• 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.

HardOCP needs to be fair

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DarkSamurai2003

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
270
Their IQ and Images they used for the Nvidia 6800 GT OC are slightly skewed.

10892340776zfLm5mqEz_6_4_l.jpg


We did not notice any difference in Anisotropic image quality, but we did notice a big difference in Anti-Aliasing image quality between the BFGTech GeForce 6800GT OC and the Radeon X800Pro. In the two screenshots above we have a comparison showing where we noticed this difference the most. As you can see, all the lines being rendered on the Radeon X800Pro are simply being done better at 2XAA.
Click to expand...

With the top it's more tilted meaning the lines will be more jagged, they need to be nearly the same angle. At that angle we can say the 6800 GT OC sucks etc.

I think it's a bit unfair because of the different angles (and angles means everything when it comes to Anti-Aliasing) ;).

So, it'd be nice if they had the same angles.
 
They should be running 4xAA instead of 2xAA to start with. 2xAA isn't nearly as good as the improved 4xAA on the 6800's.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=30641

2x: 2x hasnt changed any. Same 2 Sample Rotated Grid Pattern Found on the Nv3x/NV2x Series. Quincunx Shares this pattern Sample
Click to expand...

4x RGMS: Large Change, 4x Rotated Grid Multi Sampling. Does a much better Job at hitting Horizontal Edges.
Click to expand...

The 6800's are also suffering more of a performance hit from 8xAF while the X800's are suffering less from just 2xAA. nVidia has better AA performance while ATI has better AF performance because of their heavy brilinear optimizations for it.

4xAA + 8xAF is the setting that should be used on both cards. Its the best option for highest IQ/Performance.
 
The angle is still the same, its just a little lower. So the results are true. [H] is plenty fair.

And you need to host your own images.
 
Well i guess it's hard to have 2 images of the same angle when taking an in game screenshot. Good point though
 
What I showed is correct, anyone can check it out themselves, the x800 series 2xaa in MADDEN 2004 is better than the 6800 series 2xaa in this game. There is no ifs ands or buts about it. I've played through the game and it is a noticeable difference.

There is no way you can argue otherwise.
 
fallguy said:
The angle is still the same, its just a little lower. So the results are true. [H] is plenty fair.

And you need to host your own images.
Click to expand...

lol i love when people (*cough* fallguy) make stuff up.

look at the orange cones on the top right corner of both images.

if one of the images was lower than the other, why are the cones the same distance from the top of the image? the shot shouldn't be used to compare AA since its obviously not from the same angle.

I'm not saying that the 6800 is better at 2xAA, i'm just saying that [h] should have picked a place where the angle is consistant.

I agree with the previous comments about 4xAA though. 4xAA should be the minimum with $400 dollar cards in 2004.
 
Brent_Justice said:
What I showed is correct, anyone can check it out themselves, the x800 series 2xaa in MADDEN 2004 is better than the 6800 series 2xaa in this game. There is no ifs ands or buts about it. I've played through the game and it is a noticeable difference.

There is no way you can argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

i didn't see anyone arguing otherwise. what i did see was someone saying the shots should be at the same angle.

its pointless to rebutt an arguement that no one has made.
 
After futher looking at the image, it looks like someone didn't turn off AF/trilinear optimizations.
 
kcthebrewer said:
After futher looking at the image, it looks like someone didn't turn off AF optimizations.
Click to expand...

your right. but look at the lower right hand corner. they dont hide the fact that AF is still on.
 
sativa said:
i didn't see anyone arguing otherwise. what i did see was someone saying the shots should be at the same angle.

its pointless to rebutt an arguement that no one has made.
Click to expand...

it is impossible to get the screenshots at EXACTLY the same place in this game, this isn't like an FPS game where you can make a saved game point

how am I supposed to do the impossible?

all I can do is the best that I can do, and that is what I have done, the angles are close enough to make a valid comparison, end of story
 
Brent_Justice said:
it is impossible to get the screenshots at EXACTLY the same place in this game, this isn't like an FPS game where you can make a saved game point

how am I supposed to do the impossible?

all I can do is the best that I can do, and that is what I have done, the angles are close enough to make a valid comparison, end of story
Click to expand...

How about a 2xQ shot for comparison?
 
Something still seems screwy to me. Maybe it is my small monitor, but if ATI can render lines like that with 2xAA, 4xAA should be absolutely perfect. However it isn't. That being said, that looks to be higher than 2xAA on the ATI. If it isn't (I have not seen another screenshot with 2xAA look so good) well I am just amazed.
 
Brent_Justice said:
it is impossible to get the screenshots at EXACTLY the same place in this game, this isn't like an FPS game where you can make a saved game point

how am I supposed to do the impossible?

all I can do is the best that I can do, and that is what I have done, the angles are close enough to make a valid comparison, end of story
Click to expand...


can you save a replay of a down? i'm pretty sure you can go frame by frame in those.
 
regardless this review has made me reconsider getting a x800pro. i will for sure look at the 6800 gt oc. keep the awesome reviews coming [h]ardocp
 
Yes, its all a conspiracy to show that one is better than the other when that is totally not the case. Uh, which one are we supposed to be unfair to today? And should I be getting my payoff bribe check from NVIDIA or ATI this week? :p :rolleyes:
 
Brent_Justice said:
it is impossible to get the screenshots at EXACTLY the same place in this game, this isn't like an FPS game where you can make a saved game point

how am I supposed to do the impossible?

all I can do is the best that I can do, and that is what I have done, the angles are close enough to make a valid comparison, end of story
Click to expand...

But why do you guys keep using 2xAA in all your reviews? The 2xAA quality on the 6800's is nothing like the new and improved 4xAA IQ. The 6800's can perform 4xAA without hardly any performance loss at all so why not run it? I thought we were looking at MAXIMUM gameplay settings here? You can run the X800XT PE at a higher resolution than the 6800u but can't run 4xAA on the 6800u or GT? lol
 
I realize you are Pro-NV burning, but you may want to actually read the review before posting. They did use 4x, look at the apples vs. apples.
 
fallguy said:
I realize you are Pro-NV burning, but you may want to actually read the review before posting. They did use 4x, look at the apples vs. apples.
Click to expand...

Well you may want to read it twice before contradicting me because there was no IQ comparison when they ran 4xAA in Apples to Apples :p.
 
look guys both of you have made your points
you end up both right in different ways
appreciate the postive aspects of this review and remember brett is human and one thing should not overshadow the rest of the review
 
The apples to apples section is the only part i read when [H]ard does a video card review.
 
burningrave101 said:
Well you may want to read it twice before contradicting me because there was no IQ comparison when they ran 4xAA in Apples to Apples :p.
Click to expand...

burningrave101 said:
The 6800's can perform 4xAA without hardly any performance loss at all so why not run it?
Click to expand...

You also questioned the performance of it, which is why I brought it up. They did to 4x, despite you saying they didnt.

The simple fact is, they usewhat settings are what they think are the highest while being playable. Which looks like 2xAA most of the time in this review. If you dont like their system, there are plenty of others that dont use it.

Back to being ontopic. I thought Madden 2004 didnt work with AA? I know ATi's 4.7's allow you to force AA in Madden now (and other games that dont support AA), when before I believe it just wouldnt work. Does Madden have a problem with AA? If so, perhaps thats why ATi's looks better.
 
fallguy said:
The simple fact is, they usewhat settings are what they think are the highest while being playable. Which looks like 2xAA most of the time in this review.
Click to expand...
Some folks refuse to accept the ways we do things no matter how many times we say it repeatedly in these reviews.
 
Nauseous said:
we dont refuse it, we just question it a bit.
Click to expand...
But the person that keeps posting fails to understand that we did not use 2XAA as a set and static AA setting. We used what we deemed to be the best overall visual setting in the games. Now if you disagree and say we don't know what we are talking about, then that is fine, but please understand how we do things. And how we do things has been explained repeatedly.
 
Not flaming anyone, they do their reviews as what they deem playable, thats why I skim through it to the apples to apples section and read what the cards will do at max.
 
id have to agree with bboynitrous, the other sites demos don't show real gameplay, which can change FAR to rapidly to make a demo worth it, i like how [H]ardocp does its reviews and think most websites should follow in its footsteps........and the people complaining about the 2xaa need to stfu and read the rest of the review
 
bsoft said:
It has to be explained repeatedly because it doesn't make sense.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

"It's not that we don't trust you, it's just that we don't trust you."
Click to expand...
Then I have absolutely no idea why you waste your time reading or posting on this topic. I really don't. If using games to evaluate the gameplay that can be provided by a video card does not make sense, then I really don't know what does.
 
wow.....i think kyle is pissed.......this thread needs to die....and quick......you guys are fighting over how HE.....the runner of this site...chooses to review.....although i think it is really cool of him to read the forums and address your concerns and explain things your arguing isnt going to change his mind.....and what doesnt make sense to you makes sense to other people...i love how he reviews these things.......just keep in mind that this isnt the ONLY reviewing website....and that if you dont like how he does it......then dont believe it....its not that hard LOL
 
I think the reviews are fair and I really like the approach. I always look over both sections, and I'm glad they provide both real world and apples to apples. If i decide to throw down $400-$500 on a card I want to see more than just apples to apples. I want to know what the playable limits are when I play the game, how far I can crank it up before the card really starts to choke. The truth is you can look at the numbers all day, and have a decent idea of things, but just as everbody knows, real world situations can be a lot different than your "typical" test. Sometimes I have to look twice at the data, but I still think it is cool, because I can see how this card, was getting this frame rate at this resolution and AA/AF and yet this card was getting pretty much the same FPS while at this greater res/AA/AF. I kind of like that. Just my opinion though, and I can't say that I have found anything untruthful/unfair about the reviews. It is easy to say you don't trust it because it is different, but why should you trust any other way anymore? You don't have the card in your computer, you are reading from what somebody else has posted, so either way you are getting second hand information, what makes any other way any more trustworthy?
 
ixgoxsolo is right....real game situations change too much for most timed demos to be accurate and it isnt always about the FPS............


also....IxGOxSOLO in your sig it says "do not put salt in your eyes" my friend tried listerine strips :D im willing to bet the strips are worse :D
 
xSyzygy666x said:
IxGOxSOLO in your sig it says "do not put salt in your eyes" my friend tried listerine strips :D im willing to bet the strips are worse :D
Click to expand...
Haha well I wouldn't know, that quote is from a skit I once saw on "The Kids in The Hall" several years ago, and man I want to see it again, but haven't. As for your friend, have you informed him that gingivitis doesn't occur in the eyes, and therefore he doesn't have to bother putting listerine strips in his eyes?:p
 
he did it for a dollar.....what a moron.....but hes actually a pretty cool guy :cool:

and as for the kids in the hall....have you tried kazaa or the like???? or are you 1 of the RIAA whiners that need slapped.....
 
Pertaining to the original question, I don't think the difference in angle really makes much of a difference here. You have to look at these things on a case-by-case basis, and in this case the AA of the 6800GT is certainly visibly worse than that of the X800 PRO. Whereas the back line of the endzone looks slightly faded but solid on the X800, it looks like a dashed line on 6800 due to the worse AA. With such a large difference, there's really not much of a point in making sure to get an exact duplicate picture, because it wouldn't really improve 6800's comparison very much.
 
xSyzygy666x said:
wow.....i think kyle is pissed.......this thread needs to die....and quick......you guys are fighting over how HE.....the runner of this site...chooses to review.....although i think it is really cool of him to read the forums and address your concerns and explain things your arguing isnt going to change his mind.....and what doesnt make sense to you makes sense to other people...i love how he reviews these things.......just keep in mind that this isnt the ONLY reviewing website....and that if you dont like how he does it......then dont believe it....its not that hard LOL
Click to expand...

I hate it when people say this.

I live in the USA. I love my country. I do not, however, think it is perfect. Yet whenever I complain, there's always someone telling me to "move to Europe".

That's not the point. I like [H]. I think it's the best place for video card reviews on the net. That said, it's not perfect. If I don't agree with something, I should be able to talk about it. That doesn't mean that I don't value the reviews and information on this website. I read this website daily just for the news.

If you don't like what I have to say, then ignore it. It's not that hard.
 
very well said....however this website isnt like a country....you can only live in 1 country at at a time....i can go to 300000 websites if i wanted to......its like living in america AND every country on earth, you can experience any one you want to at the time....you cant do that with countries......
 
I can quite understand why kyle and brent are starting to get a little bit ticked off :rolleyes: YOU MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE TO READ THERE REVIEWS THEY DONT FORCE YOU If you are just wanting to see raw numbers and apples to apples then near on 200 to 300 other sites specialize in this mudane my card is better than yours brag fest?
Hards reviews are becoming well liked by people who couldnt give a rats about this constant wankfest over whos card is faster. But actually how the damed games will run on these new cards.
And maybe [H] needs to print it on the front of this board so some of these constant whiners get the hint that [H] aint gonna change there reviewing methods! just refine what they already do ;) SO IF YOU DONT LIKE CLOSE YOUR BROWSER AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE?
[/end rant]
 
I really think the odd thing is that people question not only an angle, which makes no difference considering that if you play the game you arent going to see the single angle as it goes by, and its going to either look jagged or its not. But to go on to continue to question after the person experiencing the jaggedness on both cards comes in here and says "the angle didnt make a difference, it was jaggy on one and not the other." Why not then go on to say that each picture in the review is Photoshop produced or that if one card looked better than the other, the labels were switched in the favor of the card they want to "win"? Where does the complete distrust of the reviewer end? If you're so paranoid, buy both cards and run them on the same setup that the [H] did, see the SAME bloody thing they told you and then stfu about it. And to skim on over to the apples to apples really is a plain out injustice to the amount love we're getting in the new review structure. There are games that on my system, will run at 90FPS, I turn a corner with no extra action on screen, just a new hallway or room, and my FPS goes to 20, and goes right back up after exiting, a time demo can miss areas like that. I also like knowing that these cards are different animals with different levels of AA, AF, and resolution tolerance. It caters to both the people who run games at 1024x768 and crank AA/AF to clean it up, and also to the people with massive monitors running 1600x1200. The question now is not "can I run this game?" but how much extra polishing can I put on it, and in what way, and does the polish noticably improve the experience of the game and justify a price tag the size of the national trade deficit? The only thing extra that I would ask for is to see the previous generation of GPUs compaired at their maximum playable resolutions with all of these cards so that I know when an upgrade is really justified. As for what defines playable, this is just my opinion. The card stays above 30FPS a VERY large percent of the time, and doesnt start showing me a slideshow when action gets to a pinacle, If a move the mouse when theres nothing on screen but terrain and it gets even a little choppy its unacceptable, and from my experience, the graphs demonstrate something very close to what I would expect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top