Originally posted by: Sazar
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
No editor I know on any web site that I can think of would ever do that, and I know AnandTech most certainly wouldn't. To me, doing something like that would be like...I dunno, committing suicide or something.
I know a few who have done so
anyways... I logged onto the site specifically coz I had nothing better to do...
evan... is there a particular reason WHY only a resolution of 1024x768 was utilised/ why there are no IQ comparisons/ why there is no discussion of the new dets that were tested/ why older dets would not work (seeing as the marchitecture is pretty much the same)/ why there is no explanation of the anomalies seen and finally why was TOMB RAIDER : AOD not benched ?
I am going to assume that the new dets expose the nv38's whereas it was not being recognised in the older dets... and will assume that a thorough IQ comparison will be presented @ a later time...
are you allowed to tell us how much influence (if any) nvidia did have over the testing... ie resolutions to use/benchmarks to use/architecture to use/settings to use ?
also... can someone please corellate this for me ?
and
any insight would be appreciated...
Your just fishing...
I wasn't expecting the XT vs NV38 review for a couple of weeks. Anand may have done it just to wet our whistles and it looks like there werent any NDA's. I hope we will see a full blown review to replace this one.
Although the performance gains from both camps isn't making me jump up and down with glee....
Although the performance gains from both camps isn't making me jump up and down with glee....
naturally... the game was designed optimized for nvidia hardware... utilizing extensions for nvidia hardware... this is to be expected... I would be surprised if it was not the case..
you have not answered any of the questions or points I raised... frankly I did not expect you to.. I was hoping evan or someone else could have provided some insight...
also... calll it fishing if you like but is it not odd why the tests were not carried out @ higher resolutions? 1024x768 for $500 cards ? using games that are hardly new with a couple of exceptions ?
and in light of the aquamark 3 issues raised by a whole slew of websites... a statement saying the IQ is better does not suffice... a comparison would have been nice...
that is unless one disregards the entire IQ issue...
also... calll it fishing if you like but is it not odd why the tests were not carried out @ higher resolutions? 1024x768 for $500 cards ? using games that are hardly new with a couple of exceptions ?
and in light of the aquamark 3 issues raised by a whole slew of websites... a statement saying the IQ is better does not suffice... a comparison would have been nice...
that is unless one disregards the entire IQ issue...
regardless of optimization, i have a hard time believing that performance is better with AA/FSAA on than with AA/FSAA off
heh.. ok... that point is a given I think
someone messed up the settings when running the benches...
Burn!! For all of those ATI fanboys who acted like ATI doesn't do the same thing.
AquaMark3 Bench
Halo Bench
So much for your DX9 bashing. Oh and before you say it scored well because of reduced image quality:
Aaah, nothing better than seeing the ATI fanboys walking around with their tails between their legs.
Coup d'etat, not coup de tat.
Evan, I'm curious why 9600P results were left out of the Homeworld 2 benches. I also thought ATi's framerate problems with NWN were known, because the devs coded the engine around nVidia cards (though I also know ATi seems to be working to fix this).
Evan, I'm curious why 9600P results were left out of the Homeworld 2 benches. I also thought ATi's framerate problems with NWN were known, because the devs coded the engine around nVidia cards (though I also know ATi seems to be working to fix this).
Hi Evan,
On the whole, I think it was a good review. It largely mirrors some of my thoughts on how to address the issues surrounding benchmarking these days. I think the use of fraps and non optimised games is a good way to keep the playing field level. To me, that is what really matters. With so much past and recent evidence of the Graphics industry attempting to use review sites such as ANANDTECH to misrepresent the capability of their products it is important that steps be taken by such sites to protect their credibility. This is an important step in the right direction.
I have a some questions reguarding some of the decisions made on how to test.
The use of Det 50 Beta drivers
- It does not represent a level playing field between the two competitors Ati does not release beta drivers only WHQL certified ones.
-Beta drivers could be withdrawn from the public and could be used here as spoilers in these tests. (it's been done before)
-Why wasn't there a test of an early Detonator non beta driver to compare with these beta drivers?
-I would like to know what the score on HL2 and Gun Metal were. To bad that NV has "issues" I think that it would be too easy to creat these issues to limit an unfavorable comparison. Even if that is not the case the article was to show 9800xt performance. To not show HL2 scores when it is the most important test to many of your readers is a mistake.
-Using this latest sample from Nvidia when it is not in release yet. Raises the following questions.
At least there should have been some very strong proviso's in it's use.
Such as:
- this may not be the same clock speed on the product when it is publicaly available.
-This may not have the same architecture or memory.
What happens if this new Nvidia part is a "one off" part that was cooked up to be a spoiler?
It would be better to categorize this hardware as a concept card. That way if it fails to perform as reviewed here then Anandtech's credibility is not questioned.
Thank you for listening.
On the whole, I think it was a good review. It largely mirrors some of my thoughts on how to address the issues surrounding benchmarking these days. I think the use of fraps and non optimised games is a good way to keep the playing field level. To me, that is what really matters. With so much past and recent evidence of the Graphics industry attempting to use review sites such as ANANDTECH to misrepresent the capability of their products it is important that steps be taken by such sites to protect their credibility. This is an important step in the right direction.
I have a some questions reguarding some of the decisions made on how to test.
The use of Det 50 Beta drivers
- It does not represent a level playing field between the two competitors Ati does not release beta drivers only WHQL certified ones.
-Beta drivers could be withdrawn from the public and could be used here as spoilers in these tests. (it's been done before)
-Why wasn't there a test of an early Detonator non beta driver to compare with these beta drivers?
-I would like to know what the score on HL2 and Gun Metal were. To bad that NV has "issues" I think that it would be too easy to creat these issues to limit an unfavorable comparison. Even if that is not the case the article was to show 9800xt performance. To not show HL2 scores when it is the most important test to many of your readers is a mistake.
-Using this latest sample from Nvidia when it is not in release yet. Raises the following questions.
At least there should have been some very strong proviso's in it's use.
Such as:
- this may not be the same clock speed on the product when it is publicaly available.
-This may not have the same architecture or memory.
What happens if this new Nvidia part is a "one off" part that was cooked up to be a spoiler?
It would be better to categorize this hardware as a concept card. That way if it fails to perform as reviewed here then Anandtech's credibility is not questioned.
Thank you for listening.
Evan one more thing.....
-Why not anounce to all Graphics companies that you will not use any beta drivers for the purpose of testing cards?
Certainly you could review the beta driver releases but really it should have been the other way around. Test the Hardware first estabilish a baseline of performance with finsihed drivers and THEN test the beta drivers. In this article, you are not only testing hardware but also testing a Beta driver. Do you not think it is better to seperate the two?
-Why not anounce to all Graphics companies that you will not use any beta drivers for the purpose of testing cards?
Certainly you could review the beta driver releases but really it should have been the other way around. Test the Hardware first estabilish a baseline of performance with finsihed drivers and THEN test the beta drivers. In this article, you are not only testing hardware but also testing a Beta driver. Do you not think it is better to seperate the two?
thanks for your technically brilliant deduction of whats happening there...
once again... till anand produces an IQ comparison as well as details about what the nv38 is doing or not doing using the det 5x.xx's all arguments are moot and void...
basically a better presentation of this statement...
however... spam pretty much sums it up... not so sure that benching with beta drivers is such a good idea due to the prevalent issues over the past several months..
Here is a quote from HardOCP,
You can read the whole article here http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI5
This quote seems to cast doubt upon the wisdom of using Beta drivers.
[/b]BTW Evan Leib, would Nvidia have let you test their upcomiing card without using their Beta drivers? If not, then you should have refused to test their card.
You can read the whole article here http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI5
This quote seems to cast doubt upon the wisdom of using Beta drivers.
[/b]BTW Evan Leib, would Nvidia have let you test their upcomiing card without using their Beta drivers? If not, then you should have refused to test their card.
Did it occur to you that the HL2 benchmark isn't released yet?
Hmmm... So I suppose that nVidia is going to radically redesign a card that they're supposed to release in 2 weeks, resulting in worse performance?
Ok, I can see your points here, but I think they're pretty weak. It's obvious that these were "preview" results, just as the original Half Life 2 article's were. Nobody is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, but I think rather that you are fishing for something wrong here, when there really isn't much to complain about.
And this is coming from someone who owned a 5900 Ultra up until last week, and now has a 9800 Pro in his machine. I'm not biased either way. I just don't think you're being exactly fair here.
Apparently you haven't tried playing Halo at 1280 x 1024 ;-)
I have a P4 2.4Ghz, 1GB of DDR @ 200 mhz, and a 9800 Pro, and Halo doesn't run at an acceptable frame rate at 1280 x 1024. I doubt HL2 or Doom 3 will either.
Am I fishing for something? -Only when something smells fishy to me!
Recent history would suggest that it is rotten. Can't you smell it too?
I don't know if I would claim to be objective. I do not believe that honesty and fair conduct can be assumed on the behalf of Graphic card makers. I am not prepared to give Nvidia the benefit of the doubt. They are guilty till proven innocent in my mind.
Given the no holds barred nature of the Graphics industry, I do think that all possible means of keeping the feild level is a top priority- Even going to the extreme of writing a proviso on the upcoming Nvidia release. -"Trust no one" seems not paranoid to me but a rational response to the bizarre world of the Graphics industry. I cannot think of anything else in the computer industry that can compare to it. Amd vs Intel, Microsoft vs Linux , , even IBM vs SCO is straightforward in comparison to the ATI vs. Nvidia struggle.
I own a 4200Ti it works great! Despite my positive expereince with it, I will not be buying another Nvidia card any time soon. - I do not trust them....
Recent history would suggest that it is rotten. Can't you smell it too?
I don't know if I would claim to be objective. I do not believe that honesty and fair conduct can be assumed on the behalf of Graphic card makers. I am not prepared to give Nvidia the benefit of the doubt. They are guilty till proven innocent in my mind.
Given the no holds barred nature of the Graphics industry, I do think that all possible means of keeping the feild level is a top priority- Even going to the extreme of writing a proviso on the upcoming Nvidia release. -"Trust no one" seems not paranoid to me but a rational response to the bizarre world of the Graphics industry. I cannot think of anything else in the computer industry that can compare to it. Amd vs Intel, Microsoft vs Linux , , even IBM vs SCO is straightforward in comparison to the ATI vs. Nvidia struggle.
I own a 4200Ti it works great! Despite my positive expereince with it, I will not be buying another Nvidia card any time soon. - I do not trust them....
Originally posted by: spam
Here is a quote from HardOCP,
unlikely...
refusal == loss of hits == loss of ad revenue...
@ the end of the day it is 'reviews' like this and the blog posted by anand concerning the hl2 numbers for nvidia that really get hits...
again... I fail to understand WHY tabulations are being posted here using full precision on one card and partial precision on another...
anand's hl2 table
again... for the sake of sanity... why are no figures included with the nv38 using the dx9 path ? this would give an excellent indication as to the performance improvements to be expected in hl2...
as it stands... even with pp... the nv38 lags behind... which is consistent with it having the exact same architecture as the nv35...
Hi Evan Lieb,
I did a survey of review sites which used beta drivers to test the Nvidia hardware.
Ones that do not include the beta drivers besides Hardocp look at the following site's.
-Tom's Hardware -Detonator FX v44.03., Detonator FX v45.23,
-Extreme Tech For the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, we used nVidia's currently-available 45.23 Detonator driver. The company has been levying (should that be lobbying?) the analyst community to test with its upcoming Detonator 50 driver, and as soon as this driver is publicly available, we will use it for testing.
-Sharky Extreme NVIDIA reference drivers: 45.23
-beyond3d (they did not use a Nvidia part for comparison but when reviewing a 5900 they said, so we'll be using the latest official reference drivers, the Detonator FX 45.23.-
-firingsquad says "We also decided to stick with NVIDIA?s Detonator 45.23 driver for our testing. If you?ve read our David Kirk interview, you?ll see that NVIDIA has included a number of optimizations for DX9 titles such as Tomb Raider in Detonator 50. The current version we have, 51.75 will soon be replaced by a newer driver, so we didn?t feel it was appropriate to run our tests with 51.75. Once NVIDIA releases Detonator 50 to the public we?ll certainly re-run all scores with the newer driver."
On the other hand....
Gamers Depot- NVIDIA Detonator 50.75
Hot Hardware- "We used ATi's Catalyst 3.7 drivers and NVIDIA's Detonator 51.75 drivers for testing."
The Tech Report- "I've tested the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra with NVIDIA's 51.75 drivers, which are at present a press-only release. I prefer to test with public release drivers, but I've made an exception here."
What is interesting is how the choice of driver does in some cases dramaticly effect the test results. If the Graphics industry was faced with Review sites unwilling to use beta drivers for testing hardware performance, it would help to provide a better product to the consumer. It would also show that Review sites have chosen to represent the interests of the consumer rather than the industry.
At Anandtech who's interest do you represent? The public I assume, but then that begs the question why do you use drivers that are not available to the public? Why do you use tests that may never provide reproducible results to the public? If you provide evidence and results that are not reproducible to your readership who's interest are you serving?
I did a survey of review sites which used beta drivers to test the Nvidia hardware.
Ones that do not include the beta drivers besides Hardocp look at the following site's.
-Tom's Hardware -Detonator FX v44.03., Detonator FX v45.23,
-Extreme Tech For the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, we used nVidia's currently-available 45.23 Detonator driver. The company has been levying (should that be lobbying?) the analyst community to test with its upcoming Detonator 50 driver, and as soon as this driver is publicly available, we will use it for testing.
-Sharky Extreme NVIDIA reference drivers: 45.23
-beyond3d (they did not use a Nvidia part for comparison but when reviewing a 5900 they said, so we'll be using the latest official reference drivers, the Detonator FX 45.23.-
-firingsquad says "We also decided to stick with NVIDIA?s Detonator 45.23 driver for our testing. If you?ve read our David Kirk interview, you?ll see that NVIDIA has included a number of optimizations for DX9 titles such as Tomb Raider in Detonator 50. The current version we have, 51.75 will soon be replaced by a newer driver, so we didn?t feel it was appropriate to run our tests with 51.75. Once NVIDIA releases Detonator 50 to the public we?ll certainly re-run all scores with the newer driver."
On the other hand....
Gamers Depot- NVIDIA Detonator 50.75
Hot Hardware- "We used ATi's Catalyst 3.7 drivers and NVIDIA's Detonator 51.75 drivers for testing."
The Tech Report- "I've tested the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra with NVIDIA's 51.75 drivers, which are at present a press-only release. I prefer to test with public release drivers, but I've made an exception here."
What is interesting is how the choice of driver does in some cases dramaticly effect the test results. If the Graphics industry was faced with Review sites unwilling to use beta drivers for testing hardware performance, it would help to provide a better product to the consumer. It would also show that Review sites have chosen to represent the interests of the consumer rather than the industry.
At Anandtech who's interest do you represent? The public I assume, but then that begs the question why do you use drivers that are not available to the public? Why do you use tests that may never provide reproducible results to the public? If you provide evidence and results that are not reproducible to your readership who's interest are you serving?
Evan, I have one question about the review, if you could pass it on. Why were such powerful cards benchmarked at such low resolutions? It seems nonsensical to me (especially in non-AA/AF) to do that with cards that are extremely high powered and high-priced.
Spam is losing his mind here lol
And did you see some of those scores at 1024X768? FF? 20 FPS? 1280X1024 would be pointless. So instead of 20 we sould get 15 FPS or less?
I think most of these newer games are very demanding and 1024X768 on the initial generation of DX9 cards will probably be the norm. This feels like 1998-99 all over again
And did you see some of those scores at 1024X768? FF? 20 FPS? 1280X1024 would be pointless. So instead of 20 we sould get 15 FPS or less?
I think most of these newer games are very demanding and 1024X768 on the initial generation of DX9 cards will probably be the norm. This feels like 1998-99 all over again
Perhaps you would like to give me a piece of your mind hmmm?
Calling me mindless is weak rebuttle to my arguments. Common take your best shot.
If not, then it would be unfair of me to commit to a battle of wits with some one who is unarmed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 392
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter