Really? Because that's what I was saying................................
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
[H]ardOCP and Force Unleashed testing methods
- Thread starter POPEGOLD
- Start date
Really? Because that's what I was saying................................
The reviews only reflect what they see under their chosen conditions. A simple driver change can give different results. I think the biggest point in reading [H]'s review isn't about the numbers themselves, but the experience they have with THEIR setup.
This is true for every review ever, not just the [H] reviews....
Tamlin_WSGF
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,167
I agree and thats one of the reasons why I feel they supplement each other. This site war/review war is too stupid. If everyone would do everything the same way, we'd loose more then we'd gain IMHO.
But it's not a site/review war.... it's the people who come on here and say "WTF JOO GUYS DONT TEST GUD" I"m not pointing any fingers, but you know what I mean....
Tamlin_WSGF
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,167
I do, but this have become a site/review war. Its more about what is the right way and what is the wrong way, then a wishlist for testing. For some maybe, this might be a ATI vs. Nvidia issue and they care more about who the results come in favor off then the methods themselves.
Some reacted upon the results being so different, which is fair enough, but the whole thing has gone into a fight about who's methods are the ultimate. None of them are all-around accurate and all of them show different aspects of gameplay and performance.
I don't mind if [H] brings more aspects into their review, but I don't want them to change their way for that. The discussion itself about this have taken the wrong turn I think and are not constructive.
This whole review really isn't anything new. [H] has been saying for a long time that they do things differently. And other websites have not agreed, if you'll remember the Firing Squad Rant about how useless "Real World" benchmarking is, and Kyle's reply here
I know I keep bringing up the 2900XT review, but that's because I was a part of it, and there were LOT'S of people who had BIG problems with how [H] did their review because it didn't agree with many other reviews out there. glvrd was there, but now he's banned because he refused to understand. This really isn't anything new.
I know I keep bringing up the 2900XT review, but that's because I was a part of it, and there were LOT'S of people who had BIG problems with how [H] did their review because it didn't agree with many other reviews out there. glvrd was there, but now he's banned because he refused to understand. This really isn't anything new.
Tamlin_WSGF
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,167
Thanks for bringing those up. I haven't seen those before from neither [H] nor Firing squad.
Its a shame really that sites bicker so much about these things. They've all chosen their way to test equiptment and for us users its best that they don't all do the same thing.
Its a shame really that sites bicker so much about these things. They've all chosen their way to test equiptment and for us users its best that they don't all do the same thing.
TheBluePill
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 3,773
Sorry i wasnt more articulate.. Not enough coffee this morning.
Yes, just like some Video Card Reviews too, a canned bench may show Card A, at $500, is the top dog, but Play testing may show Card B, at $350, is just as good or close enough in the real world.
Sorry i wasnt more articulate.. Not enough coffee this morning.
Yes, just like some Video Card Reviews too, a canned bench may show Card A, at $500, is the top dog, but Play testing may show Card B, at $350, is just as good or close enough in the real world.
OK, so you were agreeing with me and saying that Skulltrail is a waste of money if you're buying it for games, glad we got that sorted out
I think I posted that before my coffee too
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,500
Hehe, you may not realize this but we were one of the first hardware sites to build business on sending people to OTHER hardware sites. Back in 1998, giving out that cross traffic just was not done. So if you want to argue supplementation of reviews, I would be willing to suggest this is a cornerstone of HardOCP and always has been. That however is not going to keep me from saying what I feel and giving our readers enough information to make up their own minds.
The fairest way is to have a canned benchmark made by the developers which gives the systems the same initial conditions in a scene.
Only if the AI heavily relies on random values to generate "realism" the same initial conditions should lead to the same outcome.
it's hardly ideal, but these are issues that are just inherent with benchmarking.
Only if the AI heavily relies on random values to generate "realism" the same initial conditions should lead to the same outcome.
it's hardly ideal, but these are issues that are just inherent with benchmarking.
Chris_B
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 29, 2001
- Messages
- 5,487
Then we have the vendors cheating in their drivers specifically for that scene. Happened with 3d mark plenty of times already.
Psh, I'm pissed that Bioshock was designed from the ground up for widescreen users (who then got their panties in a bind over nothing), and that us 4:3 users got shafted with a letterbox
Tamlin_WSGF
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,167
Psh, I'm pissed that Bioshock was designed from the ground up for widescreen users (who then got their panties in a bind over nothing), and that us 4:3 users got shafted with a letterbox
LOL!
Don't get me started on that again!
Well the best way to test it would be the ol' fasionned Quake 3 way.
Everyone records their own demo and plays it back on each system to compare numbers. That way no one can cheat since all reviewers will have different demos. The problem is not all games support demo recording (which I think is stupid since that's the only way to accurately test performance on any level, not just the 1-2 in the benchmark application).
Because of that missing feature, we have no choice but to either test using the provided benchmark, which companies can "optimize" for or we can run around a few times with FRAPS on, hope that the runs will be similar and average out the results. I personally think the second option is the best for us consumers since we'll all play games with our video cards, but obviousely it's way more time-consuming for the reviewer.
I could understand why someone wouldn't wanna do 10 times the work without 10 times the pay.
Everyone records their own demo and plays it back on each system to compare numbers. That way no one can cheat since all reviewers will have different demos. The problem is not all games support demo recording (which I think is stupid since that's the only way to accurately test performance on any level, not just the 1-2 in the benchmark application).
Because of that missing feature, we have no choice but to either test using the provided benchmark, which companies can "optimize" for or we can run around a few times with FRAPS on, hope that the runs will be similar and average out the results. I personally think the second option is the best for us consumers since we'll all play games with our video cards, but obviousely it's way more time-consuming for the reviewer.
I could understand why someone wouldn't wanna do 10 times the work without 10 times the pay.
A custom time demo still falls under the "canned benchmark" designation, and still has all the same problems as other canned benchmarks. Real world testing ftw!
When I saw "Force Unleashed testing methods" in the title, I thought, oh, somebody doesn't realize FU (unfortunate acronym) is console-only. Then I noticed the thread had almost 60 posts, and I was like WTFz0r! It must be coming to PC! Then I realized the thread derailed around post #15. And I'm still a sad PC gaming panda, who might actually buy a console if FU turns out to be all that + chips.
noone has answered if LUCASARTS specifically said there will be no PC version
at one point, in some interview, somebody said "there are no plans for a PC version at this time". That was a while ago, though, so I was hoping for good news.
is that vague enough for you?
Seriously, though, afaik, it's not planned to come to PC at this point, which means even if they decided to port to PC today, it would still be a long way off (ala assassin's creed)
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,052