So...i guess Sander Sassen from Hardwareanalysis just wouldn't give up!

[wasserkool]

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1818/

"Today my scores are for the most part vindicated, hence I ask you now; who?s been open, honest and frank about this from the get go? But more importantly, who continued to play fair game and decided not to join ATI in their game of smear tactics?"

I don't think so, is numbers are wayyyy off

 

[mwmorph]

They arent that muh off but it is enough to see that they are fake.
for ex. in 16x12 4xaa, 8xaf for all games,

Anandtech reports 80.1 vs 74.1. x1800xt winning. ~108% faster
Sasser reports 53.83 v.s. 53.17. x1800xt winning. Negligible
thouh he is using a "Custom" timedemo for that one.


SCCT:
Anandtec gest around 45.7 v.s. 34.3 (~133% gain fro x1800xt)while
SASSER gets 52.33 vs. 48.xx. which results in a 109% favor for the x1800xt

how is that possible? he didnt mention use of custom benchamark so all things equal, how did the 2 cards do about as well in much mroe demanding SCCT as inFarcry when every other articles says farcry is much wasier on the video card?

DOOMIII
anand: 42.1 vs 60.7(GUESS who won....)x180xt is ~69% as fast
Sasser: 22.8 v.s. 27.1 while sasser says it is ~84% as fast
X1800xt might be given too much credit for this.

now you could argue the benchmarks are custom for DOOM3/Farcry but that still means that overall, the benchies will still be comparable in performance gain/loss percentage wise. I think the "custom benchmark" part is just to cover his arse when he is shown he is wrong.

 

[CPlusPlusGeek]

I havent seen even one place that says x1800 won doom3... where are you getting your figures?

 

[johnnqq]

did anybody else realized that toms, anand, extremetech, and other sites ALL HAVE DIFFERENT BENCHMARKS/!?!?!?!? what the hell!

 

[CPlusPlusGeek]

i did, leaves me wondering....

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: johnnqq
did anybody else realized that toms, anand, extremetech, and other sites ALL HAVE DIFFERENT BENCHMARKS/!?!?!?!? what the hell!

Perhaps they had only a handful of XT's and they had each one clocked differently

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
They arent that muh off but it is enough to see that they are fake.
for ex. in 16x12 4xaa, 8xaf for all games,

Anandtech reports 80.1 vs 74.1. x1800xt winning. ~108% faster
Sasser reports 53.83 v.s. 53.17. x1800xt winning. Negligible
thouh he is using a "Custom" timedemo for that one.


SCCT:
Anandtec gest around 45.7 v.s. 34.3 (~133% gain fro x1800xt)while
SASSER gets 52.33 vs. 48.xx. which results in a 109% favor for the x1800xt

how is that possible? he didnt mention use of custom benchamark so all things equal, how did the 2 cards do about as well in much mroe demanding SCCT as inFarcry when every other articles says farcry is much wasier on the video card?

DOOMIII
anand: 42.1 vs 60.7(GUESS who won....)x180xt is ~69% as fast
Sasser: 22.8 v.s. 27.1 while sasser says it is ~84% as fast
X1800xt might be given too much credit for this.

now you could argue the benchmarks are custom for DOOM3/Farcry but that still means that overall, the benchies will still be comparable in performance gain/loss percentage wise. I think the "custom benchmark" part is just to cover his arse when he is shown he is wrong.

Actually your reading skills suck....You actually in one post have told more lies then him....

PPL remember what speed he was tested his so called XT...also remember that current XLs are off of the original silicon so it is very likely early silicon could not do the current 625mhz speeds of XT...His AIB source likely had some of that early silcon. He was more forthcoming from info then you think...

take the speeds he tested and now say he was lieing!!! Can You??? Look at the Xl compared to a GTX...Was he more or less right??? What he suffered form is what everyone suffered from near the end...No idea and info from ATI had finalized core specs....

If you read what he tells you his numbers were real and not faked...Not right, but not fake...Far more correct then mwmorph....LOL!!!

 

[nRollo]

I don't think his results are fake, I think they're the product of his source having a lower clocked prerelease card. The differences between the XL and XT are very large, if his buddies card was somewhere between, and using a custom bench, I could see it.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Rollo
I don't think his results are fake, I think they're the product of his source having a lower clocked prerelease card. The differences between the XL and XT are very large, if his buddies card was somewhere between, and using a custom bench, I could see it.

Exactly how I saw it now and even then when rumors swirled of XTs as high as 700mhz core.....

Only the ATi fanatics wont see this....

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: mwmorph
They arent that muh off but it is enough to see that they are fake.
for ex. in 16x12 4xaa, 8xaf for all games,

Anandtech reports 80.1 vs 74.1. x1800xt winning. ~108% faster
Sasser reports 53.83 v.s. 53.17. x1800xt winning. Negligible
thouh he is using a "Custom" timedemo for that one.


SCCT:
Anandtec gest around 45.7 v.s. 34.3 (~133% gain fro x1800xt)while
SASSER gets 52.33 vs. 48.xx. which results in a 109% favor for the x1800xt

how is that possible? he didnt mention use of custom benchamark so all things equal, how did the 2 cards do about as well in much mroe demanding SCCT as inFarcry when every other articles says farcry is much wasier on the video card?

DOOMIII
anand: 42.1 vs 60.7(GUESS who won....)x180xt is ~69% as fast
Sasser: 22.8 v.s. 27.1 while sasser says it is ~84% as fast
X1800xt might be given too much credit for this.

now you could argue the benchmarks are custom for DOOM3/Farcry but that still means that overall, the benchies will still be comparable in performance gain/loss percentage wise. I think the "custom benchmark" part is just to cover his arse when he is shown he is wrong.

Actually your reading skills suck....You actually in one post have told more lies then him....

PPL remember what speed he was tested his so called XT...also remember that current XLs are off of the original silicon so it is very likely early silicon could not do the current 625mhz speeds of XT...His AIB source likely had some of that early silcon. He was more forthcoming from info then you think...

take the speeds he tested and now say he was lieing!!! Can You??? Look at the Xl compared to a GTX...Was he more or less right??? What he suffered form is what everyone suffered from near the end...No idea and info from ATI had finalized core specs....

If you read what he tells you his numbers were real and not faked...Not right, but not fake...Far more correct then mwmorph....LOL!!!

What are you talking about, Duvie? mwmorph's's numbers look right. Regarding the Doom3 speed, it says that the 7800GTX creams the X1800XT (the X1800XT is 69% as fast as the 7800GTX). Perhaps it's your reading skills that need a bit of brushing up on in this example..?

Where did mwmorph lie, exactly?

Regarding Sassen's benchmarks, both the percentages and the numbers are way off. This fact plus the fact that it's impossible to prove or disprove if they are legit or not leads me to conclude that they're at least invalid, and pointless to explore any more. Sassen just wants to keep his name in the news as much as possible.

 

[Hacp]

Umm IIR the article correctly, he stated that the cards were clocked at 600/1400. WOuldn't he have stated that the cards were clocked lower if his sources had lower clocked cards?

His benchies IMO=total fake.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Umm IIR the article correctly, he stated that the cards were clocked at 600/1400. WOuldn't he have stated that the cards were clocked lower if his sources had lower clocked cards?

His benchies IMO=total fake.

Like I said in my post, I think his posts are fake also, but the question of their authenticity is a pointless, moot argument. You can't prove it either way, but just by virtue of the fact that they're so inacurate, they become null and void, and Sander is a big tool. I really like a lot of the reviews on their site, and Sassen is full of good info, but he's full of something else sometimes too . With this issue he's proven to be as much of an attention-craving, say-anything-to-get-his-name-mentioned arrogant child as Kyle or Tom (or most of the other THG crew).

 

[Hacp]

My post was in response to rollo and duvie

 

[jiffylube1024]

Ah! Well then, good luck trying to convince them .

 

[imported_g33k]

I don't think he is exactly "vindicated" as he claims. He came close on the Doom3 and HL2 benchmarks. But he was way off on SC:CT and Far Cry. Since he only tested four games, he was half right. The x1800xt is a better card than Sander's benches lead you to believe.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Umm IIR the article correctly, he stated that the cards were clocked at 600/1400. WOuldn't he have stated that the cards were clocked lower if his sources had lower clocked cards?

His benchies IMO=total fake.

Well, 600/1400 isn't 625/1500 now is it? And 600/1400 is between the XL and XT, just like I said, right? And since you don't work at ATI and can't tell us that 600/1400 wasn't ever a proposed clock, and you've never used his custom demo scripts, why is it again we should take your word over his?

 

[johnnqq]

in general the xt>gtx, gt>xl. sander's benches are incorrect.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Hacp
Umm IIR the article correctly, he stated that the cards were clocked at 600/1400. WOuldn't he have stated that the cards were clocked lower if his sources had lower clocked cards?

His benchies IMO=total fake.

Well, 600/1400 isn't 625/1500 now is it? And 600/1400 is between the XL and XT, just like I said, right? And since you don't work at ATI and can't tell us that 600/1400 wasn't ever a proposed clock, and you've never used his custom demo scripts, why is it again we should take your word over his?

Hmmm he stated that they were 600/1400. Not me. ASK HIM THAT QUESTION ROLLO.

 

[Corporate Thug]

regardless of whether the benchies were real or fake (and i think they were fake), there is no way in hell he can justify publishing them WITHOUT even knowing that the ATi final product would be the same as what he was testing

 

[ElTorrente]

Who gives a rat's ass what some dude thinks about a card that isn't out yet? :laugh:

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: mwmorph
They arent that muh off but it is enough to see that they are fake.
for ex. in 16x12 4xaa, 8xaf for all games,

Anandtech reports 80.1 vs 74.1. x1800xt winning. ~108% faster
Sasser reports 53.83 v.s. 53.17. x1800xt winning. Negligible
thouh he is using a "Custom" timedemo for that one.


SCCT:
Anandtec gest around 45.7 v.s. 34.3 (~133% gain fro x1800xt)while
SASSER gets 52.33 vs. 48.xx. which results in a 109% favor for the x1800xt

how is that possible? he didnt mention use of custom benchamark so all things equal, how did the 2 cards do about as well in much mroe demanding SCCT as inFarcry when every other articles says farcry is much wasier on the video card?

DOOMIII
anand: 42.1 vs 60.7(GUESS who won....)x180xt is ~69% as fast
Sasser: 22.8 v.s. 27.1 while sasser says it is ~84% as fast
X1800xt might be given too much credit for this.

now you could argue the benchmarks are custom for DOOM3/Farcry but that still means that overall, the benchies will still be comparable in performance gain/loss percentage wise. I think the "custom benchmark" part is just to cover his arse when he is shown he is wrong.

Actually your reading skills suck....You actually in one post have told more lies then him....

PPL remember what speed he was tested his so called XT...also remember that current XLs are off of the original silicon so it is very likely early silicon could not do the current 625mhz speeds of XT...His AIB source likely had some of that early silcon. He was more forthcoming from info then you think...

take the speeds he tested and now say he was lieing!!! Can You??? Look at the Xl compared to a GTX...Was he more or less right??? What he suffered form is what everyone suffered from near the end...No idea and info from ATI had finalized core specs....

If you read what he tells you his numbers were real and not faked...Not right, but not fake...Far more correct then mwmorph....LOL!!!

What are you talking about, Duvie? mwmorph's's numbers look right. Regarding the Doom3 speed, it says that the 7800GTX creams the X1800XT (the X1800XT is 69% as fast as the 7800GTX). Perhaps it's your reading skills that need a bit of brushing up on in this example..?

Where did mwmorph lie, exactly?

Regarding Sassen's benchmarks, both the percentages and the numbers are way off. This fact plus the fact that it's impossible to prove or disprove if they are legit or not leads me to conclude that they're at least invalid, and pointless to explore any more. Sassen just wants to keep his name in the news as much as possible.

I see...The guess who won comment threw me off since he says XT right after it...I see the 69% as fast...meaning 69% of the nvidia speed...

again ppl 10-15% I have heard can vary greatly in these demo scripts. Who knows where it was or if it was hampered by something or purposely played on the strengths of one of the cards...

Do we know if the reviewers used the same driver set??? he even admits in the end of the article clock speed and possible driver enhancem,ents could shift the scores some...

the fact is the ATI fanatics said they were wrong cause they thought the ATi card was going to wipe all the games with its 9000 3dmark05 score....I have seen bigger discrepancies in reviews from hardware before.....I never called them liars or fakes...

That is the point. AFTER the real reviews came in and this thing looked less stellar then the hype I think it gave him more credibility then some of the ATi faithful who tried to have his head...

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: CPlusPlusGeek
I havent seen even one place that says x1800 won doom3... where are you getting your figures?

yup i sait the x1800xt is 69% as fast as reported by andndtech. 69% is less than 100% which means it's slower. much slower. dissaponitingly slow for such an arse expensive unreleased card.(why cant ati get it's opengl coding right?)


seriously, im dissapointed by ati this gen. they really hit it big with the 9xxx seiries and the X8x seires wasnt all that bad sine in exchange for SM#, you get better performance overall at slightly lower prices, but now, the performance is comparable with prices up in the stratosphere.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Duvie
the fact is the ATI fanatics said they were wrong cause they thought the ATi card was going to wipe all the games with its 9000 3dmark05 score....I have seen bigger discrepancies in reviews from hardware before.....I never called them liars or fakes...

That is the point. AFTER the real reviews came in and this thing looked less stellar then the hype I think it gave him more credibility then some of the ATi faithful who tried to have his head...

Maybe his benchmarks are accurate for a card running at 600/1400, instead of the actual 625/1500, maybe not... Regardless due to this discrepancy, it's not indicative of X1800XT performance.

It doesn't change the fact that he posted that these should be accurate of final silicon (and assured it it wouldn't change much with final silicon), then changed his tune, adding a disclaimer along the lines of "warning, this is not final-grade hardware" the next day. This is not due to the raving lunacies of "the ATI faithful," this is a reviewer jumping the gun to be the first out with results, even though he honestly didn't know if his "connection's" card was representative of final hardware or not.

Originally posted by: mwmorph
seriously, im dissapointed by ati this gen. they really hit it big with the 9xxx seiries and the X8x seires wasnt all that bad sine in exchange for SM#, you get better performance overall at slightly lower prices, but now, the performance is comparable with prices up in the stratosphere.

I agree. This gen is nothing like the jump we had in performance last gen, going from 8-pipe cards to 16-pipe cards. But hey, now everybody gets those amazing SM 3.0 features I've been hearing so much about . Shiny pipes and all!

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: Duvie
the fact is the ATI fanatics said they were wrong cause they thought the ATi card was going to wipe all the games with its 9000 3dmark05 score....I have seen bigger discrepancies in reviews from hardware before.....I never called them liars or fakes...

That is the point. AFTER the real reviews came in and this thing looked less stellar then the hype I think it gave him more credibility then some of the ATi faithful who tried to have his head...

Maybe his benchmarks are accurate for a card running at 600/1400, instead of the actual 625/1500, maybe not... Regardless due to this discrepancy, it's not indicative of X1800XT performance.

It doesn't change the fact that he posted that these should be accurate of final silicon (and assured it it wouldn't change much with final silicon), then changed his tune, adding a disclaimer along the lines of "warning, this is not final-grade hardware" the next day. This is not due to the raving lunacies of "the ATI faithful," this is a reviewer jumping the gun to be the first out with results, even though he honestly didn't know if his "connection's" card was representative of final hardware or not.

Originally posted by: mwmorph
seriously, im dissapointed by ati this gen. they really hit it big with the 9xxx seiries and the X8x seires wasnt all that bad sine in exchange for SM#, you get better performance overall at slightly lower prices, but now, the performance is comparable with prices up in the stratosphere.

I agree. This gen is nothing like the jump we had in performance last gen, going from 8-pipe cards to 16-pipe cards. But hey, now everybody gets those amazing SM 3.0 features I've been hearing so much about . Shiny pipes and all!

You are dead on jiffy!!!!

But the point was he lied and faked them...Nope... He just tested a card that was not at final release speed and likely with less then functional drivers....Not his fault on release speed cause most had no clue what that would be even within days of the launch...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: mwmorph
They arent that muh off but it is enough to see that they are fake.
for ex. in 16x12 4xaa, 8xaf for all games,

Anandtech reports 80.1 vs 74.1. x1800xt winning. ~108% faster
Sasser reports 53.83 v.s. 53.17. x1800xt winning. Negligible
thouh he is using a "Custom" timedemo for that one.


SCCT:
Anandtec gest around 45.7 v.s. 34.3 (~133% gain fro x1800xt)while
SASSER gets 52.33 vs. 48.xx. which results in a 109% favor for the x1800xt

how is that possible? he didnt mention use of custom benchamark so all things equal, how did the 2 cards do about as well in much mroe demanding SCCT as inFarcry when every other articles says farcry is much wasier on the video card?

DOOMIII
anand: 42.1 vs 60.7(GUESS who won....)x180xt is ~69% as fast
Sasser: 22.8 v.s. 27.1 while sasser says it is ~84% as fast
X1800xt might be given too much credit for this.

now you could argue the benchmarks are custom for DOOM3/Farcry but that still means that overall, the benchies will still be comparable in performance gain/loss percentage wise. I think the "custom benchmark" part is just to cover his arse when he is shown he is wrong.

Actually your reading skills suck....You actually in one post have told more lies then him....

PPL remember what speed he was tested his so called XT...also remember that current XLs are off of the original silicon so it is very likely early silicon could not do the current 625mhz speeds of XT...His AIB source likely had some of that early silcon. He was more forthcoming from info then you think...

take the speeds he tested and now say he was lieing!!! Can You??? Look at the Xl compared to a GTX...Was he more or less right??? What he suffered form is what everyone suffered from near the end...No idea and info from ATI had finalized core specs....

If you read what he tells you his numbers were real and not faked...Not right, but not fake...Far more correct then mwmorph....LOL!!!

the real reason people are P o'd at Sander is beacause he wasn't upfront AT FIRST. Only AFTER he all flamed to hell did he state that his sample was PREproduction . . . . .

after that MAJOR clarification, the benchs made sense . . .