Does anyone find this statement a Joke ??
- Thread starter Doomtrooper
- Start date
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Its common knowledge that ATI has issues with 45 degree planes and AF, does Matrox Parhelia do anistropic filtering the same as a Geforce 4 ??..so that same kind of thinking can be used here.
What about FSAA, and the Geforce 4 with Alpha Blends, from now on if the game inlcudes Alpha Blends then it would not be 'fair' to inlclude FSAA numbers as they are not being AA'd.
What about FSAA, and the Geforce 4 with Alpha Blends, from now on if the game inlcudes Alpha Blends then it would not be 'fair' to inlclude FSAA numbers as they are not being AA'd.
I gave up last year on emailing reviewers trying to explain to them why it's not exactly fair to compare multisampling against supersampling scores. It didn't help that, for whatever reasons, most were convinced by someone that the original GF3 performed AA the same as the previous generation (V5, GF2).
Lars is good in one way.. he is willing to reply to any emails you send him.
I remember asking him about a site that he used to always link to, that posted great demo's.
He helped me find the email address of thedemo site owner just so I could thank him. BUT 'Borsti' won't listen to you. With AF on the Radeon will throw a spanner in the works and 'Borsti' won't be able to pronounce decisively that the *GF4/Parhelia is faster than *Parhelia/GF4 (*delete as applicable) in given tests.
.. sheesh and part 2 was meant to focus on image quality.... many people claim the Radeon 8500 has the BEST image quality so what do we do? Lets leave it out.. hehe
I remember asking him about a site that he used to always link to, that posted great demo's.
He helped me find the email address of thedemo site owner just so I could thank him. BUT 'Borsti' won't listen to you. With AF on the Radeon will throw a spanner in the works and 'Borsti' won't be able to pronounce decisively that the *GF4/Parhelia is faster than *Parhelia/GF4 (*delete as applicable) in given tests.
.. sheesh and part 2 was meant to focus on image quality.... many people claim the Radeon 8500 has the BEST image quality so what do we do? Lets leave it out.. hehe
Thanks for the link ram, that's a very good article.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Actually Surmonkey the best article is right here on the forum,
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=678&highlight=ripmapping
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=678&highlight=ripmapping
OK, that's prettty cool too. Cheers Doomtrooper.
So from reading all that, I take it that THG choice to remove the R8500 from the review was based upon the fact that it doesn't Aniso a whole scene but only the parts required. But the Parhelia and GF do whole scene? And that what accounts for the performance difference bewteen the GF and the Radeon.
So it could still be included because the review should be based on the quality of output and not how it does it!?
I still reckon that THG's choice was a bad call, and is symptomatic of the general negativity that is pervading most reviewers opinions these days.
So from reading all that, I take it that THG choice to remove the R8500 from the review was based upon the fact that it doesn't Aniso a whole scene but only the parts required. But the Parhelia and GF do whole scene? And that what accounts for the performance difference bewteen the GF and the Radeon.
So it could still be included because the review should be based on the quality of output and not how it does it!?
I still reckon that THG's choice was a bad call, and is symptomatic of the general negativity that is pervading most reviewers opinions these days.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Nope it actually all started here on the old forums, I think it was Pcchen's little app. It was even put in a magazine article that it was rip mapping showing a screen shot of Pcchens little program..then Digit-life posted it was rip mapping..goes to show how many lurkers there are out there relying on this forum (now website) to post the truth
BoardBonobo said:
Yeah, it sounds like he removed it from the comparison JUST CAUSE it Aniso's differently then the other cards! WHICH DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! Of course the 8500 is faster using it's Aniso method, that was the whole point of using the method they did
Becuase using that same thought pattern you better not compare the 16X FAA to the 4X FSAA of the 8500 or GF4 either cause they AA differently from each other.
Based on the kind of logic THG cited for disregarding the Radeon they shouldn't do any GFX card comparisons at all because they are all based on different architecture (though that may be taking it a bit far ). The only thing they do have in common are the programs that run on them.
That's why you should be looking at the output, not the mechanics, tempered by the performance. You don't choose which cereal to eat by looking at the production process...
Or if you do you need to get help soon...
). The only thing they do have in common are the programs that run on them.That's why you should be looking at the output, not the mechanics, tempered by the performance. You don't choose which cereal to eat by looking at the production process...
Or if you do you need to get help
soon...Doomtrooper said:Nope it actually all started here on the old forums, I think it was Pcchen's little app. It was even put in a magazine article that it was rip mapping showing a screen shot of Pcchens little program..then Digit-life posted it was rip mapping..goes to show how many lurkers there are out there relying on this forum (now website) to post the truth
Ah... Thx Doomtooper.
Lets face it Toms is a pile of rubbish
I'm not sure theres much a community such as this can do to GENTLY pursuade the likes of Lars and Tom to start posting unbiased articles. Even boycotting by those in the know here will still leave a huge target audience for Toms to spread its biased views in the name of science! Jeez. what a joke! Of course it's no surprise as to why they do it! Making cash and collecting a large spread of free products at the same time is certainly going to test anyones integretity. It's just a shame Beyond3D doesn't have the muscle to get the reviews out quicker! Also I'd like some of the sites out there to actually starting highlighting just how poor some of the reviews are. (Maybe Kyle from HardOCP can post a view comments about the lack of unbiased reviews?) At least this way it should be harder for a supposedly biased reviewer to publish an article that's slightly misleading at best and potentially very damaging at worst.
Without trying to defend ATIs implementation as it's far from perfect what if due to public/market pressure from those convinced by Toms etc ATI decides to drop its use of angle dependant ansio and follow NVidias route. Will the public gain from this? Personally I just don't see it, the more ideas and approaches utilsed will hopefully result in the best for all !
Again, apolgies for the rant but it's incredibly poor that such blatant bias is allowed to go on!
I'm not sure theres much a community such as this can do to GENTLY pursuade
the likes of Lars and Tom to start posting unbiased articles. Even boycotting by those in the know here will still leave a huge target audience for Toms to spread its biased views in the name of science! Jeez. what a joke! Of course it's no surprise as to why they do it! Making cash and collecting a large spread of free products at the same time is certainly going to test anyones integretity. It's just a shame Beyond3D doesn't have the muscle to get the reviews out quicker! Also I'd like some of the sites out there to actually starting highlighting just how poor some of the reviews are. (Maybe Kyle from HardOCP can post a view comments about the lack of unbiased reviews?) At least this way it should be harder for a supposedly biased reviewer to publish an article that's slightly misleading at best and potentially very damaging at worst. Without trying to defend ATIs implementation as it's far from perfect what if due to public/market pressure from those convinced by Toms etc ATI decides to drop its use of angle dependant ansio and follow NVidias route. Will the public gain from this? Personally I just don't see it, the more ideas and approaches utilsed will hopefully result in the best for all !
Again, apolgies for the rant but it's incredibly poor that such blatant bias is allowed to go on!
KnightBreed
Newcomer
Once again, Digit-life comes through with the best review of the bunch.ram said:
KnightBreed
Newcomer
Re: Lets face it Toms is a pile of rubbish
Allowed to go on? What are you going to do? Take his site away from him? There isn't much we can do about it, other than ignore him.Seiko said:
Re: Lets face it Toms is a pile of rubbish
Nope but I'd certainly suggest to the various companies that it's perhaps in theirs (and the consumers) best interest not to supply units to a site that will simply create false and often damaging impressions! If enough companies would simply strike off Toms et all who also publish biased crap then it may bring the whole web site review system to a new and actually useful level !
just my 2 pennies!
KnightBreed said:
Nope but I'd certainly suggest to the various companies that it's perhaps in theirs (and the consumers) best interest not to supply units to a site that will simply create false and often damaging impressions! If enough companies would simply strike off Toms et all who also publish biased crap then it may bring the whole web site review system to a new and actually useful level !
just my 2 pennies!
The digit-life article doesn't actually explain why a plane at 45 degrees has no aniso. To me, the article seems to imply that the 8500s aniso depends on UV orientation, which it doesn't. Unless I'm reading it wrong.
How does anandtech always manage to get poor results for the 8500? In the JK2 and RTCW tests its behind the ti4200 while other recent reviews have put it ahead in those 2 games.
How does anandtech always manage to get poor results for the 8500? In the JK2 and RTCW tests its behind the ti4200 while other recent reviews have put it ahead in those 2 games.