First few GFX benches

I understand. The problem just is that most of us don't have the money (or time) to buy 2 or 3 cards to test the IQ live and in motion first hand in order to compare.

So the consumer will need some form of guidance before buying anyway - e.g. like the reviewer states what a specific level of IQ give and take compares to another cards. And if you have to go that far anyway, you as well make a virtue out of it and come forward with a bit of IHMO-judgement in this one area where you really need an educated opinion! OTOH everybody can look at FPS numbers from any reviewer and make a quick n' dirty opinion.

My point is that I would rather have some [subjective] input from sites like beyond3d than nothing - or having to base my buying on a fan forum.

 

That should be the proper way (something I had subscribed to) but once a certain reviewer (perhaps, you, for example) has gained (substantially enough) recognition for being truly "correct and trustworthy", I now personally think it to be essential that such a reviewer post their thoughts on what's "better" and what's not.

There is no denying the truth.

My Opinion :

Most of such "reviewers" are no greater than the readers that read their writings - better IQ is absolute, indisputable and non-subjective..... only the "degree of better IQ" is disputable and subjective (... an example is a simple 2xRGAA vs 2xOGAA... 2xRGAA is indisputably better than 2xOGAA). The only reason why reviewers feel they should refrain from stating what they think is better IQ is mostly for political (and economical) reasons. As long as reasons are given, reviewers should feel "safe" for stating their opinions. When you are a trusted source, you should not be afraid (for economical or political or whatever reasons-wise) to state your opinion.

In fact, as someone regarded as a journalist/reporter, a video card reviewer should give his opinion on what is better. There may be huge quarrels over two cars making 0-60 in 4 and 4.5 seconds.... but there is undeniably a difference of 0.5 seconds. The difference is expressing the 0.5 difference without using clocks by the test driver successfully.

 

BTW I have to say that I'm mighty impressed with the 4xAA quality on my Radeon 9700 Pro. It's a nice jump up from the 2xAA on the GF4 I tried and right now I don't really think that I need something better in AA...

... IMHO of course!

 

I concur. I can see why a reviewer would like to refrain from stating anything that they'll be have to defend with arguments that'll boil down to subjective things or feelings (being difficult or downright impossible). But this doesn’t change that fact consumers need the guidance and opinions in precisely this subjective area.

Reverend is on to something important about being a trusted reviewer and what kind of options of liberty that gives you: I know which reviewer of music and movies I can trust, so why not make a virtue out of necessity?

 

I think AA and AF are often noticed more when it's turned off than on.

I've been to some of the i event lan parties in the UK and at one when a friend was away from his pc i put 4xAA and 8xAF on. Hes on a gf3 but only plays cs (and most other games) at 640x480 so fps isn't a problem.

When he came back he didn't notice a thing.

The next day I turned it off and only then did he notice.

The average gamer never even ventures into the advanced section of the drivers. If they did then you wouldn't have some of the fuss about monolights and gamma cvars in CS as they'd just use the gamma control in the drivers (which if you want to get rid of dark corners is far better than using cs cvars)

Shrinking menus are good in morrowind as you can fit more of your inventory/spells onscreen at the same time

 

Guidance, yes. What I'm talking about is that the reviewer shouldn't limit the tests to what they feel gives an equivelent IQ level. Provide as much relavent data as possible first and then give impressions as a user.

 

BTW, I just re-read your post and was thinking about your use of the word "imposing".

Out of curiosity (and this is simply because I really don't treat myself as someone whose writings on an Internet website as "imposing") - are the words of a video card reviewer read as "authoritative" and "imposing"? Much like the saying goes... "It's on the Internet... it must be true"...??

The very word "subjective" should go with reading what you see.

Yes, just like I said when I used the word "As long as reasons are given..."

PS. BTW, sorry being uncool i.e. righteous.

 

Well, given the background of most web reviewers, IMO, as a general rule of thumb, none of them should consider themselves any more "authoritative" as their readers. That goes doubly so for B3D given the level of knowledge and experience many of our readers have.

Reviewers may have a greater level of experience with a wider range of products (but due to the nature of their job/role, rarely will they really be able to dig into the nuances of all of them) and that experience should be imparted as much as possible through their reviews. But, IMO, they shouldn’t feel they have any authority over their readers, just a duty to impart as much information as they can.

However, what I was getting at with the word ‘imposing’ was using your impression to restrict the testing – i.e. a reviewer saying “2X on car Y looks the same as 4X on card Y, ergo I will only provide data/benchmarks at these levels”. Lots of relevant data should be provided first, analysis of that data and impressions of where the reviewer feels the IQ is relative to each board after. Again, IMO.

 

I agree with that and it is good to hear from a reviewer. We [the whole lot of mankind] all make mistakes and if we are of the opinion that we are beyond error then we dig ourselves rather large pits to fall into, not to mention becoming blind by our own ego.

I thought the saying went "It's on the Internet... it must be bollox"

 

Again the vast majority of people have 17" or 19" monitors that are a couple ff years old and cant do 1600x1200 at high refresh rates, or like me have an LCD for space reasons. The monitors may not have been $50 when they got them and haveing spent £300/$500 dollar on a graphics card update and may not wish to spend any more on their PC.

Nag, I love the way you always express your opinion on whether AA is useful or not as a fact that applies to everyone else

 

Hehe.. I can't play ANY games on my PC without AA enabled anymore. Well I can obviously but I prefer not to

 

I dont believe trying to baseline IQ levels between cards and then benchmarking is quite the way to go, although its on the right track. Its just too difficult a process to line up images between two or three or more different architectures involving unlike methods for AA and texture filtering.

The way to go is benchmarking at a given performance level and showing what each card is capable of IQ wise within that restraint. Still a whole lot of work so I'm not gonna hold my breath.



BTW, I really dig all the hostility on this board. Its genuine.

 

Actually, we really do love each other.........

In reality, most here are not hostile as much as they are passionate. The real problems arise when passion blinds one to anothers point of view. Rairly will you find the verbal abuse here that you will in the fanboi forums....... although you will get the occasional " Jane, you ignorant slut....." references.........

 

Die!

 

Welcome! But are you sure you didn't mean alle the hospitality on this board? Most of us really loves this places!

 

dksuiko, you ignorant slut..........

 

Hah. Okay, time for me to run and hide after helping drag the thread a bit off topic.

 

So, 1st card on the 20 of january? :?

650 €

http://www.computerboot.com/nl/dept_81.html

 

Here's an idea...

Create an IQ self-review.

The review 'author' presents several screenshots of various IQ settings for each game benchmarked.

The user clicks on one from column A and one from column B that he feels are similar in IQ.

Then the website gives a comparison of the two the user has chosen.

The only downside to this type of equal IQ review is the fact that different cards have different sweet spots or perf cliffs, so there the review author should step in and mention these.

 

Is that the one with 256M of memory?