[H]ardOCP Trying to be too Hard?

[digitalwanderer]

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."

Damn it, I gotta agree with Joe on this one since he's right and all.

 

[bigz]

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."

Hang on a second, let me get this straight.

They were told by Falcon that they were wrong when it was Falcon themselves who diagnosed the motherboard as being the problem without even considering the video card?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Hang on a second, let me get this straight.

They were told by Falcon that they were wrong when it was Falcon themselves who diagnosed the motherboard as being the problem without even considering the video card?

1) Falcon never said it was the chipset.
2) Falcon suspected that tweaking memory timings might solve the problem, it didn't. So the logical conclusion is no one knew what exactly the problem was.
3) Falcon later determined that the problem was in fact the BFG nvidia based video card.

Got it straight now?

 

[bigz]

According to page 6 of the review, Kyle states that, from his own personal experiences, Xpress 200 has had problems with high performance memory timings among other things.

That was also the Tech's first port of call after checking drivers and patches. The Tech's decision to troubleshoot memory timings first can only be assumed is based on his previous experiences with the motherboard (and chipset, I assume).

That is also backed up by Kelt's comments regarding earlier issues.

If you haven't already realised after the Phantom debacle - Kyle is willing to spend megabucks to ensure that his website's integrety is held up by not removing a factually correct article. The review is factually correct, based on what was diagnosed by the Falcon Northwest technical support assistant. (Yes, they reported as was diagnosed - the facts at the time of publication)

They then corrected the misdiagnosis of the problem with a follow up article where everyone had the chance to speak. Were you just upset that you didn't get offered the chance to share your opinion in that article too, Joe?

 

[Himself]

I have had 2 pcs that never gave me grief.

1st was a BH6 with tnt2ultra
2nd NF7-S with 9800

Those two systems were perfect...(I swear it is true )

Nah, you just don't realise the suckiness or have been beaten down by the suckiness of the PC until you just don't care.

For example, I've yet to run across a motherboard that didn't need nano robots to plug in fan connectors or change a jumper, the spacing was so small, things like that are really horrible and suck, turns you off the whole business I'm telling ya.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

According to page 6 of the review, Kyle states that, from his own personal experiences, Xpress 200 has had problems with high performance memory timings among other things.

And yet no data to back up said experiences.

That was also the Tech's first port of call after checking drivers and patches. The Tech's decision to troubleshoot memory timings first can only be assumed is based on his previous experiences with the motherboard (and chipset, I assume).

What does a chipset on an AMD based motherboard have to do with stability based on memory timings?

And when memory timing changes did not solve the problem, what logical conclusion would YOU draw? (Could it be that memory timings were NOT the problem?)

If you haven't already realised after the Phantom debacle - Kyle is willing to spend megabucks to ensure that his website's integrety is held up by not removing a factually correct article.

The phantom debacle (as well as Quack and 3D Mark 03 debacles) only tell me that Kyle is closed minded. But those are other stories.

The review is factually correct, based on what was diagnosed by the Falcon Northwest technical support assistant. (Yes, they reported as was diagnosed - the facts at the time of publication)

I disagree. Unsupported conlcusions are not factual.

They then corrected the misdiagnosis of the problem with a follow up article where everyone had the chance to speak. Were you just upset that you didn't get offered the chance to share your opinion in that article too, Joe?

No, I'm disappointed that the original article was not amended to reflect the actual facts after they were borne out.

I'm continually amazed at how some people seem to be afraid of facts. It's either bias, or H just being afraid to admit that for all their "experience", they were just wrong.

Hey...it happens. At least to pretty much everyone except H apparently.

 

[Ragemare]

So who thinks Nvidia will have cards available to buy on the release day of it's next major product, if ATi releases at the same time or before

If it doesn't, who thinks [H] will slate Nvidia for it every time they get a chance?

We are using the full retail version of Quake 4 for our game play evaluation. We are leaving each video card’s control panel to “Application Preference” for AA and AF. We will set the quality level in the game. Setting “High Quality” mode automatically enables 4X AF. Setting “Ultra Quality” mode automatically enables 8X AF.

We know that some other “benchmarks” on other sites are showing that -- with a recorded timedemo -- the Radeon X1800 XT is providing faster frame rates than a GeForce 7800 GTX with this new OpenGL fix driver. This just shows that there are more differences starting to crop up now in games where a recorded timedemo is not accurately reflecting the actual, real-world game play experience. Remember, timedemos are recorded events that may not play back AI and Physics in the same way as when you actually get inside the game and play it like a gamer. Our results fully reflect playing the game.

No the XT is slower because it's running at a higher quality setting, fucking hell. It's doing twice as much filtering for a start. What do AI and physics in quake 4 have to do with GPU's anyway? I didn't know Quake 4 ran it's AI and physics on the GPU and I doubt that the drivers need that much CPU time

I can see [H]'s strategy to not look biased is to now give with one hand and then take away alot more with the other, so they can post pro ATi snippits as evidense that they are being fair. I'v never been that bothered about [H], their reviews server a purpose, but after reading that review...

 

[bigz]

I think it is best to just agree to disagree here.

I'm basing my opinion on Kelt's email stating that he is happy with the followup article. The guy runs (and owns) one of the most successful system builders in the USA, so he must have at least half a clue of what he's talking about.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I think it is best to just agree to disagree here.

I'm basing my opinion on Kelt's email stating that he is happy with the followup article. The guy runs (and owns) one of the most successful system builders in the USA, so he must have at least half a clue of what he's talking about.

Or he's scared of pissing off [T]ard's fanbois, either or.

 

[PatrickL]

I think it is best to just agree to disagree here.

I'm basing my opinion on Kelt's email stating that he is happy with the followup article. The guy runs (and owns) one of the most successful system builders in the USA, so he must have at least half a clue of what he's talking about.

You really think that he could have an interest in asking H to trash now the BFG card (another component he is selling in this machine) or it is his best interest to have that story closed and move on ?

 

[bigz]

No the XT is slower because it's running at a higher quality setting, fucking hell. It's doing twice as much filtering for a start. What do AI and physics in quake 4 have to do with GPU's anyway? I didn't know Quake 4 ran it's AI and physics on the GPU and I doubt that the drivers need that much CPU time

I can see [H]'s strategy to not look biased is to now give with one hand and then take away alot more with the other, so they can post pro ATi snippits as evidense that they are being fair. I'v never been that bothered about [H], their reviews server a purpose, but after reading that review...

Please don't tell me that your idea of spending over £400 on a graphics card to play games on involves watching timedemos?

 

[digitalwanderer]

You really think that he could have an interest in asking H to trash now the BFG card (another component he is selling in this machine) or it is his best interest to have that story closed and move on ?

I can knock [H] for a lot of things; but I never, ever under-rate their ability to make news/influence people.

It's why I knock them so hard when they're not accurate, a lot of people listen to them and actually believe them as a credible source on everything!

They're right a lot more than they're wrong, but when they're wrong they go all hubrissy with refusing their error....it's annoying.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Please don't tell me that your idea of spending over £400 on a graphics card to play games on involves watching timedemos?

Please don't tell me you really believe that timedemos are in no way reflective of "real-world" performance!

 

[bigz]

Please don't tell me you really believe that timedemos are in no way reflective of "real-world" performance!

They aren't, in many instances. Take a look at Far Cry (no AI, no physics, no gun fire), take a look at Quake 4 (misrendering), take a look at the F.E.A.R. 'stress' test (just a fly by that isn't actually very intense at all).

Do I need to continue?

 

[digitalwanderer]

They aren't - take a look at Far Cry (no AI, no physics, no gun fire), take a look at Quake 4 (misrendering), take a look at the F.E.A.R. 'stress' test (just a fly by that isn't actually very intense at all). Do I need to continue?

Yes. Even though they don't represent the exact gameplay they do represent something, apples to apples comparison of platforms.

I prefer real game testing too, but timedemos serve a purpose.

 

[Reverend]

I prefer real game testing too, but timedemos serve a purpose.

Both do. Which method is more important and relevant to you? Wait, you already answered that in your comment. Does this mean you prefer HOCP reviews to B3D reviews?

 

[bigz]

I didn't say they didn't serve a purpose.

The part of the review that Ragemare referred to wasn't the whole story. Did he read the loading issues with the XT & Quake 4 in Ultra Quality? Brent actually said that currently High quality was the most viable quality setting because of the loading errors.

The final graph still shows the 7800 GTX OC to be slightly faster than the XT, but not by so much that you'd be able to tell in a blind "taste test" - http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1130724723wQf6EywE1q_3_5.gif

 

[John Reynolds]

Please don't tell me that your idea of spending over £400 on a graphics card to play games on involves watching timedemos?

That's not exactly refuting his points. And basing a review entirely on the perspective of the gamey gamer giving real-world gaming experience and yet then writing "I'm too busy gaming to notice texture shimmering or other possible artifacts/errors" is hardly a balanced, even quasi-scientific approach for examining comparative performance and image quality of these different parts. It all just smacks of damn sloppy work, IMO.

Scripted playbacks and timedemos aren't perfect. I don't think anyone who knows what they're talking about has ever claimed such. But they're a helluva lot more scientific in controlling variables that could influence testing than the gamey gamer gaming away approach.

 

[Matasar]

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1130724723wQf6EywE1q_3_3.gif

A timedemo would not make that curve would it ?
I mean when the Nv fps goes up and the ATi cards fps goes down at the same spot ?
The ATi cards drop to ~15fps and the NV card goes up beyond ~60 fps.
It looks like 3 drops at time interval, maybe he had computer problems ?

 

[Reverend]

It's why I knock them so hard when they're not accurate, a lot of people listen to them and actually believe them as a credible source on everything!

HOCP is a creditable news site, first and foremost, to me, solely and only because they post a heckuva lot of news. I click their links; I rarely take in the opinions (mostly flavored with what I think they view as "comedy relief", to tell us we shouldn't take what they, and perhaps a site like B3D, do as terribly important in the grand scheme of what is known as real life) provided by them in their news posts.

That's news posts. Reviews are a different matter. Opinions expressed in their reviews (as well as those here at B3D and everywhere else) are stuff I try to ignore. Unless those opinions concern the way games are being, or will be, made taking into account the hw being reviewed. Which, and I assume this is common knowledge, is more important than how great a piece of hardware is in an industry where competition, and frames-per-second, are of the ultimate importance.