POLL: Are Anandtech's Video articles weak?

[VIAN]

The idea for this thread sparked from the recently released ATI drivers performance evolution article.

Here're my questions: How do you feel about their articles? What would you change?

 

[VIAN]

I think they release few articles to worry about driver performance evolution. Why not the image quality article? They need to brush up on their technical writing skills a bit by not assuming that we know certain things. I want to know more about driver settings, did you change them. I read an article recently where it could have helped if I had known what the settings were.

They need to aspire to do more. Bench the video cards using the maximum image quality settings possible. Tell me about the image quality. Do they think it's worth losing the image quality in the default settings to get those extra fps? Are AA & AF the only settings that matter, or have recent driver changes included other image enhancing option that you don't even bother with? What are the image quality comparisons with it on and off and how does it compare with the competition?

 

[Ackmed]

I voted for the 3rd option. I have stated before, that I dont think they test cards well enough. Their 512MB GTX review, didnt even use AF. To me, that is just not acceptable. Also, they dont use TRAA, or AAA. Nor do they show the advantage of them, and hit on frames. No HDR performance, and no image quality comparison. The X1's have better AF, but the readers sure would not know it by reading AT's reviews. Nor would they know that they can do HDR in games that NV cannot.

Its time to move on from the "1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF" mold of reviews. Cards today can do much more than before, and these new features need to be in the reviews. More AF, more features, more image comparisons, more resolutions (WS), and I would really like to see numbers from both sets of cards, at their highest quality settings within the drivers. I realize the last is a bit of a streach, but it is something I would like to see.

 

[SolMiester]

Image quality is a personal opinion and most users dont have monitors that handle more than 1600x1200. As a benchmark I think 1600x1200 AA/AF is acceptable.
However HDR, AAA & TRAA is a relevant request, although how many monitors are out there that support HDR and how many users do you think can afford them?

 

[Ackmed]

Image quality is not always a personal opinion. Sometimes its a fact which has better IQ.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
I voted for the 3rd option. I have stated before, that I dont think they test cards well enough. Their 512MB GTX review, didnt even use AF. To me, that is just not acceptable. Also, they dont use TRAA, or AAA. Nor do they show the advantage of them, and hit on frames. No HDR performance, and no image quality comparison. The X1's have better AF, but the readers sure would not know it by reading AT's reviews. Nor would they know that they can do HDR in games that NV cannot.

Its time to move on from the "1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF" mold of reviews. Cards today can do much more than before, and these new features need to be in the reviews. More AF, more features, more image comparisons, more resolutions (WS), and I would really like to see numbers from both sets of cards, at their highest quality settings within the drivers. I realize the last is a bit of a streach, but it is something I would like to see.

Agree with everything said above.

 

[johnnqq]

there has to be MORE. MORE variables and MORE tests (said from above). different aa, blah blah. (one test i've alwasy wanted was a budget based test. maybe an athlon 64 3000 with a bunch of card at 1280x1024 so we can see how the game will perform with a limited cpu that most of us own.)

 

[moonboy403]

i think the articles from firingsquad are much more indepth

 

[Wentelteefje]

AT's articles aren't bad, but every time I need to look up a review of a graphics card, at least I know I can go to AT.com if I want to know something about the real world power draw of them e.g.... I browse through several articles every time... You have to know where to get all the info... Nothing's perfect... PCStats is rather good, but they use old and very few interesting benchmarks...

BTW I absolutely hate how XBitLabs does their pages... When you're in the article, and you want to go to another game test you'd like to see, you are obliged to go to the first page again and look it up...

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Image quality is a personal opinion and most users dont have monitors that handle more than 1600x1200. As a benchmark I think 1600x1200 AA/AF is acceptable.
However HDR, AAA & TRAA is a relevant request, although how many monitors are out there that support HDR and how many users do you think can afford them?

HDR doesn't have anything to do with your monitor, perhaps you're thinking of HDCP?

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
I voted for the 3rd option. I have stated before, that I dont think they test cards well enough. Their 512MB GTX review, didnt even use AF. To me, that is just not acceptable. Also, they dont use TRAA, or AAA. Nor do they show the advantage of them, and hit on frames. No HDR performance, and no image quality comparison. The X1's have better AF, but the readers sure would not know it by reading AT's reviews. Nor would they know that they can do HDR in games that NV cannot.

Its time to move on from the "1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF" mold of reviews. Cards today can do much more than before, and these new features need to be in the reviews. More AF, more features, more image comparisons, more resolutions (WS), and I would really like to see numbers from both sets of cards, at their highest quality settings within the drivers. I realize the last is a bit of a streach, but it is something I would like to see.

well said

can you explain the bit in bold?

or did you mean ATI can HDR + AA in games that Nvidia cant

 

[biostud]

They're a bit simple compaired to other reviews.

Personally I'm not really interested in using time comparing different brands of the same reference design card.

Other aspects of the hardware than fps would be very interesting too, but most are covered on other pages too so it doesn't matter too much.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Ackmed
I voted for the 3rd option. I have stated before, that I dont think they test cards well enough. Their 512MB GTX review, didnt even use AF. To me, that is just not acceptable. Also, they dont use TRAA, or AAA. Nor do they show the advantage of them, and hit on frames. No HDR performance, and no image quality comparison. The X1's have better AF, but the readers sure would not know it by reading AT's reviews. Nor would they know that they can do HDR in games that NV cannot.

Its time to move on from the "1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF" mold of reviews. Cards today can do much more than before, and these new features need to be in the reviews. More AF, more features, more image comparisons, more resolutions (WS), and I would really like to see numbers from both sets of cards, at their highest quality settings within the drivers. I realize the last is a bit of a streach, but it is something I would like to see.

well said

can you explain the bit in bold?

or did you mean ATI can HDR + AA in games that Nvidia cant

Yes, that is what I ment, sorry.

 

[Munky]

And can we stop with the 1024x768 0x0x benches already? Who's gonna buy a $600 card to play at those settings? If a game is playable at 16x12 4x8x then there's no reason to even post no AA benches for that game. Instead, post benches for even higher IQ, like with TRAA, HQ AF. I liked the AT reviews back in the FX cards era, when they tested IQ, and filtering methods; nowadays they just assume nobody is using IQ hacks in the drivers, which I find hard to believe.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Wentelteefje
BTW I absolutely hate how XBitLabs does their pages... When you're in the article, and you want to go to another game test you'd like to see, you are obliged to go to the first page again and look it up...

LOL, I completely agree. I just stay on the main page and go test by test, just hitting back to pick another page; LOL

Anyway, one thing I'm seeing is it is the new writers. Derek is the Senior Editor of the video section and I've always liked his reviews. This new stuff lately has been pretty weak. I haven't read the driver article yet, but I don't know if I want to waste my time on it either....

 

[nitromullet]

At the recommendation of a lot of AT forum members, I've checked out Rage3d, and they have a cool feature where you can click the level of eye candy for each benchmark. I like this a lot, and the only thing I would recommend that they add to that is a "max settings" option as well that shows how the cards compare to each other with their respective max settings. AT doesn't even bench with AF... I just don't understand that. I think the last time I played a game at 1024x768 noAA/noAF was back when I played FarCry on my FX5900. Low IQ benchmarks like that aren't really applicable anymore for higher end gear, and AT needs acknowledge that.

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: johnnqq
there has to be MORE. MORE variables and MORE tests (said from above). different aa, blah blah. (one test i've alwasy wanted was a budget based test. maybe an athlon 64 3000 with a bunch of card at 1280x1024 so we can see how the game will perform with a limited cpu that most of us own.)

I do think the endless Athlon64 Clawhammer 4000+ or FX CPU benchmarks leave a lot of users guessing at how well they will really perform for them. Perhaps they should use a 3000+ and a 4000+ to allow more people to see what they will get from a card.

I think the 7800GT review of 3 manufacturers was a bit sad, it didn't really give people any info that would be of use. I'd like to see how modern cards (current & previous gen) fare with "System Hogs" like Everquest 2.

That said, I find the AT forums more useful than the site (sometimes), as you get a wide variety of Consumer opinions on hardware and software. Gives a more thorough insight into what is worth the money and what isn't.

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

Originally posted by: Wentelteefje
BTW I absolutely hate how XBitLabs does their pages... When you're in the article, and you want to go to another game test you'd like to see, you are obliged to go to the first page again and look it up...

LOL, I completely agree. I just stay on the main page and go test by test, just hitting back to pick another page; LOL

Anyway, one thing I'm seeing is it is the new writers. Derek is the Senior Editor of the video section and I've always liked his reviews. This new stuff lately has been pretty weak. I haven't read the driver article yet, but I don't know if I want to waste my time on it either....

I definately agree about the different writiers. I smile a little whenever I see an Anand written article because I know it will be well written. Some of the new writers leave a bit to be desired. Speaking of writers, does anyone know of a thread or page on AT thats lists the staff? Not just the main listing that only has Anand, Kristopher, Wesley, Derek, and a few others, but everyone who writes and their departments?

 

[dguy6789]

I for one would like to see them include some older cards in every article. Sure the new 7800 or X1800 has come out, but probably more than 90% of all gamers still use 9800 Pro and lower level cards. I am sure the average reader wants to know how his 9600 Pro or FX5200 plays AoE3 and Black and White 2.

The reader may also be reading the articles to decide what to upgrade to. What can be better than having your old video card and the new cards you may be considering in the very same article with the very same system shown side by side allowing you to see the real world performance difference between the two?