Follow-up article to Overclockers.com story bashing websites/ATI/9700

[NFS4]

I've been gone for the past couple of days and I did a search, so sorry if this is a repost:

http://www.overclockers.com/tips064/

Original Thread

 

[wfbberzerker]

i dont understand why he bashes the benchmarks run at 1600x1200. arent you supposed to run it at that res, so that the cpu isn't the limiting factor? like how you run cpu game benchmarks at low res, so the video card isnt the limiting factor.

 

[nord1899]

Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
i dont understand why he bashes the benchmarks run at 1600x1200. arent you supposed to run it at that res, so that the cpu isn't the limiting factor? like how you run cpu game benchmarks at low res, so the video card isnt the limiting factor.

He bashes those high res benchmarks because they are still worthless. If the 4600 can do 15 fps vs the 9700 doing 40 fps, yeah the difference is great, but its not useable. Play a game at 40 fps, and watch it drop to a crawl when it gets busy.

 

[SgtZulu]

basically it sounds like he didn't get all excited and googley eyed at all the marketing hype and rightfully so.
lets wait till these things get in the hands of the average joe.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: nord1899

Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
i dont understand why he bashes the benchmarks run at 1600x1200. arent you supposed to run it at that res, so that the cpu isn't the limiting factor? like how you run cpu game benchmarks at low res, so the video card isnt the limiting factor.

He bashes those high res benchmarks because they are still worthless. If the 4600 can do 15 fps vs the 9700 doing 40 fps, yeah the difference is great, but its not useable. Play a game at 40 fps, and watch it drop to a crawl when it gets busy.

But it shows you how well a game will be able to handly future titles though. You don't really think that you'll be able to run Doom3 at 1600x1200 do you? A Radeon 9700 running complex stuff today at 1600x1200 now could bode well for lower rezs in future games like UT2003 and Doom3.

And remember, 40FPS isn't bad for some games like racing games and flight sims.

For him to bash the resolution test and then come up with the cop out that no one plays at the resolution is pretty thick-headed IMHO.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: nord1899

Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
i dont understand why he bashes the benchmarks run at 1600x1200. arent you supposed to run it at that res, so that the cpu isn't the limiting factor? like how you run cpu game benchmarks at low res, so the video card isnt the limiting factor.

He bashes those high res benchmarks because they are still worthless. If the 4600 can do 15 fps vs the 9700 doing 40 fps, yeah the difference is great, but its not useable. Play a game at 40 fps, and watch it drop to a crawl when it gets busy.

But it shows you how well a game will be able to handly future titles though. You don't really think that you'll be able to run Doom3 at 1600x1200 do you? A Radeon 9700 running complex stuff today at 1600x1200 now could bode well for lower rezs in future games like UT2003 and Doom3.

And remember, 40FPS isn't bad for some games like racing games and flight sims.

For him to bash the resolution test and then come up with the cop out that no one plays at the resolution is pretty thick-headed IMHO.

thick headed and short sited. I want my 1600*1200 gaming now . I think he just has something against ati for some reason.

 

[Adul]

why does he sounds like the second coming of the almighty one?

 

[CrazySaint]

While I certainly don't agree with everything he stated in his new article (particularly about the resolutions), I do think this one was far better written and more well reasoned than his original. He was actually fairly reasonable and maybe even made 1 or 2 good points, instead of just bashing people. He might have been somewhat misleading, though, as he made it sound like the preview at AnandTech was done in an ATI-controlled environment, when Anand was actually allowed to run the benchmarks in his own lab, using his own computers, running his own benchmarks. Also, while even 9700 won't make next generation games widely 1600x1200, it will make them playable at 1280x1024, which is still very nice, and it will make 1600x1200 a playable resolution for today's games.

 

[JHeiderman]

I like ATI as much as the next guy but after the Quake/Quack thing how anyone can tell you how great this card is with a straight face just is just buying into the marketing of it all.

Get that card in house, run it on your own machines, then tell us how great it is. I think this guy was right on he just didn't make his point very well the first time.

 

[Agent004]

Get that card in house, run it on your own machines, then tell us how great it is. I think this guy was right on he just didn't make his point very well the first time.

hehe I wonder why

Maybe he didn't get invited to preview nor get to benchmark it

As for relavency of benchmarking 1600 x 1200, well he didn't have the vision to see down the line.

A few years ago, with the technology at that time, the most popular res to play game is 800 x 600, 16 bits colours. Then move to 32 bits colours. Geforce comes along and we have a card that plays well at 1024 x 768, 32 bits colours. Then it advances further and people are either aiming to play at even higher resolution before since it's possible to have fluid game play, while others are turning on all the eye candies to make the game more pleasant to the eyes. Now we have various forms of AA enabled along those, what's next? More AA and eye candies? I don't see why not.

He obviously doesn't see this trend, I mean if everyone can play at 1280 x 960, and higher res at the same playble frame rate as 1024 x 768, wouldn't you move to higher res as well (apart from eyes, monitor limitations and etc)?

 

[Zugzwang152]

Agreed, the 9700 is definitely a step forward, if not by the leaps and bounds that the marketing may tell us. There is no reason to bash the card for taking the next step forward and challenging nvidia to step up to the plate. No matter how much progress 1 generation can make, there will always be people who will be saying "why didn't they take it one step further and do this...and that..and this.." etc.

 

[WyteWatt]

ATI's 9700 video card i like a lot and hope it does very well but i am going to wait for a video card that will play Doom3 and unreal 2003 at 1600x1200 with all details on high.

 

[CBone]

Originally posted by: JHeiderman
I like ATI as much as the next guy but after the Quake/Quack thing how anyone can tell you how great this card is with a straight face just is just buying into the marketing of it all.

Why are people so hung up on this quake/quack thing? How long did it last? A few weeks, and then it was fixed? People talk about it like ATI was using Q3 optimizations to steal babies. If every company doesn't try to optimize for the games that are popular, those companies are run by idiots. I wonder how the whole "Hey, I don't like the looks of this name 'quake'. I think that I'll hex-edit it to 'quack' just for yucks. What-what-what! I is shock'd!" thing came about? People editing their games "just because"? Yeah, right.

To keep this on-topic, Ed can be a moron. He should stick to talking about heatsinks/cooling. If he looked around for 5 minutes he could have seen that they used their own systems and their own benches. In a preview, ATI could have said that they only wanted the numbers expressed in turkish lira. How many other previews have actual benches that any person can change to fps quite readily?

The marketing of the card turned him off? I suppose they should have taken out a classified ad in the Gooberville gazette and let that be all the marketing for their new card. Moron. People can't buy what they don't know about. "Should I buy product A or B? I know about A and what it can do... but B didn't assault me with annoying marketing like every company in the history of man does with a new product and also didn't show me what it could do in comparison to A. I think I will get B." Not likely to happen.

I hope that when the NV30 hype starts in full force, he complains just as loudly. "I was interested in the NV30 until nVidia told me stuff about it. I don't like that. nVidia should release an internal document announcing their new product and keep the strengths of their product to themselves until I can go to the store and try it for myself." Or maybe he respects the trickle of information that may or may not have any bearing on their new product. Along with pictures that may or may not have been rendered in real-time by a card that may or may not come out in time for X-mas.

CBone

 

[apoppin]

He "redeemed" himself in my eyes by that second article. If the first one had been as carefully thought out and explained as the second one, there would have been no need for the second one - nor any controversy. He was rather rude and did resort to 'name-calling' and putdowns in his first.

I have to agree that a profesional reviewer shouldn't show "excitement" for a product (or at least hide it better).

 

[SteelCityFan]

His little poll he keeps talking about is irrelevant. The reason most people game at 1024x768 is because their video cards can't handle anything higher without turning down the eye candy.

Give everyone in the poll a video card capable of 1600x1200, and I bet the poll results change.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JHeiderman
I like ATI as much as the next guy but after the Quake/Quack thing how anyone can tell you how great this card is with a straight face just is just buying into the marketing of it all.

Get that card in house, run it on your own machines, then tell us how great it is. I think this guy was right on he just didn't make his point very well the first time.

matt (i think it was matt) ran it on his own machine with his own benches and his own install of windows, etc. you have no argument.

 

[SaintGeorge]

I think the guy just spent $350 on a Ti4600 the day before and now hes bummed cus summit betters come along lol.

 

[Furor]

I think he got those percentages mixed up..probably more like 90% saying he's an idiot.

 

[RagingGuardian]

probably more like 90% saying he's an idiot.

LMAO

I play all my games at 1280*1024. I think it'll be just stupid of me to have a nice shiny 19in monitor and play my games at low resolutions. The Radeon 9700 is welcomed into my rig as soon as it hits the streets

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: apoppin
He "redeemed" himself in my eyes by that second article. If the first one had been as carefully thought out and explained as the second one, there would have been no need for the second one - nor any controversy. He was rather rude and did resort to 'name-calling' and putdowns in his first.

I have to agree that a profesional reviewer shouldn't show "excitement" for a product (or at least hide it better).

He didn't redeem himself in my eyes. And his Velma comparison lost me after the second sentence. And he is still clueless to the fact that Matt used his own test system and benchmark apps.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: apoppin
He "redeemed" himself in my eyes by that second article. If the first one had been as carefully thought out and explained as the second one, there would have been no need for the second one - nor any controversy. He was rather rude and did resort to 'name-calling' and putdowns in his first.

I have to agree that a profesional reviewer shouldn't show "excitement" for a product (or at least hide it better).

He didn't redeem himself in my eyes. And his Velma comparison lost me after the second sentence. And he is still clueless to the fact that Matt used his own test system and benchmark apps.

Your opinion doesn't change my mind. His "Velma" comparison was his way of "apologizing" for calling fellow reviewers whores.

His valid point was that Matt may have used his own test system but was NOT allowed to post what a reviewer normally would: FPS comparisons instead of (BS) "percent improvement".

And anyway - I DO intend to buy a R300 if the actual reviews support the previews.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: apoppin
His valid point was that Matt may have used his own test system but was NOT allowed to post what a reviewer normally would: FPS comparisons instead of (BS) "percent improvement".

And anyway - I DO intend to buy a R300 if the actual reviews support the previews.

Why are percentages somehow BS? Often times percentages give a better indication of the performance difference among the competing products.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: apoppin
His valid point was that Matt may have used his own test system but was NOT allowed to post what a reviewer normally would: FPS comparisons instead of (BS) "percent improvement".

And anyway - I DO intend to buy a R300 if the actual reviews support the previews.

Why are percentages somehow BS? Often times percentages give a better indication of the performance difference among the competing products.

Did you people read the second article or did you skim it and come back to say "my god this guys an idiot!!~!"? The point is, if the 4600 runs the game at 10fps and the R300 pulls 30fps, its "300% the speed" of the 4600, and it will look a lot smoother thanks to the 24fps limit he talks about, but it's still not really playable since it will be dropping below 30fps frequently if thats the average of the test. In that case, its misleading to publish "wow look at this absolute smack down of the 4600!!!" And he points out that Anand himself says that 1600x1200 with AA and AF is still NOT possible, so the scores that are 250-300% higher dont really have much impact on the gaming experience. It's pretty crappy of you guys to bash this guy just because he has a different opinion than you, and because he dared to insinuate that maybe some reviews are *gasp* a little too excited about the card as opposed to objective. Come on, grow up.

Kramer

 

[WyteWatt]

I would like to see the frame rates of the ATI 9700 vs the GF4 ti 4600 . To me i want at least 60 fps frame rates if possible.

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: apoppin
He "redeemed" himself in my eyes by that second article. If the first one had been as carefully thought out and explained as the second one, there would have been no need for the second one - nor any controversy. He was rather rude and did resort to 'name-calling' and putdowns in his first.

I have to agree that a profesional reviewer shouldn't show "excitement" for a product (or at least hide it better).

He didn't redeem himself in my eyes. And his Velma comparison lost me after the second sentence. And he is still clueless to the fact that Matt used his own test system and benchmark apps.

Your opinion doesn't change my mind. His "Velma" comparison was his way of "apologizing" for calling fellow reviewers whores.

If his "Velma" comparison was his way of apologizing, then he needs to come up with better ways to express apology, because it doesn't sound like much of an apology to me.

His valid point was that Matt may have used his own test system but was NOT allowed to post what a reviewer normally would: FPS comparisons instead of (BS) "percent improvement".

Maybe because it was PREview and nota REview? Even Anand's normalized benchmarks were more than the other sites had, and you can bet that the day the retail card is actually released you will find actual FPS benchmarks on AT.