Radeon 9700 reviews

It's so sad that sites like Beyond3D aren't "big" like Anandtech and Tomshardware. We need quality reporting on a mass scale like what we get here.....
Click to expand...
As long as you get to read a review like this at B3D that appears same time as all the other reknowned "big" sites, you have nothing to be sad about, is there?
 
nggalai said:
http://www.hartware.net/review.html?id=251&page=10

Please somebody tell me they bungled those "no AF" screenshots in the anisotropic filtering section. (My spider sense is tingling and warning me of yet another pointless Quack-discussion being imminent . . .)
Click to expand...

OK, aparently, Hartware really DID test with a higher MIP-map LOD bias. Question is, what's default? (Wavey?)

At any rate, this makes the hartware review even worse than it was before--testing with mushy texture settings and then complaining about the "poor texture quality" is rather off, I'd say.

ta,
-Sascha.rb
 
John Reynolds said:
Joe DeFuria said:
References to the NV30 aside, what I can't figure out from Anand's review is why his "Aniso + AA" comparisons used the GeForce4 at 4X Aniso, and the Radeon at 16X?
Click to expand...

In addition, I'm also interested in how he's finding the GF4's 4x OGMS to have an IQ matching the 9700's 4x RGMS, especially when other reviewers are clearly disagreeing.
Click to expand...

I also liked how Anand's pictures were so tiny you could barely see anything, let alone make a comparison of the AA/AF quality yourself.

Notice how he stopped using those huge ass graphics for IQ comparisons that he used to when showing the "superiority" of the nvidia cards back during the GF2 days.... :rolleyes:
 
Reverend said:
It's so sad that sites like Beyond3D aren't "big" like Anandtech and Tomshardware. We need quality reporting on a mass scale like what we get here.....
Click to expand...
As long as you get to read a review like this at B3D that appears same time as all the other reknowned "big" sites, you have nothing to be sad about, is there?
Click to expand...

I'm not speaking with regards to myself. I'm speaking with regards to the masses that use the "big" sites and are getting fed this drivel. I wish that B3D was a "big" site as well, so that the masses could get the quality reporting that we get here.
 
Natoma said:
Reverend said:
It's so sad that sites like Beyond3D aren't "big" like Anandtech and Tomshardware. We need quality reporting on a mass scale like what we get here.....
Click to expand...
As long as you get to read a review like this at B3D that appears same time as all the other reknowned "big" sites, you have nothing to be sad about, is there?
Click to expand...

I'm not speaking with regards to myself. I'm speaking with regards to the masses that use the "big" sites and are getting fed this drivel. I wish that B3D was a "big" site as well, so that the masses could get the quality reporting that we get here.
Click to expand...
Ah... I see.

Perhaps those "reknowned" sites are giving what the mass majority really cares about.

The kind of stuff that B3D gives are are for a very specific audience. It will be hard for B3D to be "big enough" to feed a "new kind of drivel".

:)
 
Reverend said:
The kind of stuff that B3D gives are are for a very specific audience. It will be hard for B3D to be "big enough" to feed a "new kind of drivel".

:)
Click to expand...

LOL! :D
3D-gruel - now with cinnamon!
Seriously though, the B3D review was relatively non-techy. Would have been nice to get a subjective noise impression for this high power draw card.

Entropy
 
Thanks again for the comments guys – I’m glad you liked reading the review.

Doomtrooper said:
Well I must say given the timeline Wavy Dave had with the card and the unfortunate heat spreader incident :p that his review was the best I've read so far.
There is also some surprises Wavy had with the PS/VS2.0 info that alot of other sites overlooked and also why I wished there was a ATI presence on the infamous Reverend Cinefx preview.

Congrats on a good review Wavy and the spell checker :p
Click to expand...

Yes, the timing was a little fraught, only having received the board last Monday!

And I’m not sure John will be too pleased to be demoted to ‘the spell checker’! ;)

nggalai said:
OK, aparently, Hartware really DID test with a higher MIP-map LOD bias. Question is, what's default? (Wavey?)
Click to expand...

All the default setting were used in the drivers under my review – if you look at the filtering page then the first shot is no Aniso with default LOD.

Natoma said:
I'm not speaking with regards to myself. I'm speaking with regards to the masses that use the "big" sites and are getting fed this drivel. I wish that B3D was a "big" site as well, so that the masses could get the quality reporting that we get here.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t worry about that too much – with the number of people referring to the article plenty of people are reading it. Each hour since its been up we’ve been getting roughly our average daily visits! :eek:
 
Well I guess he does speak some truth sometimes then :D

outtahere.gif
 
From the AA screenshot Anand used I personally can't see the difference between R300's RGMS and the GF4 shot. Anyone can? i know it should look better, but I can't see it.

Does any review have pictures I can compare? Hothardware had some but they did not manage the easiest thing in the world: Have similar picttures in each shot. Either way, in those shots I can't say 4X on R300 looks better than 4X GF4.
 
From the AA screenshot Anand used I personally can't see the difference between R300's RGMS and the GF4 shot. Anyone can? i know it should look better, but I can't see it.
Click to expand...

Well it looks as clear as night and day to my eyes - RGSS is obviously superior to OGSS. Of course, picture quality is kinda subjective, especially with things as subtle as AA. That's probably why no one seems to be able to properly benchmark image quality. (is 4xRGSS on a VooDoo5 the same as 4xMSAA+2xAniso on a GF4?)

I'm speaking with regards to the masses that use the "big" sites and are getting fed this drivel.
Click to expand...

IMHO, online "big-site" drivel is an order of magnitude better than some of the drivel that comes out in print. Most of the "Fast PC!" magazines you see on newsstands make Anand look like a genius, and unbiased too. At least Anand does not call 25 frames per second on Jedi Knight 2 "playable", or write an entire review based on Parhelia's performance with 4x SSAA, or publish videocard reviews which have 3dmark2001 scores and not a single other benchmark. There are plenty of print magazines publishing stuff like that all the time, and they tend to be the magazines with large, wealthy, and clueless readerships. =(
 
martrox said:
Yea....Poor ol Anand....not outa college and worth more than 6 figures..... :-?
Click to expand...
Bill Gates is a college dropout and he's worth 10 or 11 figures :-?

Now why the hell did I spend nearly 7 years in grad. school getting a Ph.D.?! :p
 
Galilee said:
From the AA screenshot Anand used I personally can't see the difference between R300's RGMS and the GF4 shot. Anyone can? i know it should look better, but I can't see it.

Does any review have pictures I can compare? Hothardware had some but they did not manage the easiest thing in the world: Have similar picttures in each shot. Either way, in those shots I can't say 4X on R300 looks better than 4X GF4.
Click to expand...

I thought the Hothardware shots really showed a marked difference.
 
John Reynolds said:
Galilee said:
From the AA screenshot Anand used I personally can't see the difference between R300's RGMS and the GF4 shot. Anyone can? i know it should look better, but I can't see it.

Does any review have pictures I can compare? Hothardware had some but they did not manage the easiest thing in the world: Have similar picttures in each shot. Either way, in those shots I can't say 4X on R300 looks better than 4X GF4.
Click to expand...

I thought the Hothardware shots really showed a marked difference.
Click to expand...

Yes in some areas (the faar away hill, and the roof on one tent), but on other places I thought the GF4 pic was the best. Well well.
 
Aside from the numerous sentences that were poorly worded, or the obvious typos that slipped through, it was without a doubt the best review of the bunch.

I like information, and the B3D review had heaps of it! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top