Yet another reason why Sharkyextreme's website is an absolute joke for video card reviews

TAsunder

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
287
0
0
Strangely, I often find their reviews more informative, although I trust Anand's benchmarks a lot more. Anand seems to use the cookie cutter approach, wherein he just cuts and pastes sections from reviews of other models and then puts some benchmarks in and a conclusion.

Could just be me though.

Sharky does that once in a while too I guess, particularly on the weekly cpu prices. If I see something about the AMD CPU heat sink again I may puke.
 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
TAsunder, it seems that Sharky is definitely quite anti-3dfx and quite anti-AMD

dunno why.

As far as "informative", take the information with a grain of salt.
 

TAsunder

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
287
0
0
Also is it just me or is the "weekly cpu" and "weekly memory" price thing a little bit unscientific? It's useful and all, but really there's not much you can discern about market trends if you aren't comparing the same companies each time.. is there? One week (or more) he had crucial memory listed as the cheapest in one category. I'm no expert here but I find that hard to believe :)
 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
I like AT's mobo articles quite a bit, but their graphics articles leave much to be desired, IMHO.

Again, seems like the 5500 gets $hit on.

I mean, they're still using an older, lower performing beta driver for the 5500. Sheesh.

actually, I posted a whole plethora of questions, just check the "comment on thsi article" for the latest CL GTS-U article
 

fodd3r

Member
Sep 15, 2000
79
0
0
i still think that most of these hardware "review" sites are all bitched by one company or the other.

btw, what biases are you talking about when you mentioned pabst?
 

The Wildcard

Platinum Member
Oct 31, 1999
2,743
0
0
If you don't like sharky's reviews then just don't read them. I mean i am sorta tired of seeing all these threads on sharky. I personally haven't read any of his reviews, but if i did and if they were as biased as you guys said they were, then i would just not read his reviews anymore. Simple as that.
 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
Wildcard, he is a major webmasterfor hardware. He has "pull"

Besides, he used to have an outstanding site (back in the day), and it has really gone downhill.

As far as Pabst is concerned fodd3r....heh...you obviuosly weren't into the graphics hardware scene a few years back.
 

Geeforcer

Junior Member
Jun 16, 2000
17
0
0
Humm, I read your comment about frame rates, and I must say I am getting frame rates very close to the his. (PIII 866, GTS 32MB). At what resolution are you getting "20 fps less" then he?
 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/articles/value_system_gf2/6.shtml

his settings for 1024, 1280 and 1600 MAX are incorrect

"MAX" means that r_picmip 0 and geometry is maxed.

his #'s are GTS-U scores for those 3 settings on that chart at the above URL

For reference, check http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/articles/value_system_gf2/5.shtml

same settings, but on a Intel 1-Gig.

sorry, but you don't get an extra 20 or 25 fps in fillrate limited istuations by changing CPU's. Only by changing video cards

of course, the bizsnatch hasn't responded yet



 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
yeah

i figured it was some type of mistook

no biggie there

i had a few other issues tho. :)
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,002
126
I read most PC hardware sites to get a better idea of things. Sure he might be biased, but his fps scores are consistent with other sites.

He's just another PC hardware site to me. :)
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Robo, now dont be that way about our fav Doc :)

Sriously, while Sharky's has gone way downhill, I think Tom's has done quite the opposite the last 6 months or so.
 

RoboTECH

Platinum Member
Jun 16, 2000
2,034
0
0
Sunner, it's funny you say that

I would agree thoroughly. It seems Tom has gotten ahold of his ego a bit. <G>
 

TAsunder

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
287
0
0
Too bad the site is hideously unusable and really needs to be looked at by a guy like Jakob Nielsen (whose own site kind of is hard to use). That is the biggest problem I have with Tom's site... it's ugly, hard to use, etc.
 

Compellor

Senior member
Oct 1, 2000
889
0
0
I don't understand why they even did this review. It doesn't make much sense to show the difference between FIVE nVidia GeForce cards and just one lone ATI Radeon card. The ATI Radeon card sucked in almost every gaming benchmark, but, did you notice that just about every test was done at 1024 x 768? Not exactly &quot;real world&quot; if you ask me. I admit I run everything at 1024 x 768, but what about other screen resolutions? Is this the norm?

I think the dweebs (notice the stupid pictures?) over there have nothing better to do than slap up meaningless, idiotic &quot;Shootout&quot; reviews because they really have nothing better to do with their time. Most people that visit these hardware websites already know about the little speed gains offered from the various nVidia GeForce &quot;Pro&quot; and &quot;Ultra&quot; video cards -- just read the individual reviews. Hell, the individual reviews themselves contain enough information to make a purchasing decision, so, what's the point of a &quot;video card shootout&quot;? Are they bored? Showing the differences on the cards themself is ok (i.e. video out, etc.), but the benchmarks are a complete joke. Let's be a little more realistic, folks.

I agree with RoboTECH on the bias thing. For a review to have any real merit, it needs to be non-biased. Unfortunately, Sharkey's isn't. I also don't like the idea of having to wade through page after page of mundane script, just to find the information I want -- another joke.

Just my $.02
 

fodd3r

Member
Sep 15, 2000
79
0
0
well me thinks this all started when sharky was bought out by some company. i can't remember which one.