HardOCP 6990+6970 CF vs 580 Tri Sli

[SickBeast]

This thread seems to have degenerated into a discussion about a bridge chip, but I'll bite.

Seeing as I'm getting nearly 100% scaling with my GTX 460 SLI setup on a 16x/4x PCI-E 2.0 Crossfire motherboard, I don't really understand the need for a special chip. I'm sure it might help in some niche circumstances, but really it looks like a gimmick to try to encourage people to buy an nVidia motherboard.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

If there was ever a post which should get edited, this might be it.

What "error" was there?
The controversy here wasn't even about the issue which the redux covered, it was generated by people who couldn't accept NV could lose and looked for every excuse to discredit the article EXCEPT what ended up making a difference.
"NV is behind because they only have 1.5GB RAM" (not true).
"NV is behind because of the PCIe layout of the motherboard" (excuse used even after the redux but the other way round).
"NV is behind because of the games tested"
"NV is behind because their triple monitor implementation sucks".

That's user generated controversy about issues which can be easily explained/are a non-issue/are just idiotic anyway.

Then when they test with what made a difference, a faster CPU, you get people saying "oh now this motherboard is NV favoured because it has an NF200 chip on it".

Then you get posts like yours "all this is deliberately done unfairly to generate controversy".

People will find fault in ANYTHING that they do, and try and make excuses about this or that, or say that something is wrong or unfair.
Hocp doesn't even need to try and generate controversy, all they need to do is make an article and people will find SOMETHING to make a conspiracy theory about.

Their articles strike controversy with the community because of their testing methodology. They don't test the same way most other sites do. Since their testing is on the fringe, they have come across a couple of unique circumstances, because they themselves are using unique setups.

In the 5970 vs GTX 460 SLI article, they brought to light a few instances where AMD's driver wasn't properly utilizing the 5970. And AMD fixed those issues in response to that article.

With this article their more unique testing has brought to light either Tri-SLI is CPU limited even with Nehalem or the x4 slot is slowing it down (x4 could still be issue at these high resolutions if that third card was in an x4 slot). Or maybe it's a combination of both. Whatever the case, both of the Tri-GPU articles showcased unexpected results. But that doesn't invalidate their tests nor mean they are fishing for controversy. Controversy just happens because they stumble across it, and the community is all to eager to make a buzz.

This thread seems to have degenerated into a discussion about a bridge chip, but I'll bite.

Seeing as I'm getting nearly 100% scaling with my GTX 460 SLI setup on a 16x/4x PCI-E 2.0 Crossfire motherboard, I don't really understand the need for a special chip. I'm sure it might help in some niche circumstances, but really it looks like a gimmick to try to encourage people to buy an nVidia motherboard.

The x4 could make a bigger impact on these extreme resolutions, as you're only testing with 1080p.

 

[Dribble]

...
Then when they test with what made a difference, a faster CPU, you get people saying "oh now this motherboard is NV favoured because it has an NF200 chip on it".

...

We have every right to argue about the bridge chip because instead of just testing with a faster cpu, they tested with both a faster cpu AND a new motherboard with a bridge chip giving more PCIE bandwidth. They for whatever reason didn't bother to do any tests slowing down the cpu to see if it really was that making the difference, or in fact it was something else (PCIE bandwidth being an obvious one).

That's (a) bad testing methodology and (b) they don't really have a good reason for it - well other then there assertion that PCIE speed doesn't matter, which up until this article sat somewhere near their assertion that their previous cpu was fast enough.


The irony of all this being there's probably less then a hundred people in the world actively considering triple SLi vs Xfire and wanting to run at [H]'s favoured high res/low fps combo. (i.e. nearly no one will buy triple anything, most of them are sold to one hw company already, and many of them will have different graphical priories to [H] - e.g. higher fps, 3d, etc).

 

[SolMiester]

If there was ever a post which should get edited, this might be it.

What "error" was there?
The controversy here wasn't even about the issue which the redux covered, it was generated by people who couldn't accept NV could lose and looked for every excuse to discredit the article EXCEPT what ended up making a difference.
"NV is behind because they only have 1.5GB RAM" (not true).
"NV is behind because of the PCIe layout of the motherboard" (excuse used even after the redux but the other way round).
"NV is behind because of the games tested"
"NV is behind because their triple monitor implementation sucks".

That's user generated controversy about issues which can be easily explained/are a non-issue/are just idiotic anyway.

Then when they test with what made a difference, a faster CPU, you get people saying "oh now this motherboard is NV favoured because it has an NF200 chip on it".

Then you get posts like yours "all this is deliberately done unfairly to generate controversy".

People will find fault in ANYTHING that they do, and try and make excuses about this or that, or say that something is wrong or unfair.
Hocp doesn't even need to try and generate controversy, all they need to do is make an article and people will find SOMETHING to make a conspiracy theory about.

Or maybe he's right!....this is the site that DOESNT like to be questioned in its forums after all!....And I just love how any query of results has to be a NV fanboy upset at the results....LOL...Only an AMD fanboy would say that!..bit of a loop i guess!

 

[3DVagabond]

After some thought I came up with ...

This review site seems to pit Amd vs Nvidia with controversial reviews every so often.

Remember the gtx460 sli vs 5970 spectical?
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/09/16/nv_gtx_460_1gb_sli_vs_ati_hd_5870_cfx_redux/

That review was also backed up with a redux.

This is another posssible senerio......

Do a review that will generate a massive amount of page hits through controversy. It also boast many page hits in there own forum.
Have AMD and Nvidia fans using it for a base of arguement and linking to there review.

When the controversy dies down some , do a redux of the review to generate even more page hits.

It also has people thinking/saying, "hey they care about there readers" or "at least they came out and corrected their error".

So even though they screwed up the review, they get double the page hits, and actually have people thinking, "they did it for them" and add to their review site credibility.

Completely baseless series of accusations.

 

[Lonyo]

Or maybe he's right!....this is the site that DOESNT like to be questioned in its forums after all!....And I just love how any query of results has to be a NV fanboy upset at the results....LOL...Only an AMD fanboy would say that!..bit of a loop i guess!

Any query of results where NV loses kind of has to be an NV fanboy upset at the results. Why would an AMD fanboy get upset at AMD being shown as faster?
Also, I took examples from posts in this thread, since the accusation was relevant to this article, and the posts in the thread are about this article.
I also included an accusation about the NF200 bridge chip on the retest motherboard where AMD were slower, but not many people have commented on the AMD side (yet...?) so it's hard to draw lots of examples about AMD fanboys being upset at results based on the posts in this thread.

 

[Lonyo]

Or maybe he's right!....this is the site that DOESNT like to be questioned in its forums after all!....And I just love how any query of results has to be a NV fanboy upset at the results....LOL...Only an AMD fanboy would say that!..bit of a loop i guess!

Except for the people now trying to make excuses about AMD losing e.g. "omg they used an NV bridge chip so it favours NV", which i did use as an example in my list.

 

[ActionParsnip]

No.

+1

 

[ActionParsnip]

Or maybe he's right!....this is the site that DOESNT like to be questioned in its forums after all!....And I just love how any query of results has to be a NV fanboy upset at the results....LOL...Only an AMD fanboy would say that!..bit of a loop i guess!

People blunder into comment threads on the [H] thinking it's youtube or some other site of written douchebaggery.

People who fall foul of the mods generally do the following:

NOT reading the testing methodology,
Suggesting using a different testing methodology i.e. timedemos, canned benchmarks (this will get you a SMACK and rightly so),
NOT reading the article properly,
Telling the mods they are fanbois,
Saying 'but on anandtech/techpowerup/tomshardware they..........' (consequence of their unique testing)
Going off-topic / willy waving,

Honestly I never see someone who asks a sensible question in a polite fashion being smacked down. If you say otherwise you will need to link to a thread to proove it. Arguing like a toddler, bitching, moaning, etc gets you into hot water. People are not picked on or singled out.
Think a test is wrong? got a good point about it? like an actual valid point not whining like a school girl? Then they will follow it up.