Is it me or is [H]ardOCP an ATI Fanboy site !!!!

[murban135]

Originally posted by: obsidian

Originally posted by: MechxWarrior
Kyle/Brent pick the HIGHEST graphic quality they can find with playable rates. They decide the playable rates by ACTUALLY playing the game, not by picking a magic number.

I don't need someone telling me what a playable framerate is. I am able to decide that myself. But I guess if you cannot then HardOCP is your place to go.

I think you are missing the point. HardOCP tests video cards by playing games. If a card performs above a certain limit it is judged to be superior to one that does not.

 

[imported_obsidian]

Originally posted by: murban135
I think you are missing the point. HardOCP tests video cards by playing games. If a card performs above a certain limit it is judged to be superior to one that does not.

And I think you are missing the point. I can figure that out all by myself. I don't need some half-asked review showing me 1 resolution/aa/af per game. Pathetic really.

 

[TStep]

Only a fool takes a few chosen maunufacturers or websites and places there faith in them. It is all information to be taken with a grain of salt. The more information you get, the more informed you are in your purchase. It's your $$$, not theirs.

Hard does it differently from other websites, and I am 100% for it. I can only look at so many bar charts without feeling deja vu when reading a review. There is a multitude of fps reviews out there, but few like Hard reviews. I also like the current Xbit and Extreme Tech reviews. No frames per second included, only IQ comparisons. Who cares if you feel they are slighted towards a particular manufacturer, they are providing information that the consumer should be smart enough to decifer, especially around these forums.

I even read the fanboy posts around here just to see everyones take on the pluses and minuses on their beloved manufacturer. What better way to find out what could possibly be disappointing aspects of a card than to read what someone who hates it has to say.

My $0.02

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: MechxWarrior
Kyle/Brent pick the HIGHEST graphic quality they can find with playable rates. They decide the playable rates by ACTUALLY playing the game, not by picking a magic number.

They DONT use synthetic benchmarks AT ALL, which is why I love them. I dont want some FAKE application telling me how good it is, I dont have a vid card to watch a loop, I have it to play farcry on. Hard showed how much more detail and everything the PRO alone can do over the nVidia, let alone the XT. THats what matters to me. Not max FPS when they dont mean a damn thing if you dont know everything thats happening.

You dont like it, fine. Go grow your e-penis on some site showing pure frames. I dont care. What matters to me is what matters to me. Hate Hard? Good. Dont cry about it.

Hey buddy chill out or ill report you. No one in here appreciated or wanted to hear that post (specific parts). If you have an opinion voice it but please leave out all the other crap you put in there. Also you have no solid facts in your post, you have all subjectivity, if you back up your post you will earn much more credit .

Now for the picking and choosing stuff. When you benchmark a game you keep the settings the same. You keep the drivers at the latest available. What they are doing is inputting subjectivity into Journalism. As for you words about not using synthetic benchmarks, neither does anandtech. Everyone does benches on specific parts in games, and they use the "fake application" such as 3dmark01 and 03.

Right now i agree that both companies are using cheating/ optimizing methods on there cards to be the fastest. Also i believe that Nvidia did the right thing by announcing what they did, however i do believe Nvidias optimizing techniques are not as good as ATIs/ I do not agree with ATI's approach because they basically looked us in the face and said we are not doing that, whicih was a lie. However ATI's optimizing techniques are superb.

|H|'s problem is they have no control. They have no standard to go buy they just start playing a game. They need a set area to loop and test on both cards, otherwise, of course one card is going to fluctuate up and down.

Also |H| neglects Nvidias drivers. They do not use the latest which has been shown to increase performance significantly.

As to the sly comments made about people supporting Nvidia are jealous because they are not favouring Nvidia, no! They are jealous because they are not giving nvidia a chance in hell to compete. They do not favour ATI too much, but they neglect Nvidia, they dont put them on equal ground. That is the problem.

-Kevin

 

[imported_obsidian]

Originally posted by: Dean

Originally posted by: obsidian

Originally posted by: MechxWarrior
Kyle/Brent pick the HIGHEST graphic quality they can find with playable rates. They decide the playable rates by ACTUALLY playing the game, not by picking a magic number.

I don't need someone telling me what a playable framerate is. I am able to decide that myself.

Thats the thing! You do not need to agree with what they deem as playable. You can take their results and apply it towards what performance you like though and it will give you a decent idea of what settings you can play a game at with a given video card. Tell me, do you honestly believe that canned benchmarks showing an average FPS is any indicator at all of performance inside a game?

What would you feel safer with? A canned benchmark showing an AVERAGE fps of 40fps or a H benchmark showing a MINIMUM of 30 fps benching from actually playing the game using Fraps?

I already said I like the min/max fps. What I don't like is the ONE set of resolution/aa/af settings they benchmark. It's almost like they are being lazy and claiming it as being different.

 

[SgtZulu]

What about the hyperthreading debacle? Putting up a bunch of BS numbers and then banning all the people that call you on it is what Kyle is best known for. No wonder their forums are now filled with n00b. Once again HardOCP.com has ZERO CREDIBILITY.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: MDE
The problem with their reviews is that Kyle decides what he thinks is playable, which is completely subjective. Everyone has a different level of "playable" framerates. I may say 30 FPS is enough, while someone else may say that they need 85 FPS minumum. IMO, there's no way to come up with universally accepted minimum playable framerate.

This is exactly the issue in a nutshell. I only play fps, my minimum framerate might be a lot higher than Kyle's.

Didn't he also start setting nVidia to maximum quality settings with brilinear disabled and ATI to high performance, because he judged them about equal?

I'm amazed nVidia still gives him cards to review apparently. He goes out of his way to make them look bad from what I can tell.

 

[Dean]

I already said I like the min/max fps. What I don't like is the ONE set of resolution/aa/af settings they benchmark. It's almost like they are being lazy and claiming it as being different.

They are showing a game being played at which they feel is the maximum playable settings for that given video card. All settings below that Maximum setting is going to be faster and more than likely CPU limited. Remember its a video card being reviewed and not a CPU.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: MechxWarrior
Kyle/Brent pick the HIGHEST graphic quality they can find with playable rates. They decide the playable rates by ACTUALLY playing the game, not by picking a magic number.

They DONT use synthetic benchmarks AT ALL, which is why I love them. I dont want some FAKE application telling me how good it is, I dont have a vid card to watch a loop, I have it to play farcry on. Hard showed how much more detail and everything the PRO alone can do over the nVidia, let alone the XT. THats what matters to me. Not max FPS when they dont mean a damn thing if you dont know everything thats happening.

You dont like it, fine. Go grow your e-penis on some site showing pure frames. I dont care. What matters to me is what matters to me. Hate Hard? Good. Dont cry about it.

You sure like to YELL a lot.

Your self esteem seems to depend on how much people pimp ATI? But then again I'm sure you would love HardOCP just as much if he did things like only test in full trilinear and show the 6800U stomping a X800Pro flat, right?

 

[ZobarStyl]

The scientific method is only valid with a control to compare one's results to and also if the results can be replicated indefinitely by any independent source. That's what strikes a chord with the NV fans is that the review doesn't seem in keeping other reviews (those showing the 6800U slightly below/on par with x800xt's) and mainly because the objectivity is out the window with a single AA/AF setup and on unequivalent resolutions. That's why AT's benches are so popular - they use multiple resolutions with different AA/AF settings, but they do them equally, none of this subjective "playable" nonsense. I'd like if AT would make their bar graphs have 3 different points; min fps, average (what we get now) and max fps for a more well-rounded review, but as for HardOCP, ATi fanboys or not their methodology is questionable at best.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I agree but you need some sort of a constant in the graphing. Basically they put everything where they felt like. By constant i mean latest drivers, same settings, none of the subjectiveness.

-Kevin

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Dean

I already said I like the min/max fps. What I don't like is the ONE set of resolution/aa/af settings they benchmark. It's almost like they are being lazy and claiming it as being different.

They are showing a game being played at which they feel is the maximum playable settings for that given video card. All settings below that Maximum setting is going to be faster and more than likely CPU limited. Remember its a video card being reviewed and not a CPU.

Errr, Dean, a lot of people have said this, but maybe one more will get through to you:

1. We all like the min/ave/max part
2. We all dislike the one (different) setting part.

As wise as Kyle is, it's within the realm of possibility some of us have different standards for "playable" than he does and don't really care what he calls playable.

He'd be better off posting 10X7 4X8X. 12X10 4X8X, and 16X12 4X 8X, with the min/max/ave on cards of this level.

 

[ChkSix]

I think HardOCP is a horribly biased site that is completely unprofessional. They also have zero credibility in my book. It is ok to favor one brand over the other if that is your personal preference, however when your news is displayed and read by the public as a source of information, leaning should never go either way or to any particular brand. They have yet to do that as far as I'm concerned. And that is proven in their n00b forums that shoot anyone down with an IQ 10 points higher than their own with a difference of opinion.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Rollo
He'd be better off posting 10X7 4X8X. 12X10 4X8X, and 16X12 4X 8X, with the min/max/ave on cards of this level.

The whole point of the way they're reviewing is to get AWAY from "Here's a bunch of FPS graphs". :disgust:

Look, what he's doing is not as far out in left field as some of you think. Rather than holding the settings constant and letting the FPS vary across the cards (useful for comparing raw power of graphics cards, but possibly not the best way to tell which is more 'playable' in a game), HardOCP is trying to hold the FPS constant and vary the settings (thus giving you an idea of what settings are 'playable' in a game). As has been pointed out, this is a TERRIBLE way to compare exactly how much faster card A is than card B, especially since there may be multiple 'playable' settings for cards (for instance, 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8x high-quality AF may run the same speed as 1280x1024 with 2xAA and 4x low-quality AF). But if what you care about is how well the cards actually work while gaming, it's not a bad idea. And there are a gazillion other reviews out there which do things the other way, so if you don't like it, read those rather than complaining about the one site doing it differently.

One thing that I think might help his reviews is if he had multiple 'playable' settings -- that is, show what settings give you (I'm just throwing out numbers here) a 90/60/30 average FPS, or certain minimum FPS, or something like that. That would give a better idea of 'what IQ can I get while still running at X FPS'?

 

[Genx87]

What would you feel safer with? A canned benchmark showing an AVERAGE fps of 40fps or a H benchmark showing a MINIMUM of 30 fps benching from actually playing the game using Fraps?

How about when it goes into a negative frame per second?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Rollo
He'd be better off posting 10X7 4X8X. 12X10 4X8X, and 16X12 4X 8X, with the min/max/ave on cards of this level.

The whole point of the way they're reviewing is to get AWAY from "Here's a bunch of FPS graphs". :disgust:

Look, what he's doing is not as far out in left field as some of you think. Rather than holding the settings constant and letting the FPS vary across the cards (useful for comparing raw power of graphics cards, but possibly not the best way to tell which is more 'playable' in a game), HardOCP is trying to hold the FPS constant and vary the settings (thus giving you an idea of what settings are 'playable' in a game). As has been pointed out, this is a TERRIBLE way to compare exactly how much faster card A is than card B, especially since there may be multiple 'playable' settings for cards (for instance, 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8x high-quality AF may run the same speed as 1280x1024 with 2xAA and 4x low-quality AF). But if what you care about is how well the cards actually work while gaming, it's not a bad idea. And there are a gazillion other reviews out there which do things the other way, so if you don't like it, read those rather than complaining about the one site doing it differently.

One thing that I think might help his reviews is if he had multiple 'playable' settings -- that is, show what settings give you (I'm just throwing out numbers here) a 90/60/30 average FPS, or certain minimum FPS, or something like that. That would give a better idea of 'what IQ can I get while still running at X FPS'?

The playable settings benching they use is still not much help to me though. I use a A64 system so what a 3.2ghz P4 does with the hardware means precisely dick to me if taken at face value. Then let's add the factor of the forceware drivers improving performance in some games when the FX or nv40 based cards are coupled with nF3 250GB compared to if they are coupled with another chipset, and that further removes the usefulness of those tests for someone using that combo. Why? because you are still forced to go look at all the other reviews to see how a system as close to your's as possible compares to the rig he used with the same card in order to extrapolate wether or not his "playable" settings accurately reflect what your playable settings would be.

Hey, he wants to blaze a new trail, I say more power to him, but without testing the "playable"settings for that cards on different chipsets and platforms the findings, in and of themselves, are far too limited to be of any real use to me. As a piece of the puzzle though, it does have the merit of allowing me to take his "different" format, add it to the other standard format testing with hardware more closely reflecting my own, and use it all to make a more informed purchasing decision. So I guess my opinion is that I don't see his methodology as a big plus due to it's limited scope, but the potential for how it could help add more useful data to evaluate when combined with the data from standard testing formats makes me think this is worth continuing and developing.

 

[eastvillager]

You fanboys really crack me up.

HardOCP is a hardware enthusiast site. You can expect them to have a boner for whichever offering they feel is currently the best. What you're calling 'biased' isn't bias at all, it is their opinion, based upon their experiences. ATI has the best product at this time, nvidia has... well, umm, they have some nice paper.

If you want a 24x7 eternal nvidia site, or a 24x7 eternal ati site, you need to go elsewhere.






oh, ps, I like the new review methods. But, then again, I spend my time gaming, not equating FPS to epeen measurements and then comparing them with everybody else of similar ilk.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: eastvillager
You fanboys really crack me up.

HardOCP is a hardware enthusiast site. You can expect them to have a boner for whichever offering they feel is currently the best. What you're calling 'biased' isn't bias at all, it is their opinion, based upon their experiences. ATI has the best product at this time, nvidia has... well, umm, they have some nice paper.

If you want a 24x7 eternal nvidia site, or a 24x7 eternal ati site, you need to go elsewhere.






oh, ps, I like the new review methods. But, then again, I spend my time gaming, not equating FPS to epeen measurements and then comparing them with everybody else of similar ilk.

Come on dude leave out the sexual comments, there not needed.

Seconldy ATI has realeased there card. Yes Nvidia is still on paper but ther is NO WAY to judge which one is "winning" They are both awesome cards, and until Nvidias architecture matures a little, and they get good drivers out, and for that matter a card lol we wont know. Both solutions are awesome.

However |H| is biased, for the reasons everyone listed above. There is no doubt about that but trying to go in depth a bit more things start to make more sense, but nonehteless, |H| is either extremely stupid for benchmarking this way (not actual FPS, but not same settings, drivers and stuff like that), or blind. But one thing is for sure they do have a bias.

-Kevin

 

[ronnn]

If you guys do not like hard cop just don't read it, same as you all dumped futuremark. Personally when it is time to upgrade, I will read it along with sites like Anandtech and even Toms. No one review has covered everything that I find relevent, which is why diversity is good. Most sites hardly even mention the noise level - saying personally neither bothered them (sounds like hardcop on other issues). No facts just a subjective statement. This fair as it alerts me to look else where for that information. :wine:

 

[Curley]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Seconldy ATI has realeased there card. Yes Nvidia is still on paper but ther is NO WAY to judge which one is "winning" They are both awesome cards, and until Nvidias architecture matures a little, and they get good drivers out, and for that matter a card lol we wont know. Both solutions are awesome.


-Kevin

I was just going to say the same thing. The fact is the ATI cards beats any Nvidia card on the market at the moment.

How can you not be bias. ATI has released thier cards, they are running games as we speak.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can't go to an e-tailer or Bestbuy and buy one of each and compare them, then there is not debate as to who has the better card.

Remeber the Voodoo 5 6000 that many people had for reviews, but never made it out to market. I am sure Nvidia will eventually release thier cards but until then, ATI rules.

I can't wait for the 6800 Ultra because of it's hardware encoder for my editing boxes, so not matter whose card is better for gaming, I'm waiting for the 6800 for other reasons.

 

[imported_TheMessiah13]

Why is a site being biased a bad thing in this instance? I would welcome more sites like this that look so intently on ATi and their cheats. I don't just want to know what good the cards can do, but what bad things the companies are doing.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Rollo
He'd be better off posting 10X7 4X8X. 12X10 4X8X, and 16X12 4X 8X, with the min/max/ave on cards of this level.

The whole point of the way they're reviewing is to get AWAY from "Here's a bunch of FPS graphs". :disgust:

Look, what he's doing is not as far out in left field as some of you think. Rather than holding the settings constant and letting the FPS vary across the cards (useful for comparing raw power of graphics cards, but possibly not the best way to tell which is more 'playable' in a game), HardOCP is trying to hold the FPS constant and vary the settings (thus giving you an idea of what settings are 'playable' in a game). As has been pointed out, this is a TERRIBLE way to compare exactly how much faster card A is than card B, especially since there may be multiple 'playable' settings for cards (for instance, 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8x high-quality AF may run the same speed as 1280x1024 with 2xAA and 4x low-quality AF). But if what you care about is how well the cards actually work while gaming, it's not a bad idea. And there are a gazillion other reviews out there which do things the other way, so if you don't like it, read those rather than complaining about the one site doing it differently.

One thing that I think might help his reviews is if he had multiple 'playable' settings -- that is, show what settings give you (I'm just throwing out numbers here) a 90/60/30 average FPS, or certain minimum FPS, or something like that. That would give a better idea of 'what IQ can I get while still running at X FPS'?

Well said. Plus I don't see what people are so upset about, HardOCP does the other bechmarks other sites do as well, they are listed right below if that's your thing.


I am a little dismayed they choose to use a slow pentium platform for gamming.

 

[VisableAssassin]

Originally posted by: SgtZulu
What about the hyperthreading debacle? Putting up a bunch of BS numbers and then banning all the people that call you on it is what Kyle is best known for. No wonder their forums are now filled with n00b. Once again HardOCP.com has ZERO CREDIBILITY.

Ive been with the H since 2000 and I dont remember that

Either way their reviews are nice...i dont like they way they test with different resolutions. Either way I always look for the results at 1024x768....yeah im not hard to please am i?
but thats all I game at and Im happy with it
perhaps later on ill move to 12x10 or 16x12....but im in no rush

 

[reever]

6. As for the driver related issues, Nvidia needs time, they are working with an entirely new architecture

no architecture is going to be "entirely" new compared to the other these days

 

[videoclone]

OK for all you idiots out there HardOCP?s benchmarks do not match up with 20 other reviews of the same product they have the product performing diferant from other review sites that have the product reviewed identical that means HARDOCP are full of crap and just make up numbers. ? They are not the right ones they are wrong and all other sites are correct.

And as for gaming Benchmarks Anandtech has been doing only gaming benchmakes for a very long time now and its inline with all other sites and there game tests.


HECK they even had a 9800XT beating a 6800Ultra in the last review I saw! LOL