[H]ardOCP Trying to be too Hard?

[digitalwanderer]

Does this mean you prefer HOCP reviews to B3D reviews?

No, I don't care for [T]'s testing methodology at all as of late.

 

[Reverend]

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.

I'd like to the opinions of the millions of CS players.

Anyway, hw reviewers started having microscopes since, gosh, I don't know when. One thing led to another.

I'd also like to add that I enjoy reading the best games reviews so much better than reading the best hardware reviews. Not because I love gaming more than I do hardware but because the two different types of reviewers have that huge degree of difference in terms of their enthusiasm for what they do.

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.

None of any of the reviewing methods are perfect. I won't argue with you regarding the scientific part about using timedemos, you're correct. But the latter parts of your comment is something I've been struggling with for some time while I was involved with this site -- is the focus on increasingly better graphics making gamers become less of a "gamey gamer"? Is that good or bad?

A lot of developers started making games because they loved playing games. Then they got sucked into, gulp, 3D graphics.

 

[Kanyamagufa]

The only thing this thread seems to be showing clearly is how different Beyond3D members think from [H]ardOCP. Personally, I find myself agreeing with the B3D crowd this time. But this is why there are separate forums.

It might be time to let this issue die and serve as a reference for future [H] threads.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I'd like to the opinions of the millions of CS players.

Anyway, hw reviewers started having microscopes since, gosh, I don't know when. One thing led to another.

I'd also like to add that I enjoy reading the best games reviews so much better than reading the best hardware reviews. Not because I love gaming more than I do hardware but because the two different types of reviewers have that huge degree of difference in terms of their enthusiasm for what they do.


None of any of the reviewing methods are perfect. I won't argue with you regarding the scientific part about using timedemos, you're correct. But the latter parts of your comment is something I've been struggling with for some time while I was involved with this site -- is the focus on increasingly better graphics making gamers become less of a "gamey gamer"? Is that good or bad?

A lot of developers started making games because they loved playing games. Then they got sucked into, gulp, 3D graphics.

I get it, you're trying for a job aren't you Rev.

 

[ANova]

Everyone keeps going in circles.

Bottom line is [H] jumped to conclusions, were found to be wrong and now refuse to admit as much or review the system again. End of discussion.

 

[FrgMstr]

and frames-per-second, are of the ultimate importance.

Trying my best to change that and I think I see the slide starting to happen. Give HardOCP till 2008 to really make an impact.

 

[FrgMstr]

Everyone keeps going in circles.

Bottom line is [H] jumped to conclusions, were found to be wrong and now refuse to admit as much or review the system again. End of discussion.

If we jumped to conclsuions, so did everyone involved. It was not until weeks after this article was finished, that other conclusions were reached or even suggested by FNW, which was in contradiction to their earlier opinions that we shared.

I am still not convinced that the video card was the problem and the fact of the matter is that you have not either.

As far as admitting we are/maybe wrong, did you not read and comprehend the follow-up? You are just talking foolish now. You act as if the issue was not even brought to the readers attention. Fact of the matter is, you would not be having this discussion if it were not for my actions in the follow-up article. You would be clueless about the "bad video card" issue. So don't act like we have not shared this with our readers.

So do you keep reviewing them till you get one that works or another that breaks? What is the end point?

 

[John Reynolds]

A lot of developers started making games because they loved playing games. Then they got sucked into, gulp, 3D graphics.

Well, my gamey gamers comment was meant as a criticism of the suggestion that real-world gameplay for testing always trumps timedemos and not toward being a 'gamer' or gaming in general.

 

[John Reynolds]

If we jumped to conclsuions, so did everyone involved. It was not until weeks after this article was finished, that other conclusions were reached or even suggested by FNW, which was in contradiction to their earlier opinions that we shared.

Well, the difference between your assumption and the assumptions of Falcon's tech support and anyone else involved in this situation is that they didn't publish their assumptions for the world to read and thereby possibly damage the public's perception of a piece of hardware. You did, however, and that's a rather large difference. Based on your personal experience(s) with this chipset you might've ended up being right in your assumption that the motherboard was to blame, yet--and for me here's the real kicker!--that's still a situation that should've failed to justify your decision to publish the assumption because anecdotal 'evidence' will always bite you on the ass sooner or later and it should never be used as the foundation from which to reach such a damning conclusion. Why? Because of the possibility of other variables that have not been methodically removed potentially at work within the situation, which indeed turned out to be the case here.

I think this is what Joe has been trying to argue for in this thread.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

If we jumped to conclsuions, so did everyone involved. It was not until weeks after this article was finished, that other conclusions were reached or even suggested by FNW, which was in contradiction to their earlier opinions that we shared.

I am still not convinced that the video card was the problem and the fact of the matter is that you have not either.

As far as admitting we are/maybe wrong, did you not read and comprehend the follow-up? You are just talking foolish now. You act as if the issue was not even brought to the readers attention. Fact of the matter is, you would not be having this discussion if it were not for my actions in the follow-up article. You would be clueless about the "bad video card" issue. So don't act like we have not shared this with our readers.

So do you keep reviewing them till you get one that works or another that breaks? What is the end point?

What do you mean "if we jumped to conclusions" you did and you got your butt burned. I thought at one point you were intelligent enough to know that the athlon CPU has the memory controller built in right? So how is it that the ATi chipset would have problems with memory timings?

We did read the crap you posted in your follow slamming the ATi chipset and even now you are doubting that it was the video card? Are you really that stupid? I guess you must be. They offered you the exact same system back with the defective card and you made up some BS excuse as to why you did not want to verify the problem. If I was that company I would never send you another product for review since you cannot act in a professional matter.

 

[zg75]

The timings set by the flaky BIOS which is part of the... help me here... CPU? Chipset? Motherboard? Pink Elephants? All Joe has been doing in this thread is repeating himself and making bigger and bigger text (which isn't to say his persistence isn't admirable). Oh, and showing that since he's low on actual points (never mind debate skills) he will keep writing the words motherboard and chipset in italics. Bravo, Joe, you made a point, but its not the one you think you made... The immaturity shown in the use of [T]ard and things of the like tell more than enough about you (and here I mean YeuEmMaiMai and that ilk). I keep picturing a young child dressed as a clown banging their fists on the keyboard in impotent rage. Hey, rage, like rage3d. Neat.

What do you mean "if we jumped to conclusions" you did and you got your butt burned. I thought at one point you were intelligent enough to know that the athlon CPU has the memory controller built in right? So how is it that the ATi chipset would have problems with memory timings?

We did read the crap you posted in your follow slamming the ATi chipset and even now you are doubting that it was the video card? Are you really that stupid? I guess you must be. They offered you the exact same system back with the defective card and you made up some BS excuse as to why you did not want to verify the problem. If I was that company I would never send you another product for review since you cannot act in a professional matter.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oh, and showing that since he's low on actual points (never mind debate skills) he will keep writing the words motherboard and chipset in italics. Bravo, Joe, you made a point...

Apparently not. Because you have yet to address that point.

but its not the one you think you made... The immaturity shown in the use of [T]ard and things of the like tell more than enough about you (and here I mean YeuEmMaiMai and that ilk).

So, why are you lumping me in with anyone else? Have I said such things? Should I start lumping you in with others?

(Oh, and BTW, the bios is simply firmware, and is yet another component of the motherboard, since you asked.)

 

[zg75]

Apparently not. Because you have yet to address that point.

So, why are you lumping me in with anyone else? Have I said such things? Should I start lumping you in with others?

(Oh, and BTW, the bios is simply firmware, and is yet another component of the motherboard, since you asked.)

Have addressed the point many times. Didn't lump you in with others - see (and here I mean YeuEmMaiMai and that ilk).

 

[ondaedg]

The timings set by the flaky BIOS which is part of the... help me here... CPU? Chipset? Motherboard? Pink Elephants? All Joe has been doing in this thread is repeating himself and making bigger and bigger text (which isn't to say his persistence isn't admirable). Oh, and showing that since he's low on actual points (never mind debate skills) he will keep writing the words motherboard and chipset in italics. Bravo, Joe, you made a point, but its not the one you think you made... The immaturity shown in the use of [T]ard and things of the like tell more than enough about you (and here I mean YeuEmMaiMai and that ilk). I keep picturing a young child dressed as a clown banging their fists on the keyboard in impotent rage. Hey, rage, like rage3d. Neat.

I agree that the [T] thing is completely unnecessary.
The pure fact of it all is that this forum has a heavy ATI fan base and any person or site that dares to slam ATI for anything gets attacked. Then you mix it in with the ego that the posters on this forum have a better "knowledge" of the 3d graphics industry than the posters on AT, HOCP, and the rest. The end result is the 'they are a bunch of dumbasses" attitude with regard to anyone else.

The sad part is that there are some intelligent posters on this site that probably are employed in the industry in one way or another and their posts get flooded out by all the crap the @#$boys here throw out constantly. It is unfortunate too because Dave attracts some great interviews and writes some good articles. I would venture to say that the hardcore "ATI is king" and "Nvidia is evil" attitude is detrimental to his web site. A thread may be going good, then the @#$boys come in and destroy it. What developer is going to want to post among all that crap? (especially if they don't have alot of time like the EA guys )

Anyways, this rant is old and usually blasted everytime I post it. WTF do I know anyways?

 

[zg75]

Anyway, I agree to disagree and I'll cease because at thsi point I'm just repeating myself. Cheers all, was a lively discussion aside from the folks throwing names around. May your gaming be smooth and your frags be plenty.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

The timings set by the flaky BIOS which is part of the... help me here... CPU? Chipset? Motherboard? Pink Elephants? All Joe has been doing in this thread is repeating himself and making bigger and bigger text (which isn't to say his persistence isn't admirable). Oh, and showing that since he's low on actual points (never mind debate skills) he will keep writing the words motherboard and chipset in italics. Bravo, Joe, you made a point, but its not the one you think you made... The immaturity shown in the use of [T]ard and things of the like tell more than enough about you (and here I mean YeuEmMaiMai and that ilk). I keep picturing a young child dressed as a clown banging their fists on the keyboard in impotent rage. Hey, rage, like rage3d. Neat.

Memory controller is part of the CPU last time I checked. I love it how someone like Kyle can get away with making such a re[T]arded comment about Ati's chipset even after it was found to be otherwise. YOu just don't get the point. Hardocp should have just left it at our conclusons were wrong and the fault was actually with the video card. There was absolutly no need to make the re[T]arded comments how they are not sure it is the video card and that he thinks that the fragbox guys would try and be dishonest when asking him to reevaluate the system once the problem was corrected.

Speaking of chipsets oh where is Kyle regarding the Nforce4?

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

He is very quick to slam ATi and lo and behold the Nforce4 isn't exactly a jewell either.

 

[ANova]

If we jumped to conclsuions, so did everyone involved. It was not until weeks after this article was finished, that other conclusions were reached or even suggested by FNW, which was in contradiction to their earlier opinions that we shared.

I am still not convinced that the video card was the problem and the fact of the matter is that you have not either.

As far as admitting we are/maybe wrong, did you not read and comprehend the follow-up? You are just talking foolish now. You act as if the issue was not even brought to the readers attention. Fact of the matter is, you would not be having this discussion if it were not for my actions in the follow-up article. You would be clueless about the "bad video card" issue. So don't act like we have not shared this with our readers.

So do you keep reviewing them till you get one that works or another that breaks? What is the end point?

Yes I did read and comprehend the follow up. It seems you cannot comprehend what people are telling you over and over again.

It does not matter whether or not you've had problems with the xpress 200 chipset in the past. It does not matter whether or not FNW agreed with you about the chipset at some point. What matters is that FNW found it to be the fault of the video card and you refuse to acknowledge as such other then to reference FNWs statements with a snear attitude convinced they are wrong or lying in some fashion.

You are still not convinced that the video card was the problem, ok so maybe you should review the system again with both the new card and the old card and see for yourself. Oh that's right, you don't want to because you know it would make you look bad. Don't give me that 'FNW has done something to it' line, I've already explained pages ago how that holds no relevency at all. FNW may have agreed with you at some point, but they did not publish such information like you did, that is until they actually knew what the problem was. This concept must be new to you.

 

[WaltC]

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.

I suspect his "past history" with the chipset amounts to little more than simply trying to force the chipset to perform outside of its design parameters--ie, trying to force it to run as a high-end, performance chipset. At least, that is exactly what his comments in this thread have stated several times in several different ways. As such, he makes himself as guilty as any OEM who also might be trying to run the X-200 chipset in a higher-performance configuration than it was designed for and validated to support. To the degree that [H] has done that, [H] then becomes culpable itself.

IE, it's akin to taking a particular gpu validated to run properly at 400MHz and with memory at certain timings, and then "testing" it at 450MHz + with faster-than-supported timings and finding problems, and then criticizing the gpu because of it. See what I mean? You get no useful or valid information from such a process.

For instance, suppose you have size 11-1/2 feet but you buy a pair of 10-sized shoes because they are on sale... If you get bummed out feet as a result I hardly think that the shoes would be to blame, do you?....