Hardocp vs Firing Squad

[tuteja1986]

It all started when Hardocp had the most outrages opening ever... kley the idiot didn't think about the backlash he would get with his offensive opening. What do you think people would do when you say stuff like "gaming benchmark ... simply lie" or "total BS" or "terrible representation".

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

"Let's just cut to the chase. You will see a lot of gaming benchmarks today that just simply lie to you. That is right, you will see frames per second numbers that are at best total BS, and at their worst a terrible representation of what difference a new Intel Core 2 processor will make in your gaming experience. The old ways of video game benchmarking do little to tell you about exactly how a new CPU will affect how you play your games or what experience your system supplies to you. Having more CPU power is a very cool thing, but being able to utilize it is not an easy thing to do nowadays.


Firing Squad took it to heart and fired back to tell why kyle wrote up some article saying ... he is right and every other website is wrong.

"HardOCP has claimed our Core 2 benchmarks lie to you, that only their real-world GPU bottleneck tests can show real-world CPU performance. We address the issue of "real-world" vs "canned", and go over some of the myths and errors propagated by our friendly rivals, while also going over the pros and cons of both methods"

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/jakub_rant_real_world_benchmarking/

Kyle Response
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
"Firing Squad have continually proven their hardware reviews are little more than pages full of canned demo frames per second graphs with little or no analysis. They survive by the canned benchmark. A well trained monkey can pull of that sort of ?hardware journalism." Hardocp response

comment
"Seriously, a "REAL-WORLD" test that shows what performance would be like right now with today's top hardware is useful how?

If I read a CPU benchmark I don't give a rats about how it performs with today's video cards. A new video card gets released and then what? The review is instantly worthless. It becomes "OLD-WORLD." Is H going to redo the entire article every time a new video card is released?

*shrug* differences in philosophy. " >> WafflesID

Now what do think about Real World Testing VS Canned Benchmarking

 

[Ika]

"WHHAAAAAATTT??"

already posted in CPUs/Processors

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: Aflac
"WHHAAAAAATTT??"

already posted in CPUs/Overclocking

Ohh i didn't know ;( sorry !!

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
If I read a CPU benchmark I don't give a rats about how it performs with today's video cards. A new video card gets released and then what? The review is instantly worthless. It becomes "OLD-WORLD." Is H going to redo the entire article every time a new video card is released?

QFT. The component being tested should be isolated from any other variables...what's the point of a "CPU" test if the GPU is the bottleneck.

Kyle decided to sling more mud in his response....I guess it was to be expected from someone like him.

 

[Creig]

It's kind of ironic that Kyle would be sneering at "canned" benchmarks as he himself was probably half "canned" while writing the response.

 

[mwmorph]

wow, this image popped up immedaitely when I read this thread.

 

[Polish3d]

Just test both ya freaks. That's what I want to see. High res + high settings as well as which performs better in CPU limited cases

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Just test both ya freaks. That's what I want to see. High res + high settings as well as which performs better in CPU limited cases

Agreed. Nothing new here... Turn up the rez and eyecandy, and the test becomes gpu dependent. Turn it down, and it becomes cpu dependent. Wow, what a revelation.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
wow, this image popped up immedaitely when I read this thread.

Indeed... or Timmy vs. Jimmy. Retards + petty drama queens + ad. dollar (or is that penny?) desperation. I am not a patron of either site so meh.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
If I read a CPU benchmark I don't give a rats about how it performs with today's video cards. A new video card gets released and then what? The review is instantly worthless. It becomes "OLD-WORLD." Is H going to redo the entire article every time a new video card is released?

QFT. The component being tested should be isolated from any other variables...what's the point of a "CPU" test if the GPU is the bottleneck.

Kyle decided to sling more mud in his response....I guess it was to be expected from someone like him.

In Kyle's defence his article was titled something like "Core 2 Gaming Performance". He has other articles up that show the Core 2's dominance in other areas. I for one am glad that he ran the benchmarks like he did. I could care less how much faster Core 2 is than AM2 at 800x600. After seeing some early benchamarks where a Core 2 spanked a DC Opteron at even high-res gaming, I was considering selling my rig to get a Conroe. Glad I didn't spend the money now.

Disclaimer: I am not agreeing with either side of this arguement except to say that Kyle should have been less inflammatory in his comments. I see the benefits of running both types of benchmarks.

 

[Sunrise089]

I don't see the value in the CPU dependent test. Sure, it tells me that under some circumstances a certain processor is faster, but it doesn't represent how I use my computer. I much prefer a test of setting I might actually use. Yes, I know new GPUs will be coming out, but so will new games, and I don't see the overall burden shifting to the CPU any time soon. All of the other benchmarks in CPU reviews try to be real-world based, so I don't know why we have to try to exagerate performance gaines (when gaming) with a new CPU.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

You learn in 3rd grade science that when you do experiments, you try to isolate variables. You get down to 1 variable only and that is the CPU.

I think HardOCP is full of sh!t for doing such a benchmark. While it may speak the truth because it is "realistic" to more users, wtf. What % of computer users are comparing between dual 7900s and single 7900s when they buy their conroe? Come on. Moreover, once again a new GPU comes out and their benches suck.

Clearly ther eare many AMD sympathizers and I am one out there. As much as I'm sad to see my Opteron get spanked and thrashed around by the Conroe, the bias in HardOCP's review is just extremely stupid. If this were the other way around, and would they show Opterons spanking Conroes or once again would they GPU limit it and show the performance as being a marginal victory?

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
You learn in 3rd grade science that when you do experiments, you try to isolate variables. You get down to 1 variable only and that is the CPU.

I think HardOCP is full of sh!t for doing such a benchmark. While it may speak the truth because it is "realistic" to more users, wtf. What % of computer users are comparing between dual 7900s and single 7900s when they buy their conroe? Come on. Moreover, once again a new GPU comes out and their benches suck.

Clearly ther eare many AMD sympathizers and I am one out there. As much as I'm sad to see my Opteron get spanked and thrashed around by the Conroe, the bias in HardOCP's review is just extremely stupid. If this were the other way around, and would they show Opterons spanking Conroes or once again would they GPU limit it and show the performance as being a marginal victory?

it just so happens that for EVERY A64 vs P4 test they have done in the last couple years, they did at a low resolution which showed the A64 winning by miles of course. i think kyle is mad that intel finally has a processor that beats the A64's, so he wrote his review in a negative light, and basically said a $300 processor that is as good as a $1000 processor sucks and you shouldnt buy it :roll:

 

[Nextman916]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

basically said a $300 processor that is as good as a $1000 processor sucks and you shouldnt buy it :roll:

Where the hell did you get that from?

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Nextman916

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

basically said a $300 processor that is as good as a $1000 processor sucks and you shouldnt buy it :roll:

Where the hell did you get that from?

the article said "dont get a conroe". in almost ALL of their tests all the CPU's got the same framerate. so a $300 conroe is worse than a FX62 even though its about as fast/faster?

 

[nitromullet]

An interesting point IMO is that cost is probably more of a real world determinant than resolutions or settings for most people. So, testing a $1000+ FX-62 alongside a $530 E6700 is anything but "real world", as I doubt that there are many people deciding between those two processors. A closer competitor in my real world is the X2 4600+ or 4800+.

 

[Munky]

A new video card gets released and then what?

And then immediately a new game gets releasd that puts the new card back in its place.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: munky

A new video card gets released and then what?

And then immediately a new game gets releasd that puts the new card back in its place.

I'm sure it's nothing 4 G80's can't handle. Or 4 R600's if ATI goes there.
Come to think of it, we really haven't even seen a full blown review of Quad-SLI yet. Waiting for the drivers, I know. But would be most interesting to see the outcome.

 

[Sc4freak]

HOCP's way of testing is ludicrous at best. Anyone knows that to do a scientific experiment, you need to factor out the variables, until the only ones left are the independant variable (the CPU) and the dependant variable (the FPS). HOCP's way of testing is like saying, "More ice-cream is eaten on the beaches in Summer than in Winter. And more people die on the beaches in Summer than in Winter. Therefore, ice-cream kills a lot of people."

In that above example, another variable was not taken into account: the fact that many more people go swimming at the beaches in Summer than in Winter. Drawing a conclusion from results such as these without eliminating the other variables is rediculous, and not a way to do any kind of testing or experimentation.

Also, HOCP has displayed immense immaturity in this entire matter... They're a hardware site for god's sake! Instead they resort to name-calling, generalisations and blanket statements. FiringSquad retaliated to HOCP's claims that every other hardware site out there was "lying" and providing unreliable results. That is reasonable. That HOCP should respond with flames without addressing any of the issues is not.

EDIT: Damn forum-formatting...

 

[CaiNaM]

HOCP's article is nothing more than a narrow view on Conroe's performance.

Using a GeForce4 MX @ 2048x1536/4xaa/16af HOCP could show us that anything besides a 500mhz Pentium3 is a complete waste of money.

Gee... Thanks Kyle.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

<----Hi! My name is Real World Kyle! Hyuk hyuk, I opened up a can(ned) of worms on those Firing $quid nOObs, hyuk hyuk! Their canned asses think their canned approach to running canned timedemos, following canned benchmarking-routines can hold a incandescant light to our straight-from-Cape Canaveral un-canned methodologies? Hey Firing Squid, shove this cantaloupe up your butts while we spank you silly and you call me Shelly...we are the 1337 and you are not.

That is what I got from the HoCP article.