Bioshock Infinite [HardOCP] Review

[bluesquare07]

With all of your ranting and raving you're no different than the fanboys that you decry, to be honest. Just for a different team, I guess?

Tell me how. I have no problem recommending a 7950 if you cant spend over $300, among other things. Just because i think NV is better, doesn't mean that i'm the same as the AMD fanboys such as NIGEL who go around ridiculing anything Nvidia. Look through my post history, all i've ever said is to 1- recommend SLI over crossfire 3 - recommend whatever card seems best for the individual, either 660/660ti/670/680 or 7870/7950/7970 in certain situations.

All i've done in this thread is defend the 'pro nvidia' people who constantly get hated on JUST because they like NVIDIA. Just take a look at this thread. I post bioshock infinite benchmarks from hardocp, which is a reputable website and what are the responses? hardocp is pro amd, hardocp is bad, heres linustechtips who shows amd better, blablabla.

All the AMD fanboys get annoying, (i'll have nigel reply LOLZ BUT ARENT U TOO!?!?!... but whatever)

Lets be real here.

 

[flexy]

Not really a point of such a review, this game brings NOTHING spectacular or exciting (in terms of graphics) to the table. It uses a TON of texture memory (for some odd reason) and does some "nice" stuff with light....but honestly people, that's it. From a graphics engine perspective, that game is decades old, similar to HL2. Low polygon count, "edgy" objects with high-res textures slapped on them. From a technical point of view, to show off or test a new graphics card etc..rather disappointing.

 

[MrK6]

Seems like nvidia cards can turn a game into a smudgy piece of garbage better than AMD cards can, what a surprise. I wonder how the game runs with proper SMAA.

 

[blackened23]

Tell me how. I have no problem recommending a 7950 if you cant spend over $300, among other things. Just because i think NV is better, doesn't mean that i'm the same as the AMD fanboys such as NIGEL who go around ridiculing anything Nvidia. Look through my post history, all i've ever said is to 1- recommend SLI over crossfire 3 - recommend whatever card seems best for the individual, either 660/660ti/670/680 or 7870/7950/7970 in certain situations.

All i've done in this thread is defend the 'pro nvidia' people who constantly get hated on JUST because they like NVIDIA. Just take a look at this thread. I post bioshock infinite benchmarks from hardocp, which is a reputable website and what are the responses? hardocp is pro amd, hardocp is bad, heres linustechtips who shows amd better, blablabla.

All the AMD fanboys get annoying, (i'll have nigel reply LOLZ BUT ARENT U TOO!?!?!... but whatever)

Lets be real here.

Repspectfully, calling people fanboy nonstop is no better than what they do, it's annoying when either side does it. Anyway, I've come to feel the same way about SLI and I certainly agree that the bias accusations towards HardOCP are without merit. Definitely agree with you on those points.

 

[Red Hawk]

There's some obvious bias going on in the OP. 7970 GHz Edition average 79.7, while the 680 averages 83.1? Yeah, it's a decisive advantage, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's "a lot better".

 

[bluesquare07]

Repspectfully, calling people fanboy nonstop is no better than what they do, it's annoying when either side does it. Anyway, I've come to feel the same way about SLI and I certainly agree that the bias accusations towards HardOCP are without merit. Definitely agree with you on those points.

I understand its annoying. Like i said i just find it annoying when anything positive about NV comes up on these forums it's put down and automatically has no merit. That is what really bothers me. Just take a look, i post this topic and one of the first replies is 'nice first post, troll'. Like what? What am i trolling about ? Because NV is performing better? That makes a troll? Along with the 50 other reasons why the review is worth nothing... i'm glad you agree with me on that, at least.

I'm glad Brent came himself to shut down the ridiculous posts. Even when anandtech posts things that benefit NV, the people on this forum will bash the own website....

There's some obvious bias going on in the OP. 7970 GHz Edition average 79.7, while the 680 averages 83.1? Yeah, it's a decisive advantage, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's "a lot better".

I don't know about you, but everyone else can see more cards being tested other than the 7970 and 680.

 

[raghu78]

I understand its annoying. Like i said i just find it annoying when anything positive about NV comes up on these forums it's put down and automatically has no merit. That is what really bothers me. Just take a look, i post this topic and one of the first replies is 'nice first post, troll'. Like what? What am i trolling about ? Because NV is performing better? That makes a troll? Along with the 50 other reasons why the review is worth nothing... i'm glad you agree with me on that, at least.

I'm glad Brent came himself to shut down the ridiculous posts. Even when anandtech posts things that benefit NV, the people on this forum will bash the own website....

you will post anything to show Nvidia in a better light and AMD in a worse light. what is important to understand is hardocp is not the only person/site testing. so when i mention linus or techreport testing don't get defensive about your favourite brand.

Bioshock Infinite works very well on AMD cards according to techreport and linus. so both camps are performing well in this game and it depends on the specific scene being tested as to which cards perform better.

 

[bluesquare07]

you will post anything to show Nvidia in a better light and AMD in a worse light. what is important to understand is hardocp is not the only person/site testing. so when i mention linus or techreport testing don't get defensive about your favourite brand.

Bioshock Infinite works very well on AMD cards according to techreport and linus. so both camps are performing well in this game and it depends on the specific scene being tested as to which cards perform better.

Oh yeah, have you ever posted anything that showed NV in a better light? No, didn't think so.

Techreport did a benchmark for mid range graphics cards. The fastest card he included is the 660. The 660 is not directly comparable to the 7870. The 660 is faster than the 7850, and so is the 650tiBoost. So can you explain to me where you get that AMD is performing better from the techreport benchmark?

ALSO - a forum member posted 3 benchmarks where NV performs better. What is your explanation, that they are NV biased too? Both camps are performing well, but NV is performing better.

 

[thilanliyan]

I understand its annoying. Like i said i just find it annoying when anything positive about NV comes up on these forums it's put down and automatically has no merit.

The same happens when it's vice versa...you think nvidia fanboys don't crap in positive amd threads? You obviously haven't been here long enough. Not a lot of point in getting worked up about it.

 

[bluesquare07]

The same happens when it's vice versa...you think nvidia fanboys don't crap in positive amd threads? You obviously haven't been here long enough. Not a lot of point in getting worked up about it.

There are FAR more AMD fanboys than NV and FAR more crap spewing by AMD fanboys.

 

[Red Hawk]

I don't know about you, but everyone else can see more cards being tested other than the 7970 and 680.

Yes, the 660 Ti was compared with a 7870...but wait, the 7870 is several dozen dollars less expensive than the 660 Ti. And the 7950 is over $50 less expensive than the 670.

Comparing the standard 7970 to the 670 and the 7950 to the 660 Ti would have been just as valid a comparison. At least then you're comparing GK104 based chips to Tahiti based chips across the board, rather than lining up a GK104 chip with Pitcairn.

 

[Maximilian]

There are FAR more AMD fanboys than NV and FAR more crap spewing by AMD fanboys.

 

[blackened23]

There are FAR more AMD fanboys than NV and FAR more crap spewing by AMD fanboys.

Thats what i'm saying, it's like you've become the thing you hate. You're doing the same thing from the other side... People have their preferences and nothing will change that....nvidia is doing very well so don't get so caught up in calling people out.

 

[raghu78]

Oh yeah, have you ever posted anything that showed NV in a better light? No, didn't think so.

Techreport did a benchmark for mid range graphics cards. The fastest card he included is the 660. The 660 is not directly comparable to the 7870. The 660 is faster than the 7850, and so is the 650tiBoost. So can you explain to me where you get that AMD is performing better from the techreport benchmark?

ALSO - a forum member posted 3 benchmarks where NV performs better. What is your explanation, that they are NV biased too? Both camps are performing well, but NV is performing better.

guru3d and techspot tested the in game benchmark. they did not do actual gameplay benchmarking. when AMD cards destroyed Nvidia cards in the in game benchmark in hitman absolution and sleeping dogs , it was criticized as not being representative of actual gameplay performance. that was true then and so it is now. :thumbsup:

fyi the HD 7870 and GTX 660 Ti are not in the same price range and not direct competitors. lowest HD 7870 is USD 220 and highest is USD 260.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100006663&IsNodeId=1&Description=HD%207870&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=50

the lowest GTX 660 Ti 2GB is USD 255 and the highest GTX 660 Ti 2GB is USD 325.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...nd&Pagesize=50

 

[bluesquare07]

guru3d and techspot tested the in game benchmark. they did not do actual gameplay benchmarking. when AMD cards destroyed Nvidia cards in the in game benchmark in hitman absolution and sleeping dogs , it was criticized as not being representative of actual gameplay performance. that was true then and so it is now. :thumbsup:

fyi the HD 7870 and GTX 660 Ti are not in the same price range and not direct competitors. lowest HD 7870 is USD 220 and highest is USD 260.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100006663&IsNodeId=1&Description=HD%207870&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=50

the lowest GTX 660 Ti 2GB is USD 255 and the highest GTX 660 Ti 2GB is USD 325.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...nd&Pagesize=50

Ok look man. Brent came here himself, putting away any claims you have of his benchmark and the 7950 testing being wrong. It isn't. NV is doing better. Get over it. NV driver team is better than the AMD one.

NV cards are more expensive than their AMD competitor. In general, the 660Ti is compared to the 7870 now. Just look at every comparative benchmark...

 

[bluesquare07]

Yes, the 660 Ti was compared with a 7870...but wait, the 7870 is several dozen dollars less expensive than the 660 Ti. And the 7950 is over $50 less expensive than the 670.

Comparing the standard 7970 to the 670 and the 7950 to the 660 Ti would have been just as valid a comparison. At least then you're comparing GK104 based chips to Tahiti based chips across the board, rather than lining up a GK104 chip with Pitcairn.

For the record the 660ti performs better than the 7950 and the 670 performs better than the 7970 from the review. But that doesn't matter

 

[Red Hawk]

Ok look man. Brent came here himself, putting away any claims you have of his benchmark and the 7950 testing being wrong. It isn't. NV is doing better. Get over it. NV driver team is better than the AMD one.

NV cards are more expensive than their AMD competitor. In general, the 660Ti is compared to the 7870 now. Just look at every comparative benchmark...

Brent said his testing wasn't biased, and ok, that may be the case. That doesn't mean it's not set up wrong for other reasons. Someone saying they're not wrong doesn't magically prove they are not wrong, anyways. (Btw, he has an awesome Fourth Doctor avatar...)

The flagship of the Geforce 600 series has a fairly decisive advantage over the flagship of the Radeon HD 7000 series. Past that, comparisons must be made according to the price bracket the cards are sold at. If not, why not compare the Radeon HD 7950 to a Geforce GTX 650? Going by price/performance ratios, Nvidia does not command as big an advantage as you are making them out to hold.

At the very least, it would have been better to compare the 660 Ti with "Tahiti LE" (stupidly still branded as a 7870), which is a further crippled Tahiti chip much like the 660 Ti is a further crippled GK104. Tahiti LE performs better than Pitcairn and hey, it's still $10 cheaper than the least expensive 660 Ti.

For the record the 660ti performs better than the 7950 and the 670 performs better than the 7970 from the review. But that doesn't matter

The standard 7970 isn't even included in the review, so I don't know how you're saying the 670 performs better than it.

 

[bluesquare07]

Brent said his testing wasn't biased, and ok, that may be the case. That doesn't mean it's not set up wrong for other reasons. Someone saying they're not wrong doesn't magically prove they are not wrong, anyways. (Btw, he has an awesome Fourth Doctor avatar...)

The flagship of the Geforce 600 series has a fairly decisive advantage over the flagship of the Radeon HD 7000 series. Past that, comparisons must be made according to the price bracket the cards are sold at. If not, why not compare the Radeon HD 7950 to a Geforce GTX 650? Going by price/performance ratios, Nvidia does not command as big an advantage as you are making them out to hold.

At the very least, it would have been better to compare the 660 Ti with "Tahiti LE" (stupidly still branded as a 7870), which is a further crippled Tahiti chip much like the 660 Ti is a further crippled GK104. Tahiti LE performs better than Pitcairn and hey, it's still $10 cheaper than the least expensive 660 Ti.



The standard 7970 isn't even included in the review, so I don't know how you're saying the 670 performs better than it.

From the review - 660Ti - 65.7 FPS 7950 - 63.8

Does this satisfy you?

The 670 is 2 frames slower than the ghz. If you think the difference between the 7970 and ghz is 2 frames then all the power to you.

PS - i love how every forum member here always knows better than the reviewer.

I get it. You have a 7870. You like AMD. It's okay man..

 

[(sic)Klown12]

Seems like nvidia cards can turn a game into a smudgy piece of garbage better than AMD cards can, what a surprise. I wonder how the game runs with proper SMAA.

I use RadedoPro to inject SMAA and didn't see too much, if any, drop from in-game FXAA.

 

[Red Hawk]

From the review - 660Ti - 65.7 FPS 7950 - 63.8

Does this satisfy you?

The 670 is 2 frames slower than the ghz. If you think the difference between the 7970 and ghz is 2 frames then all the power to you.

PS - i love how every forum member here always knows better than the reviewer.

It may be that the 670 does beat the standard 7970. But saying that it does "from the review" is still misleading because the standard 7970 is not in the review. And frankly, while I don't like how the reviewer set his test up, I'm not disagreeing with him on any specific point -- I'm disagreeing with the conclusions you are drawing from the review. "Nvidia is a lot better" in general is not a claim that the reviewer made, it's one you made. It's a point I have countered by showing the actual prices of the hardware that was benchmarked, and you appear to be ignoring it.

I'm not even saying Nvidia does not have an advantage. They do. You're just blowing that advantage out of proportion.

I get it. You have a 7870. You like AMD. It's okay man..

This is what's called a "poisoning the well" fallacy, children.

The fact that I have a 7870 is irrelevant to the actual logic of what I'm saying, same as the fact that I used to own a 9800 GT and that the first graphics card my family bought was a Geforce 7300 GT. Please actually address my points.

 

[3DVagabond]

Thank you for clarifying all of this. Pro AMD users make things up all the time.

Did you miss the part of Brent's post you quoted that says both sides do it? You can't just accept the part of his post you agree with and dismiss what you don't.

 

[notty22]

The standard 7970 isn't even included in the review, so I don't know how you're saying the 670 performs better than it.

Stated this at least twice? Why , what is your point? Here is the tested hardware. Are you suggesting the stock launched 7970@925mhz would be faster?

 

[Red Hawk]

Stated this at least twice? Why , what is your point? Here is the tested hardware. Are you suggesting the stock launched 7970@925mhz would be faster?

The 7970 has more shaders than the 7950, so I would expect it to have better performance. But I'm not the one who was making a claim here. Bluesquare said the 7970 loses to the 670 from the review. He made the claim so it's his job to back it up. The review can't speak to direct comparisons between a standard 7970 and a 670 either way because a standard 7970 is not in the actual review.

 

[Xarick]

I did finally hit 2gig ram, but never saw a frame drop for it. I did hit loading where I would get a hitch, but the 2gig thing seemed not to affect me.

 

[Will Robinson]

I don't think its reasonable to question the[H] results as being biased.
They seem to report things pretty accurately in my opinion.:thumbsup:
As for the "holier than thou" injured innocence of bluesquare tho....that's a different matter.
Every one of his posts since arriving here has contained venom directed towards anyone who doesn't worship NVDA like he obviously does.:thumbsdown:
Why don't you pull your head in for a while as one possibly should as a noobie to this forum hmm?