Should AT include OC'd Cards in Reviews?

[blastingcap]

*snip*

I don't see a poll in this thread and thus it deserves to be fixed, merged into the "OC controversy" thread, or locked.

 

[blastingcap]

Anand did the best of both worlds - the included a reference gtx460 and a factory overclocked gtx460. They talked about the difference between the two cards (including the price difference) and they didn't emphasize any one particular thing about the evga gtx460.

If, in three weeks, Nvidia releases a 384 shader gf104 and Anand includes factory overclocked 6850 and 6870 cards along side reference models, I'm all for it so long as it's indicated and the price differences are mentioned.

AT's solution sucked because lots of people just look at charts, where there are bench numbers but no prices. The prices need to be in the charts themselves if you include OC'd versions. Either that or the asterisk system as was mentioned earlier in this thread, or a mandatory price/perf chart.

Frankly I think that even Tom's Hardware had a better solution that AT. Shame!

 

[AnandThenMan]

If you're going to make a poll, don't post a bunch of stuff to immediately influence the outcome of the poll (I didn't read what you wrote yet).

 

[Hard Ball]

If you're going to make a poll, don't post a bunch of stuff to immediately influence the outcome of the poll (I didn't read what you wrote yet).

Point taken;

That's why I separated the original question from MHO with dashed lines. But I will move this part to a separate post.

 

[Hard Ball]

My personal take on this is that, in this specific instance, AT has done nothing wrong. Since it is clearly stated in multi-paragraph detail of what exactly happened in the days and hours prior to the reviews being published, and how NV intentionally pressured reviewer (reviewers in all likelihood) to publish results. How AT came to the decision seems to have been well thought out, with rationale independent of the pressure exerted from NV, while being fully aware of the sketchiness of NV's tactics in this instance, while not bowing to the pressure itself.

Personally, I don't think I have a problem of including an OCed card that is widely available for additional information, as long as it's made clear that this type of performance and OC should not be expected from most of the variants of this model (GTX 460 in this instance).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987/...renewing-competition-in-the-midrange-market/7

As a matter of editorial policy we do not include overclocked cards on general reviews. As a product, reference cards will continue to be produced for quite a while, with good products continuing on for years. Overclocked cards on the other hand come and go depending on market conditions, and even worse no two overclocked cards are alike. If we did normally include overclocked cards, our charts would be full of cards that are only different by 5MHz.

However with the 6800 launch NVIDIA is pushing the overclocked GTX 460 option far harder than we’ve seen them push overclocked cards in the past –we had an EVGA GTX 460 1GB FTW on our doorstep before we were even back from Los Angeles. Given how well the GTX 460 overclocks and how many heavily overclocked cards there are on the market, we believe there is at least some merit to NVIDIA’s arguments, so in this case we went ahead and included the EVGA card in our review. As a reference point it's clocked at 850Mhz and 4GHz memory versus 675MHz core and 3.6MHz memory for a stock GTX 460, giving it a massive 26% core overclock and a much more moderate 11% memory overclock.

On one hand, I don't think many conscientious buys would be "duped" by such a review including a heavily OCed part, as most of the people who care enough to come to a site like AT to read a thorough review such as this, is not likely to miss the rather prominent caveat in the article and profuse denunciation of NV's practices.

What they could have done better, is to segregate the results from the OCed cards. Perhaps a few readers would have spent so little time as only to look at the graphs of the benchmarks, that and for some reason not notice the "OC" tags next to the appropriate bars. For this group, it probably would have been advisable to change the view format of these graphs and their captions in the review. And ryan himself seems to recognize the potential dangers in doing that.

However with that we’ll attach the biggest disclaimer we can that while we’re including the card, we don’t believe NVIDIA is taking the right action here. If they were serious about having a higher clocked GTX 460 on the market, then they need to make a new product, such as a GTX 461. Without NVIDIA establishing guidelines, these overclocked GTX 460 cards can vary in clockspeed, cooling, and ultimately performance by a very wide margin. In primary reviews such as these we’re interested in looking at cards that will be around for a while, and without an official product from NVIDIA there’s no guarantee any of these factory overclocked cards will still be around.

If nothing else, pushing overclocked cards makes for a messy situation for buyer. An official product provides a baseline of performance that buyers can see in reviews like ours and expect in any cards they buy. With overclocked cards, this is absent. Pushing factory overclocked cards may give NVIDIA a competitive product, but it’s being done in a way we can’t approve of.

(Mods, feel free to close or merge this, if it is deemed redundant; just wanted to insert a poll since the original had none)

 

[tviceman]

AT's solution sucked because lots of people just look at charts, where there are bench numbers but no prices. The prices need to be in the charts themselves if you include OC'd versions. Either that or the asterisk system as was mentioned earlier in this thread, or a mandatory price/perf chart.

Frankly I think that even Tom's Hardware had a better solution that AT. Shame!

I frankly disagree with you. The card is clearly indicated by "EVGA GTX 460 1 gig FTW (OC)" in the graphs and is clearly different from "Nvidia Geforce GTX460 1 gig". When the idiots (that you are so worried about misinterpreting the results) skip the article, only read the graphs, and see "EVGA GTX 460 1 gig FTW (OC)" you assume said idiots will think that "EVGA GTX 460 1 gig FTW (OC)" means any gtx 460 even though in the graphs it is clearly labeled "EVGA GTX 460 1 gig FTW (OC)" and at no point anywhere in any graphs does it say anything otherwise.

It's not misleading, it's representative of how that card as it comes shipped to your doorstep will perform vs. other cards.

 

[happy medium]

I don't think there ia anything wrong with having a gtx460 FTW in the review.
If I were a buyer reading the review I would be comparing price/performance of the 6870,6850 and the gtx460 ftw.

So I would click my on my favorite website (newegg) and come up with this......

6870 248$ shipped
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-909-_-Product

gtx460 FTW 237$ and 219$ AR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-575-_-Product

6850 187$ shipped
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-908-_-Product

gtx460 stock 189$ and 169$ AR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...E&PageSize=100

Then I check which one is faster at the best price I want to pay.
I thought everyone shops like that?

I don't see whats the difference how they review the cards or what prices if any they use. When you go to shop your gonna find out anyway, right?
Most reviews give the wrong prices anyway ,I always find them cheaper.

I would say the prices were very close to the performance of all these cards.

 

[Hard Ball]

I don't see a poll in this thread and thus it deserves to be fixed, merged into the "OC controversy" thread, or locked.

Oh, it took a while to formulate the poll; you saw it during it's intermediate state in limbo;

now it's up.

 

[blastingcap]

I frankly disagree with you. The card is clearly indicated by "EVGA GTX 460 1 gig FTW (OC)" in the graphs and is clearly different from "Nvidia Geforce GTX460 1 gig". When the idiots (that you are so worried about misinterpreting the results) skip the article, only read the graphs, and see "EVGA GTX 460 1 gig FTW (OC)" you assume said idiots will think that "EVGA GTX 460 1 gig FTW (OC)" means any gtx 460 even though in the graphs it is clearly labeled "EVGA GTX 460 1 gig FTW (OC)" and at no point anywhere in any graphs does it say anything otherwise.

It's not misleading, it's representative of how that card as it comes shipped to your doorstep will perform vs. other cards.

Those letters are gibberish to a lot of people. I think an ethical reviewer would need to place an asterisk there like someone else suggested, or heck, put the prices of all cards in the labeling of all performance charts. That, and/or a mandatory price/performance chart on the conclusion page.

 

[tviceman]

I don't think there ia anything wrong with having a gtx460 FTW in the review.
If I were a buyer reading the review I would be comparing price/performance of the 6870,6850 and the gtx460 ftw.

So I would click my on my favorite website (newegg) and come up with this......

6870 248$ shipped
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-909-_-Product

gtx460 FTW 237$ and 219$ AR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-575-_-Product

6850 187$ shipped
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-908-_-Product

gtx460 stock 189$ and 169$ AR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...E&PageSize=100

Then I check which one is faster at the best price I want to pay.
I thought everyone shops like that?

I don't see whats the difference how they review the cards or what prices if any they use. When you go to shop your gonna find out anyway, right?
Most reviews give the wrong prices anyway ,I always find them cheaper.

I would say the prices were very close to the performance of all thse cards.

Ding ding ding ding we have a winner. I think Blastingcap is just upset that a factory overclocked gtx460, at a lower price than an hd6870, is trading blows with it in settings where at least one card is producing playable frame rates.

 

[Idontcare]

Talk about making mountains out of mole hills.

 

[Jules]

Ding ding ding ding we have a winner. I think Blastingcap is just upset that a factory overclocked gtx460, at a lower price than an hd6870, is trading blows with it in settings where at least one card is producing playable frame rates.

:biggrin:

 

[happy medium]

Ding ding ding ding we have a winner. Blastingcap is just upset that a factory overclocked gtx460, at a lower price than an hd6870, is trading blows with it in settings where at least one card is producing playable frame rates.

DIng, DIng DIng and we have another winner. COme on blastingcap at least TRY not to be so defensive and bias.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Talk about making mountains out of mole hills.

Seems like Anand and Ryan felt it was more than just a mole hill to dedicate a new article about it. Right?

 

[blastingcap]

Ding ding ding ding we have a winner. Blastingcap is just upset that a factory overclocked gtx460, at a lower price than an hd6870, is trading blows with it in settings where at least one card is producing playable frame rates.

Are you always this charming? Kindly remove your words from my mouth. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are biased, and your post history shows pretty clearly where bias may exist if there was any in this thread. I recommend that you to not make things personal with me. Got it?

 

[RussianSensation]

I vote "It can be fair, depending on the market conditions, and the OCed variants availability"

Cards are mostly compared based on PRICE. You wouldn't compare a GTX480 to an HD6870. So in compiling a review, you should consider available variants at similar price points.

Case in point, you can buy an EVGA GTX460 FTW edition, which runs faster than an HD6870, and produces less noise at load, and at $239 ($229 with rebate) which is similarly priced than an HD6870. Therefore, it's a direct competitor to a stock HD6870 on price. Why shouldn't a consumer know that there are 2 cards available priced at the same time at the time of the review? Since the card comes with a lifetime warranty, this is not the same as taking one stock card and overclocking it yourself and then comparing it in the review. The overclocked product is AS IS when the customer buys it.

If HD6870 overclocked variants were available at a similar price, they should also have been included.

Personally, I would rather prefer 2 separate articles, however. 1 would include cards tested at stock clocks. The other would include GTX460 overclocked vs. HD6870 overclocked. However, I fully understand that given the current market pricing, including an overclocked GTX460 is not biased since NV conservatively underclocked those cards and let AIBs fight each other with diverse product offerings. Considering the 2 cards compete on price, it's a fair fight.

However, if a stock clocked card must always be included in the review as well. This way, a future consumer can gauge whether or not it's worth it for them to spend extra $$$ for an overclocked vs. a stock card.

 

[blastingcap]

DIng, DIng DIng and we have another winner. COme on blastingcap at least TRY not to be so defensive and bias.

I stated my reasons, at least one person on here agreed that it would be a good solution, and I pointed out that Tom's had a pretty good alternative. And for some reason I am "defensive and biased"? You're already treading on thin ice, don't tempt me.

 

[Paratus]

Well crap I was just about to add a poll to my thread.
Ah well - maybe I'll just mirror yours or maybe Idontcare can merge them

 

[formulav8]

Anandtech outright went against their long held policy plain and simple. That is compromising integrity/ethics. :thumbsdown:

Its even worse on why they did it. And no, it was Not done to 'benefit the reader' either.

Anyways, i'm pretty much done with this subject. I made my half penny known (maybe not even that much) and have more important things to do then moan and groan. I need to determine which video card to buy for a customer.

 

[Idontcare]

Those letters are gibberish to a lot of people. I think an ethical reviewer would need to place an asterisk there like someone else suggested, or heck, put the prices of all cards in the labeling of all performance charts. That, and/or a mandatory price/performance chart on the conclusion page.

Whose prices? (newegg's? ZZF? Frys?) In what nation's currency? (USD? CAD? Polish Zloty?) And valid for what period of time (last weeks prices? next weeks projected prices? a guess where they will be in 3 weeks?).

Your recommendations would render the review irrelevant for large swaths of the planet for a brief period of time, and the rest of the planet shortly thereafter once prices change.

Purpose of the review is to generate data, performance data. They can't do everything for you up to and including blowing your nose for you after you sneeze.

Your job is to find prices, prices relevant to your locale, and rank sort price/performance at your leisure. If you want the reviewer to do that for you then you will never be happy with any reviewer.

 

[happy medium]

Seems like Anand and Ryan felt it was more than just a mole hill to dedicate a new article about it. Right?

Or mabe they want to appease the crybabies in this forum.
This forum is turning into a circus again, whats next will people be calling Ryan out and having him not write for Anand any longer?
Sound just like how the Keysplayer lynching started.

 

[blastingcap]

Ding ding ding ding we have a winner. I think Blastingcap is just upset that a factory overclocked gtx460, at a lower price than an hd6870, is trading blows with it in settings where at least one card is producing playable frame rates.

Nice ninja edit to try to make yourself look like less of a jerk, but your original post did not have the "I think" in it, and even with the "I think" in it, you are still making it personal for no discernible reason. Don't take it so personally if someone disagrees with you, and try not to get personal with people who disagree with you and cast aspersions on them, okay? Chill out, reasonable minds can disagree.

 

[tviceman]

Are you always this charming? Kindly remove your words from my mouth. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are biased, and your post history shows pretty clearly where bias may exist if there was any in this thread. I recommend that you to not make things personal with me. Got it?

Tom's solution - to take an average of a bunch of cards and spit out a number to apply across the board - is not representative of any one particular card. Aggregating a score is not indicative of any one particular product. Quite the oppposite, actually. On the other hand, "EVGA GTX 460 1 gig FTW (OC)" and "Nvidia GTX460 1 gig" are representative of two exact cards that can be bought and perform exactly how Anand's review says without any modifications whatsoever.

But please, go through my post history and link up some comments where I clearly demonstrated bias towards either Nvidia or AMD. Please point out any and all comments I've made I demonstrated an instance of prejudice, or used unreasoned judgement.

Nice ninja edit to try to make yourself look like less of a jerk, but your original post did not have the "I think" in it, and even with the "I think" in it, you are still making it personal for no discernible reason. Don't take it so personally if someone disagrees with you, and try not to get personal with people who disagree with you and cast aspersions on them, okay? Chill out, reasonable minds can disagree.

I edited my comment before I saw any single reply to this thread. I really don't care if you think I'm a jerk or not, I think you are unreasonably upset with Anandtech including nonreference cards that, when bought and used as is, are performing equal to or better than the cards being reviewed in the article.

Once again, I think it's fine to show readers exactly what performance you can get out of the box at different price points. I don't see what is wrong with having more information available. And if Nvidia comes out with new cards in 2-3 weeks, I think having a factory overclocked 6850 and 6870 would be great to have as well insofar as it's indicated and any price differences are mentioned.

 

[blastingcap]

Whose prices? (newegg's? ZZF? Frys?) In what nation's currency? (USD? CAD? Polish Zloty?) And valid for what period of time (last weeks prices? next weeks projected prices? a guess where they will be in 3 weeks?).

Your recommendations would render the review irrelevant for large swaths of the planet for a brief period of time, and the rest of the planet shortly thereafter once prices change.

Purpose of the review is to generate data, performance data. They can't do everything for you up to and including blowing your nose for you after you sneeze.

Your job is to find prices, prices relevant to your locale, and rank sort price/performance at your leisure. If you want the reviewer to do that for you then you will never be happy with any reviewer.

Good point but a) other sites have price/perf charts with the caveat that they could be out of date (and some talk about how they went about gathering data for pricing), b) even if we take your argument as accurate, the other poster in the thread had a good idea about the asterisk system which would avoid the problems you listed, and c) I think Tom's might have had the fairest solution of all if one doesn't want to resort to asterisks and price/perf charts.

 

[happy medium]

Your recommendations would render the review irrelevant for large swaths of the planet for a brief period of time, and the rest of the planet shortly thereafter once prices change.

Ding, DIng ,DIng another winner