Question I got a question on AnandTech's Review of GeForce GTX 1650, and honestly I am tired of seeing this happen at PC Hardware/Game Review sites

Moey

Junior Member
Sep 27, 2014
4
13
66
#1
So, I got a question on the review of the "Nvidia" 1650 card. HERE https://www.anandtech.com/show/14270/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650-review-feat-zotac/5 Look at, for instance, the latest battlefield game, that you guys only use the DX11 mode for this Nvidia review, and we all know Nvidia favors DX11 better than AMD does, if you would of just used the most "natural" choice for this modern GPU that will be running mostly DX12 games from this point on, yet you opt for the DX11 mode lol, not just for this game but for all the games, go-figure!, Gotta do everything you can to make Nvidia look better, eh?,,

Why in the world, in 2019, are so called "Professional" GPU & Game Reviewers and Editors dodging the DirectX 12 version of these games used to bench "specifically" Nvidia cards, especially the mid to lower range cards, and instead "cherry" pick games that still happen to have a DirectX 11 mode which is meant for older cards that only have DX 11 hardware feature-sets in these older GPUs? This is a modern day, cutting edge GPU that will be running mostly DX12 games, yet, of course, go cheat and do what you can to make Nvidia look better in this review, right? Of course!

Well, wait a second, I'll answer it for the "Professional" PC GPU & Game reviewers. Its because the latest and great Nvidia GPU cores still happen to lag behind another "Rival" GPU Hardware Company that has, a great great deal of superior DirectX 12 hardware feature-sets in its modern day GPU's, INCLUDING THE MID TO LOW RANGE GPUs. So what does these so called "Professional" PC GPU/Game reviewers and editors do, because they have a hidden dislike for AMD GPUs and in the depths of their inner soul, ....well the blatantly easy, clear as crystal answer is do everything possible to make sure AMD gets no justice, no honest truth about how well AMD's Mid to Low Tier GPUs perform on "Modern Day" and "Cutting Edge" game engines that are now coming out left and right in droves, and has been for the last 6 to 12 months now,.

Yet, us poor souls, well not me, I know better, to follow and believe the inner-bias that, YES! Even so called "Professional" PC GPU Hardware/Game Reviewers dish out these days because the truth is, most of these Reviewers and Editors also have biased attitudes towards specific Brands of PC hardware, can you believe that???? Yes its hard to swallow some times when i sit here monkeying around with a few of my own Nvidia based PC builds and gaming on both my Nvidia based builds and AMD builds, You see, its a true passion of mine, a true love for this hobby we all love, yet in this day and age, a lot of poor souls that really don't know any better are being brainwashed to believe in a specific Brand of GPU manufacture because some schmuck that does reviews of PC hardware & Games persuade thousands upon thousands of folks researching GPUs because he or she is in the market to buy a GPU and wants one to last a long time, since money does not grow on trees, most of us gotta work hard for it, so buying the "Best Bang For Buck" GPU is the utmost importance..yet some dude or dudette that claims to be a "Professional" Reviewer of PC hardware pumps out Review afer Review, that almost always holds favor towards Nvidia over AMD.

And the worst part about these kind of Nvidia Biased Reviews, these so called Professional Reviewers know damn well that DirectX 11 games is just about dead in a grave while DirectX 12 games are now the future from last year moving forward beyond even the next generation, all thanks to AMD's knack for always being on the cutting edge,. So this guy or girl splashed down his/her hard earned cash for a Nvidia 1650, thinking this GPU will last for years to come, all while the Nvidia 1650's equivalent, AMD's 570 literally runs circles around Nvidia's 1650 IN ALL DIRECTX 12 Games, all while if this person had bought the AMD 570, would of gladly paid less for the RX 570 and most important of all, is far more well-suited for the future than its Nvidia equivalent, the GTX 1650.

You know what? You reviewers that have a inner-fanboysim syndrome in the depths of your hearts have no business doing reviews, and just as important, you have no real love and appreciation for PC Hardware/Gaming either, because your thoughts and insights is too pent-up with a biased attitude to even enjoy this damn hobby, let alone, lead some poor guy/gal to the best-bang-for-buck GPU that he/she had to work hard for to buy and want that purchase to last as long as possible.

You so called Professionals have brought the ugly, ruthlessness of "American Politics" into the PC Hardware/Gaming scene that a lot of us honestly cherish and love but yet we are being brainwashed by stupid angry biased attitudes because you know dman well AMD GPUs honestly, are far more efficient at DirectX 12 games, which is the future for the far foreseeable future when these next round of Game Consoles come out next year (Xbox Next/PS5) Which are all being built with AMD hardware (Zen 2 CPUs) and a AMD Hybrid GPU that has both Vega & Navi GPU features, which of course, are specifically, the most up-to-date DirectX 12 hardware features.

PS I am too tired to spell check this, sorry for this but my question is, when you reviewers and editors gonna start doing some honest work??? You guys are ruining it for a lot of folks, in more ways than you think.
 
Last edited:
Jun 12, 2018
126
19
51
#2
I don’t personally believe it’s about “doing everything they can to look better”

When you are testing performance of any hardware where there are drivers or API’s that can effect performance I believe they should be tested with best performance in mind.

Should all benchmarks be ran on a Windows 98 OS? Would that impact performance?

Should the latest drivers for GPU’s be used at the time of review or should they only use pre-release media drivers for as long as the card is out?

People who run Nvidia know that DX11 is better for them, thus this is what the majority people will run so it only makes sense that is how it’s tested.
 

tarmc

Senior member
Mar 12, 2013
315
2
81
#3
My first question would be, how many games support dx12? Next : Is it as stable as 11? Personally i use cards from both teams and have had alot less issues just sticking to 11, but thats just me? Maybe reviewers are doing so for the same reasons?
 
Jun 12, 2018
126
19
51
#4
As far as DX12 support goes for the GPU’s:
47EEA810-7C88-4D78-BDC6-BBF9F5E7A387.jpeg

As for what games support DX12? Valid question.

Part of it could be Nvidia’s reviewer guidelines vs AMD’s

Weather or not that plays a big role is a topic for another thread, but it could have a role on this tolpic.

Nvidia is hurt on dx12 driver portion because on many filters and libraries nvidia offers alternatives saying “this filter is bad use this instead it looks the same or similar”

With DX12 its a bit harder to substitute stuff because its more on the developer side...
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,402
51
126
#5
super ignorant post. DX12 is spotty with frame hitching on non Turing nVidia GPUs and the same on all modern AMD GPUs in Battlefield V (at least at release, when they decided which API to bench). I think actually Hawaii+Tahiti based GPUs were fine though. DX12 was unplayable on my 1080 Ti in it, and it runs amazingly well on DX11. The DX12 implementation of BFV is/was just bad at release.
 
Mar 28, 2005
177
95
116
#6
OP post is disingenuous and reeks of trolling, particularly since your calling out the website itself.

If you look at reviews for Battlefield 1 with comparison between directx 11 and 12, directx 12 performs worse on both. While AMD performance doesn't degrade as much in terms of FPS as Nvidia, the glitching and high variance in frametimes(significantly worse frametimes for min fps)makes it a worse experience.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2652-battlefield-1-graphics-card-benchmark-dx11-vs-dx12

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/10/24/battlefield_1_video_card_dx12_performance_preview/4
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/10/24/battlefield_1_video_card_dx12_performance_preview/5

To purposely bench the noticeably worse version for both companies to simply make one company look better than the other is either crooked or shows incompetent benchmarking.

The irony of the OP post is palpable.

We do not allow personal insults in the tech areas.
No use of terms such as troll, fanboy, shill, etc.
Debate / discuss the post's content, and leave
insults out of it.

AT Mod Usandthem
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shmee

Memory and Storage, Graphics Cards
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
3,800
52
126
#7
Moved to general GPU section, as this involves AMD cards as well.
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
954
183
136
#8
First off, wow, you drank the whole pitcher of coolaid, the fanboism bias is literally dripping from every word of your post and if it's not blatant trolling, it's very close.

Battlefield games play like garbage under DX12, there's zero reason to test them in anything other than DX11. DX11 will still be relevant for quite a long time moving forward and no, it's not as easy as claiming that DX12 erases AMD's obvious deficit. Plenty of games favor NVIDIA under DX12 and Vulcan as well.

Regarding the "muh consoles will give AMD the obvious advantage", well we've been hearing that for the past six years and it's never materialized, how long exactly is this process supposed to take?

If thermal and power consumption aren't a factor, I agree, the 570 is the obvious choice, but it's not that simple of an equation. The 1650 will sell for the same reason the 1050TI sold, no need for a PCI-E connector and great thermals, it's perfect to slap in a Dell/HP workstation and go. I just picked one up at work for that very reason.

We do not allow personal insults in the tech areas.
No use of terms such as troll, fanboy, shill, etc.
Debate / discuss the post's content, and leave
insults out of it.


AT Mod Usandthem
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feb 2, 2009
12,965
230
126
#9
Battlefield games play like garbage under DX12,
I dont know about BF V but BF4 and BF 1 run very smooth with both my HD7950 1GHz and RX 570 in DX-12.
Also BF3 was running way better in Mantle with HD7950 back in the days than in DX-11 mode.

Also, if you dont use a 5GHz 6-8C CPU, you may find the DX-12 to be much better in the majority of the supported games than DX-11.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,821
55
126
#10
AFAIK DX11 is the preferred API on BFV being more stable and
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-v-test-gpu-cpu-2018
faster even for Radeons on most benchmarks

maybe DX12 would be more useful with a slow CPU or MP64, but for their test with a fast CPU and SP I think it's a sensible choice, and even if not, I think someone is overreacting...
 
Sep 13, 2010
183
18
81
#11
I find it amusing that one of tech publications key argument in favor of GTX 1650 is it's lack of 6pin connector; whilst majority of 1650's being reviewed had a 6 Pin. They didn't appear to be bothered by the fact that they're reviewing a card with a 6 pin and praising the lack of same..

Anandtech pointed as much when reviewing their Zotac 1650 and cautioned the buyers.
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
954
183
136
#12
I dont know about BF V but BF4 and BF 1 run very smooth with both my HD7950 1GHz and RX 570 in DX-12.
Also BF3 was running way better in Mantle with HD7950 back in the days than in DX-11 mode.

Also, if you dont use a 5GHz 6-8C CPU, you may find the DX-12 to be much better in the majority of the supported games than DX-11.
DX11 has always played better (significantly better 1% and .1% lows and far fewer crashes/bugs) back to BF3 on i7 rigs. You are correct that slower CPUs fair better in DX12, but assuming you're running a decent CPU, BFV runs significantly better under DX11 in every way. If you care about smoothness and low latency, twitch gameplay, it's DX11 all day every day.
 

amenx

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,402
51
126
#13
OP's idea that Nvidia is weak vs AMD in DX12 is outdated. As of Turing especially, Nvidia does very well in DX12 titles. There may be other factors in DX12 implementations, feature levels, etc, in games that can show up as inconsistencies in from title to title, but this should not be interpreted as general weaknesses of one GPU maker vs another in DX12 these days. Or is OP thinking that DX11 games should not be reviewed because it may put AMD at a disadvantage there? Maybe OP can supply his own links to reviews of recent cards that can better illustrate his grievance vs AT's reviews.
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,965
230
126
#14
DX11 has always played better (significantly better 1% and .1% lows and far fewer crashes/bugs) back to BF3 on i7 rigs.
Nope, even using my OC Core i7 3770K had way better smoothness in BF4 with Mantle vs DX-11.
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
954
183
136
#15
Nope, even using my OC Core i7 3770K had way better smoothness in BF4 with Mantle vs DX-11.
You'd be about the only one. The forums were full of people complaining about stutter and general instability with mantle. Yes, FPS was higher in some cases, but it was a stuttering mess for at least six months after release. I was using a 7970 back then and was excited to use mantle, but it was always obnoxious with massive stutters a few times a minute. It's too bad we don't have a good frame time analysis from Gamer's Nexus or something similar from back then, but I distinctly remember all the problems and a quick google search confirms my recollection of the numerous complaints.

The fact of the matter is that as of today in 2019, DX11 is the proper way to test BFV performance so the claims of bias are completely unfounded.
 
Last edited:

PrincessFrosty

Platinum Member
Feb 13, 2008
2,301
12
91
www.frostyhacks.blogspot.com
#16
I find it interesting that several posters here have had visible warnings and post edits from mods for using language that the OP used.

To the OP, why assume bias on this before you get an answer from the reviewers? Maybe there's a reason they did what they did which has nothing to do with bias. Quite frankly making the leap to it being some kind of bias tells us more about you than it does the reviewers.

If you have an issue with forum moderation,
you create a post in moderator discussions.


You do not do it here.

AT Mod Usandthem
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BigDaveX

Senior member
Jun 12, 2014
343
56
116
#17
OP's idea that Nvidia is weak vs AMD in DX12 is outdated. As of Turing especially, Nvidia does very well in DX12 titles. There may be other factors in DX12 implementations, feature levels, etc, in games that can show up as inconsistencies in from title to title, but this should not be interpreted as general weaknesses of one GPU maker vs another in DX12 these days. Or is OP thinking that DX11 games should not be reviewed because it may put AMD at a disadvantage there? Maybe OP can supply his own links to reviews of recent cards that can better illustrate his grievance vs AT's reviews.
I did find one test, using the DX12 codepath added to Hitman 2 earlier this year, which shows a performance regression on the RTX 2080 under DX12 compared to DX11.

However... the same test showed that the Vega 64 also experiences a performance regression under DX12. Admittedly the regression is a lot smaller proportionally than that of the RTX 2080, but it's still well behind that card under both DX11 and DX12. So, clearly it's not the magic bullet the OP seems to think it is.
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
954
183
136
#18
I did find one test, using the DX12 codepath added to Hitman 2 earlier this year, which shows a performance regression on the RTX 2080 under DX12 compared to DX11.

However... the same test showed that the Vega 64 also experiences a performance regression under DX12. Admittedly the regression is a lot smaller proportionally than that of the RTX 2080, but it's still well behind that card under both DX11 and DX12. So, clearly it's not the magic bullet the OP seems to think it is.
You'll find the same under BFV, DX12 runs horribly for both NVIDIA and AMD, especially .1% and 1% lows which is why it makes sense to benchmark with DX11 because that's what most people play with.
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,965
230
126
#19
because that's what most people play with.
Well if you want to be precise, people with GTX1650 that OP is talking about, doesnt have 5GHz Core i9 9800K but way slower CPUs like FX8350/Core i5 2500K/Core i5 Haswell/Core i3 8100 and 4C Ryzen.

All those people will benefit greatly from DX-12 in the vast majority of Titles that support this API today.

And since you were talking about HITMAN 2,

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/hitman-2-v-directx-12-test-gpu-cpu


1080p with Core i3 8100





1080p with FX 8350



 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
954
183
136
#20
Well if you want to be precise, people with GTX1650 that OP is talking about, doesnt have 5GHz Core i9 9800K but way slower CPUs like FX8350/Core i5 2500K/Core i5 Haswell/Core i3 8100 and 4C Ryzen.

All those people will benefit greatly from DX-12 in the vast majority of Titles that support this API today.

And since you were talking about HITMAN 2,

We're in agreement that DX-12 typically delivers better FPS with lower end/weak CPUs and it's probably the case that the majority of people purchasing a 1650 will use weak CPUs, but I don't think that implies bias against AMD like OP is claiming.

Those charts for Hitman are awesome displays of CPU bottlenecks. I don't play hitman, so I can't comment on .1% and 1% frame times and overall game play (which for this type of game probably doesn't matter much).

I am fairly competitive with BFV though and have been a big FPS fan for decades and if you want the best experience possible, without compromise, it's going to be DX11, an 8700k/9700k/9900k and 2080/2080TI. It's smooth, consistent, and the .1% and 1% lows are decent even for a multiplayer experience.

I agree that on lesser hardware DX-12 can show promise for even BFV, and at that point dealing with the stutter and worse frame times is acceptable to pull higher average FPS. I'd rather have 60fps+ with some stutter than far less fps.

It's funny, BFV updated the other day and I went to play and it felt horrible, turns out it changed my monitor setting from 1440p @ 144hz to 1440p @ 60hz. It was pulling a steady 60fps but it looked/felt awful.

Please don't mistake this to think that I'm claiming DX11 is superior to DX12 or Vulcan across the board, I'm not saying that, just that with BFV the best experience possible still lies with DX11. Implementation matters and it's plainly obvious that DICE has never really cared about DX12.
 
Oct 9, 1999
11,407
86
126
#21
Games should be tested with the newest API, if they run better under an older API then maybe test that to for comparison.

You didnt see anyone testing games in DX10 mode 4 years after dx11 released, its asinine that we are seeing that with DX12 being 4 years old now and not even being benched in all games that support it.

I get it, people love to hate on DX 12, but its here its 4 years old and it should be the primary benchmark.
 

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,686
115
126
#22
I get it, people love to hate on DX 12, but its here its 4 years old and it should be the primary benchmark.
The point is to get the best possible gaming experience in a game not pick a DX, if it happens DX12 is best then use that, if it's DX9 then use that - remember games are to be played not just bench marked.
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
954
183
136
#23
The point is to get the best possible gaming experience in a game not pick a DX, if it happens DX12 is best then use that, if it's DX9 then use that - remember games are to be played not just bench marked.
Exactly. Ultimately I don't mind seeing a mix of DX11, DX12 and Vulcan games benched. I think it's a good representation of the market and what people are using.
 

Spjut

Senior member
Apr 9, 2011
835
1
91
#24
I do agree that if there's no difference between DX11 and DX12 except in performance, they should just stick to the best performing API. If DX12 performance is important, they should choose games where DX12 is the best performing API, or games that only have DX12 support.

What does make me annoyed sometimes though is indeed when benchmarks do show performance for both AMD and Nvidia using DX11, whereas the game is known to perform better in DX12 for AMD.


The Battlefield games are notorious for their bad DX12 performance, but BF5 has supposedly gotten better since the RTX patches, which do require using DX12. But many do use "future frame rendering" in DX11, which gives a performance boost but does add input lag, and I've been curious why there has been so little attention to that.


Games should be tested with the newest API, if they run better under an older API then maybe test that to for comparison.

You didnt see anyone testing games in DX10 mode 4 years after dx11 released, its asinine that we are seeing that with DX12 being 4 years old now and not even being benched in all games that support it.

I get it, people love to hate on DX 12, but its here its 4 years old and it should be the primary benchmark.
Though DX11 was alot better in games back then than DX12 is now.

But I was very annoyed that benchmarks stopped showing any DX10/10.1 card in their benchmarks, or if there was any gain in using DX10 on weaker DX11 cards.
 

renz20003

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2011
2,449
1
126
#25
So, I got a question on the review of the "Nvidia" 1650 card. HERE https://www.anandtech.com/show/14270/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650-review-feat-zotac/5 Look at, for instance, the latest battlefield game, that you guys only use the DX11 mode for this Nvidia review, and we all know Nvidia favors DX11 better than AMD does, if you would of just used the most "natural" choice for this modern GPU that will be running mostly DX12 games from this point on, yet you opt for the DX11 mode lol, not just for this game but for all the games, go-figure!, Gotta do everything you can to make Nvidia look better, eh?,,

Why in the world, in 2019, are so called "Professional" GPU & Game Reviewers and Editors dodging the DirectX 12 version of these games used to bench "specifically" Nvidia cards, especially the mid to lower range cards, and instead "cherry" pick games that still happen to have a DirectX 11 mode which is meant for older cards that only have DX 11 hardware feature-sets in these older GPUs? This is a modern day, cutting edge GPU that will be running mostly DX12 games, yet, of course, go cheat and do what you can to make Nvidia look better in this review, right? Of course!

Well, wait a second, I'll answer it for the "Professional" PC GPU & Game reviewers. Its because the latest and great Nvidia GPU cores still happen to lag behind another "Rival" GPU Hardware Company that has, a great great deal of superior DirectX 12 hardware feature-sets in its modern day GPU's, INCLUDING THE MID TO LOW RANGE GPUs. So what does these so called "Professional" PC GPU/Game reviewers and editors do, because they have a hidden dislike for AMD GPUs and in the depths of their inner soul, ....well the blatantly easy, clear as crystal answer is do everything possible to make sure AMD gets no justice, no honest truth about how well AMD's Mid to Low Tier GPUs perform on "Modern Day" and "Cutting Edge" game engines that are now coming out left and right in droves, and has been for the last 6 to 12 months now,.

Yet, us poor souls, well not me, I know better, to follow and believe the inner-bias that, YES! Even so called "Professional" PC GPU Hardware/Game Reviewers dish out these days because the truth is, most of these Reviewers and Editors also have biased attitudes towards specific Brands of PC hardware, can you believe that???? Yes its hard to swallow some times when i sit here monkeying around with a few of my own Nvidia based PC builds and gaming on both my Nvidia based builds and AMD builds, You see, its a true passion of mine, a true love for this hobby we all love, yet in this day and age, a lot of poor souls that really don't know any better are being brainwashed to believe in a specific Brand of GPU manufacture because some schmuck that does reviews of PC hardware & Games persuade thousands upon thousands of folks researching GPUs because he or she is in the market to buy a GPU and wants one to last a long time, since money does not grow on trees, most of us gotta work hard for it, so buying the "Best Bang For Buck" GPU is the utmost importance..yet some dude or dudette that claims to be a "Professional" Reviewer of PC hardware pumps out Review afer Review, that almost always holds favor towards Nvidia over AMD.

And the worst part about these kind of Nvidia Biased Reviews, these so called Professional Reviewers know damn well that DirectX 11 games is just about dead in a grave while DirectX 12 games are now the future from last year moving forward beyond even the next generation, all thanks to AMD's knack for always being on the cutting edge,. So this guy or girl splashed down his/her hard earned cash for a Nvidia 1650, thinking this GPU will last for years to come, all while the Nvidia 1650's equivalent, AMD's 570 literally runs circles around Nvidia's 1650 IN ALL DIRECTX 12 Games, all while if this person had bought the AMD 570, would of gladly paid less for the RX 570 and most important of all, is far more well-suited for the future than its Nvidia equivalent, the GTX 1650.

You know what? You reviewers that have a inner-fanboysim syndrome in the depths of your hearts have no business doing reviews, and just as important, you have no real love and appreciation for PC Hardware/Gaming either, because your thoughts and insights is too pent-up with a biased attitude to even enjoy this damn hobby, let alone, lead some poor guy/gal to the best-bang-for-buck GPU that he/she had to work hard for to buy and want that purchase to last as long as possible.

You so called Professionals have brought the ugly, ruthlessness of "American Politics" into the PC Hardware/Gaming scene that a lot of us honestly cherish and love but yet we are being brainwashed by stupid angry biased attitudes because you know dman well AMD GPUs honestly, are far more efficient at DirectX 12 games, which is the future for the far foreseeable future when these next round of Game Consoles come out next year (Xbox Next/PS5) Which are all being built with AMD hardware (Zen 2 CPUs) and a AMD Hybrid GPU that has both Vega & Navi GPU features, which of course, are specifically, the most up-to-date DirectX 12 hardware features.

PS I am too tired to spell check this, sorry for this but my question is, when you reviewers and editors gonna start doing some honest work??? You guys are ruining it for a lot of folks, in more ways than you think.
I personally love AMD hardware, its their drivers I cant stand :rolleyes:
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS