What Sucks About HardOCP Video Card Reviews

Frank Burns said:
What about the GTX 960 and AMD 380/x from last year?
Click to expand...
Well Frank, I did not say we never cover those, because if we did not I would not have the data to make a statement like I did. The simple fact of the matter is that we would usually rather use our resources for higher priced cards. I am not sure what is hard to understand about that.
 
What sucks about hardocp reviews? Dunno haven't read one since 2004. Back then I disliked the idea of not doing canned benchmarks. I get that canned benchmarks can be unrepresentative of actual gameplay scenarios, but playing a game twice can give wildly different gpu loads. My $0.02.
 
Darakian said:
What sucks about hardocp reviews? Dunno haven't read one since 2004. Back then I disliked the idea of not doing canned benchmarks. I get that canned benchmarks can be unrepresentative of actual gameplay scenarios, but playing a game twice can give wildly different gpu loads. My $0.02.
Click to expand...
When I first started working on performance optimization mods for Oblivion, I was very surprised how consistent I could make a run with a 1 fps difference. It was consistent enough to benchmark different ini settings and compare graphic cards. The biggest thing was to avoid vertical mouse movement because of the change in sky fps, but when doing everything manually it was within the margin of error. The accuracy can be improved by doing macro runs, toggling god mode, and invisible/ignore enemy.
 
Darakian said:
What sucks about hardocp reviews? Dunno haven't read one since 2004. Back then I disliked the idea of not doing canned benchmarks. I get that canned benchmarks can be unrepresentative of actual gameplay scenarios, but playing a game twice can give wildly different gpu loads. My $0.02.
Click to expand...
Your ignorance is showing.
 
Stanley Pain said:
I'd really like to see FCAT/Frame Time numbers.
Click to expand...
I know they said they avoid frame time analysis because it's incredibly time consuming (and probably expensive at higher screen resolutions) to record all of that footage for frame analysis. Instead they've relied on their perception of game play performance in the written review. I understand though that the minimum acceptable frame time can vary from person to person. Perhaps they could add the afterburner frame time graph as a middle ground to please everyone?

When I look at higher resolutions, I'm more concerned with minimum fps. Frame times really shouldn't be an issue unless your running SLI/CF or there is a problem with the game that could be fixed in a patch. From what I've seen right now, the GTX1070 is very good at 1440p and below, but the GTX1080 gets the minimum fps that makes me want to buy a 1440p ultrawide monitor (60 min fps in most canned benchmarks) especially true for a non gsync monitor.
 
We produce all out own content and review whatever we want.
 
-PK- said:
I know they said they avoid frame time analysis because it's incredibly time consuming (and probably expensive at higher screen resolutions) to record all of that footage for frame analysis. Instead they've relied on their perception of game play performance in the written review. I understand though that the minimum acceptable frame time can vary from person to person. Perhaps they could add the afterburner frame time graph as a middle ground to please everyone?

When I look at higher resolutions, I'm more concerned with minimum fps. Frame times really shouldn't be an issue unless your running SLI/CF or there is a problem with the game that could be fixed in a patch. From what I've seen right now, the GTX1070 is very good at 1440p and below, but the GTX1080 gets the minimum fps that makes me want to buy a 1440p ultrawide monitor (60 min fps in most canned benchmarks) especially true for a non gsync monitor.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it definitely is time consuming and has some caveats to boot. It makes for a good quantitative benchmark for perceived frame rate though.

As a side note I just went from SLI 980s to an single 1080 (OCd to 2130) and I without even look at hard numbers it performs significantly better in all the games I've played (TW: Warhammer, BF4, Dragon Age, etc). I say this because I'm able to run all those games at max settings + 4k resolution now.
 
This is what sucks donkey dongs about [H] video card reviews:

You bitches never send me the Gold-rated cards when you're finished reviewing them!!! :mad:
 
I would like more pictures, not only just of the cards, but show the cards installed in the machines. Also, I like it when reviewers take apart the cards. I know that can affect the benchmarks so you can show those pics at the end of the review.

Otherwise, I love the new format.
 
All I want is less pages in the reviews. There is entirely too many! The RX480 for example: Has 14 fucking pages! Why is there separate pages for the same game, with just a resolution change? Wow! We all have scroll wheels, we can scroll.... You can easily make this review into 5-6 pages max. If you put too many pages it makes people wander for their info, and not actually read the WHOLE review.

If this is an ad-revenue thing, whatever, I get it. But, think about it... If the review was 6 pages, people would be more inclined to go page to page, and spend longer on those pages. Longer time with the ads.... It being 14 pages, people will glace over the few pages that interest them, and with the little content, they feel rushed and never get exposed to the ads really.

My 2 cents.
 
Warrior said:
All I want is less pages in the reviews. There is entirely too many! The RX480 for example: Has 14 fucking pages! Why is there separate pages for the same game, with just a resolution change? Wow! We all have scroll wheels, we can scroll.... You can easily make this review into 5-6 pages max. If you put too many pages it makes people wander for their info, and not actually read the WHOLE review.

If this is an ad-revenue thing, whatever, I get it. But, think about it... If the review was 6 pages, people would be more inclined to go page to page, and spend longer on those pages. Longer time with the ads.... It being 14 pages, people will glace over the few pages that interest them, and with the little content, they feel rushed and never get exposed to the ads really.

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Gee you complain about 14 pages? check out any Guru3d review, its easily twice that.
 
Your GTX1060 Announcement was wonderful. Thank you, and glad you mentioned it. It shows that you aren't consistent on making an article with a bunch of pages. And I greatly appreciate that.

What you are consistent on, is being [H], and that's why I like you Kyle.

Have a good day.
 
The separate pages breaks down the review better into readable segments. Personally I hate one long ass page or pages, so easy to get loss where you are at especially when some dumb ass pop up spreads apart the paragraph you are reading like at TomsHardware. grrrrrr

Plus it is easier to reference and find the information you want when it is broken down into more pages. You don't have to read through 10 pages of information to find that one sentence of information.
 
On the random, I was really hoping for an RX480 to 970 comparison, irregardless of price bracketing I'd like to see a wider range of cards compared.. not like a Ti shootout but, just more. Maybe at the bottom like the apples to apples with an extra "across the board" look.
 
I would like to see more reviews when drivers have been updated. Like... say 5-6mo later, let's see how much the numbers have changed. I think it would be really eye opening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top