[H]ardOCP Trying to be too Hard?

Last time I checked ULi is NOT ATi. ATi makes their own southbridge and from the article you provided it was the ULi SB causing the problems. The point is (amd most of you agreeing with Kyle seem to miss this) is that the problem was not with the MB but the video card. Even in their correction article they still wallow in their stupidity by trying to stand by their original statements when in fact they cannot be borne out in regards to the system they tested.

 

read what I wrote...

 

Looks like you really need to read the article that you referenced to. You know what no one here cares if ATi's chipsets have problems. The point is they wrongly blamed ATI when the fault lies squarely with BGF and the Nvidia graphics chip.

They made themselves looke like arses when the ran that article and did not have the factual data to back it up.

 

The fact that you guys have not gotten any factual data before believing FNW but demand it from Kyle shows where you stand. You don't give a rats ass as long as you can rip on Kyle. They said that they blamed the mobo/chipset because they had problems with it in the past, which they have data on and which Tim provided you further data on.

 

Where did I state that ULi was ATI?

ULi's southbridge is preferred over the SB450, as the motherboard manufacturers prefer the better USB/Ethernet performance that it delivers. The MSI board used in the FNW system uses the SB400 which, AFAIK, is worse than the SB450. The latter being an improvement over the former.

We actually asked if we could review the MSI RS480M2 board when Radeon Xpress 200 came on to the market. However I was told, by MSI, that the board was a volume product and wouldn't be suited to our readership. I'm not going to start any conspiracy theories here, but Bit-Tech's readership is typically your 18-30 year old who spends around £1000-1500 on computer hardware every year. Now, if that motherboard is not suited to our readership, why is it in a $3200 high-end gaming system?

The reason why I feel that Kyle, and Chris, mentioned that the ATI board was the problem was because that is what Falcon Northwest's qualified Technical Support assistants told them. They were customers after all, and if I am not mistaken their system evaluations are about the customer experience. At no point did the technical support assistant consider that the video card was the problem.

Add that to the fact that they've also had bad experiences in the past with the preferred southbridge to pair with the ATI northbridge (as I linked).

 

If [H] wants to fault certain OEMs for possibly misusing the X-200 chipset in high-end environments, I think that might be plausible. But of course it doesn't mean there's anything wrong at all with the X-200 chipset--but rather what's wrong is the way the chipset is being used by some OEMs. At least, [H] purports that ATi has publicly stated that the X-200 is not an enthusiast's chipset (it'd be nice, though, for [H] to provide a link to such a quote somewhere.) So what I can't understand is this:

If [H] believes that this purported "the-X-200-chipset-wasn't-built-for-the-high-end" remark is indeed a correct summation of ATi's official position, then why is [H] complaining about how the X-200 chipset performs in a high-end, enthusiast's environment? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for [H] to be blaming the OEMs, like FNW, instead of ATi? If what [H] declares ATi has stated about the X-200 chipset not being built or designed for the high-end is in fact true, then [H] would have no reason to criticize ATi at all if indeed it is true that the X-200 chipset doesn't perform well in high-end environments, since the X-200 chipset was never designed to do that in the first place.

Clearly, at least to me, [H] is trying to eat its cake and have it, too, by on one hand maintaining that ATi never intended the chipset for high-end environments, but on the other hand maintaining that the fact that the X-200 doesn't work well in high-end environments (if true) is ATi's fault. Certainly, if ATi did not design the X-200 for high-end environments then it cannot be ATi's fault if the chipset falters when run in environments for which it was never intended or designed in the first place. So if OEMs are using the chipset outside of its design parameters then it most certainly must be their fault as opposed to ATi's, seems to me.

Obviously, yet again, something is seriously skewed in the nearly sneering way in which [H] chooses to dumb-down and simplify things until they are bent all out of proportion and no longer resemble the truth.

As for curiosity about nf4 chipsets, this link might be of interest:

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=8989

 

I asked Kyle to back up what he said and you pointed to that atricle and the last paragraph shows that the problems that they had were directly related to the ULi south bridge. Now again I ask you where is the proof that the problem is with ATi?

 

He did? Where? All he provided was another link to [T]ard OCP stating that the problem with the ULi south bridge.

 

I give up. Reading comprehension is awesome! May you one day know its joys. Ta!

 

Why do the majority of ATI's motherboard partners (you know, the experts who design these motherboards that Mr. Joe Public buys from his local computer store) seem to be basing their Xpress 200 and Xpress 200 CrossFire Edition motherboards on ULi's southbridge?

I think the proof is in the pudding there.

But, just in case you didn't catch it. The majority of ATI's motherboard partners are using the ULi southbridge, because they believe it is a better solution than SB450, and SB400 for that matter.

Anyway, I should get some sleep as it's 3:45am. I've got better things to be doing tomorrow than trying to clean the windows in your green house.

Sweet dreams.

 

Quit trying to shift the subject I don't care about other people. I care about what I read on the [T]ard, got it?

Kyle made statements about that particular PC he cannot back up with fact. When he got called onto the carpet all he could do is cry like the little chid that he is........

 

Curiously, it seems the experts who will likely sell the greatest number of these chipsets don't seem to be bothered much about ATI's southbridge.

 

"Point, Mr. Kemosabe", game the voice from the peanut gallery. The praise for ATI chipsets doesn't get any more genuine than that.

Tho I can hear frgmstr saying "Ewww, IC? I wouldn't f*ck that with someone else's eyeballs." (to mix a metaphor).

 

He stated two things, bad idea for FNW to use it as it is not a performance chipset, and second his past history with that particular chipset was bad for everyone reinforcing the fact FNW should never have used a a board with that chip.

 

Yes, he and all of us know that he scewed up in assuming it was a mobo issue. He did say once the problem was found that it was a vid card issue. Whats the problem, i don't understand.

 

I read the [H] and therefore I am living in sin. But I occasionally read things here and at a number of review sites like anyone with even half a brain should, to see things from all angles, so I guess there's hope for salvation. But I wouldn't know. I have nothing factual to support this conclusion of mine.

But anyway, joking aside, I just wanted to say that I just can't believe the forum here. Yes on the one hand, very useful. On the other? It's a mixed bag of people who fall under what I have to say, but I'm not going to go through the current ten pages of the filth to find names. It's been stated that the 'adults' go to B3D, so the 'adults' then will know if they are guilty. The maturity level displayed here is apalling. [T]ardOCP? Going as far as poking fun at a website and somehow, someway, this isn't bias? And I find it inaccurate. I've never met Kyle in person but judging by he way he handles himself I do not find anything about him to be in display of any kind of mental handicap. Perhaps you have reason to believe otherwise and that's fine. That's your view, not mine. I could show you facts and support to show why I believe this, but in the end, you're still going to believe what you want to believe, even when the proof states otherwise. It is human nature to do so. That doesn't make it right, but it still happens, doesn't it?

Then when an answer is given, regardless of what's stated, you asked a question, he gave an answer. It's still not enough. When he points out that he's not the only one who thought the same thing, people who actually did troubleshoot the damn thing, it's still not enough. When he points out that he's had prior problems in the past, it's still not enough.

What WILL be enough?

And to ask a better question - what in the fuck do any of you offer that would seriously make him want to listen to you anyway? You are people on the Internet. Miles and miles away from him. He doesn't know any of you from the Pope. You flame him, you take his comments out of context, you rip on his website, rip on the articles that are there and rip HIM for it, even when he's not the author of them, you make blanket statements about the people who go to the forums there...yeah, that's plenty of reason why anyone should listen to what has to be said. I see that kind of logic applying very well to the big names in the industry on the hardware and software side - listen to what people on forums say! They know everything! I don't need to read the rest of this forum to know that - I just had to read this single multi-page thread.

Seriously, what more do you guys want? He runs his shit the way he wants to, and people apparently like it. You folks here obviously like what B3D offers, and that's why you're here. Does that make it right for the [H] readers to bash B3D? In your minds no, but I've seen the assumptions made about its readers on YOUR part. And how can you come to this conclusion about them? Have you met and talked with every single one to know this for a fact? You know, that little word you keep throwing around here? Nobody is forcing you to read the shit on the [H] just as nobody is forcing anyone to read a damn thing on the net, be it [H], B3D, or any other review site. I'd like to see this proof that you are in fact being given no other choice to read the [H] so you can be as pissed off as you are about what's done there. At least get me a live feed of Kyle coming to your house and putting a gun to your head as you sit at your PC and make you read his website. You guys act like he's the Howard Stern of the Internet! Love him or hate him, you still tune in because you want to see what he'll say next. What else do you want, your own ads for B3D after NewEgg in the rotation? Will it take that to make you happy?

You want him to make an apology? And that is going to get any of you to apologize for the insults you've slung and the opinions you've made, right? And just because you're you, you're a B3D supporter, and whatever other 'fact' you'll throw, that makes you right and justified to sling those insults and have those flames and make those opinions. I'm sorry but I don't see Kyle apologizing anytime sooner than any of you pricks will apologize for half the negative things you say, even if you were proven that you were wrong to make those statements.

We go from motherboard blames to blaming the chipset in all different directions. Okay, so let's say hypothetically the motherboard as a whole is fine but the chipset is, from all conceivable angles, the root of the problem. So what, we pray to god we're real soldering bastards and take off the chipset and put a new one on? Don't think so. And let's say the board's bad but the chipset's fine. We can't rip the chipset off onto a new board now can we? Well we could in a perfect world, but maybe some of us just aren't hardcore enough to do that. I know I'm not. Either way the motherboard would end up getting dumped in favor of either a replacement unit, or a board with a different chipset entirely, yes or no?

Personally? I really don't give a fuck what Kyle has to say about any particular piece of hardware in his experience other than to note that it has been in fact, his experience. I at least have enough sense to NOT SOLELY BASE my own judgement and choices on his views and articles, whether he is the author of them or not. Kyle is not God. Maybe on the [H]Forums as an admin he is, but I wouldn't worship him if he could walk on water. Frankly, if anyone reads only one particular review site on something and uses only that to base their viewpoint? They deserve to be called every name in the book. I don't care if a website already covers everything from every conceivable angle on a product. I don't care if they cover every individual product that comes off the assembly line before it gets boxed and shipped out. I'm still going to go elsewhere for 2nd, third, and fourth opinions, whether it's review sites or people I know who work with or on computers as a job. Why? Because everyone has their own way of doing things and will ultimately have their own experiences, and the very environment and equipment they use to test these setups and analyze results are all VARYING. The way something operates in a sterile lab can be wholly different in a real world environment, which is not a sterile lab for most people.

Kyle is one person out of the millions out there that have varying results on the same damn thing. Everyone has their own experiences, positive and negative. I know people who have great experiences with one brand of hardware, and naturally they stick with it. I know other people who have great experiences with the other brand, and again, they will stick with it. Some of you can point out every problem under the sun with Nvidia, others can do the same for ATI. But in the end are any of you going to change your views with the knowledge that you possess based on that? I highly doubt it. You're still going to go with what works for you in the end, are you not? Or are you seriously giong to stand by what's factually the best even though it refuses to work for you the way it has been shown to?

Maybe the majority of you have money out the ass to go against previous track records and take a risk now and then, or maybe even all the time, but poor schmucks like me? Not so fortunate. We will stick toward what has worked good by us and continue to work by us until it fails us. I guess that makes me too human or possibly even dumb, but hey, we all have our flaws and if being human is one of them then I am guilty as sin. I would rather have what works rather than what is quoted to be the best. I'm the type of person where I don't give a damn if it's scientifically proven from every conceivable angle that it's superior in every way to what I prefer to use - if the damn thing doesn't work for me as far as I'm concerned it's scientifically proven to not work for me and if the exchanged units also don't work for me and also don't work in other systems, then to me, it just doesn't work for me. That perhaps makes me ignorant in some way - ask me if I care, at least I have a working computer.

The truth is that 'science' at least the way I was taught in highschool is that you do not base your conclusions on one instance, but a number of them to see if the results are consistent. And maybe the way I was taught is completely wrong for all I know! I wouldn't know. I haven't been taught science any differently in that respect. But in a way if you do end up having consistently bad experiences with a particular ANYTHING, are you still going to keep using it just because it's factually the best? Are you really that willing to stand behind fact that you would put up with all the problems that come from having what's factually the best? Where I come from, if it's not working the way it's supposed to, that doesn't make it the best - that makes it compactor food.

I don't really give a damn if Kyle can't back up a particular fact or another on that review. There's plenty of other review sites that have their own style and methods, and while all of them are not 110% on the mark individually, they all do help paint the bigger picture. The whole point to the fucking review at all was to do everything from the average consumer's perspective - folks like you here at B3D and the ones who are at the [H] are NOT average consumers. We are all lumped together in this nice group called ENTHUSIASTS. The average consumer does not give a flying fuck about facts or science or data. The only facts, science, and data they are concerned about is that they have a $3,000 paperweight that operates on electricity, and the company they bought it from is scratching their heads over it. Said company went through the normal routine that they would do with any other customer by replacing the defective part and sending back. Fine. But after jumping through all the hoops and hurdles, an average consumer would lean towards, but not always would end up being frustrated enough to say fuck it and have that bad taste left in their mouth over what they had. An average consumer would be concerned about what's happened to their system in all that time, moreso if they have sensitive data on their machine, so yes I understand the concern that something may have gone on to alter the results. Maybe yes Kyle should have personally inspected it inside and out himself to find out what the problem is - but is this what the average consumer is going to do? NO! The average consumer does not have spare parts laying around for troubleshooting. The average consumer sees it as they spent four figures on a machine, and as thus it better fucking work out of the box. It didn't, and now it's time to make heads roll. The average consumer does not have the knowledge to understand or deduce logically what the problem could be or they wouldn't be calling tech support in the first place. The whole point of the review again, is to see things from the point of view of the average consumer.

Truthfully and honestly? If you guys have that much of a problem with the way Kyle does things, you are more than welcome to start up your own website, invest your own time and money into doing the same things he does, only on your terms and to YOUR standards. You certainly have enough time if you're going to read the [H] solely to find more reasons to flame it. Money? I'm sure the lot of you could pool your resources. And to even show you as 'proof' or what little proof I can provide that I'm not [H]/Kyle/Nvidia/ biased myself? I'll even throw in what I can spare to help.

In short? Beyond3D's website and articles rock. You guys on the forums that want to flame? You aren't any better than the very bullshit that has you up in arms, and to be truthful you are the ones who make any forum community not worth visiting and provide proof to the contrary about the 'greatness' of the community, and it's why I do more lurking than actually posting on any forum on the internet.

I really don't care if this gets me banned. It's probably the only post I will ever make. Currently? It's the only post I intend to make here. And if it goes as far as resulting in me being banned from Beyond3D as a whole? Hey, there's a shit-ton more review websites out there. I'm not going to lose any sleep.

 

You make a good point but that happens to be a low-cost volume shipping motherboard to cater for Intel's chipset shortage, not a CrossFire/enthusiast motherboard. Without looking at the specifications, if I recall, the board has two SATA ports and a 10/100 ethernet port. You're not looking at heavy network usage or RAID arrays.

Look at the 'enthusiast' boards that are used for CrossFire.

 

I doubt that your post will get you banned - very few people are banned from B3D in comparison to some other sites which don't need to be mentioned. Still, if it is your only post, at least you managed a hell of a long one!

If you have an interest in 3D technology, I'd suggest you check out the "3D Technology & Hardware" section of this forum - apart from published articles/reviews that's the real 'meat' of B3D and it contains information/discussion which you won't find anywhere else on the web.

 

Here's a list for you; I made it while I was sipping hot ribena:

MSI CrossFire - ULi M1573 southbridge

ASUS CrossFire - uses ULi M1573 southbridge but product page doesn't detail the chipset

EQS CrossFire - SB450

Gigabyte (no CrossFire board announced yet, only RS480) - RS480 implementation uses ULi M1573 southbridge

Jetway (no CrossFire board announced yet, only RS480) - RS480 implementation uses ULi M1573 southbridge

Shuttle (no CrossFire XPC announced, only RS480) - ST20G5 uses ULi M1573 southbridge

Sapphire - all Xpress 200 products use SB450

Powercolor/Tul (no CrossFire board announced yet) - 50/50 split between SB400 and ULi M1573 southbridges (linky)

ABIT CrossFire - uses ULi M1573 southbridge

DFI CrossFire - uses SB450 southbridge

Intel Xpress 200 implementation - southbridge not specified there, but it uses SB450 according to kemosabe's link. I was wrong about the number of SATA ports - there are four. However, I was right in thinking that there is only one 10/100 LAN port - it is far from a high-end motherboard.

 

That's all well and good...until they are told by Falcon that they were wrong, and it wasn't the motherboard.

This is when a reputable site goes back to the article and say something like OUR BAD, it turns out the problem was the nVidia based BFG Video Card, and not the ATI chipset on the motherboard that we suspected but could not prove. We were offered another system for review, but we declined since this was an "end user experience" review, and the end suer would have gone through the same thing had they been shipped this system with a faulty BFG nvidia video card."

NOT: "We stand by our review, and the ATI chipset still doesn't belong."