HardOCP Slammed by Futuremark!

[GTaudiophile]

Front Page News!

 

[MercenaryForHire]

My stance on 3DMark.

- M4H

 

[gururu]

As much as I love HardOCP, I have noticed their sarcastic and potentially inflammatory remarks regarding the 3DMark05 product. I think it is immature to constantly refer to the deficiencies of the benchmark, when they have no evidence that it is deficient in Direct3D performance marking. In addition, its pretty darned hypocritical to include 3DMark2001SE in their 'Gaming Benchmarks' such as in their most recent review (Here).


Well anyhow, they have no basis for denying their slanderous comments.

 

[gsellis]

INCOMING!

:shocked:

 

[MDE]

As much as I love to hate HardOCP, it's kinda ridiculous that they're the ones getting threatened here. Plenty of people have said that 3DMark sucks and they get singled out. Sure their style of saying that it sucks is pretty strong but maybe they feel that strongly. Seriously though, how much money could they possibly be costing FM? How many end users actually buy the full version of 3DMark and how many now won't directly because of HardOCP's views? If anyone bases their decisions on one website's views that's not a customer I would be happy to have. Give Kyle some credit, they're not going to bend over for FM just because the new 3DMark is out.

 

[Childs]

HardOCP should be able to express their opinion any way they want. What they are doing is not slander.

1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare LIBEL

 

[Killrose]

It's a D3D benchmark more than anything, and like Kyle says, it doesnt tell you anything about how well a system will run Doom3 (or any other OpenGL game for that matter). I think it would have been more beneficial for Futuremark to engage in an interveiw with HardOCP and they could have disscussed the benefits of the benchmark as well as it's faults.

 

[artemicion]

first of all Futuremark, it's libel, not slander.

second of all, the claim that your benchmark sucks is not baseless in any sense of the word.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Killrose
It's a D3D benchmark more than anything, and like Kyle says, it doesnt tell you anything about how well a system will run Doom3 (or any other OpenGL game for that matter). I think it would have been more beneficial for Futuremark to engage in an interveiw with HardOCP and they could have disscussed the benefits of the benchmark as well as it's faults.

Actually the API generealy doesn't have much impact on a videocard's peformace characteristics with respect to various rendering methods. In this regard, 3DMark03's Battle of Proxicon benchmark did provide us with insight as to Doom3 performace which can clearly be seen by comparing benchmarks of the two now that the game is out.

HardOCP just went along with Nvidia's lead in slamming 3DMark03 when it showed the flaws of the FX series; and Kyle Bennett is just about as stubrond as they come so he isn't going to let his arguments drop no matter how idiotic they are.

 

[nemesismk2]

I think every bit of software futuremark has ever released has been complete rubbish so I back HardOCP 100% Those bloody Europeans don't believe in freedom of speech it seems, where is Finland anyway?

 

[Schadenfroh]

any company that uses lawyers and threats to force people to think that their products have no flaws instead of fixing the flaws most certainly earns the title "sucks"

 

[SickBeast]

Everyone wants to make poor Kyle shut up. IMO it's a good thing that he states his opinion on products. The fact that they want him to shut up is very telling about their products.

 

[Tab]

3dMark is lame and so is Kyle ;P I'll leave it at that.

 

[THUGSROOK]

yep, 3dmark sucks

 

[reallyscrued]

hehe, hope they are reading this thread.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
hehe, hope they are reading this thread.

That'd be great.

<gives Futuremark the finger>

Let me change the resolution and video options in your fscking crippleware demo version, assholes.

- M4H

 

[JCGhz]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
hehe, hope they are reading this thread.

That'd be great.

<gives Futuremark the finger>

Let me change the resolution and video options in your fscking crippleware demo version, assholes.

- M4H

ROFLMAO .... I agree

 

[nitromullet]

I dunno, I kind of find this funny. Picking on FutureMark is popular, like picking on Microsoft. Yet, all of you probably already have 3DMark05, which came out last week and you run on your WindowsXP box.

It makes you sound like you are a gaming purist to put down 3DMark, but as a benchmark, 3DMark does tell you where your system stands in relation to other systems. For the most part a higher score in 3DMark does mean that your rig will game better than a rig with a lower score. 3DMark in itself is fine and used as part of an evalutation can give you insight into the performance of your hardware, it's review sites and endusers who use 3DMarks as gospel that are the problem.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
I dunno, I kind of find this funny. Picking on FutureMark is popular, like picking on Microsoft. Yet, all of you probably already have 3DMark05, which came out last week and you run on your WindowsXP box.

It makes you sound like you are a gaming purist to put down 3DMark, but as a benchmark, 3DMark does tell you where your system stands in relation to other systems. For the most part a higher score in 3DMark does mean that your rig will game better than a rig with a lower score. 3DMark in itself is fine and used as part of an evalutation can give you insight into the performance of your hardware, it's review sites and endusers who use 3DMarks as gospel that are the problem.

Agreed, except the gaming purist comment. I'm anything but, and dislike Futuremock for their scumbag biz practices not necessarily their products.

 

[Zebo]

HardOCP is going to go bankrupt with free speech.. that consol maker already cost them 100K and this one will be even more/

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: artemicion
first of all Futuremark, it's libel, not slander.

second of all, the claim that your benchmark sucks is not baseless in any sense of the word.

Ya so? You can sue someone for whatever you want.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: artemicion
first of all Futuremark, it's libel, not slander.

second of all, the claim that your benchmark sucks is not baseless in any sense of the word.

Ya so? You can sue someone for whatever you want.

He only knows it's libel and not slander because he saw Spiderman :laugh:

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: artemicion
first of all Futuremark, it's libel, not slander.

second of all, the claim that your benchmark sucks is not baseless in any sense of the word.

Ya so? You can sue someone for whatever you want.

3DMark05 made my system run slow, I should sue Futuremark for an 800MHz X800XTPE

 

[Insomniak]

HardOCP is a crappy site, but I keep them bookmarked mainly because of what Kyle is doing for free speech by taking it to Infinium Labs, and now, it looks like Futuremark.

And hey, if 3Dmark takes a big credibility hit, so much the better. It really IS a crappy program anyway.

 

[apoppin]

Doea ANYONE have a link to the ORIGINAL ARTICLE that Kyle wrote that FM is threatening to sue over?

?