Kyle throws a [H]issy fit about CrossFire shipping late

[bigz]

I don't think any of the "Euro boys" use the same evaluation system we do and you might find that our program is heavily time intensive.

Yes, we will do a X1800XT eval, likely timed to publish with the "on sale" date.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Bit-Tech do things with real games - I don't touch timedemos at all as I'm sure you know Kyle

I spend can spend hour after hour arsing around trying to find the best settings, it's not unheard of that it can take me a full working day per card (8 hours) if I'm evaluating things that are totally new.

We hope to have an XL review soon enough, probably next week. Again, I'm more concerned about "doing it right" rather than rushing it. We didn't get cards for the deadline so I'm not killing myself to get it done in 48 hours.

 

[FrgMstr]

Well, I think you've answered it pretty comprehensively there. If those are your stated intentions and you apply them consistently across all hardware manufacturers, then I've not got any issue if that's how you want to run your site. What you've posted here is a much more compelling and professional argument than you saying you're going to "rip ATI a new one".

If they continue to miss their stated retail dates, which we have been very lenient on them about this for about a year now, we will surely rip them a new one.

 

[FrgMstr]

Bit-Tech do things with real games - I don't touch timedemos at all as I'm sure you know Kyle

I spend can spend hour after hour arsing around trying to find the best settings, it's not unheard of that it can take me a full working day per card (8 hours) if I'm evaluating things that are totally new.

We hope to have an XL review soon enough, probably next week. Again, I'm more concerned about "doing it right" rather than rushing it. We didn't get cards for the deadline so I'm not killing myself to get it done in 48 hours.

And yes, I am aware of what you and Wil do, sorry to lump you in with the others. Undoubtedly you know just how time intensive gameplay evaluation is. It is a bitch, but well worth it IMO. Kudos to you guys for going the extra mile.

 

[bigz]

And yes, I am aware of what you and Wil do, sorry to lump you in with the others. Undoubtedly you know just how time intensive gameplay evaluation is. It is a bitch, but well worth it IMO. Kudos to you guys for going the extra mile.

It's no problem and thanks

 

[Geo]

Do you really? I seriously doubt any of them are in shock because professional reviewers know just how much more time intensive our eval system is if they have ever even dabbled in it.

Can you put a number of man-hours per card per review on that to meet your standards? Maybe even break down areas by % (game play x%, writing the article y%, preparing the screenies, Z%, etc). Averages, of course, and for new gen releases rather than say, X850-type refreshes.

Wotthehell, might as well turn the bitchfest into an educational opportunity.

 

[epicstruggle]

*CPUs – To put it simply, Intel and AMD keep to the launch dates they set when they provide us with samples for testing, for the most part. Availability is not usually and issue with these guys any more. And just to note, that there have been a few CPUs in the past that we have “skipped†evaluating in the past because we felt they were simply “for show†CPUs that were not widely available and simply being “launched†to one-up the competition. So us not covering a product is nothing new.

*Video Cards – Our policy here is very much like the CPU policy. We evaluate the video cards and usually the companies stick to their “for sale†dates or at least hit a window that is within reason. We will also not include cards, much in the same manner that we might exclude a CPU. The NVIDIA 6800 Extreme Ultra comes to mind ( I think that was the name.) It seemed to be an obvious “one-up†card that would never come to production. You did not see it included in our reviews, but you did see it included on other sites.

I would say that all outlines our policy. I am sure you will have a follow up question or two, so I will make sure to come back and look for those, or feel free to mail them to me.

Just to make it crystal clear, any card not available for sale (in quantity?) near the date of its paper launch will not be reviewed?

epic

 

[digitalwanderer]

[H] Enthusiast – This is obviously the one you are interested in….but the rules here sort of change product to product.

*Motherboards / Chipsets – For about two years now I have been of the mindset that we do not evaluate motherboards that are not available in the retail channel, and also we do not eval motherboards that are engineering or pre-retail samples. We just found that too many “review samples†we were covering, either never ended up being sold in North America or the samples we were evaluating in no way shape or form represented what the end user was purchasing off the retail shelf. So for about two years now, we have done our best to only eval motherboards that come from retail stock and are for sale. That is our goal, and I would say that we do a very good job of reaching it although it is tough to be perfect at it. Bottom line is we gave us “doing it first†for “doing it right.†And I think this had made our mobo product category stronger for it.

*CPUs – To put it simply, Intel and AMD keep to the launch dates they set when they provide us with samples for testing, for the most part. Availability is not usually and issue with these guys any more. And just to note, that there have been a few CPUs in the past that we have “skipped†evaluating in the past because we felt they were simply “for show†CPUs that were not widely available and simply being “launched†to one-up the competition. So us not covering a product is nothing new.

*Video Cards – Our policy here is very much like the CPU policy. We evaluate the video cards and usually the companies stick to their “for sale†dates or at least hit a window that is within reason. We will also not include cards, much in the same manner that we might exclude a CPU. The NVIDIA 6800 Extreme Ultra comes to mind ( I think that was the name.) It seemed to be an obvious “one-up†card that would never come to production. You did not see it included in our reviews, but you did see it included on other sites.

I would say that all outlines our policy. I am sure you will have a follow up question or two, so I will make sure to come back and look for those, or feel free to mail them to me.

So basically you're saying your carved-in-stone "we won't review products that aren't available!" stance is really just for THIS product launch and won't count towards product launches where you think there will be availaibility?

Yeah, that's about what I figured.

 

[Rys]

And yes, I am aware of what you and Wil do, sorry to lump you in with the others. Undoubtedly you know just how time intensive gameplay evaluation is. It is a bitch, but well worth it IMO. Kudos to you guys for going the extra mile.

'The others' ? Come on, that's a stretch. There's a bunch of great sites out there that do a great job with reviews that don't take on graphics in quite the same way you do. You don't get it perfect, neither do bit-tech, and neither do the rest in their approach. Nobody gets it bang on but we all give it a really good go.

Even analysis that doesn't feature heavy use of actual gameplay scenarios can still take monsterous amounts of time to do correctly. Gameplay runthroughs definitely isn't the only way to review graphics that sucks up a shitload of man hours.

I wouldn't dream of telling you that you had the time to feature X1800 XT, since I respect that you honestly didn't and really who is anyone to tell you otherwise? But there's a line that's crossed that when defending yourself from this shit (and it really is shit you shouldn't have to come and talk about, since there are more important things to discuss than who reviewed what), you single out the rest because you think all we did is run timedemos and that's a piece of quick piss to do, and the easy way out with 3D graphics.

Running timedemos is really just a part of the usual analysis most good sites will do, and most mix it up with gameplay work too. You really came to the wrong house to preach that's the case and it's just flat out wrong.

Kudos for defending yourself though, you really shouldn't have to bother with this shit since it's obvious you're just keeping your own house in order.

 

[Geo]

Just to make it crystal clear, any card not available for sale (in quantity?) near the date of its paper launch will not be reviewed?

epic

Well, I didn't hear that. I heard two answers, one specific to this situation, and a second more generalized. I certainly hope he didn't intend to apply the rules of the general answer to this situation, as it would mean he is putting 1800XT in the "boutique" class. And as he has said they are going to review it, that "general" answer would not seem to apply here.

Edit: I should add, I've never been one of those who thinks "Kyle's been bought". I think other things drive him. For instance, Kyle supports "the hard launch". I see Adam Foat interviewing over at DriverHeavan and saying NV will have a 512mb card soon. There are rumors that NV complained to many sites about reviewing ATI "vaporware". I add all that together, and I don't have any trouble coming to the conclusion that Kyle could, for reasons he thinks are good for the community, dwadle on his 1800XT review until that new NV card was ready to go against it, so long as NV was doing "hard launch" again.

Which is not to say I'm supportive of that position, btw; just clarifying that I don't have to believe in "evil Kyle the moneywhore" to come to the conclusion there may be more going on here than meets the eye.

 

[FrgMstr]

Can you put a number of man-hours per card per review on that to meet your standards? Maybe even break down areas by % (game play x%, writing the article y%, preparing the screenies, Z%, etc). Averages, of course, and for new gen releases rather than say, X850-type refreshes.

Wotthehell, might as well turn the bitchfest into an educational opportunity.

We started putting some of this data together in the last couple months, due the fact that we are looking to hire more video card editors, but I still don't have enough data to represent anything solid. So to answer your question intelligently, no, not yet.

 

[FrgMstr]

Just to make it crystal clear, any card not available for sale (in quantity?) near the date of its paper launch will not be reviewed?

epic

That is not what I said and quite frankly your question is worded so broadly, that by giving you an answer to it would only give you guys rope to hang me with somewhere down the line.

So, to be crystal clear, our policy on that issue is as stated above.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Believe it or not Geo I don't think Kyle's "been bought" either, I just think he can be a royal asshat at times.

Pisses me off too since he can be cool too, I just can't figure him out yet.

That is not what I said and quite frankly your question is worded so broadly, that by giving you an answer to it would only give you guys rope to hang me with somewhere down the line.

So, to be crystal clear, our policy on that issue is as stated above.

That's not at all what I got out of what you said in your review, I'm pretty sure you gave yourself quite enough rope for us for future use. (Thanks too. )

 

[FrgMstr]

So basically you're saying your carved-in-stone "we won't review products that aren't available!" stance is really just for THIS product launch and won't count towards product launches where you think there will be availaibility?

Yeah, that's about what I figured.

No diggy, "carved in stone" rumors that you read on another message board, that you then spent your time posting on numerous other forums don't become policy at [H]. No matter how many times you repeat misinformation on public fourms, it does not become fact in the real world.

HardOCP policy is just how I outlined it above, you can consider that "carved in stone," till we feel as though it needs to be adjusted due to a changing market. I don't however see our [H] Enthusiast content policy changing much from what is stated above if any. The [H] Consumer and [H] Console section policies will surely mature greatly.

 

[FrgMstr]

'The others' ? Come on, that's a stretch. There's a bunch of great sites out there that do a great job with reviews that don't take on graphics in quite the same way you do. You don't get it perfect, neither do bit-tech, and neither do the rest in their approach. Nobody gets it bang on but we all give it a really good go.

Even analysis that doesn't feature heavy use of actual gameplay scenarios can still take monsterous amounts of time to do correctly. Gameplay runthroughs definitely isn't the only way to review graphics that sucks up a shitload of man hours.

I wouldn't dream of telling you that you had the time to feature X1800 XT, since I respect that you honestly didn't and really who is anyone to tell you otherwise? But there's a line that's crossed that when defending yourself from this shit (and it really is shit you shouldn't have to come and talk about, since there are more important things to discuss than who reviewed what), you single out the rest because you think all we did is run timedemos and that's a piece of quick piss to do, and the easy way out with 3D graphics.

Running timedemos is really just a part of the usual analysis most good sites will do, and most mix it up with gameplay work too. You really came to the wrong house to preach that's the case and it's just flat out wrong.

Kudos for defending yourself though, you really shouldn't have to bother with this shit since it's obvious you're just keeping your own house in order.

Thanks for your thoughts. I will say that you just put a whole lot of words in my mouth that I never even came close to saying. That said, I really don't feel comfortable commenting on your misplaced assumptions. I am sure you understand.

 

[digitalwanderer]

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODIyLDk=

The video card models ATI have provided us with are the Radeon X1800 XT, the Radeon X1800 XL, the Radeon X1600 XT, and the Radeon X1300 Pro. However, because of actual availability concerns, there is no point in showing you evaluation on all of them at this time. The only card that will matter to most of you reading this will be the X1800 XL, which is supposed to be available today. Therefore, we will include the Radeon X1800 XL in our evaluation today and compare it directly to the BFGTech GeForce 7800 GT OC, which is the direct competition to the Radeon X1800 XL in terms of price (though we know you can find GeForce 7800 GT’s for a lot cheaper than MSRP these days).

The only other video card we are going to evaluate today is the Radeon X1600 XT. Though this video card won’t actually be available until the end of November at the earliest, we feel that this is the next best choice to evaluate today because of its attractive price point and the fact that it is at a different performance level compared to the X1800 XL and XT.

Heh, nice edit.

I still love that you wouldn't review the XT because of availability concerns yet included the 1600...already breaking your own standards.

(I'll stop, I'll stop...I know I shouldn't feed him! )

 

[FrgMstr]

I like your selective text quoting too diggy. Here is some more quoting from the same article. By reading your posts you would think we were unaware of our own actions. But again, we did what we thought is best for our readers while working with our time limitations, even though you would try your best sometimes to try and make people think otherwise with your misinformed rhetoric.

Why we chose what we did:

We also decided to focus on the Radeon X1600 XT although it won’t actually be out for quite a while (around November 30th). I know that this might sound slightly hypocritical to include this video card in our evaluation given what we just said above about availability of the X1800 XT, we decided to include this video card specifically because it too will be one of the more popular and mass distributed video cards for gamers. The price tag on this video card is also much more “wallet friendly.â€￾ Finally, we also included this video card because it represents a completely different performance level of the X1000 series. We wanted to see what ATI’s slower performing video card based on X1000 series technology could do in games.

So all in all, we faced up to actions and explained them and the logic behind them long before you had a chance to spin it into something evil here where you thrive best.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODIyLDIy

 

[digitalwanderer]

It still sounds entirely hypocritical Kyle, no need for spin!

I'm trying to remember the last time a viddy card manufacturer had a really long delay between announcement and launch, and what your reaction to it was then.

I'm having trouble, care to refresh my memory so I don't screw it up again?

 

[FrgMstr]

It still sounds entirely hypocritical Kyle, no need for spin!

I'm trying to remember the last time a viddy card manufacturer had a really long delay between announcement and launch, and what your reaction to it was then.

I'm having trouble, care to refresh my memory so I don't screw it up again?

The last time it was ATI (CrossFire - Still not delivered as of typing this, promised in August (still stated this on the ATI website Faq TILL this morning when they changed it), previewed to me the first week of June, information embargo date pulled May 30) , the time before that it was ATI (I count the nonexistant PE), the time before that it was NVIDIA (their own six month lag in SLI). That is how I remember it off-hand.

It is not like we are out for blood and quite frankly I think we probably cut these guys too much slack sometimes. CrossFire was what finally lit my fuse and as of typing this, I still can find an X1x00 card for sale AND delivery.

 

[Pete]

I will say that you just put a whole lot of words in my mouth that I never even came close to saying. That said, I really don't feel comfortable commenting on your misplaced assumptions. I am sure you understand.

The context of your posts shows that you're explaining why you think you might require more time than other sites because of your testing methods. You basically said your testing takes more time than most other sites, and Rys basically said no. Where's the misplaced assumption? Obviously [H] aims for gameplay evals and other sites devote some time on synthetic or theoretical performance exploration*, but the overall time spent working on an article (testing & researching) isn't necessarily much different, and the slight at hand (minor as it is) is time, not focus.

As long as I'm nitpicking, tho there never was an official 6800 Ultra Extreme, quite a few 6800Us were sold clocked at those "Extreme" levels, including the BFG cards you seem to favor.

And, despite the talk of "availability concerns" and "price point" and "performance level" in your review, your posts here indicate that the reason you dropped the X1800XT and X1300P from your initial review was simply time. Market availability or company ethics or all that jazz are the side story, IMO (tho certainly valid in their own right).

It also seems slightly hard to argue that a $450 256MB XL will be more "popular" with "enthusiasts" than a $550 512MB XT. We're talking 25% higher core clocks and 50% higher RAM speed on top of 100% more RAM for about 20% more. I'm not completely clear why you think we'll be gouged on the XT and not the XL, though, especially since XL review samples show manufacturing dates as late as September.

the time before that it was ATI (I count the nonexistant PE)

I think you meant to say (X700)XT?

as of typing this, I still can find an X1x00 card for sale AND delivery.

I just remembered Pricewatch. A search for 'x1800' yields two hits. Apparently AllStarShop has an ATI XL at MSRP+$50 (remember how they gouged with the X800s?) slated to ship in "1-2 business days," while MonarchPC has a Connect3D XL at MSRP slated to ship 10/12. In other words, yeah, still not available, but pretty close.

----------------
* Actually, synthetic and theoretical tests may be the exclusive purview of non-American sites, with the possible exception of TR (which occasionally includes 3DM and RightMark sub-tests). But IME it's the Euro & Russian sites where I see more in-depth and even custom synthetic tests.

 

[dizietsma]

I remember that poor guy from Anadtech who came over here trying to explain himself onceand got such a roasting that he ran away, I doubt the same thing will happen with Kyle though

Of course if it had been nvidia who was on the receiving end of Kyles decision on what to review or not we wouldn't be here talking about this because once again it is the latent ATi phanboys on this forum who are causing much of the noise. Same as it was with the Anandtech guy mentioned above.

I don't agree with Kyles decision in this case but as I do not love ATi it doesn't bother me at all. I read the data he did present and used it with data from other sites to get a broad outline of performance, I did not read his article at all for IQ as I am waiting for Dave's.

People are getting upset here not because they think Kyle has done his readers a disservice ( they probably look down their noses at them and think they are ignorant monkeys I'd guess) but because they think Kyle has done a disservice to their beloved ATi.

That's my nvidia phanboys take on it anyhow