Are you happy with current Anand video reviews?

[JustAnAverageGuy]

It would be nice to include some older cards as well.

Lets face it, if somebody has a 7800GT, they probably aren't going to bust out the credit card and order a 7800GTX 512MB.

Including a reference card from an older generation (say the 9800 Pro) would be appreciated.

 

[TigerClaw27]

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999

Originally posted by: Sunrise089
3 changes, in order of desire:

1) Include many cards in each comparison - stop not including popular cards like x800xl and x850xt in reviews of new games.
2) Test on a variety of hardware - even though many overclock, we don't all have 2.8ghz FX-57s, so maybe test with either a 512k cache Athlon 64, or at least test with something clocked at like 2.4ghz.
3) Test as many resolutions as possible with and without AA/AF - especially low resolutions for those with CRTs that may lower resolutions in order to enhance playability (sp?) and widescreen resolutions

The problem is that with 2 & 3. the CPU becomes the limiting factor. Would you really want to buy the 7800 GTX if a 6600GT is just as fast since you are CPU limited??? (In theory I agree with you though.)

Althoug that is true, I think many people are concidering staying with their AGP based motherboards (P4 and AthlonXP systems), so it might be interesting to see just how much the CPU limits some games, ie do a set of tests on an Uber system, and another set of test on a more common system.

All I'd like to see a 95% confidence interval FPS rating, ie 95% of the time (while doing this test, playing this demo) the frame rate stayed above xxx fps. This might even be good at lower resolutions, where many cards perform really well, but perhaps on perticularly heavy scene one card is better then another, and this rating should show that very well. Since one heavy scene would really bring down the rating of the card, if it wasnt able to cope with it.

And isnt that really what we want to know, not that the average frame rate will be xxx, but that 95% of the time i'm playing this game, I will get above X frames per second. This is also better then min frame rate, because min fps only tells you that; for 1 second in a long 4 minute test, the frame rate dropped to the min value for what ever reason (hhd swap? maybe something else?).

TC

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
AT needs a few things. xbit's sometimes used max, min average graphs, and hardocp's sometimes used line graphs showing fps during a section of gameplay that plots second to second variations. Also, some cpu scaling grapgs would be nice to end the ageless question, will my 3200+ bottleneck my 7800gt?

click on the links in my sig

 

[VERTIGGO]

the only thing that pisses me off is when they benchmark old games and lousy games (nothing against the games) but what's the point of benching UT2004 on every setup if the lowest framerate is like 100fps!?!? I mean come on that's irrelevant, and the time spent testing that entire game could be used for other benches.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I think hothardware reviews are pretty good. Easy to read, enables atleast 4xAA 16xAF or even higher settings.

Plus, rage3d's review. I do reckon they have the best overall review compared to other websites. There IQ comparisons are awesome (8xTR S is DAMN awesome, cleans like every single jaggies.. amazing)

 

[linkgoron]

AT sometimes promise articles, and then forget about them. There was that old HL2 CPU tests, that took them more than a month, and then it was sub-par. But, we don't have to go too far to find one. I remember that they promised an article about the x1800XT IQ, SM3 tests and all that, and they never published it.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2556&p=9

But that's not all the coverage that we have planned for the new ATI parts. Stay tuned for some more in-depth Shader Model 3.0, image quality, and market analysis soon.

Still waiting.



I've also got some problems with articles Uploaded after they're put up on the first page.

but that 7800GTX article was much better, but still I think they should add IQ tests, min FPS tests, and they should start using 8AA/16AF, not just 4AA.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: munky
I would like to see some tests with TRAA/AAA running, since both companies tout this feature, but almost no review benches with those features enabled. Also, some IQ tests would be nice. I know it's alot easier to just pretend both cards are rendering what the game developers intended, but now that both sides make app-specific optimizations, it's pretty naive to assume none of those optimizations degrade IQ.

Another nice thing to see is to max out the IQ settings on each new card and see how playable it is. That means if Nv claims 8xAA and Ati claims 16xAF, I'd like to know if those features result in a slideshow or not, and how big of a hit they induce.

tha lads over at bit-tech bench with TRAA/AAA on, though they only list the mode they found the most playable

 

[gsellis]

Actually, this thread is in the wrong place (let me finish). If you want more in a review or have a question about the results, the best place for it is in the comments on that review. The author does read those and I have seen them consistantly address what is brought up to them.

 

[nitromullet]

My requests for AT:

1) Include minimum frame rates
2) Add at least one widescreen resolution (I think 1680x1050 is the most common). The longer these resolutions get treated as "non-standard", the longer game makers will think it's okay not support widescreen.
3) Start testing with AF.
4) Have a full blown, best settings test for each card. Keep the apples-to-apples comparisons, but add a test that has all the goodies turned on. That way, we can see if the latest marketing kick is just that or if it's a feature we can actually use.
5) Comparisons/comments on IQ.