Another Site reviwing with 3DMARK and 53.03

[Veridian3]

I wouldnt say we were found out. I am 100% happy with the decision to use 53.03 in that review. It is the only WHQL driver which works with the 59XT. If you install 52.16 on that card none of the required 3dmark03 features are supported. i.e. you get 2d use and thats it. That added to my statement that it is an uncertified driver which may contain optimisations should be enough for the reader to make their own decisions on the card and its performance.

It's also a clear violation of the users agreement as well as an unfair way to show the performance difference between the cards Stu, and you're 100% happy with that decision? :|

Uhm, no. Wrong answer.

By mentioning that the 53.03 drivers were not approved and this meant they may not be free of optimisations and that the 4.1's are certified and optimisation free the reader is well aware that the results may not be comparable. I'm not sure how much clearer you would have wanted it... big red line between them? Seperate pages for 96 results and 59 results? Including the results in the review with the caveat is in my opinion justified, yes.

 

[Quitch]

What you did put you in violation of the EULA. It's very simple, you include the marks for the Radeon, then you state why you can't include any for the GeForce.

Hardly rocket science.

 

[digitalwanderer]

By mentioning that the 53.03 drivers were not approved and this meant they may not be free of optimisations and that the 4.1's are certified and optimisation free the reader is well aware that the results may not be comparable.

And any reviewer should know that they not only "may not be comparable", but that they shouldn't be compared in a review!

It should not be, it's wrong. It's wrong from a legal standpoint, an ethical standpoint, and just a bloody common sense standpoint!

Did you not happen to read anything last year about nVidia cheating on their drivers? This type of behavoir and DH's recent snit-fit over the criticism they're receiving for this review and their decision to no longer use 3dm2k3 is EXACTLY what nVidia wants and is what is continuing to let them get away with all the bullshit they've been trying to sell people.

It's a BAD THING(tm) Stu, honest.

I'm not sure how much clearer you would have wanted it... big red line between them? Seperate pages for 96 results and 59 results?

No, you simply do not use un-approved drivers in a review. The only time I could see possibly justifying using un-approved drivers is to show exactly how nVidia is using driver cheats to score better and thus informing the customer of something useful rather than selling them a false bill-o-goods.

Including the results in the review with the caveat is in my opinion justified, yes.

Than your opinion is wrong, caveat or no.

 

[jb]

1) what settings and shaders were used for Far Cry

All details were set to max quality in the drivers and in the game options.

2) if the two cards looked the same, and

Yes they did, there were no noticable differences in image quality.

3) how often each hit its atrociously low minimum framerates.

In Farcry the 59XT was slightly more playable than the 96XT, I wouldnt say either was acceptable however as far as drops go, very similar at this time.

Hi there Veridian3,

I hate to do this but can you go back and double check the FarCry results again? We know that on the Demo, ATI cards run at PS2.0 while NV cards run at PS1.1 You have to download an use the 3Danalyzier to force PS2.0 on NV hardware and thats not really fair to do that (who knows what else is happening when you force the shaders using that program).

Images from SH64 on the NV thread:


NV PS1.1
http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/sh64/FarCry 5950_PS1.1.jpg

NV PS2.0
http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/sh64/FarCry 5950_PS2.0.jpg

ATI PS2.0
http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/sh64/FarCry ATI_PS2.0.jpg

Granted not from the same spot but close enough. There is a pretty BIG difference in both IQ and FPS scores.

There are some more pics that show the differences in this thread as well as some more details:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032&perpage=20&pagenumber=2

and on page 3 he does more PS2.0 comparisons....

So If you can, can you double check as many people in that thread saw something much different than what you posted. Thanks!

 

[Veridian3]

jb, i'll get onto that this weekend, i've a few other things going on system wise that i need to complete tonight/tomorrow.

 

[Zardon]

What sane reviewer is going to go through the trouble to run one benchmark with 52.16?

Me?

Although you did say 'sane', so I guess that precludes me anyhow.

Well.... looks like DH is dropping the use of FM from their benches, so there ya go!

Yeah, I saw that too last night.

Isn't it funny how sites are happy to use 3DMark03 blindly, yet as soon as they get 'found out' and a wrist slap from FutureMark, they suddenly hate the benchmark and cry about how useless it is? You'd have thought that reviewers would welcome input and help (particularly certain sources), not rail against it and go into a tantrum whenever they are confronted with information about a mistake they have made. I should be finishing my first video card review of any note over the weekend, and I want people to pull it to pieces so I can make the next one better.

We didnt get any form of "slap" from anyone. I ditched 3dmark for the reasons I posted - its been on the cards for a long time, have a read over them - if you dont agree fine, but dont be jumping to conclusions or making guesses on issues you really dont know anything about hanners - unless of course you are an admin on my site which last time I checked you werent. Futuremark never made me remove anything, I did that myself. I always welcome input but it really depends on the sources the input comes from, im not really sure certain people are qualified to offer input when in all fairness the majority of their work revolves around reviewing others peoples reviews. And also I didnt review it either a little point you missed in your rant.

And yes certainly I know quite a few people who will be more than willing to offer input on your first review, lets hope its a little more detailed and accurate than these kind of biased assumptions I frequently see posted from you on various forums regarding a website you clearly dont like.

 

[Mark]

uh oh here we go

 

[Pete]

Veridian, thanks for the reply. My concern is the same one jb voiced, that FX cards may default to PS1.x, while Radeon cards may default to PS2.0. It's been shown that PS2.0 offers (however minimal) IQ improvements, so it would be nice if you verified that both cards are either running the same shaders or at equal IQ levels. I'm pretty surprised the 9600XT can keep up with the FX if the latter is running PS1.x, so some confirmation from the game devs would be appreciated. Maybe you can find a way to force equal shaders for each card, too.

 

[dan2097]

IIRC farcry runs in ps1.1 on all cards with high quality graphics. When graphics are set to very high though ATI uses "ps1.1 and ps2.0" while Nvidia just uses ps1.1

 

[digitalwanderer]

if you dont agree fine, but dont be jumping to conclusions or making guesses on issues you really dont know anything about hanners - unless of course you are an admin on my site which last time I checked you werent.

No, he's got a lot better things to do with his time Allan....but he loves hearing all my old stories.

I always welcome input but it really depends on the sources the input comes from, im not really sure certain people are qualified to offer input when in all fairness the majority of their work revolves around reviewing others peoples reviews.

Then you must not be very familar with Hanners work if that is all you think he does, it happens to be a very small part of it that we ALL decided to go ahead with at EliteBastards and Hanners has been kind enough (and knowledgeable enough, it really does help to know what you're writing about at times ) to be the one who does that aspect.

Don't try and knock Hanners unless you got something to knock him for, I'll call you on it everytime and I ain't gonna be pleasant when you're trying to diss a friend of mine who I happen to respect the hell out of his work.

And yes certainly I know quite a few people who will be more than willing to offer input on your first review, lets hope its a little more detailed and accurate than these kind of biased assumptions I frequently see posted from you on various forums regarding a website you clearly dont like.

Name on "biased assumption" of his Allan, just one.

You wanted a high-profile website, you got it. When you screw up on a high-profile site you're going to get called on it, deal with it instead of trying to deny it.

Oh, and I really meant it about the "don't fuck with Hanners" bit Allan....you'll lose.

 

[Brent]

wow, that farcry info was news to me

i just read the thread at nvnews

i'll check it out myself and report it in my next upcoming review, i've got a lot more games i've evaluated gameplay in for it, farcry will be one of the games

 

[John Reynolds]

Guys, take the soap opera elsewhere. I know there's lots of bad blood between DH and EB, but I'm not going to let the noise from it spill over onto these forums.

 

[Zardon]

oh for goodness sake digi unbunch your panties, I was embarassed FOR hanners reading that ! he is a big boy and doesnt need you overdosing on smilies and acting like an escort, im sure if he posts nonsense and what he would "like" to have happened with FM he expects the person who he is lying about to at least defend himself. Certainly making comments on how a review is flawed is fine and ill take that criticism on the chin and acknowledge it - but those comments ARENT opinions, they are lies and pure speculation.

Anyway as frequently it happens when you are involved during one of your cruscades for the month-- things quickly fall into bitchfests.

 

[karlotta]

ok i know its a flame..but

____________________________________________________________
We didnt get any form of "slap" from anyone. I ditched 3dmark for the reasons I posted - its been on the cards for a long time, have a read over them - if you dont agree fine, but dont be jumping to conclusions or making guesses on issues you really dont know anything about hanners - unless of course you are an admin on my site which last time I checked you werent. Futuremark never made me remove anything, I did that myself. I always welcome input but it really depends on the sources the input comes from, im not really sure certain people are qualified to offer input when in all fairness the majority of their work revolves around reviewing others peoples reviews. And also I didnt review it either a little point you missed in your rant.

And yes certainly I know quite a few people who will be more than willing to offer input on your first review, lets hope its a little more detailed and accurate than these kind of biased assumptions I frequently see posted from you on various forums regarding a website you clearly dont like.[/quote]
_____________________________________________________________
Zardon is Kyles long lost brother?

 

[Zardon]

Guys, take the soap opera elsewhere. I know there's lots of bad blood between DH and EB, but I'm not going to let the noise from it spill over onto these forums.

John, I know Dave B, in fact im just back from a meeting with him a while ago in london with some ATI staff and I respect him and this forum - I was shown this thread by several people and felt the need to respond. This has nothing to do with EB or DH - in fact I dont think you will see any threads from staff on DH insulting EB, thats not our style. The bitching is to do with staff members on EB who were fired from DH, about time they dealt with it and moved on like men.

I will however make sure any lies are addressed- I feel certain staff members are on a little cruscade to discredit when possible. its fine if there is a difference of opinion - i normally read posts and move on - this unfortunately is NOT the case, and its unfortunate people cant at least have the respect to find out facts before posting lies.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Guys, take the soap opera elsewhere. I know there's lots of bad blood between DH and EB, but I'm not going to let the noise from it spill over onto these forums.

John, I know Dave B, in fact im just back from a meeting with him a while ago in london with some ATI staff and I respect him and this forum - I was shown this thread by several people and felt the need to respond. This has nothing to do with EB or DH - in fact I dont think you will see any threads from staff on DH insulting EB, thats not our style. The bitching is to do with staff members on EB who were fired from DH, about time they dealt with it and moved on like men.

I will however make sure any lies are addressed- I feel certain staff members are on a little cruscade to discredit when possible. its fine if there is a difference of opinion - i normally read posts and move on - this unfortunately is NOT the case, and its unfortunate people cant at least have the respect to find out facts before posting lies.

No personalities and no smilies; post up the "lies" and lets address them on points then.

 

[toddsmack2k]

We did not post any lies

 

[Mariner]

I'm sorry to interrupt your fun chaps, but as I don't read either EB or DH, I'm not really interested in your bickering here on the B3D forums.

No offence intended, but I expect this is why JR said what he did.

8)

 

[digitalwanderer]

We did not post any lies

I didn't say you did, Zardon said that Hanners had posted lies and I want to know what lies he's talking about.

No melodrama, no flames; just name the lies and let's see what you're talking about Zardon.

 

[toddsmack2k]

That is fine with me. I nor Zardon are here to bicker back and forth between us and ex staff about issues they have with DH nor anyone else.

Criticism is more than welcome from anyone with a valid point. You never will please everyone and you can only do the best you can with what you have. However I feel it is our duty and only right to correct false accusations. That is all we have intended to do and have done.