HardOCP says anandtech has bad methods

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Anonymous Coward
Came here through Slashdot-Hard-Anand and after reading some of the comments I just can't help myself. how about you Apoppin tell if the results they found is somehow faulty and don't represent the real game on stop masturbating on those saves.

So, should we assume this was Kyle, because of the Engrish, along with the hate for apoppin? It seems so, doesn't it?

Originally posted by: Rusin
One of my points is that Kyle ain't only one getting these results with same type of testing method.

You know, this is about the third time you've said that, yet you've provided no links. Care to make us not think you're either outright lying, or talking about what was posted on some fanboy site? If so, here's your chance.

Originally posted by: McCartney
I feel like the guy everyone called crazy, but I'm the genius.

Don't worry, that's definitely not the case here.

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Interesting the number of new members posting here

It is, isn't it?

He needs to shut his trap, apples to apples benchmarks are where its at... I dont care about his methods, their benchmarks are just unnacceptable... When you wanna compare 2 cars by test driving them, are you gonna use different tracks? I dont think so! Wouldnt make much sense now, would it? It might or might not be the same as "real world experience" but the lack of variables make it a good benchmark either way... Meanwhile, Kyle happily goes through a light area with the card he likes, and then when benchmarking the other card, taxes it as much as he can... Oh but.. Its real world benchmarking

Oh, finally, the truth rears it's ugly head. Thanks for the heads up, Shadow.

You've never heard of bracket racing? or dialing in I guess. Or giving the other card a couple of car lengths and the "break"? Have you ever watched englishtown racing where one car gets a green and is allowed to go, but the second car is still waiting for the tree to leave the double yellow? That is a wickedly accurate example of H's method of benchmarking. At least as close as a metaphor you can get comparing car racing to graphics card "racing".

I don't know what you guys think Kyle is up to, but I have an idea.

Anybody have a couple of vid cards........... cough: apoppin?

This is a perfect opportunity. You have a 2900XT and a 2900pro. Why not run them against each other? You will find that to get minimal playable settings on the pro at the same res as the XT, requires turning a few things down. To get the same frames an XT might get, you may have to use 2xAA instead of 4xAA.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that. ::::scratches head:::::

Pick a game. Decide what you think is a playable framerate for said game, and test them.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Pick a game. Decide what you think is a playable framerate for said game, and test them.

And how exactly does that help for the other 95% combinations of settings? Thats another problem... Ok sure, by reading HOCP I know Card 1 is playable at Settings A, and Card 2 is playable with only B settings... And? What if I wanna try settings A on Card 2 or vice versa? Thats something his methods dont cover, and its a pretty large mistake IMO

If am I thinking of buying a card I want to know how it performs in as many different situations as possible
to know Im covered

I cant get such info from HOCP benchmarking

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: Rusin
myocardia:
http://plaza.fi/muropaketti/ar...deon-hd-3870-x2-r680,2

This site also attacked against Anandtech's testing methods. This site uses also actual gameplay, but uses same settings for each card.

It's funny how people are talking about that running time demos would be "scientific method".

As said in this one uknown forum:
"The point of the scientific method is to test a theory and prove it in the real world".

Part of a "scientific method" requires that the results are able to be reproduced using the same testing conditions by another person. Since the conditions HardOCP uses have too many variables and are not documented they woud not be able to be reproduced by another tester.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: apoppin
i never ran across a tech savvy beggar on the street ... it appears they are all on the 'net

Of course. They're tech savvy, after all. When I first moved to the Midwest and was living out of a hotel and suitcase with no internet connection for a couple weeks, I resorted to using public libraries for internet access. It works and is free.

This reminds me my last move... I took my computer and a sleeping bag. For a week thats all I had. I set the monitor and keyboard on a chair, put the tower to the right of it, and used its top for a mouse surface... and then it was home.

"Home is where your computer is at" - Tal Tamir (me)



Anyways, I am really happy to see that anandtech has not "retaliated".

 

[Narse]

Originally posted by: SilentRunning

Originally posted by: Rusin
myocardia:
http://plaza.fi/muropaketti/ar...deon-hd-3870-x2-r680,2

This site also attacked against Anandtech's testing methods. This site uses also actual gameplay, but uses same settings for each card.

It's funny how people are talking about that running time demos would be "scientific method".

As said in this one uknown forum:
"The point of the scientific method is to test a theory and prove it in the real world".

Part of a "scientific method" requires that the results are able to be reproduced using the same testing conditions by another person. Since the conditions HardOCP uses have too many variables and are not documented they woud not be able to be reproduced by another tester.

Ding Ding Ding!!!!

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: SilentRunning

Originally posted by: Rusin
myocardia:
http://plaza.fi/muropaketti/ar...deon-hd-3870-x2-r680,2

This site also attacked against Anandtech's testing methods. This site uses also actual gameplay, but uses same settings for each card.

It's funny how people are talking about that running time demos would be "scientific method".

As said in this one uknown forum:
"The point of the scientific method is to test a theory and prove it in the real world".

Part of a "scientific method" requires that the results are able to be reproduced using the same testing conditions by another person. Since the conditions HardOCP uses have too many variables and are not documented they woud not be able to be reproduced by another tester.

You beat me to it. If a test isn't able to be reproduced exactly, then it can't even pass the very first of the scientific method testing protocols. I would just like to add that linking to a site that's in a language noone at anandtech reads proves your point no better than not replying at all. Was that link to the official nVidia fanboy site in Finland? If it is, they sure didn't do a very good job of making the 3870X2 look bad; it won half the benchmarks.:laugh:

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
You've never heard of bracket racing?

I might understand a thing or two about bracket racing; I did it for almost ten years. What I don't understand is how bracket racing has anything to do with my post that you quoted. Care to explain?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

You've never heard of bracket racing? or dialing in I guess. Or giving the other card a couple of car lengths and the "break"? Have you ever watched englishtown racing where one car gets a green and is allowed to go, but the second car is still waiting for the tree to leave the double yellow? That is a wickedly accurate example of H's method of benchmarking. At least as close as a metaphor you can get comparing car racing to graphics card "racing".

I don't know what you guys think Kyle is up to, but I have an idea.

Anybody have a couple of vid cards........... cough: apoppin?

This is a perfect opportunity. You have a 2900XT and a 2900pro. Why not run them against each other? You will find that to get minimal playable settings on the pro at the same res as the XT, requires turning a few things down. To get the same frames an XT might get, you may have to use 2xAA instead of 4xAA.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that. ::::scratches head:::::

Pick a game. Decide what you think is a playable framerate for said game, and test them.

what are you trying to say Keys? IF i was KyleB i *could* test the 2900pro against the XT and have the "Pro" win every time ... using the same "RW testing" he uses and variable settings.

Do you need me to show you how to cheat?




On the OTHER hand i can NOT cheat using 'canned' benches
!

Anyways, I am really happy to see that anandtech has not "retaliated".

*We* have plenty of ammo to blow HardOCP's nonsense out of the water;
i want to SEE Kyle's Crysis benchmark ... his 'save' and his 'run' so we can attempt to replicate it with his settings.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Endgame124


Back in the Quake vs Quack days, it seemed the video card companies were cheating the benchmarks used.

That wasnt a cheat, it was a bug. I dont know why some people cant grasp this simple fact.

 

[NiViK]

man you guys are vicious

Personally I go to several review sites because everyone is biased to some extent.

Kyle is a little heavy handed, but in all honesty, I dont check in here hardly anymore. The reviews come too slow. I stopped about 3 years ago when it seemed that nothing new was being reviewed for a long time.

I still check back in from time to time and I do respect the opinions of the reviewers here.

As to comparing kyle to tom...that was uncalled for. Tom sold out bigtime. I remember his huge flipflop from AMD to intel and all the banner adds and pops that followed.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: NiViK
man you guys are vicious

Personally I go to several review sites because everyone is biased to some extent.

Kyle is a little heavy handed, but in all honesty, I dont check in here hardly anymore. The reviews come too slow. I stopped about 3 years ago when it seemed that nothing new was being reviewed for a long time.

I still check back in from time to time and I do respect the opinions of the reviewers here.

As to comparing kyle to tom...that was uncalled for. Tom sold out bigtime. I remember his huge flipflop from AMD to intel and all the banner adds and pops that followed.

vicious? we're all really lovable
:heart:

it's just that we are loyal to facts and pretty intolerant of FUD ...

we were discussing HardOCP's benchmarking *privately* - in our own forum - and finally debating with those from HardOCP ... it was KyleB that decided to publically call out Derek W.

If he can't take the heat from a simple video tech forum, perhaps he should have kept HIS mouth shut.

Now i want to see if he is up for a REAL challenge .. one that will finally determine if HIS testing methods are valid or not.
--i don't think we will hear from him again although we no doubt will have to endure his lackeys in our forums ... no problem ... we can educate them about real benchmarking.

[yep, another taunt ]
-i just can't help myself

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

You've never heard of bracket racing? or dialing in I guess. Or giving the other card a couple of car lengths and the "break"? Have you ever watched englishtown racing where one car gets a green and is allowed to go, but the second car is still waiting for the tree to leave the double yellow? That is a wickedly accurate example of H's method of benchmarking. At least as close as a metaphor you can get comparing car racing to graphics card "racing".

I don't know what you guys think Kyle is up to, but I have an idea.

Anybody have a couple of vid cards........... cough: apoppin?

This is a perfect opportunity. You have a 2900XT and a 2900pro. Why not run them against each other? You will find that to get minimal playable settings on the pro at the same res as the XT, requires turning a few things down. To get the same frames an XT might get, you may have to use 2xAA instead of 4xAA.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that. ::::scratches head:::::

Pick a game. Decide what you think is a playable framerate for said game, and test them.

what are you trying to say Keys? IF i was KyleB i *could* test the 2900pro against the XT and have the "Pro" win every time ... using the same "RW testing" he uses and variable settings.

Do you need me to show you how to cheat?




On the OTHER hand i can NOT cheat using 'canned' benches
!

Anyways, I am really happy to see that anandtech has not "retaliated".

*We* have plenty of ammo to blow HardOCP's nonsense out of the water;
i want to SEE Kyle's Crysis benchmark ... his 'save' and his 'run' so we can attempt to replicate it with his settings.

Look, I hear what you're saying, but why don't you try it instead of battering the crap out of that method?


Hypothetical example:
Game: Far Cry

Card A: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 32 Max: 79 Avg: 48
Card B: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 2xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 32 Max: 80 Avg: 49
Card C: All settings maxxed at 1280x1024. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 27 Max: 75 Avg: 50

2900XT: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min 29 Max: 145 Avg: 69
2900pro: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 2xAA 16xAF Framerate Min 30 Max: 138 Avg: 64

8800GTS 640: All settings maxxed 1600x1200. 4xaa 16xAF Framerate Min: 29 Max: 142 Avg: 66
2900XT:......... All settings maxxed 1600x1200. 2xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 30 Max: 145 Avg: 70
2900XT:.........All settings maxxed 1600x1200. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 22 Max: 124 Avg: 55

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

You've never heard of bracket racing? or dialing in I guess. Or giving the other card a couple of car lengths and the "break"? Have you ever watched englishtown racing where one car gets a green and is allowed to go, but the second car is still waiting for the tree to leave the double yellow? That is a wickedly accurate example of H's method of benchmarking. At least as close as a metaphor you can get comparing car racing to graphics card "racing".

I don't know what you guys think Kyle is up to, but I have an idea.

Anybody have a couple of vid cards........... cough: apoppin?

This is a perfect opportunity. You have a 2900XT and a 2900pro. Why not run them against each other? You will find that to get minimal playable settings on the pro at the same res as the XT, requires turning a few things down. To get the same frames an XT might get, you may have to use 2xAA instead of 4xAA.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that. ::::scratches head:::::

Pick a game. Decide what you think is a playable framerate for said game, and test them.

what are you trying to say Keys? IF i was KyleB i *could* test the 2900pro against the XT and have the "Pro" win every time ... using the same "RW testing" he uses and variable settings.

Do you need me to show you how to cheat?




On the OTHER hand i can NOT cheat using 'canned' benches
!

Anyways, I am really happy to see that anandtech has not "retaliated".

*We* have plenty of ammo to blow HardOCP's nonsense out of the water;
i want to SEE Kyle's Crysis benchmark ... his 'save' and his 'run' so we can attempt to replicate it with his settings.

Look, I hear what you're saying, but why don't you try it instead of battering the crap out of that method?


Hypothetical example:
Game: Far Cry

Card A: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 32 Max: 79 Avg: 48
Card B: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 2xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 32 Max: 80 Avg: 49
Card C: All settings maxxed at 1280x1024. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 27 Max: 75 Avg: 50

2900XT: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min 29 Max: 145 Avg: 69
2900pro: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 2xAA 16xAF Framerate Min 30 Max: 138 Avg: 64

8800GTS 640: All settings maxxed 1600x1200. 4xaa 16xAF Framerate Min: 29 Max: 142 Avg: 66
2900XT:......... All settings maxxed 1600x1200. 2xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 30 Max: 145 Avg: 70
2900XT:.........All settings maxxed 1600x1200. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 22 Max: 124 Avg: 55

Why should i? it will prove nothing.
-or else i am simply not understanding the *point* of what you are asking me to do.


Kyle is the one that opened his big mouth for the world to see and hear - he CLAIMS that his RW benchmarking is the only valid method and that AT's methods are subject to tampering by the graphics companies.

And he gives ONE example - Crysis ...

Well then, the BURDEN of *proof* is on him and his site. i am making a very reasonable request. The we be allowed to REPLICATE his test as closely as possible.

that would mean:

1) Posting a Video of his Crysis test - i want to *see* the comparative runs that HE made.
2) Give us the "save" so we can try to match his run and his results - and not only that, we can *change* his settings a bit to see what results we get with variations on his theme.

i am sure that at least 20 of us here are capable and interested enough to find the TRUTH of Kyle's bold CLAIMS by attempting to COPY his 'live' run and post OUR results.

IF he is right ... and his Crysis demo shows US what he CLAIMS ....

well then i will OWE the MAN a big APOLOGY
and will join HardOCP to say so.

Doesn't THIS test make more sense?

 

[Zstream]

One of the few times I agree with Apoppin, Hard OCP has some of the worst benchmarks in the world.

The only way to validate or use Hard OCP's claim is to run his test at least run hundreds if not thousands of the same benchmark and calculate the average. Running 1-10 means nothing.

Running a canned benchmark or using a specific scene without any AI is best.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Zstream
One of the few times I agree with Apoppin, Hard OCP has some of the worst benchmarks in the world.

The only way to validate or use Hard OCP's claim is to run his test at least run hundreds if not thousands of the same benchmark and calculate the average. Running 1-10 means nothing.

Running a canned benchmark or using a specific scene without any AI is best.

well thank you
:Q

That is *exactly* what i am getting at ... *our forum* is uniquely suited for settling this issue ... we have the combined ability to run Kyle's own benchmark hundreds of time to get a TRUE picture of RW benchmarking ... actually it would be VERY useful to do this from time-to-time and 'spot check' pro HW Reviewers. Perhaps *we* could add RW testing to AT - forum tested.

And you are quite right, the AI will act differently each run and skew results unless you run it literally many dozens of time. i noted this problem in STALKER benches.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Zstream
One of the few times I agree with Apoppin, Hard OCP has some of the worst benchmarks in the world.

The only way to validate or use Hard OCP's claim is to run his test at least run hundreds if not thousands of the same benchmark and calculate the average. Running 1-10 means nothing.

Running a canned benchmark or using a specific scene without any AI is best.

That got me thinking, thats actually what he might be doing - except instead of averaging them out, he takes the highest from his preferred card and the lowest from the competition:disgust:

Its so easy to fake results with that... Lets imagine the 3870 is particularly bad at rendering water, but better at foliage than the GTX... All he has to do is get more screen time while displaying water in the 3870, while avoiding foliage as much as possible on the GTX, and suddenly the GTX is twice the card its supposed to be :thumbsdown:

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

You've never heard of bracket racing? or dialing in I guess. Or giving the other card a couple of car lengths and the "break"? Have you ever watched englishtown racing where one car gets a green and is allowed to go, but the second car is still waiting for the tree to leave the double yellow? That is a wickedly accurate example of H's method of benchmarking. At least as close as a metaphor you can get comparing car racing to graphics card "racing".

I don't know what you guys think Kyle is up to, but I have an idea.

Anybody have a couple of vid cards........... cough: apoppin?

This is a perfect opportunity. You have a 2900XT and a 2900pro. Why not run them against each other? You will find that to get minimal playable settings on the pro at the same res as the XT, requires turning a few things down. To get the same frames an XT might get, you may have to use 2xAA instead of 4xAA.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that. ::::scratches head:::::

Pick a game. Decide what you think is a playable framerate for said game, and test them.

what are you trying to say Keys? IF i was KyleB i *could* test the 2900pro against the XT and have the "Pro" win every time ... using the same "RW testing" he uses and variable settings.

Do you need me to show you how to cheat?




On the OTHER hand i can NOT cheat using 'canned' benches
!

Anyways, I am really happy to see that anandtech has not "retaliated".

*We* have plenty of ammo to blow HardOCP's nonsense out of the water;
i want to SEE Kyle's Crysis benchmark ... his 'save' and his 'run' so we can attempt to replicate it with his settings.

Look, I hear what you're saying, but why don't you try it instead of battering the crap out of that method?


Hypothetical example:
Game: Far Cry

Card A: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 32 Max: 79 Avg: 48
Card B: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 2xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 32 Max: 80 Avg: 49
Card C: All settings maxxed at 1280x1024. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 27 Max: 75 Avg: 50

2900XT: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min 29 Max: 145 Avg: 69
2900pro: All settings maxxed at 1600x1200. 2xAA 16xAF Framerate Min 30 Max: 138 Avg: 64

8800GTS 640: All settings maxxed 1600x1200. 4xaa 16xAF Framerate Min: 29 Max: 142 Avg: 66
2900XT:......... All settings maxxed 1600x1200. 2xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 30 Max: 145 Avg: 70
2900XT:.........All settings maxxed 1600x1200. 4xAA 16xAF Framerate Min: 22 Max: 124 Avg: 55

Why should i? it will prove nothing.
-or else i am simply not understanding the *point* of what you are asking me to do.


Kyle is the one that opened his big mouth for the world to see and hear - he CLAIMS that his RW benchmarking is the only valid method and that AT's methods are subject to tampering by the graphics companies.

And he gives ONE example - Crysis ...

Well then, the BURDEN of *proof* is on him and his site. i am making a very reasonable request. The we be allowed to REPLICATE his test as closely as possible.

that would mean:

1) Posting a Video of his Crysis test - i want to *see* the comparative runs that HE made.
2) Give us the "save" so we can try to match his run and his results - and not only that, we can *change* his settings a bit to see what results we get with variations on his theme.

i am sure that at least 20 of us here are capable and interested enough to find the TRUTH of Kyle's bold CLAIMS by attempting to COPY his 'live' run and post OUR results.

IF he is right ... and his Crysis demo shows US what he CLAIMS ....

well then i will OWE the MAN a big APOLOGY
and will join HardOCP to say so.

Doesn't THIS test make more sense?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself, in case anyone but you two wanted to read that.

Originally posted by: Zstream
The only way to validate or use Hard OCP's claim is to run his test at least run hundreds if not thousands of the same benchmark and calculate the average. Running 1-10 means nothing.

That's not true at all. Well, unless you're shooting for an accuacy of better than 99.99999999%. Just doing it 3-4 times would get you an accurate enough conclusion, for either proving or diaproving his benchmarks.

 

[apoppin]

Its so easy to fake results with that... Lets imagine the 3870 is particularly bad at rendering water, but better at foliage than the GTX... All he has to do is get more screen time while displaying water in the 3870, while avoiding foliage as much as possible on the GTX, and suddenly the GTX is twice the card its supposed to be

that is what happened in STALKER ... Keys and i noted this ... evidently the "average" was skewed in favor of the 2900xt when the benchmark pointed up at the Sky .. you got literally hundreds of FPS with the Radeon while although the GeForce was at a very good speed, it was way below that of the XT. In fact, Keys made his own very good benchmark to get around the 'sky issue'. In the meantime, both AMD and nvidia had new drivers which 'normalized' the "Sky score" a bit between them and i continued to use the official benches.

But Kyle can easily settle this ... instead of flapping his gums about "how bad" the official canned benches are - he can allow us to put HIS Crysis "real world" testing to the supreme test in our forum ... and he will be publicly vindicated
---or shamed

That's not true at all. Well, unless you're shooting for an accuacy of better than 99.99999999%. Just doing it 3-4 times would get you an accurate enough conclusion, for either proving or diaproving his benchmarks.

i want to give KyleB/HardOCP the benefit of ANY doubt ... wouldn't it be best if we all ran his test?

 

[apoppin]

you ... this is really weird ... the more i think about coincidence and 'timing'

i have been doing/AM doing "real world" testing right now
:Q

Vista32- vs. Vista64-bit OS Showdown *Pt 1 Done!*

And i am thoroughly frustrated.

Part One is done ... the 'canned' benchmarks basically show that Vista 32 is a tiny bit faster - frames per second - in 32-bit games than in Vista 64. It is "scientific" and i have the FPS graphs to prove it and if *necessary* i could produce the benchmark timedemos, upload videos of my actual benchmarks with FRAPS running in a corner and give you my graphs to analyze.

But the 2nd part is giving me a colossal headache. i don't "feel" Vista 64 is any faster ... and i have been sitting with a stop watch noting a dozen or so variables come into play on each OS with something as simple as "saving/loading" identically.

i am even beginning to question my own bias - whether i am actually suited to perform these difficult tests with constantly changing variables and being able to accurately interpret my results withOUT having someone ELSE confirm or dispute what i think i see. And if you want to monitor system tools, just having them running will affect results under the way each OS behaves with its own memory management.


now, IF i was a HW site reviewer with obligations to fulfill, i would do that test .... but i would have many others confirm my observations before publishing them. And others would know exactly how i did them and would be able to copy exactly what i did [you would get my 'save' for others to load and time]. i would welcome peer review and criticism for it would make me a better reviewer and allow me to give my readers what they want as well as educating them.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: bluehaze013
Having just upgraded from an 8800GTS 512 to a 3870x2, I can say Anandtech's numbers are more relative to the performance I get in game with Crysis, not sure if this is due to testing methods or just coincedence. most likely coincedence as I never get similiar numbers as any of these reviews including H] in game testing. They are usually show much less fps than I actually end up getting however in this case AT review is pretty close to spot on.

I think the biggest problem with H] review method is it caters to a very small audience, that of one running the exact same system as they use to test. Because any difference will yield different results therefore your settings will be much different than those of H] unless you have the exact same hardware and clocks. Therefore the whole max playable settings concept does not seem very reliable to me as it introduces far too many variable for little if any reason.

Case in point H] tests 3870x2 on a 2.9ghz dual core processor, AT tests on a quad core, I am running a Q6600 and my results are similiar to AT's. Now accordibng to H] CPU makes no difference in scaling with the GPu but they are just plain wrong as eveidenced by all the reviews using Quad cores versus all the reviews using dual cores. Driver Heaven used a Quad coire for their review and had much better resulkts and they use virtually the same testing methodology as H].

Here is a link to a site that actually tested the scaling 8800ULTRA vs 3870x2 on different CPU's and you can see the 3870x2 benefits far more from a quad core and higher cpu clocks than an 8800ultra which explains why H] review and conclusion is wrong for the vast majority of people that would purchase a high end graphics card as anyone that is willing to spend 400+$ on a graphics card will most likely be running a high end processor to go with it, not a 2.9ghz dual core such as H] tested with.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/...image_id=769656&page=1

While many "high-end" gamers have quads, I highly doubt that it is a majority of them. Currently, most games run better on dual cores with 10-20% more clock than on quads. There are probably many people with ~2.9ghz c2d and a $400 video card these days. Probably not a majority, but certainly a LOT at least. Don't get me wrong, maybe reading all these reviews and forum comments might push somebody to sell his e6600 and upgrade to a Q9450 or Q6600, but at least as a starting point I don't think that anybody takes it as a given that a high-end gpu needs or even wants a quad.

Having said that, kyle still sucks.

 

[ronnn]

Personally I think Hardocp has taken such a beating at b3d, that he is spreading the joy. He couldn't run with the guys who know what they are talking about, so he decided to take on the crowd here. :laugh:

 

[Munky]

Kyle is just throwing around words like "canned benches" and "real world gameplay" to obfuscate the fact that his apples to oranges comparisons are not only subjective and unscientific, but they do not provide the information I need to decide how the cards really compare. Playable settings are not the same for different people, so what's playable for Kyle may be unplayable for me, and vise-versa. I want to know the difference between cards expressed in quantifiable, objective terms, so I can then decide for myself, and HOCP reviews are useless in that regard.

I do believe that testing with actual gameplay is more informative than runing timedemos, but only if all the settings are kept the same across different cards, and there is enough information provided to reproduce and verify the results. Kyle's reviews are lacking in both of these aspects.

 

[bryanW1995]

There's no doubt that there is a place for "real world gameplay" in gpu benchmarking. Unfortunately for kyle, that place is with a person/site with integrity.

 

[mrEvil]

Might as well throw in my 2 cents. What they did @ OCP was wrong in calling out other people, no matter who it is. However, the statement about companies cheating on canned benchmarks is correct and has been happening for years. Don't believe it, answer this - on a new driver update, are you going to hear that they improved Crysis performance by 20-30% or hear that they improved the framerate on UT2004 (WoW, Quake 4, etc...)? Now, ask yourself why and you know why they are cheating. If you can do it and get away with it, why not? Both companies do it, and it is the consumers who support it.

Going beyond that, why not ask the gaming companies why they (most if not all of them) removed all the FPS capabilities from their games. It certainly wasn't because gamers did not want them or that it is extremely hard to code (lather, rinse, then repeat in next game)....maybe a bit of support, but I'd wager two companies were behind the demise of this. Now we are stuck with canned demos that they both can cheat at while we turn the eye only towards the "vast improvement in framerate" on a timed benchmark demo. Golf clap please.

I don't like what HOCP did with the calling out of people/sites, but I also do not like the graphics card companies stating that I will get xx% improvement in FPS on a game when they only checked their "improved" drivers on a demo.

It's like me saying that the Shaq trade has caused the Suns to rip through their opponents since the trade. What do you mean he hasn't even suited up yet?

 

[Sable]

Read both, make your own decisions. :gasp:

Anyone basing a purchase on one review is a moron imo.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: NiViK
man you guys are vicious

Personally I go to several review sites because everyone is biased to some extent.

Kyle is a little heavy handed, but in all honesty, I dont check in here hardly anymore. The reviews come too slow. I stopped about 3 years ago when it seemed that nothing new was being reviewed for a long time.

I still check back in from time to time and I do respect the opinions of the reviewers here.

As to comparing kyle to tom...that was uncalled for. Tom sold out bigtime. I remember his huge flipflop from AMD to intel and all the banner adds and pops that followed.

Well you should start coming back . At reviews are better done now than ever . The cpu reviews are very good. I will be honest. I like Intel. I really didn't read hardware reviews until after AMD 64 . Because of my own Bias I accused the reviewers here of being Bias.

It was only after C2D came out that I seen the only one that was bias was myself. Because AT reviews stayed the same . AT said about AMD exactly what they said about Intel.

Shame on me!