RussSchultz said:
Ok, demalion. One final try.
I feel a qualified reviewer should know either that it does, or does not have whatever quality he is claiming it has (or has not).
Again, you are proposing "properly" cannot include an evaluation of performance, when it still seems rather abundantly clear to me that that assertion does not make sense.
Alternatively, you seem to be proposing that a reviewer should speak with certainty about performance when he hasn't run tests yet, and that they are incompetent if they do not.
Given your conversation, I picked the first, and I've covered it in detail. Do I have to quote it, or are you capable of understanding where I've explained this before?
Probably shouldn't enter the question, in my opinion.
Yes, I get that it is your opinion, Russ, we've gone over that. Are we finally going to discuss the problems with the way you proposed it?
Even if the quality in question is "the ability to run dx9 games at playable framerates" (which, I'll have to disagree that the construct of the sentence necessarily means that, though yes its possible that it that is what he meant)
This is progress...you're admitting that you were wrong when you said that this was
not possible in your first reply. I still think your interpretation is the least reasonable, and I think I've provided ample reasoning as to why. However, by recognizing this you've removed the issue that made your stance completely incompatible with rationality, the english language, etc..
As long as you are consistent in this recognition, I can finally stop discussing the semantics of this point. I'd recommend that you work towards entertatining such possibilities earlier, however.
he should have enough familiarity with the product after reviewing it to know with more certainty than "probably".
Now we are on to logic again. Did you misspeak? "Even if the quality in question is 'the ability to run dx9 games at playable framerates'..he should have enough familiarity with the product after reviewing it to know with more certainty than 'probably'."
But, assuming we take properly to include "at high enough framerate to be acceptable":
Truly, it is a bit murky to know what a DX9 game will require in terms of performance, however In my opinion, any reviewer worth his salt wouldn't come to this conclusion especially after just having run the card through a shootout and demonstrating and concluding that the card does just fine on current games at a lower resolution.
Did you forget that we were discussing things like PS 2.0, Russ? Current games don't use PS 2.0, ergo there is a large logical gap in your proposal that current games show performance of DX 9 games. What conclusion should a reviewer come to after observing performance in games that don't use DX 9 shaders...that it "probably
can run DX 9 properly", with properly including consideration of performance? What about observations about performance in PS 2.0 shaders?
Or is the problem not the viewpoint, but uncertainty? Would it have been fine if he'd said "it definitely can't run DX 9 properly", with performance being considered?
Assuming it has the same feature set as its larger brother (which it does), it should accomplish the identical thing on future games.
What!? It doesn't look like you misspoke, but simply believe the PS 2.0 hardware performance characteristics are not unique from other performance characteristics, or that they simply don't matter when...running PS 2.0 shaders.
Or, are we now to assume that properly means "at a given frame rate at a high enough resolution" so that once again I am "wrong"?
No, we are to assume we are talking about PS 2.0 and that PS 2.0 performance characteristics are a unique aspect of a card.
Consistent application of your "logical support", as far as you've presented, propose one or more possible interpretations that I see:
- A GF 4 MX runs some current games faster than a 5200. Your logic would have it that the performance in current games indicates that the GF 4 MX would run future games faster, nevermind the differing shader capabilities and performance when implementing effects of the cards. This is the "performance in current games is universal" interpretation.
- NV3x cards offer 16x AA. Your logic would have it that offering a feature makes it useful to use without regard to performance limitations. This is the "offering the feature is all that matters" interpretation.
- Doom 3 (as an example) can offer its shadow effects via multipassing. Since many cards can do this, and Doom 3 can offer it, everyone with cards that have to implement shadows in this way will turn it on. This is the "no competent reviewer can express doubt about what a minimum framerate is" interpretation.
Russ, the rest of your post seems to depend entirely on what appear to me to be logical fallacies. Now, if I am wrong in my characterizations, just point out where I went wrong, and propose what you did mean instead, and we can discuss it. If I am not, pick one or more, of your proposals to discuss, and I'll explain further since it seems necessary.
Please try to be somewhat consistent when doing this.
Also, if you think I shouldn't have snipped something, simply point it out.
