5900Ultra review at [H]ard OCP

[Quinn1981]

You need a set, but you can't get accurate results about what the entire card's deal is without results that aren't tampered with.

This is where I'm on the fence.

What IS an accurate result? If Card X benches 25% faster than Card Y in unoptimized benches, but Card Y's driver team creates drivers that allow Card Y to run 50% faster than Card X in 95% of situations, which would you buy? In a clean benchmark, Card X would demolish it. But, Card Y would likely be the "better" package.

Note, I did not say optimizations that cause IQ loss or optimizations that only affect benchmarks. I just mean optimizations in general.

I think we're reaching a point where you have to differentiate between the speed of the card and whatever the benchmark results tell you. How will you do this? Hell if I know. But, I have to think that application-specific optimizations are here to stay, and no one will ever remove them. They're just too beneficial for the majority of people for anyone to take them out. What we need is a way to toggle specific ones in order to judge the speed of the card and then a way to judge the effectiveness of that optimization.

This way, you can judge the speed of the card without any optimizations (remembering that only the more popular pieces of software will receive the time it takes to really increase its performance) but also see the potential of a card when code is designed specifically for it.

So, basically, having multiple codepaths for a card isn't a bad idea. It's just not the only thing we should do yet.

I agree with there being need for tweaking that increases a card's performance since every card needs specific code. There's nothing wrong with that at all. You have to draw the line where standards (I don't even know if you can call them that) are breached.

1: The user has AF enabled.
2: The user wishes the receive the results of this setting.
3: The user doesn't get it because the chip maker who makes the drivers wishes to make them think the card is capable of more than it would be if they didn't force a type or level of texture filtering.

How to solve the problem of benchmark standards? The answer is simple and we have seen it already. You just make sure you read good reviews. I've said it before and I still think it's a good idea... we need a group of people in the media and industry that can decide what is best for the readers and buyers to see. This would uproot cheating and keep bad reviews from happening or being taken serious... because they lack "the certified seal" or something.

I guess looking at it all, there is no such thing as a true gaming benchmark right now. Not one that we can trust without looking at the past freaking history of the site, author, driver team, chip maker and alignment of the planets.

Getting to the meat of the discussion, I don't think ATI needs "special tweaking" right now. They have enough power over nVidia to leverage the fact that they don't need those tweaks. Yes, they might have application specific tweaks that use detection methods, but those are for legit reasons.

Just because ATI isn't tweaking in an unjust way to the user (or we don't know about it) doesn't mean they aren't capable. If ATI had a card that performed sadly, I wouldn't discount on them cheating. However, I believe ATI has been and will run their business more respectively than nVidia has been for the last bit.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Shouldn't really say this, but I've just noticed the first page of the review and though it was pretty funny:

BFG Quote: "Dearest Gamers outside the Institution – take your gaming experience to insane levels! – Now you can “Turn it All On™†when you play the most demanding games…Turn on the higher resolutions! Turn on the antialiasing! Turn on the anisotropic filtering! Turn yourself on to the best cinematic 3D graphics you’ve ever witnessed with the Asylum™ GeForce™ FX 5900 Ultra"

Should that read: "Turn it all on, because the drivers will turn it off again without you knowing"?

 

[martrox]

Shouldn't really say this, but I've just noticed the first page of the review and though it was pretty funny:

BFG Quote: "Dearest Gamers outside the Institution – take your gaming experience to insane levels! – Now you can “Turn it All On™†when you play the most demanding games…Turn on the higher resolutions! Turn on the antialiasing! Turn on the anisotropic filtering! Turn yourself on to the best cinematic 3D graphics you’ve ever witnessed with the Asylum™ GeForce™ FX 5900 Ultra"

Should that read: "Turn it all on, because the drivers will turn it off again without you knowing"?

OUCH!!!!!

 

[Geo]

I have absolutely no attention of setting myself up even temporarily as the netiquette police, but it is worth noting that what Dave spewed on above was the precedent set be a website. . .two full abstractions away from a human being. An important point if anyone thinks they received a hunting license to do the same without those two abstractions in between.

 

[SmuvMoney]

Shouldn't really say this, but I've just noticed the first page of the review and though it was pretty funny:

BFG Quote: "Dearest Gamers outside the Institution – take your gaming experience to insane levels! – Now you can “Turn it All On™†when you play the most demanding games…Turn on the higher resolutions! Turn on the antialiasing! Turn on the anisotropic filtering! Turn yourself on to the best cinematic 3D graphics you’ve ever witnessed with the Asylum™ GeForce™ FX 5900 Ultra"

Should that read: "Turn it all on, because the drivers will turn it off again without you knowing"?

Dave, Let me use this in my sig....please I beg you!!!

I know I'm chiming very late on this one (probably too late but whateva). That being said, I do hope that [H] makes amends on the review. Letting it stand like that would be even worse than using nV Balanced vs ATi Quality, which is almost what it is doing without user consent.

 

[Pete]

I have absolutely no attention of setting myself up even temporarily as the netiquette police, but it is worth noting that what Dave spewed on above was the precedent set be a website. . .two full abstractions away from a human being. An important point if anyone thinks they received a hunting license to do the same without those two abstractions in between.

I don't understand what you're saying here--can you clarify?

(BTW, it's "I have no intention.")

 

[CitizenC]

Well you've certainly become quite the ATI f@nb0y David...congrats !

So perhaps a renaming of the site is in order? Fanatic 3D? or keeping it simple (much like the mindset of people here) may I suggest Rage 3D MK2? God knows its become hard to distinguish one from the other.

 

[Ostsol]

Well you've certainly become quite the ATI f@nb0y David...congrats !

So perhaps a renaming of the site is in order? Fanatic 3D? or keeping it simple (much like the mindset of people here) may I suggest Rage 3D MK2? God knows its become hard to distinguish one from the other.

LOL! Everytime a website notes and disagrees with a particular company's practices, fanboys of the competing company always rally and call that website biased. It's happened where sites have been called NVidia-biased and now sites are being called ATI-biased.

 

[Reverend]

I have absolutely no attention of setting myself up even temporarily as the netiquette police, but it is worth noting that what Dave spewed on above was the precedent set be a website. . .two full abstractions away from a human being. An important point if anyone thinks they received a hunting license to do the same without those two abstractions in between.

And I have absolutely no idea WTF you're talking about. Maybe I'm just a regular dense bastard.

 

[Quinn1981]

Shouldn't really say this, but I've just noticed the first page of the review and though it was pretty funny:

BFG Quote: "Dearest Gamers outside the Institution ? take your gaming experience to insane levels! ? Now you can ?Turn it All On?? when you play the most demanding games?Turn on the higher resolutions! Turn on the antialiasing! Turn on the anisotropic filtering! Turn yourself on to the best cinematic 3D graphics you?ve ever witnessed with the Asylum? GeForce? FX 5900 Ultra"

Should that read: "Turn it all on, because the drivers will turn it off again without you knowing"?

ROFL... hehehe. Yes. Excellent insight. Isn't it amazing how predictable marketing is these days?

Maybe I'm just a regular dense bastard.

Leave that job to me.

I don't see how pointing out things that are wrong with nVidia's drivers makes a person a fanATIc. I guess that would make [H] nVidiots with the Quake thing and all. And no, I'm not going to come right out and say it.

I myself am biased on companies that run business right. Companies that 'fess up to what they've done wrong and companies that don't cheat their customers in any way. That's why I've always liked nVidia, but now I don't really know why I should even like them besides liking how their cards work. I'll refrain from defending any company ever again. It's silly to think any of them wouldn't screw you over in a second.

 

[Pete]

Cries of "fanboy*!" are the fruits of a lazy intellect. It's much easier to attack a person than an idea, and it's quite obvious that most posts involving bestowing the fanboy* label (3D graphics' "f-bomb" ) are constituted more by ad-hom vitriol than by well-reasoned logic.

In other words: GG, peons.

*Forum helpfully deleted my use of "f@nboy," so I *'ed where I used it.

 

[Geo]

[quote="Reverend
And I have absolutely no idea WTF you're talking about. Maybe I'm just a regular dense bastard.[/quote]

More likely I'm too tangential.


"The precident that [H] is setting here is just utterly fucking sad and stupid" = harsh but okay.

"[Rev, Kyle, Brent, Geo] is just utterly fucking sad and stupid" = harsh and not okay.

Allowing the first to remain on the board is not an invitation for someone else to post the second, even if one of the people in that list is responsible for setting the precedent (one abstraction) that a website (another abstraction) followed.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Well you've certainly become quite the ATI f@nb0y David...congrats !

So perhaps a renaming of the site is in order? Fanatic 3D? or keeping it simple (much like the mindset of people here) may I suggest Rage 3D MK2? God knows its become hard to distinguish one from the other.

Do you mean exposing the truth, give your head a shake...

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Why expose the truth when you can live a lie?

 

[Hellbinder]

CitizenC

The peoplem with people like this is they dont care about the actual information. WHY the hell would you make such an assinine statement insinuating that B3D is some kind of Fanatic site in the face of the REAL INFORMATION??? huh?? Come on explain it to me.

Why Dont you try something origional and actually Back up with DETAILS what you are saying. Explain how forcing Trilinear off for Speed is totally acceptable.. How anyone saying otherwise is a some kind of Video card Zealot...

Why is it ok For [H] to flip flop around on their high ground based on whichever breeze Nvidia is blowing their way?? Can you really deny that this is not whats happening here? One day they demand Truth in all benchmarks. Sacrificing IQ for speed is Evil only if you can *see it*.. 3dmark03 is crap... the list goes on. Then suddenly the Rules all change. Still using Demo levels known to be cheated by Nvidia, not noting the Trilinear issue which you ccan clearly SEE, and is well known as of late..

The editorials, Ranting, and Rules of conduct change almost Daily based on the latest Nvidia press release. You dont have to be a FanatiK to see it.. but what Do have to be to Deny it??

These are just my Personal views and have nothing to do with this site. This site is Technical in nature plain and simple. When they dont see the Technical side of things lining up they comment on it. Which is something you should consider and take note of, and actually CARE ABOUT. insted of sticking your head in the sand and calling everyone a Fanboi.

 

[nelg]

Brent could be the good little lap dog that he is and respond in the same manner that he did this time.

The name calling is pretty fucking lame.....seriously. Look where we're heading by acting like this. So ya'll didnt like Brent's review, thats cool. I understand being pissed off about it, but c'mon.....this is turning into a vicious circle. [H] fucks up, and the mannerism of this forum gets severly affected. Disagree with me all you want, or jump my shit even, but thats they way I honestly feel....

Sorry micron but the un professionalism at [H] is "pretty fucking lame" to me. Brent is a paid professional. He had prior knowledge of this issue and could have verified it before releasing the article. Instead we are left with gems like this

So what can we conclude about the performance of the BFGTech Asylum 5900 Ultra? In Unreal Tournament 2003 the BFG 5900 Ultra dominated Antalus and Face3 maps

This, from one of the most read computer sites on the net.

 

[Dean]

this thread here http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=1089592 is somewhat sickening as the same subject was brought up to an anandtech reviewer.

 

[StealthHawk]

I just wanted to say thanks to Dave for explaining and summerizing the situation for me. I do understand it better now.

I still want to do my own testing first of course, but I will see about putting an amend in the review to alert users of this issue and that we are looking into it.

Well, as long as you edit your review and tell readers that the results may be inaccurate and that you are looking into it, that is all we can ask for. And of course, you actually do look into it and reveal your findings, amending the conclusion of the article if that is warranted.

Unlike a certain site *cough*Anand*cough* who doesn't update their obviously incorrect graphs

 

[Dave Baumann]

Well you've certainly become quite the ATI f@nb0y David...congrats !

Do you have something meaningful to contribute to this forum? Your post history would certainly suggest not.

This thread represents the shock at Brents initial reply to in when talking about the IQ reduction in UT2003 not least because of the regard I hold in Brent as a reviewer and in light of [H]'s "Benchmarking Right" stance. That last was a small jape on the situation, and if you can't take then, well so be it.

Brent has since acknowledged the situation and now [H] are going to look into it, which is a good thing is it not?

 

[Sharkfood]

I'm going to have to side with the path of reason on this one... which is there is absolutely no excuse to simply ignore the intentional reduction in IQ in favor of obtaining falsified inflated benchmark scores. This is exactly what NVIDIA has done in the past and what they are doing now.

I find it funny how the "fanboi" term gets thrown around when only double standards are exposed concerning the same thing in years past. It was absolutely critical for sites like Anand, HardOCP and the rest to create multi-page, comprehensive 200x zoomed studies of 8500 Anisotropic filtering to pinpoint it's bilinear nature, and then make bold steps to declare it "incomparable" with benchmarks of NV hardware using trilinear anisotropic filtering. Yet now comparing bilinear with trilinear needs to be silent, ignored or otherwise skipped from even being mentioned- and throw those curvy bar graphs together.

So what I see is yet another double-standard. In the past- two to three page comprehensive study versus zero page, complete ignoring of the same. These websites need to decide what level of standards they are going to follow and then stick to them. This flip-flop, 180-degree change in ethics every month just surely isn't rational.