PC Format Give GFX 90% !!!!

[PVR_Extremist]

A £400 card that at best performs 10% better and at worst is slower than the 9700Pro and they give it 90% !!!! :shock:

They run 1 benchmark program (3dMark2001SE) comment on UT2003 performance (without FSAA/AF), make no mention of noise, are not put off by the 2 slot occupying nature of the beast and make no mention at all of its poor pixel shading performance relative to 9700Pro.

How can such an influential magaizine (in the uK at least) be allowed to publish such utter drivel. :roll:

I have a mind to point that reviewer to the B3D forums.

:x

[Goragoth]

Slaves of the hype, like (almost) everyone else. Actually I find that B3D is one of the only places I have heard really bad things about the FX. Nvidia simply have way to much money invested in marketing and too little in R&D :D
If ATI can keep up the magic they performed with the R300 then Nvidia will feel the error of their ways rather quickly me thinks.

[epicstruggle]

Slaves of the hype, like (almost) everyone else. Actually I find that B3D is one of the only places I have heard really bad things about the FX. Nvidia simply have way to much money invested in marketing and too little in R&D :D
If ATI can keep up the magic they performed with the R300 then Nvidia will feel the error of their ways rather quickly me thinks.
come on, i think nvidia might have been caught with their pants down, but they have an awfull lot of cash in reserves, so i wouldnt put it past them to really have a bad ass card up their sleeve in the future.

later,

[horvendile]

A £400 card that at best performs 10% better and at worst is slower than the 9700Pro and they give it 90% !!!! :shock:


I haven't read PC Format in a few years - when I did, they were good at reviewing games and incredibly bad at reviewing hardware, so this doesn't surprise me. However, I also remember that the grading system was very inflated when I started reading, and it didn't get better. That probably comes from thinking "hey, this stuff is actually better than last year's stuff, so it must get a higher grade", but it had the result that anything below 90% was really, really bad.
My point: 90% probably isn't that good a grade.

(Disclaimer: Obviously, I haven't read the article. If the text is all heavenly praise, then, well, then I'm wrong I suppose.)

[PVR_Extremist]

I havent' bought a PC Format for ages. Not subscribed to a games mag since PC Reveiw (the absolute best at the time) was shut down and we subscribers got palmed off with PC Format.

From memory (and I may be wrong) I don't think they had any cons in the list of pros and cons that summarised the review.

That to me is bizarre given the size, noise, £400 GBP Price, and poor AA+AF performance relative to R9700Pro!!!!!!!! :shock:

To put it in context the R9700Pro can be had for less than £250 inclusive of VAT in the UK. Looks like you really DO pay for its hairdryer functionality!

I agree with your view on their rating systems. If something performs better on their limited and useless suite they give it a high mark. They pay far too little attention to the cards options and features. They ought to stick to games and let B3D handle the hardware.

I'm proud to be able to say that this site gives by far and away the most balanced view of 3D hardware and technology that I have yet read. The forums are filled with decent, intelligent people and the fact that between them they can seperate between marketing hype and reality is something the community here ought to be proud of and thankful for.

/me recieves £50 from Wavey :lol:

Dave ought to get a job at a magazine and "teach" them to review....... :roll:

[Kristof]

/me recieves £50 from Wavey :lol:

Hmmm, he might buy you a beer if your lucky :wink: :P