thanks for the inputs.

[hollowman]

I am doing a school report on Tomshardware Geforce FX article from Tomshardware.

Do you think it's biased or not biased? Could you tell me why?

I think it's biased.. but I can't seem to pinpoint why it's biased...

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

link to the article

 

[jiffylube1024]

Which article are you refering to? The article "NVIDIA GeForceFX: Brute Force Attack Against the King " dated January 27 or the "GeForce FX for the Masses: The GeForce 5600 and 5200 Series " dated March 6?

 

[hollowman]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Which article are you refering to? The article "NVIDIA GeForceFX: Brute Force Attack Against the King " dated January 27 or the "GeForce FX for the Masses: The GeForce 5600 and 5200 Series " dated March 6?

sorry about that. article linked now.

 

[kylebisme]

well my first clue that something was fishy about it was the way they benchmarked various image quality settings without even explaining any difference other than the framerate, did not benchmark the higher quality settings for the cards where the fx seriously falls behind, and even worse they did not present even a single pair of screenshots for us to draw our own conclusions. however, if you want an easier target for a bias review, i recommend checking out theregister. last i knew they didn't even do hardware reviews. actualy, in my opinion; they still don't.

 

[BFG10K]

I don't think it was biased per-se, I just don't think they payed attention to image quality like the other websites did. With equal image quality settings the 9700 Pro usually beats the FX Ultra quite easily, especially in memory bandwidth limited situations.

 

[gururu]

I think that they were a little too 'anti-biased'. The review was good when considering the technological leap between the GF4 and the FX. It went a little too far in claiming the FX to be a far superior product to the 9700pro. I think that they were wary of giving ATI any credit, since the pressure to call the FX a failure was so intense. The FX did better in their hands, so I think the facts speak for themselves. That's the nice thing about experimental data. You can take it at face value and make your own conclusion, even if the author seems to have a slight bent towards a conclusion.

 

[kylebisme]

sure, but the fact remains that article was written in such a why that people are bound to get a very wrong impression if they go without finding other sources to compare to. the article is very much bias despite the fact that the information is creditable.

 

[ultimatebob]

Unless your teacher is a comp-sci major, DON'T use a technicial site like tomshardware.com for your report! Odds are, they'll have no idea what the hell "vertex shader programs" or a "0.13µ process" are, and they won't be able to accurately judge if the article is accurate or not.

Besides, if you're looking for biased technology journalism, go look for some Microsoft articles on Slashdot.