of these past video cards. They just happen to overlook that they were blatantly incorrect as to all but the X800 XT PE. Another example is their discovery of a new policy to only review products available on the market (ie to not review the X1800 XT) Strangely this "new policy" just happen to be applied to a new ATI product. The policy was not applied to the nvidia nforce 6150 boards. It's just a litany of comical blunders on this site. And all you ever get is Kyle claiming how he's so righteous because he sticks to his opinion (sticking to a a factually unsupportable opinion seems like a strange way to show your "independence and truthfullness"). It takes a big man to face the truth, and unfortunately this site doesn't seem to have any of them. So, it's left to normal posters like me to call the constant bias out.
Click to expand...

[H]ard|OCP hasn't put out any nVidia 6150 board reviews that I remember, or an X1800XT review, and no review was released on the Geforce 7800GTX before it was launched. Kyle has had this policy for awhile.

As for the nForce 4, there are alot of people that do not have issues with the SATA ports, or the nForce drivers. Myself included, I can safely say I've used all the nForce 4 variants at that. Never an issue with any of them. On second thought, I haven't touched the new nForce 4 SLi x16 chipset. But nForce Pro 2200/2050, nForce 4 Ultra/SLi, nForce 4 SLi Intel Edition, and I have never had the issues you mentioned. I think the bulk of the nForce 4 boards are good, and the chipset is pretty mature and reliable.
 
Actually with all the righteousness being thrown around today I would suggest a room for you two.

In all seriousness, though, xpress or no, $3200 bucks is way too much for that rig. Going to bed now.
 
I just checked all the review listings, and there are no nVidia 6150 chipset or board reviews. NONE. All the articles that show anything before release as of late have been labled "Previews" not "Reviews". All review samples are are retail hardware that you can buy yourself. I do also know that Kyle does NOT publish reviews on alot of motherboard due to them not making it through the review process, or because they aren't retail boards and are engineering samples.

The [H] also certianly does have some experience with the Xpress chipset, as they needed to use it for the Crossfire articles.
 
Bar81 said:
I'm not trying to put you down, but you obviously don't understand logic. If someone makes a claim that everything is like so and you show that even a SINGLE thing is not like so, then the original assertion is disproved. It only takes one example to disprove a blanket assertion while it takes a representative sample to properly support a blanket assertion.
Click to expand...

But you ARE saying that. Your one good system does not make all of them good.

Since only so many people were injured and killed in the Firestone tire fiasco and not everybody, I guess it would be wrong to make a blanket statement that there were severe issues with that series of Firestone tires?

By the way, did FNW say or not say they were having problems with this mobo?
 
Falcon Northwest did in fact state they had issues in the past with the motherboard. There were also CAS timing issues with the ram in the Fragbox 2. Plus, the onboard audio issue was something else to note. There were definately issues with the Fragbox 2's motherboard. Kyle and Morely are absolutely right to voice their opinions of the Fragbox 2 and how it performed during the review. This statement is valid, reguardless of whether or not the Xpress 200 based motherboard was or was not responsible for the BF2 problems. Simply put, there were far too many issues with the review system to earn a better score than the 6.5/10 it recieved.
 
plywood99 said:
By the way, did FNW say or not say they were having problems with this mobo?
Click to expand...
It's not what they say, it is what fixed it. Since the problem was a highly paying sponser to this site, I doubt any mud will be thrown. Just sad [H] once again jumps the gun on ATI only to be made the fool.
 
Bar81 said:
So, it's left to normal posters like me to call the constant bias out.
Click to expand...
I don't think most "normal" posters verbally assault the owner of [H] and then go on and on for pages after he won't agree with you...

I mean seriously, we got your point already.
 
R1ckCa1n said:
It's not what they say, it is what fixed it. Since the problem was a highly paying sponser to this site, I doubt any mud will be thrown. Just sad [H] once again jumps the gun on ATI only to be made the fool.
Click to expand...

I don't recall ever seeing a advertisement for Falcon Northwest on this site. Also, at no point did Kyle say that he wouldn't recommend or refer business to Falcon. He simply stated that a great company put out a single bad product in his evaluation of the situation.

Seriously, if you had that many issues with a system, wouldn't your evaluation of the overall product be negative? Furthermore, with the issues they did experience with the motherboard, how is it wrong to conclude that it is indeed a problem that the Fragbox 2 was paired with a less than impressive motherboard?

I am saying that the fact that the BFG card was or was not at fault isn't the only reason for the negative review, and the experience had with the motherboard, (ram and sound issues) are VALID as they are indicative of the MSI motherboard and ATi chipset drivers?

Astral Abyss said:
I don't think most "normal" posters verbally assault the owner of [H] and then go on and on for pages after he won't agree with you...

I mean seriously, we got your point already.
Click to expand...

This is true.
 
Am I still the only one here noting that there was only really one other option besides the ATI Xpress 200 chipset for FNW here? This is a mATX board which needs to have PCI-e. There was only one option for FNW that did not have the ATI chipset...a cheap board from Foxconn. The 6100 based boards probably didn't come out in time for FNW to add them to their plan for the Fragbox, which they may be working on now.

Everyone is knocking on FNW for choosing the MSI/ATI board. I have no doubt that if there were problems with the Foxconn board people would be knocking on them for choosing a board made by a lower tier manufacturer like Foxconn. Its not like they had a wealth of options. (They have more now that the Geforce 6100 boards are becoming available)
 
I just think this was handled improperly on both sides...

First, the system was sent out with a bad video card...hey, stuff happens...but any good company should be able to determine relatively quickly that they need the system back for proper diagnosis. Hey you supposedly have this great overnight shipping/service...use it.

Why the [H] refused to test that aspect of the service plan is beyond me, and in my mind caused this whole fiasco...which to their credit, they have admitted to their shortcomings and apologized to the readers and Falcon.

A side issue that developed from denying Falcon that opportunity was the irresponsibility in publishing the article without determining what the ACTUAL problem was...even if the [H] would refuse to take it back after finding out...it just seems like one of those MAJOR loose ends that I would need to address before publishing an article. OK, so you stick to your score, but you wait until you have a resolution so you can inform your readers why the score is what it is...and why what occured in the pages preceeding the score happened.

As far as the ATI chipset goes...hey everyone has their opinions, and you can't expect a reviewer to be completely unbiased...you can really, really wish reviewers were unbiased..but reviewers are human too, and their predisposition to a product WILL come through in the review...but everyone that reads reviews, needs to be responsible enough to read other reviews/opinion pieces to gather as much info as possible before making a decision.

There are SLIM pickins when it comes to mATX 939 boards...A CaseEdge nForce4 board or an MSI ATI Xpress board...sorry I would take an MSI over the CaseEdge ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

Of course, you could just say...hey the $hit didn't work, I paid $3200 for a box that works, and it didn't. I think the product sent to me was not up to my standards...and you would be right.
 
JOESKURTU said:
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.
Click to expand...


I think the amazing thing about all this is that it took 4 pages for someone to bring this up.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
I don't recall ever seeing a advertisement for Falcon Northwest on this site. Also, at no point did Kyle say that he wouldn't recommend or refer business to Falcon. He simply stated that a great company put out a single bad product in his evaluation of the situation.
Click to expand...

I believe he was talking about BFG, not FNW.
 
I think it's a good review and it was handled well. A lot of hub-bub about bias on here, but the thing about this site that those of you screaming don't seem to get is that there is no bias, only honest opinion. He said "I would not reccomend this mainboard in the future". No pussy footing, no bullshit. And no apologies. Just the way it should be.

When I bought a KT133 MSI board quite a way back, it was a complete turd. I haven't given consideration to them since, and unless they package Jesus Christ with a bottle of Cristal along with whatever they're selling, its not likely that I will. Neither would any of you, at least not right away.

So why expect them to completely ignore that when they review a product? None of these guys are being dishonest. They are giving you an opinion based upon their experiences reviewing products. They come in contact with more products than you or I do, and they base their opinions of companies on those broader experiences so that we don't have to. It's not as though these guys are reviewing ATI stuff and just slamming them across the board. They review it, and they go in to great detail about the good AND the bad. They also throw in a bit about recent trends from whatever company is putting out the product and what they're facing from competition. They do this whether they're talking about ATI, Nvidia, ECS, Falcon Northwest, Dell, EVERYONE. If you didn't notice it, go back and read some reviews of other products besides ones made by ATI or Nvidia. Then come back and apologize for being so rude in the house of [H].

I don't think I'm alone in saying I LIKE that they remind the reader about past experiences with other products based on the same company's product, because those experiences paint a bigger picture than your average review site's cookie cutter intro/benchmark/summary/score review. I want their personal opinion because I trust it. If you don't, then that's unfortunate, but nobody's forcing you to come back here and read it, or worse yet trash it in the forums and stir up a bunch of shit.

So, in summary, great review, keep up the good work, and for those of you that don't like it, feel free to start your own hardware review site or kindly STFU. kthxbye.
 
Bar81 said:
Alright I'll step you through it. First off, learn to read.
Click to expand...
Wow i was gonna tell you the same thing....

Anyone who at this point believes hardocp is unfairly biased against ati should be drowned for lack of reading comprehension.
 
You guys can only call it like you see it. You ordered one blind, and it didn't work out. That's all. And you did say that they are generally a great company.

I also agree that [H] made the situation worse by not at least completing the RMA process and coming out with a working product before announcing they were reviewing the system. I'm sure things would have been worked out in the end, even though it was definately not a shining moment for Falcon.

And on top of it all, I wholeheartedly agree with the question of why an inexpensive integrated ATI chipset mobo was used that is designed to be a bottom-dollar option when you need onboard video that can barely play a few games. Why was this used in a $3000+ custom gaming system? It makes no sense. Not for price reasons nor for performance reasons. Why not just use a rock solid mainstream mobo with NO on-board video? The odds are they get a good incentive from ATI, which is fine... but the product is being used in a way that doesn't fit its mission profile. I have no problem using those boards in a sub $600 gaming box where upgrading may happen later, but not for this.
 
Bar81 said:
Well, that would be derailing the topic at hand. We've had numerous "discussions" regarding this. For example, a while ago there was this HUGE front page post about ATI's alleged delivery issues for all of these past video cards. They just happen to overlook that they were blatantly incorrect as to all but the X800 XT PE. Another example is their discovery of a new policy to only review products available on the market (ie to not review the X1800 XT) Strangely this "new policy" just happen to be applied to a new ATI product. The policy was not applied to the nvidia nforce 6150 boards. It's just a litany of comical blunders on this site. And all you ever get is Kyle claiming how he's so righteous because he sticks to his opinion (sticking to a a factually unsupportable opinion seems like a strange way to show your "independence and truthfullness"). It takes a big man to face the truth, and unfortunately this site doesn't seem to have any of them. So, it's left to normal posters like me to call the constant bias out.
Click to expand...

I will have to say that you have almost all of your facts wrong here, but I will try to address this somewhat. Remember, just because you "discussed it" on another forum does not make it the truth. There are a few of you that tend to not get the FACTS straight.

1. Show me exactly what was said that was wrong about video card delivery. Use MY quotes, not quotes you got some someone else either. You will see that you sir are simply talking trash based on unfounded comments.

2. What exactly is our policy, and where is this policy stated that you are referring to? Again you are just making stuff up.

3. What magical policy have we not applied to NVIDIA 6150 boards? Again you have no idea what you are talking about. But I would love to see you fill in the blanks.

4. So if TRUTH is your business, I would say that you have to have facts to back up those statements.

5. And if you really want me to buy your aging ATI box, I will happily do that and will pay you what that used item is currently fetching on eBay. I would suggest the system has little if any value.
 
I have to agree. Chris and Kyle never said anything harsh about Falcon other than they didn't deliver as promised and had to be sent back. The review was written from the eyes of the consumer with some personal insight based off of real life experiance.

There is nothing wrong with that. If it was an article truley bashing Falcon, then why would Chris comment on how helpful Falcon's tech support staff was and their commitment in fixing the problem. Even their tech support suspected the motherboard. How can Falcon NOT expect a consumer to think poorly of the Radeon R200 chipset after having a system that was not stable and Falcon's own tech support speaking about problems they've had with it?

It seems like they don't realize the nature of the review he wrote. Hell, Chris even stated that [H]ardocp was keeping in contact with Falcon to find out what the results of the diagnostic are, which you did. End of story. If they're going to get their feathers ruffled, then they shouldn't allow ANY of their products to be reviewed because sooner or later someone is going to say something they don't like.
 
nigerian_businessman said:
I think it's a good review and it was handled well ... When I bought a KT133 MSI board quite a way back, it was a complete turd
Click to expand...
Thanks for the well thought out opinion on the MSI KT133. This could serve as a prime example of useless/unwelcome opinion. When you air someone's private emails on a web page then that is not "handled well". What the article and subsequent pissing contest show is that the [H] staff are ticked off at this ATI chipset and this company.

You don't need to know that Intel is shipping their motherboards with the Xpress 200 chipset to know that fundamentally these chipsets work (Intel or AMD based). They wouldn't be on the market otherwise. They may not perform 100% cf. a chipset on a $200 motherboard but they will probably give at least about 90+% (just a wild guess) of the performance at stock speeds.

There is no excuse for dissing a company or companies based on one experience and without following through. [H] replied earlier that "we stressed this in our article" in regards to the fact that it was only one system. I say BS. Unless you are going to review the performance over time and a number of experiences then a negative review should not be written. A negative review viewed by enough people can cause a lot of damage to a company and its employees. A website like [H] should be responsible enough to really kick the tires before sending a negative review out to the masses.

What [H] should have done is hold back the review, inform the company of the problems and wait for a replacement system. To claim that [H] would have received a tweaked system which is not out of the box is again BS. It is ridiculous to say in effect 'here is our bad review but keep in mind it is only one system' and then later say that you cannot review another system because now the results might be tainted. That is some pretty funky smelling logic.

In reference to an earlier post I am not convinced that any hindsight was needed. The reviewed system had faults and that was why it gave a bad result. [H] cannot come back later and say we thought the problems were resolved. If the problems were resolved then the system would have performed adequately.

Perhaps a different chipset could have achieved a few more fps but that is no reason to say the motherboard is only useful for email/surfing. If it runs stably (once you get a working system) and it has a fast enough graphics card to justify "Gaming PC" then it is suited for gaming. Whether you like the chipset or not is a personal opinion and should be relegated to the forums.

A general rant on the media:
In the good old days you would see a newspaper with news items in one section and opinion in another (see definition for editorial). If you read/watch/browse the news these days what you see is 90% opinion. What media in general should do is keep their opinion to themselves or post it on the forums which are today's version of the editorial page.
 
Falcon Northwest may be unhappy with their poor review, and ATI may be unhappy with the blame initially being laid on them, but this still shows why reviewing systems from a consumer standpoint is needed.

A $3200 machine should have been burned in before shipping to make sure everything works fine. If I personally paid that much for a system, then had to fiddle with settings and slow everything down in order to make it stable, I would be seriously annoyed.

However, had HardOCP obtained the system as a "review sample" then Falcon Northwest would have gone over that system with a fine tooth comb before delivery. And since they obviously don't do this with "consumer" units, it would be unfair to let them do it for a review.

I for one applaud HardOCP for using the "blind" review method, even if it does bring some heat on them. :cool:

Edit: As stated in the article though, in the future a review of the RMA process would be helpful too. If I have a problem, I would like to know if it takes Company A one week to RMA a unit, but Company B takes 4 months.
 
tomv said:
What the article and subsequent pissing contest show is that the [H] staff are ticked off at this ATI chipset and this company.

There is no excuse for dissing a company or companies based on one experience and without following through. [H] replied earlier that "we stressed this in our article" in regards to the fact that it was only one system. I say BS. Unless you are going to review the performance over time and a number of experiences then a negative review should not be written. A negative review viewed by enough people can cause a lot of damage to a company and its employees. A website like [H] should be responsible enough to really kick the tires before sending a negative review out to the masses.

What [H] should have done is hold back the review, inform the company of the problems and wait for a replacement system. To claim that [H] would have received a tweaked system which is not out of the box is again BS. It is ridiculous to say in effect 'here is our bad review but keep in mind it is only one system' and then later say that you cannot review another system because now the results might be tainted. That is some pretty funky smelling logic.

In reference to an earlier post I am not convinced that any hindsight was needed. The reviewed system had faults and that was why it gave a bad result. [H] cannot come back later and say we thought the problems were resolved. If the problems were resolved then the system would have performed adequately.

Perhaps a different chipset could have achieved a few more fps but that is no reason to say the motherboard is only useful for email/surfing. If it runs stably (once you get a working system) and it has a fast enough graphics card to justify "Gaming PC" then it is suited for gaming. Whether you like the chipset or not is a personal opinion and should be relegated to the forums.
Click to expand...

Whoa, did you see that thing fly right past your head? Yeah, that was the point...sorry you missed it.

You need to take a look at our description of our Systems Evaluation Program. I won't waste my time going into everything...again...but I'll remind you that all of this is from the perspective of the consumer. A company gets one shot, and it's with a system we can buy off of the 'shelf', just like John Q. Public. Does anyone out there buy 3 identical systems, test them all, and decide that you might keep one of them? Not bloody likely. I know, it seems unfair to the OEM, but this program is for the benefit of the consumer. It's a chance to let the OEM shine or shoot themselves in the foot. How fair is it to the consumer that we get a made-to-order box from a company who knows exactly what that system is for and who it's getting sent to? Of course that box is going to have more love put in it. That's what every other press mouthpiece does, and where the [H] parts ways. It's what makes our program unique and beneficial to the reader.

FNW has every chance to redeem themselves. If they wish to still be part of the evaluations program (at last check, they did), then we'll buy another system and give it a shot. They performed remarkably well in all other parts of the evaluation, so a second review will mostly be centered around improvements (or lack thereof) that FNW has made (re: Gateway evals).

I'm not sure I see where we said that the problem was resolved. Sounds like you're making a faulty inference. We called tech support (MANY times) and it was THEIR opinion that it was the chipset/memory configuration that was causing problems. They even went so far as to cite previous issues with other applications. This was not some arbitrary opinion that we at the [H] formed. Chris took the diagnosis of the reps at FNW and put it in print. That's it!!

As far as hindsight goes, I think perhaps we could have used some on the front end. If we would have known that FNW was going to come back and say that it was the graphics card after all, perhaps we could have tried to diagnose that ourselves. However, that's not our job. Our job is to evaluate the system they send us, for richer or poorer. If there's an issue that they can fix for us, we let them do it, to an extent. Perhaps in the future we'll take a harder look at the RMA process, but not every computer is going to have a need for an RMA. We see that as at least a partial failure on the part of the builder to put together a decent and stable system. Having to send back a brand new system because it can't function is a serious issue, and even if the RMA process goes very well, those points will likely go into the Tech Support score field rather than Stability.

And just for your own edification, all motherboards and chipsets are not created equal. We have a motherboard sub-forum and evaluation program for a reason.
 
I think HardOCP is correct in not taking the system back for review. What I think should happen is that sometime in the future they should again review the same type of system but with a new buyer of course.

As far as ATI and FNW. I figure FNW is trying to protect a sourcing deal they have with ATI. They don't want their supplier offended. Still having to change memory timings indicates motherboard problems. If the video card worked in every other setting it was used in then that again points to the motherboard.

Finally, on the memory timing issue. If they have to lower the timings to get it to work then they are knowningly overselling product. They should just use a lower priced memory option that actually works with the hardware.
 
I agree with HardOCP in this case the consumer recieved a lower quality board than what they paid for...

ATi low end PC scavenger Hunt !

We're going to have fun showing you what types of chipsets are in lower end inexpencive word processing grandmothers only computers

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...d=1124431815484
Wow $400 under bestbuys basic productivity list what a deal! it has a radeon inside!

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/eMac...roductDetail.do
Awesome $600 gets you an Athlon 64 3500+ 1 gig of Ram and a TV tuner

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/s...=computer_store
Super computer for the family! only $349. 512 MB of ram Lightscribe burner.

How are they able to sell these machines so cheap and make any money.

http://www.z-buy.com/product.asp?item=ZS-A64M939BB wow thats cheap includes a case and powersupply wonder what the difference in quality between these components and those in a pre built system.


Walk into any computer store and look for the cheapest machine possible with an AMD brand processor inside . Try a circuit city or bestbuy. Most manufacturers have found that they can save a large amount of money by using inexpensive motherboards. I found that for $300-500 dollars I could pickup a full computer system monitor, printer, computer w/ Athlon 64/ Sempron and 512 MB of Ram and it would have the ever popular el-cheapo Ati X200 inside.

Manufacturers know that ATi Sounds name brand and they can really push forward and sell these lower end machines at a consumer friendly price.

ATi's X200 is rarely offered in higher end gaming performance systems.

In any of these cases adding a $300-$500 dollar graphics board would instantly turn these budget pcs into gaming rig that companies can sell at a range of $2000-$5000 dollars. Basically what I'm saying is that high end computer companies rarely pass the savings on to the consumer and most machines like the Falcon fragbox can be self built for $800 - $1300. What is expected though is that Falcon would put together a high quality machine with their know how.

High End Machines = No integrated graphics

http://www.alienware.com/product_pages/desktop_all_gaming.aspx?cs=1
nForce4 Board

http://global.shuttle.com/Product/Barebone/SN26P.asp
nForce4 Board (they offer a x200 but it is not considered thier top of the line barebones kit for maximum performance)

http://www.voodoopc.com/showRoom.aspx?categoryID=1
Voodoo PC does not move from Nvidia's chipset

http://www.falcon-nw.com/machv.asp
Even they dont joke around when selling nForce 4 SLI machines









http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=972320 (discussion on ATi chipset)
 
tomv said:
First, it sounds like you ordered a system for review purposes when you had no intention of giving it a positive review. A very poor mindset for someone who is supposed to be fair and impartial.

Second, to say that you were evaluating the whole out-of-box/tech support experience is misleading. The only way to properly evaluate all of that would be to order dozens of PCs and average the results. It would be very easy to encounter one execellent system from a very bad company or to run into a lemon from a good company.

Therefore, HardOCP should not have posted the review until all problems were resolved and after the system had been re-evaluated in working condition.

Now you have many posters making across the board observations about ATI chipsets and this computer company all based on one flawed computer.

Also, it now seems to be accepted practice on some websites to air the behind the scenes dialog in full public view. When a website becomes highly opinionated and agressive like this I think it shows a lack of professionalism.
Click to expand...
Kyle didn't order anything, I did. I ordered it after Kelt agreed to participate in our program. He mentioned that we should order a FragBox 2, and he sounded pretty excited about the product. I actually went into this expecting to score the box extremely high before we started having issues.
 
SpAmBuRgErLoRd said:
How are they able to sell these machines so cheap and make any money.
Click to expand...

I can answer that. They make money off the advertising dollars, and off the software companies that pay them to install bloatware on their machines. That's the reason why OEM's put all that crap on the Factory PC's. They are paid to do it. That's how they can afford to sell a machine for $300-$600.
 
Are there any good m-atx motherboards out that Falcon could've used as an alternative?
 
I think the review of the Fragbox 2 is absolutely comical. HardOCP is being stubborn, thick headed, and is not willing to work through problems, instead wants to sensationalize the problems they did have, which ultimately boiled down to a faulty video card. Ok Hard we get the point ... your badasses of the hardware review community, you dont need to start trouble and act the E-thug to get this point across.

How can you accurately review a system if you don't have a fully functionally system to test? HardOCP refuses to do a fair review, for some unknown reason, mostly e-peen IMO, which eliminates any credibility the review has at all. If you want to do an unbiased, fair review, then you would have accepted a working system and chaulked the first one up to being a lemon.

The Fragbox did not run Battlefield 2 properly ? and that's a surprise ? Battlefield 2 has to one of the worst coded games that has ever been released. The game did not work for a large number of people upon release, and it is still in the process of being patched all to hell, it was a beta product released to retail.

How can you possibly call that article fair, when the bias is obvious from the outset, it is very clear HardOCP had made up there mind about the system, based on the specs, before even having the Fragbox 2 in there hands for review. Comment about the review seem to indicate that Hard was only reviewing the system they recieved, and it was not meant to be a review of the fragbox in general:
Regardless, I stand by my overall assessment of the FragBox 2 as stated in the article. I was unhappy with the performance of the system we received, and after weeks of troubleshooting it, I felt that as a consumer who just spent $3200 on a gaming machine, I needed to mitigate my risk and return the system. Whether or not the problem lay in the motherboard, video card, or magic pixie dust, it all comes down to the fact that the system simply didn’t work.
Click to expand...
Oh please, are you serious ? you are a hardware review site, you very clearly know this, it isn't that hard to realize that your opinions are highly valued by the hardware community, and that the community will take your review to heart, and judge every Fragbox 2 by the review.
 
Draax said:
I think the review of the Fragbox 2 is absolutely comical. HardOCP is being stubborn, thick headed, and is not willing to work through problems, instead wants to sensationalize the problems they did have, which ultimately boiled down to a faulty video card. Ok Hard we get the point ... your badasses of the hardware review community, you dont need to start trouble and act the E-thug to get this point across.

How can you accurately review a system if you don't have a fully functionally system to test? HardOCP refuses to do a fair review, for some unknown reason, mostly e-peen IMO, which eliminates any credibility the review has at all. If you want to do an unbiased, fair review, then you would have accepted a working system and chaulked the first one up to being a lemon.

The Fragbox did not run Battlefield 2 properly ? and that's a surprise ? Battlefield 2 has to one of the worst coded games that has ever been released. The game did not work for a large number of people upon release, and it is still in the process of being patched all to hell, it was a beta product released to retail.

How can you possibly call that article fair, when the bias is obvious from the outset, it is very clear HardOCP had made up there mind about the system, based on the specs, before even having the Fragbox 2 in there hands for review.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you didn't read the initial article.
 
Draax said:
Sounds like Hard isn't willing to accept any wrong doing at all to me.
Click to expand...
Have you not been paying attention? I apologized for coming to a conclusion about an issue that wasn't 100% resolved, regardless of how many people on both sides agreed with said conclusion.

Edit: The [H] Consumer Systems Evaluation Program is designed to mirror the customer experience, period. We decided that, as a consumer, we would have returned the machine.
 
Morley said:
Have you not been paying attention? I apologized for coming to a conclusion about an issue that wasn't 100% resolved, regardless of how many people on both sides agreed with said conclusion.

Edit: The [H] Consumer Systems Evaluation Program is designed to mirror the customer experience, period. We decided that, as a consumer, we would have returned the machine.
Click to expand...

Lets take a look at this quote from the article :
The fragbox 2 article said:
However, if I were a customer, I would have probably returned the system at this point. I had reservations against the MSI motherboard and its ATI Xpress 200 chipset, and I believed that my worst fears were realized - it just wasn't a good motherboard solution. I don't think I would have trusted the machine at this point. In addition, I really wanted to get to the bottom of this, so I made a command decision and cut the evaluation period off, broke my silence, and made a call to the President of Falcon, Kelt Reeves.
Click to expand...

You very clearly indicate your bias with the underlined statement. In addition at this point you decided to return the system and not follow through with locating and fixing the problem. Once again .. how can you offer a fair an unbiased review of a system if you are not even willing to test a working system, that does not have faulty hardware ?

The review should never have been posted, at this point, and the fact it was, and that the conversation with Falcon northwest personnel was posted, just reinforces that this was a minor hardware problem that has been sensationalized and utilized to reinforce the e-thug reputation that HardOCP tries to promote.
 
Draax said:
Lets take a look at this quote from the article :

You very clearly indicate your bias with the underlined statement. In addition at this point you decided to return the system and not follow through with locating and fixing the problem. Once again .. how can you offer a fair an unbias review of a system if you are not even willing to test a working system, that does not have faulty hardware ?
Click to expand...
How is that a bias? That's a reservation! I have had plenty of calls where customers would question my choice of hardware because they heard one thing or another about it. I went into this with a certain perception, but that in no way altered how I handled the evaluation, nor did it cloud my judgement. FNW assured me that it was a good solution, so I took them at their word, and went through with the purchase! As a consumer, I'm not going to spend $3200 on something I'm not comfortable with before even spending the money!

We have posted FNW's claim as to the solution to the problem. I have no reason to doubt them. However, at this point it'd be pointless for us to take the system back. It's 'tainted', no matter how honest FNW is about handling it. They know it was a [H] machine, and it just doesn't fit with our goal of anonymity to take it back.

I'm sorry you think I have some sort of deep seated hatred towards ATI or MSI and wish to do them damage, but you are categorically wrong in your assessment.
 
Morley said:
How is that a bias? That's a reservation! I have had plenty of calls where customers would question my choice of hardware because they heard one thing or another about it. I went into this with a certain perception, but that in no way altered how I handled the evaluation, nor did it cloud my judgement.

We have posted FNW's claim as to the solution to the problem. I have no reason to doubt them. However, at this point it'd be pointless for us to take the system back. It's 'tainted', no matter how honest FNW is about handling it. They know it was a [H] machine, and it just doesn't fit with our goal of anonymity to take it back.

I'm sorry you think I have some sort of deep seated hatred towards ATI or MSI and wish to do them damage, but you are categorically wrong in your assessment.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have a deep seated hatred towards ATI or MSI, I do however think that hard is being overly stubborn about this, in that they are not willing to review a working system. If you don't have a working system to properly review, you should not be posting the review.

Sometimes manufactoures miss things, and is even hinted at in the article posted:
from the article said:
Conversations with MSI and Corsair yielded a new BIOS for Falcon, and the problem was fixed. Kelt surmised that perhaps these memory issues had reappeared with Battlefield 2, as it is a relatively new game. Coupled with the fact that they just switched the type of Corsair memory they were using in 2GB configurations, and the fact that there have only been a small number of people with AMD FragBox 2s running 2GB of memory and Battlefield 2, and there may be a good reason why Falcon had not been able to catch this problem before
Click to expand...

I remember a review of the 6800 HardOCP did when the 6800 line was being released, in which you guys failed to catch the problems with WMV9. Everyone has a tendancy to miss the little problems, when a product is first released.
 
Draax said:
I don't think you have a deep seated hatred towards ATI or MSI, I do however think that hard is being overly stubborn about this, in that they are not willing to review a working system. If you don't have a working system to properly review, you should not be posting the review.
Click to expand...
Again, you just don't understand the goal of what we're trying to do here. It's not my job to make sure we even HAVE a working machine! If I'm not happy with a system, I'm going to return it, and convey to the reader my experiences. This isn't a beta testing lab, it's a consumer evaluations lab.
 
I've said this before - I'll say it again:

We'd all be a lot better off if the review didn't involve the president of FNW and Kyle.

I think that Kyle would agree, and hence he has stated that some procedures of their OEM system review process will change. When you get to the level of dealing with the president, (and specifically this particular person) the only possible outcome is a loud (and somewhat public) pissing match. In addition, you've lost scope - this is now at the level a common customer will never get to. Props out to Chris and Kyle for wanting to get back to that.

Another reason that we're at this point:

Falcon expects stellar reviews. Few people call them to the carpet on issues like this. Most reviewers placate Falcon by touting how long Falcon has been in business, how they are known for great (but expensive) systems, the systems always look great...blah blah blah...

Easiest way to piss the prez off? Call them to the carpet on something they did wrong. I've seen it from him personally, and it ain't pretty. He hates it, and it usually results in FNW never dealing with them (or at least a long while)...

...don't get me started on the long-standing Boot/MaxPC issue...
 
Morley said:
Again, you just don't understand the goal of what we're trying to do here. It's not my job to make sure we even HAVE a working machine! If I'm not happy with a system, I'm going to return it, and convey to the reader my experiences. This isn't a beta testing lab, it's a consumer evaluations lab.
Click to expand...

If you not willing to have a fully functional working system in front of you, then you should not be posting reviews of the system, especially considering the reputation Hard has as being the premiere source for new hardware reviews.

In addition if you are not a beta testing lab, then why are you testing Battlefield 2, with new hardware configurations, that your own review indicates, are new to Falcon?
 
What's wrong with expressing an opinion on a PC with a questionable level enthusiast board that had problems? How many of you guys saying its an unfair review would have kept the box for more than a week if it crashed in your favorite game? Not many I'd wager. Also if you know the history of [H] you would know that Kyle adopted ATI way back when the 8500 or what ever it was came out. I thought he was a bit off then but know we all know ATI and nVidia both make great products.
I would not buy a fragbox, but not based on this review, I just don't like the form factor. I would buy a Falcon because of the things you learn from this review, things we have all heard of, support, support, support! Falcon is quick to counter any negative reviews, they always have done this. There is nothing wrong with it. [H] admits that they handled the process badly but this is a new system of reviews they are bringing us. I want them to continue and review other Falcon systems blindly in the future. No where do they say 'do not buy a Falcon' rather I would not choose a fragbox,many of us would not.
 
Draax said:
If you not willing to have a fully functional working system in front of you, then you should not be posting reviews of the system, especially considering the reputation Hard has as being the premiere source for new hardware reviews.

In addition if you are not a beta testing lab, then why are you testing Battlefield 2, with new hardware configurations, that your own review indicates, are new to Falcon?
Click to expand...
Again, you fail to recognize the goals of our systems evaluation program. If a system isn't working, it's just as valuable to us as one that is. We are CHANGING the way 'reviews' are done. We are 'evaluating' the customer experience, and you can bet your ass that there are customers out there who don't get working systems.

Furthermore, we asked Falcon Northwest, as a CUSTOMER, to build us a Battlefield 2 system. They delivered us a system that was not pre-production, and we played a game that is out and publicly available, what's the problem?
 
Draax said:
I remember a review of the 6800 HardOCP did when the 6800 line was being released, in which you guys failed to catch the problems with WMV9. Everyone has a tendancy to miss the little problems, when a product is first released.
Click to expand...

It is not something we missed, it is basically something we do not cover when doing a game play evaluation. We surely did go back and look at 6800 WMV9 performance, but saw it to a "non-issue issue." The fact of the matter is that there is hardly any content out there to take advantage, but we did download what was available as well as utilizing testing the Terminator 2 HD DVD, that required a special player that was a front end for WMV. While certainly CPU usage was high, the systems that we tested it on still performaned. That said, you certainly would not be multitasking on any AMD single die CPUs. Now before you start with anti-ATI hating rhetoric....

Now to return to "non-issue issues," I very much lump the ATI Radeon Xpress 200 USB performance problems into this category as well. Is there an issue there? Surely. Is it worth crowing about? No, I don't think so. USB drives are much more widely used that WMV9, but I just don't think it is a big issue worthy of our resources. We have had plenty of chances to bring this very real issue into the light on our pages, but I see it more as just something to gripe about, although it is going to impact some people.
 
Draax - I'm not sure you "get it".

If you not willing to have a fully functional working system in front of you, then you should not be posting reviews of the system, especially considering the reputation Hard has as being the premiere source for new hardware reviews.
Click to expand...

It's not the reviewers responsiblity to chase down functional hardware. Reviews like this are not "hardware" reviews. They are "user experience" reviews. That's why we get a write up on what the box looks like, how it's packed, how the sales call went, tech support, etc...

In a "user experience" review, EVERYTHING is subject to scrutiny. The reason is that if the reviewer were just Joe Schmoe Computer User, he/she would base his opinion on the whole package, not just the performance of the hardware.

In addition if you are not a beta testing lab, then why are you testing Battlefield 2, with new hardware configurations, that your own review indicates, are new to Falcon?
Click to expand...

The burden of quality lies with FNW. No one else is responsible for finished-goods product quality. Not [H], not Chris, not Kyle. Despite what many have said about "limited options" for motherboards, FNW always retains the right to NOT RELEASE A PRODUCT TO MARKET if it does not represent their brand to the level they desire. I'm not suggesting that has any relevance to this situation, but it needs to be clear where responsibility lies.
 
I recently bought an MSI RS480M2 IL MB for my X-Qpack to build a system primarily for BF2 and experienced hard lockups within 20 minutes of gaming. After days of troubleshooting I finally determined it was being caused by an imcompadibility between my Audigy2 ZS and the MSI RS480M2 MB! When I used onboard sound I did not get any lockups. So, I finally tried a Creative X-fi extreme music audio card and it worked 100% stable with no lockups.

After researching this issue on MSI's forum there are numerous others who have experienced these hard lockups when using an Audigy2 ZS with the MSI RS480M2 IL Motherboard:
MSI Forum Link
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top