Tech Reports "Best of 2004" Awards

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Reck
hm they must use really bad equipment to test sound cards, the a2 isn't even close to the fidelity of the envy based soundcards. :disgust:

how is the CPU utilization on those when compared to the a2?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Todd33
"Dude" WTF are you talking about, where did I mention Q4?

OMG there were zombies in HL2? There were also a dozen other types of enemies and *gasp* a story to back it all up. I asked EB about the Doom 3 trade in value, it was like $7 a few months ago. Nuff said.

Oh I'm sorry, let me explain. If you can't follow, just let me know.
You mentioned "We can only hope Valve sees more engine sales and expansion money.".

While Valve will probably enjoy revenue from engine licensing, id will as well. I used Q4 as an example because it is being written by Raven Software as we type this.

And what do you think EB is going to turn around an resell D3 for once they accept it as a trade in? Seven dollars? Hell no. Use your head.

And it's enough said when I say it's enough said.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Todd33
I expected Doom III to be bad, most id games are. I bought it anyway (reviews were good) and the game was bad. I had low expectations and it still stunk. I had horrible expectations for Far Cry and was mildly surprised. Maybe it's time to stop apologizing for id and there crappy games. They make good engines, but Carmack need to let Opengl die for Windows gaming.

Yeah, Call of Duty isn't worthy of the term OpenGL. :roll:
It's only one of the most popular games out there right now.

Oh and QuakeIII was absolutely terrible, nobody ever played that game.

If only they werent OpenGL, maybe they could have been contenders.

Oh.......brother.....

Where did anyone say opengl based game are bad? I loved CoD. Q3 was lame, but hey it's an id game. We have one company making opengl engines: Q1/Q2/Q3/D3 and a few good games that licensed the engines. CoD, MOH:AA or any other Q3 based game could have been made on an of the numerous D3D engines. The engine did make those games great, the developers did. I hate to admit it, but it's all politics. Carmack is sticking his finger at MS and he is going to lose, they all do. Direct 3D has been growing every year and opengl for windows gaming has dwindled to all but id. MS can grow D3D with new features yearly while Opengl is wrapped up in red tape due to it's cross platform and non-gaming nature. It's a losing fight.

Now the scientific community has taking up using DX9 and GPUs for general processing (www.gpgpu.org).

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Todd33
I expected Doom III to be bad, most id games are. I bought it anyway (reviews were good) and the game was bad. I had low expectations and it still stunk. I had horrible expectations for Far Cry and was mildly surprised. Maybe it's time to stop apologizing for id and there crappy games. They make good engines, but Carmack need to let Opengl die for Windows gaming.

Yeah, Call of Duty isn't worthy of the term OpenGL. :roll:
It's only one of the most popular games out there right now.

Oh and QuakeIII was absolutely terrible, nobody ever played that game.

If only they werent OpenGL, maybe they could have been contenders.

Oh.......brother.....

Where did anyone say opengl based game are bad? I loved CoD. Q3 was lame, but hey it's an id game. We have one company making opengl engines: Q1/Q2/Q3/D3 and a few good games that licensed the engines. CoD, MOH:AA or any other Q3 based game could have been made on an of the numerous D3D engines. The engine did make those games great, the developers did. I hate to admit it, but it's all politics. Carmack is sticking his finger at MS and he is going to lose, they all do. Direct 3D has been growing every year and opengl for windows gaming has dwindled to all but id. MS can grow D3D with new features yearly while Opengl is wrapped up in red tape due to it's cross platform and non-gaming nature. It's a losing fight.

Now the scientific community has taking up using DX9 and GPUs for general processing (www.gpgpu.org).

When you said,"but Carmack need to let Opengl die for Windows gaming.". Who else writes OGL engines?

Please stop saying, "Where did I say this or that?". I'm getting tired of quoting you, and your short term memory.


I agree that OGL will eventually die away in the DX monopoly.

 

[Keysplayr]

Todd. Listen to me for a sec. I love technology. I love trying new stuff. I am a loooong time Nvidia and Intel user. I favor them over AMD and ATI. But I am going to try out a AMD rig and hopefully I can get my hands on one of those X800XL's if and when they ever become available.

If theres one thing that burns me up, its closed minds. You exhibit this in almost every post you make in this video forum. And it is OBVIOUS. You are no where near subtle about it. This is why I give you a hard time. And will continue to do so as long as you do. Nothing personal at all.

Please god, do not make me quote all of them because I would be here for days.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
When you said,"but Carmack need to let Opengl die for Windows gaming.". Who else writes OGL engines?

What? You need to type a bit more to express your point clearer. Opengl is an API, not an engine or game. Saying that Carmack should move to D3D does not mean opengl games are bad (APIs don't make games good or bad). Don't connect mythical dots.

Please stop saying, "Where did I say this or that?". I'm getting tired of quoting you, and your short term memory.

I agree that OGL will eventually die away in the DX monopoly.

What? You have yet to quote me in any intelligible sense. I still don't know what you are talking about completely. Something about Quake 4 and opengl I think. So Raven has an agreement to produce ids next Quake game, what does that prove? It proves there is always a company to cash in on a trademark name for quick cash?

If theres one thing that burns me up, its closed minds. You exhibit this in almost every post you make in this video forum. And it is OBVIOUS. You are no where near subtle about it. This is why I give you a hard time. And will continue to do so as long as you do. Nothing personal at all.

Please god, do not make me quote all of them because I would be here for days.

I would love you to quote me once. BTW quote means word for word, not some non-sense half reference about Q4. Try selecting some text and right clicking->copy, then paste. So how am I closed minded? Because I don't like Doom III? Because I recommend both ATI and Nvidia, depending on the interface and price point? Because I recommend AMD A64 system all the time , yet own Intel? You are either confusing me with someone else or do really have a poor memory.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
When you said,"but Carmack need to let Opengl die for Windows gaming.". Who else writes OGL engines?

What? You need to type a bit more to express your point clearer. Opengl is an API, not an engine or game. Saying that Carmack should move to D3D does not mean opengl games are bad (APIs don't make games good or bad). Don't connect mythical dots.

Please stop saying, "Where did I say this or that?". I'm getting tired of quoting you, and your short term memory.

I agree that OGL will eventually die away in the DX monopoly.

What? You have yet to quote me in any intelligible sense. I still don't know what you are talking about completely. Something about Quake 4 and opengl I think. So Raven has an agreement to produce ids next Quake game, what does that prove? It proves there is always a company to cash in on a trademark name for quick cash?

If theres one thing that burns me up, its closed minds. You exhibit this in almost every post you make in this video forum. And it is OBVIOUS. You are no where near subtle about it. This is why I give you a hard time. And will continue to do so as long as you do. Nothing personal at all.

Please god, do not make me quote all of them because I would be here for days.

I would love you to quote me once. BTW quote means word for word, not some non-sense half reference about Q4. Try selecting some text and right clicking->copy, then paste. So how am I closed minded? Because I don't like Doom III? Because I recommend both ATI and Nvidia, depending on the interface and price point? Because I recommend AMD A64 system all the time , yet own Intel? You are either confusing me with someone else or do really have a poor memory.

Ok, you want it you got it. Give me a little while and I'll put together a nice compilation for ya.
You really should not of asked for this. But pride always gets in the way doesn't it....

 

[Todd33]

Take your time, you've done a bang up job proving your point thus far.

 

[Cawchy87]

I agree with their choices for the most part. But they kind of flip flop from best price/money ( 6800GT ). To the best overall (AMD 3500+). When the 3200+ would clearly be the better buy after overclocking.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Todd33
"Dude" WTF are you talking about, where did I mention Q4?

OMG there were zombies in HL2? There were also a dozen other types of enemies and *gasp* a story to back it all up. I asked EB about the Doom 3 trade in value, it was like $7 a few months ago. Nuff said.

Since when is tradein value indicative of game fun? I liked Doom3 a lot better than HL2, although to be fair HL2 hasn't convinced me to play it past the route canal level I've been on since day two.

 

[Insomniak]

Have to disagree with Rollo (a first for me), I enjoyed HL2 much more than Doom 3, but Doom 3 I still thought was a very good game and very fun. Yes, it was standard shooter fare, but sometimes that's all you need. I felt that I got $50 of fun out of it, and that's all I needed to know.

Bottom line, have both, love both.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Todd33
"Dude" WTF are you talking about, where did I mention Q4?

OMG there were zombies in HL2? There were also a dozen other types of enemies and *gasp* a story to back it all up. I asked EB about the Doom 3 trade in value, it was like $7 a few months ago. Nuff said.

Since when is tradein value indicative of game fun? I liked Doom3 a lot better than HL2, although to be fair HL2 hasn't convinced me to play it past the route canal level I've been on since day two.

JESUS CHRIST MAN! GET GOING!

All the amazing stuff starts taking off once you get out of the city! Go go go! You haven't even started playing the game yet!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Todd33

When Doom 3 arrived, the 6800 GT put the smack down on the X800 Pro and even showed up the more expensive Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition.

I know I make all my purchases based on Doom III, one of the most overhyped and boring games of 2004.

:thumbsup:

 

[DaveBC]

Originally posted by: Rollo
http://techreport.com/etc/2005...estof2004/index.x?pg=1

Of note, they proclaim the WMV9 acceleration on later revisions of 6800GTs to be working, and give my new card the finger. LOL

I have at GT and the pure video works. I downloaded the encoder/driver from Nvidia and the "Stepping into liquid" HD demo uses a fraction of the cpu now... around 38%. DVD playback only uses around 2% cpu.

 

[Pete]

I don't understand the problems with their choices. The 6800GT was without question the best high-end buy for most of this year, and the Audigy 2 pretty much wins the best soundcard for gamers award by default.

An award for best card without price as a factor would be pretty useless, except maybe in Robb's Report. The 6800GT go the award because it was generally faster than the X800P in most games, and could be overclocked to Ultra speeds fairly easily. The same could not be said of the X800P, which is stuck at 12 pipes. And the XTPE, if you could even find it in 2004, was a $500+ card. IIRC, it doesn't offer 25% better performance to go with its 25% higher price in most games.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: DaveBC

Originally posted by: Rollo
http://techreport.com/etc/2005...estof2004/index.x?pg=1

Of note, they proclaim the WMV9 acceleration on later revisions of 6800GTs to be working, and give my new card the finger. LOL

I have at GT and the pure video works. I downloaded the encoder/driver from Nvidia and the "Stepping into liquid" HD demo uses a fraction of the cpu now... around 38%. DVD playback only uses around 2% cpu.

I stand corrected.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Take your time, you've done a bang up job proving your point thus far.

I think your right actually. for once.

I know you think this is a cop out, but I decided not to do it. Why waste my time with something like this when you wouldn't get (or do not wish to get) the point anyway.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: Drayvn
Im a bit iffy about their choice of motherboards, ok the Abit is a good MB, but on many many many websites ive seen the MSI Neo2 been given the top honours....

Why Abit then....

they probably also read the forums and see how many ppl have prbs. with MSI, and don't with Abit

I remember someone here complained once when an MSI got an award similar to this, and claimed they have had nothing but problems with their board, as have others, etc.. Who knows, just a thought.

i have an neo2 plat (s939) and it's been an extremely solid board, even running 270ht/fsb with 1:1 memory. nothing to complain about there......