Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I trust Anandtech reviews for an accurate GeForce GTS 250 review. I also trust Tech Report, Guru3D, AMD Zone, PC Perspective and PC Stats. I have used all of these over the last 8 years or so!![]()
I've noticed this as well in the past and asked Derek about some of the variances. I think part of the problem is that Derek doesn't force Vsync off in the Nvidia drivers. He hasn't done this in some time, ever since he found it had some weird impact in Crysis with regard to frame rates. Its possible Nvidia's driver is employing some kind of frame rate smoothing or normalization if Vsync is not specifically forced off. I've asked him in the past to do some comparisons just to make sure there's nothing going on there but I don't think he has. Most other sites do force it off in the drivers.Originally posted by: phexac
In all other reviews, that is not the case. GTX260 is way out ahead of the midrange cards, where is should be. What's wrong with anand's review?
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
Originally posted by: garritynet
Originally posted by: postmortemIA
so, does the n-th iteration of turd polishing work?
When has the 8800/9800 ever been a turd?
I don't agree with calling the 8800/9800 a turd as well because my XFX 8800 GT gave me great performance.
Originally posted by: postmortemIA
Marketing is making products now.
Originally posted by: Paratus
Wreckage if they don't make you a focus group member there is no justice in the world.
Your efforts are tireless.![]()
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
It's not interesting at all. The TR review is using a factory OCed Evga FTW Edition in this reviewOriginally posted by: novasatori
huh interesting
in AT review 260=4850 or so and in the TR review 260=4870
to be fair tho there aren't many benches
It speed are 670/1404/2304MHz, instead of the stock 576/1242/2000MHz. Yet the 4870 they use is running stock speeds, go figure.![]()
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
It's not interesting at all. The TR review is using a factory OCed Evga FTW Edition in this reviewOriginally posted by: novasatori
huh interesting
in AT review 260=4850 or so and in the TR review 260=4870
to be fair tho there aren't many benches
It speed are 670/1404/2304MHz, instead of the stock 576/1242/2000MHz. Yet the 4870 they use is running stock speeds, go figure.![]()
+1. That doesn't make them look like biased fanboys, does it.
Originally posted by: Paratus
There's nothing wrong with what he said. .... yet pretty good about keeping his opinion separate from his facts.
Not only that, but the flat-out dishonesty is that Nvidia gave its board partners 'special' boards to send to reviewers. They are not allowed to give out their own vanilla cards, they MUST use the special set supplied by Nvidia.
Why is this dishonest? Want to bet that those boards have cherry-picked chips and RAM that clocks to the moon? That they will do everything better than any card you will ever be able to buy? Basically, Nvidia supplied ringers to the press that are not representative of what you can buy, and forced OEMs to give them to review sites without telling them. The technical term is 'mushrooming', feed them [scatological reference deleted] and keep them in the dark.
Basically, Nvidia supplied ringers to the press that are not representative of what you can buy
Originally posted by: chizow
I've noticed this as well in the past and asked Derek about some of the variances. I think part of the problem is that Derek doesn't force Vsync off in the Nvidia drivers. He hasn't done this in some time, ever since he found it had some weird impact in Crysis with regard to frame rates. Its possible Nvidia's driver is employing some kind of frame rate smoothing or normalization if Vsync is not specifically forced off. I've asked him in the past to do some comparisons just to make sure there's nothing going on there but I don't think he has. Most other sites do force it off in the drivers.Originally posted by: phexac
In all other reviews, that is not the case. GTX260 is way out ahead of the midrange cards, where is should be. What's wrong with anand's review?
In the first multi-GPU review I also asked him about the results for 2 of the games. It wasn't an issue with only the GTX 260, as it effected results for all high-end parts. Fallout 3 was essentially frame capped at 60 FPS average. Derek said he had turned off the frame rate cap by setting iPresentInterval=0, but he also used some custom tweaks that may have capped FPS inadvertently. Similarly with COD5, there's clearly some kind of 60 FPS frame cap he acknowledges with single-GPU only. Multi-GPU scales over 100% as a result. Again, most other sites do not show any such limit for COD5.
Anyways, it is what it is, if you don't trust it there's plenty of other reviews to compare. Overall I think Derek did a much better job this time around without any of the glaring errors from the last 2-3 months. Hopefully he doesn't revert to using archived benches older than a month or so though, as advancements in driver performance have been making significant gains for the last few months for both IHVs.
Originally posted by: evolucion8
I find very odd the benchmarks results in the AT review, I checked out reviews from other 6 sites and they all pretty much state the same thing:
1 - In VRAM limited situations, the GTS 250 1GB outperforms the 9800GTX+
2 - In non VRAM limited situations it's only as fast as a 9800GTX+, and sometimes slighly slower because of the VRAM latency or some strange wizardly
3 - When higher levels of Anti Aliasing are used with high resolutions, the HD 4850 shines except when is VRAM limited, those scenarios in the GTS 250 will not be limited by the amount of VRAM, but instead in raw power.
4 - Is competitive with the HD 4850, and it's slighly faster overall when compared to the 9800GTX+, but the HD 4850 1GB gives some headaches to that card.
5 - Power consumption is considerably lower, it has a smaller PCB and cool temperatures.
6 - It can be SLIed with other 9800GTX/9800GTX+ with the same framebuffer, the price is about right, but since ATi lowered the HD 4870 512MB to $149.99 and some other SKU's, there's no G92 card that can outperform the HD 4870 card.
I'm well aware of what Vsync does thanks, if you bothered to read, or better yet understand what I wrote you'd see what I'm talking about is clearly evident from the benchmarks and confirmed by Derek in the review comments on page 4 and 5 of his Multi-GPU review.Originally posted by: SickBeast
If Derek tested with Vsync enabled, you would see a framerate cap at whatever refresh rate he used. Seeing as there were scores in excess of 116FPS at 1680x1050 for NV cards in that review, I'd say that you either:
- don't know what Vsync does (!)
- don't know how Derek writes his reviews
Please don't spin things to make it look as though the NV cards are being held back unless you know what you're talking about.