Another Site reviwing with 3DMARK and 53.03

WHAT "false accusations"?!?!

Seriously, that's all I want to know...what is it that you think you've wrongly been accused of and why?

I think it's a fair question, if you don't please tell me why.

 

OMG, do you mean the bit where Hanners mentioned that you got your wrist slapped by FM and that's why you quit using it is the "lie"?

I'd call that one more of a mis-interpretation, but if you want to call it a lie just tell me no one from FM contacted you or any member of DH about it and I'll let ya have it.

 

Quote-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. -Quote


Easy to read isnt it. We were not found out by anyone for doing anything wrong and We never got any notification from FM about our review.

 

Not quite true, I think Sniping Waste found you out or we wouldn't be having this nice conversation.

That's sad, just sad. I'm not doubting you, but I find it inconceivable that FM would be so apathetic as to not even contact you about it.

My apologies for the fuss, I misunderstood and was wrong to go off about it. I'm very sorry to all I've offended.

 

No he stated something that was obvious. All you can do is take me at my word, I know of no one getting any letter about our review from FM.

Anyways enough is enough. We have nothing to prove or not prove. I wish all of you the best and nothing but success.

Regards,
toddsmack2k

 

No, he pointed out something that was wrong....a subtle, yet important, difference.

 

I give up. Everytime I post a reasonable post the "police" go and delete my post.

 

Veridian,
What's this about 52.16 using "only 2D" for the card in question? What info is the basis for that observation?

 

Interesting how taking such "insane" steps as forcing PS 2.0 usage with an outside tool can be necessary to get accurate info on hardware comparison for performance, isn't it?

See numerous prior discussions, including those directed at you without response, for further thoughts on the matter.

 

Boy, it's getting kind of warm in here, isn't it?

<Nostalgia>And knowing is half the battle.</Nostalgia>

Speaking of which....

Veridian, the 5900XT does not "come clocked at 300/680," as my first post mentioned. 3D mode, ostensibly the basis of your overclocking section, defaults to 390 or 400MHz for the 5900XT core. 300MHz is the default 2D speed, so it's not accurate to say that the 5900XT overclocked a monstrous 50+% to 476MHz. It gained a more reasonable ~25%, in line with the 9600XT. I believe the memory speed doesn't change between 2D and 3D modes, so 680MHz is right.

Gentlemen, start your editors.

 

Re: Boy, it's getting kind of warm in here, isn't it?

You are correct, typo on my part...either that or i named one of my control panel screenies incorrectly. It'll be updated later.

If you install the drivers the install seems successful until you reboot at which point you cant use any hardware 3d features. The easiest example is opening 3dmark03 results in the graphics card failing the initial features test that 3dmark does when the application loads.
Additionaly when you look at the control panel you get "Default monitor on " and there is no entry and no NV control panel in the advanced display properties.

 

That's very peculiar, and in my mind suspicous. Why should a card that differs only in clock speeds not function with a previous driver? You should be able to get it to run under any driver that supports the same core.

I wonder if anyone has tried hacking the DeviceID to something the driver does support and then seeing what happens with the 52.16's?

 

That's fair enough - It was an assumption on my part, as it's the way things have worked with every other site that broke FutureMark's EULA - FutureMark notice it, contact the site to let them know, then the site owner/reviewer/whoever makes a big song and dance about it on the front page and publically executes FutureMark. If that wasn't the way it worked with DriverHeaven, then my apologies.

That was a cheap shot, and an incorrect one at that, but I'll let it go. You may have noticed that R.O.A.R hasn't been active in quite some time, partly due to the over-reaction to some sites of any criticism, but mainly because I have more important projects to spend my time on.

I don't think I ever claimed you did, I was just airing my thoughts about the response that you made on your own site to the situation.

Not sure what all these 'biased assumptions' are, but any input is more than welcome. Reviewing is a learning process, so that's exactly what I intend to do.


On another (slightly more civil) note, I'm quite suprised that the 5900XT doesn't work with the 52.16 drivers - The 5600XT I have works perfectly with them, and I would guess that both cards were released/developed around the same timeframe. If it really doesn't work with 52.16, then I guess that leaves you in a tricky situation - In that instance I would probably have abandoned 3DMark03 altogether for that review (although not for every review across the board).

 

To add to the debate.... The Tech Report managed to benchmark a 5900XT with the 52.16 drivers without any problems.

 

It seems that the card they reviewed not be a real XT...not sure if thats the way to word it! But reading the intro they talk about it being an SE and an XT. It may be that there is something in the BIOS that identify's it differently from the "real" XT i have.

Whatever the case i mailed the reviewer to ask how he got it working, or if it just worked out of the box with 52.16.

And let me be the first to say...

I'm shocked and appauled that they would choose to use 53.03 in a comparison article. They should be hung from a tree by their testicles with a very fine (but strong) thread.

 

If, indeed the 'proper' 5900XTs are hardwired so as not to work with the Det 52.16, this is very fishy indeed. The only reason that NV might do this as far as I can see is to force people to use the 53.03 drivers specifically to provide incorrect 3DM2003 results.

Can anyone think of any other reasons why you shouldn't be able to use 52.16 drivers with the 5900XTs?

 

They shouldn't officially have used 53.03 in the 3DMark03 tests, but at least they did use the certified drivers as well.

 

Apology accepted, but you might get a little more civil treatment if you actually tried to contact the people and sites in question before making unfounded and factually incorrect comments regarding a subject matter that clearly you could not have any information on in the first place.

In all seriousness it wasnt a cheap shot, it was actually more founded a statement that some of the forum postings ive been reading from yourself on various websites. You have irritated quite a few reviewers by "reviewing" their reviews. If you can step outside your own standpoint on this, this can be seen as quite an arrogant undertaking, especially when (and no offense intended) you have very little reviewing experience yourself and have made errors in your ROAR editorials much the amusement of some people involved in the original reviews. Alot of sites take their reviews quite seriously, after all, why partake in a review in the first place if you arent going to attempt to do it in the best way you can?

please feel free to air your thoughts on my editorials, ill continue to correct you (when I have time) when you are wrong.

The biased assumptions are that generally you and EB are the first sites to attempt to discredit or tear down an editorial or review on DH, even without checking with myself regarding statements I make - I have also read personal insults from you regarding comments i have made. Now im quite happy with you saying a review has errors or an editorial is flawed and letting us know but ill reply to you (again when ive time) when I see you bitching in an underhanded way on various forums regarding Driverheaven site policies and reviewing stances. If I decide to remove 3dmark from our reviews, ill do so if I feel it will be beneficial to content, not because ive taken a "tantrum" over futuremark supposedly slapping me down.

I do wish you success in your reviews and as you say its a learning process - everyone makes mistakes no matter how experienced. However I strongly suggest you start looking into your forum conduct across the net and commentary on unfounded "assumptions" or "feelings" before you expect to be taken seriously as a professional and upfront reviewer. Im not quite sure there is enough room on the WWW for two digitalwanderers.

 

What can I say? I call things as I see them. I'm a big enough person to hold my hand up when I'm wrong, and on this occasion it appears that I was, hence the apology. However, much as I'd love every forum post I make to be verified by yourself, neither you or I have the time to do so.

Anyhow, this is getting way off-topic, so I won't go on any more, but feel free to continue the character assassination in PM if you so wish.

 

Veridian3/Brent,

glad I was able to help. Looking forward to what ever you folks find out.