Shootout Poll Number 2 - Read descriptions before voting

Options for utilizing comparisons / shoot-outs

  • No place for direct comparison between competing technolgies or products

    Votes: 191 100.0%

  • Should include competing technology characteristics in a tech review, where deemed necessary

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Should publish "TECHNOLOGY shootout" articles

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Should publish "PRODUCT shootout" articles

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    191
J

Joe DeFuria

Legend
I think Rev's shoot-out poll is worded poorly enough (doens't offer concise enough choices) to warrant a new poll. (Nothing personal, Rev! :))

And again, as this is obviously Dave's site, this is not meant to be something like "if the population votes one way, he should do it!". Dave should do what he thinks is "right." BTW, I think ALL of the poll options support the "mission" "of B3D to some degree, otherwise I wouldn't suggest them.

Here are the descriptions:

1) No place for direct comparison between competing technolgies or products - pretty self explanatory...much like B3D's latest R300 and NV30 p/reviews.

2) Should include competing technology characteristics in a tech review, where deemed necessary. Basically what demalion suggested in the other thread. Articles are focused on a single technology as they are today, but in specific cases where there is a stark difference between implementations on competing technology, they should be investigated / shown, and thoughts on the pros/cons of each explored.

3) Should publish "TECHNOLOGY shootout" articles The purpose of such an article is to compare and contrast all important technological aspects of two or more competing architectures.

4) Should publish "PRODUCT shootout" articles. Less emphasis on the technology itself, but how the actual products the consumers can buy stack up to one another. Consdiers actual performance / quality / features / price.
 
I voted #2, but I'm not sure if it is meant to include actual benchmark result comparisons. I'd like to see those too, but I chickened out with the wording "product shootout" of #4 ;-)
 
To be clear number 2 can include benchmark numbers. Specifically, to the extent that performance observations are required to judge how each architecture "works", or how effective it is.

For example, running a game benchmark with different cards, and "enabling / disabling" bandwidth saving techniques on each to observe relative effectiveness....
 
I voted for #2. And it appears (now seeing the results) that it is the most popular.

Technology is fun, but I like to have bottom-line comparisons too. :)
 
I voted "3" as price and addon fetures (like game bundles) are hard to quantify. Ditto for quality.
 
Yeah, that original poll of mine was worded poorly (late at night, preparing for bed, wanted the poll out quickly).

Anyway, the option I would vote on isn't in this poll, and that would be I'd go with whatever decisions Dave decides on. It's his site and I have personally had no complaints about the way things (mainly, site management & content) are currently.
 
that would be the don't vote option as the pole hypothetical question about what we would choose if it was our call. ;)


btw, i went with #2 as well.


and sence the other pole got locked in favor of this one, i will add my comments from there to this post:

i do not think shoot-outs are a nessesity for evey preview by any means. however i do find it disspointing to see one technlogy compared to one that is blatetnly dated and sells at a much lower pricepoint as is the case in previous previews on this site. i respect the fact that benchamrking multiple products takes time, however i think if such time is taken respect should also be given to useing that time for makeing the the most relvent i do not think shoot-outs are a necessity for every preview by any means. however i do find it disappointing to see one technology compared to one that is blatantly dated and sells at a much lower price point as is the case in previous previews on this site. i respect the fact that benchmarking multiple products takes time, however i think if such time is taken respect should also be given to using that time for making the the most relent comparisons of available products. so, not necessarily for previews, but if you are going take the time to make comparisons would be proper to make the ones most valuable to the readership. reviews on the other hand, i feel it is of the utmost importance to make such comparisons.

also i think Himself makes a great point, a standard benchmark setup would do much to make life easier for presenting such comparisons. it is not necessary for most of us to always run the absolute latest and greatest hardware and if beyond3d only upgraded their benchmarking setup every 6-12 months, as most enthusiasts do, i doubt there would be many complaints from the readership.

lastly i have to contest jb's argument. while it is true that a given fan base will be upset when their favorites are shown in a bad light, i see no reason to pander to such arrogant mentality. the fanboys can go take a piss for all i care.

so in summary, i vote yes, but the vote should be counted with consideration to my comments above.
Click to expand...
 
I have never had any disinclination to kissing anyone's ass as long as I get what I want.

As for who's the "1" - it is Neo, as we shall see this year (twice!).

Kristof once said (in private), we don't believe in patting someone at B3D on the back for a job (that is obviously) well done - the feedback from you guys should be more important. Everyone at B3D has a function to play and each function is as important as the publicly-noticed one. Marco, for one, hasn't received enough credit he undoubtedly deserves for what he has done for the site. If someone in particular at B3D gets publicly credited and praised, all of us at B3D feels just as proud as he may feel.

That said, I am extremely proud to be allowed to be part of B3D (again!) and the top-most reason why I wanted to be back is Dave - there is no other person who is part of a website that is more passionate, curious and interested in 3D technology per-se (the basis of Beyond3D) than Dave that I know of... I took him on back then for this same reason as when Dave (Barron), Kristof and Marco decided to take me on then.

Oops, that's another ass-kissing instance! :)
 
I voted 3. A tech p/review should be just that--no need to make Dave spend twice as much time on it benching another card. I'd prefer the tech info faster.

But cards don't exist in a vacuum, so I still see the need for the occasional comparo. So I'd like to see regular (every 3/4/6 months) comparos, to show how cards compare and how drivers are improving both speed and IQ. I find the distinction between poll choices 3 and 4 dubious: I visit B3D for the acutest tech analysis, so I expect the same of comparos. I want correct logic behind the interpretations of benchmark differences: a product comparo with brains. I also think IQ is becoming increasingly important as people begin to hit res limits on LCDs and older CRTs, so screenshot analysis will be equally important. Obviously this will take quite a bit of time, and only the reviewer (Wavey or Rev, I suppose) knows how much of that he has for such an undertaking. Rest assured, though, that it will be linked far and wide, and very much appreciated from a practical perspective.
 
I voted 2 based on the never say never principle, but having said that, I think there is some danger in doing shootouts. Slippery slope arguments are a bit cliched but cliches are usually based on truths. One of the reasons I like this site--and I'm mostly a lurker so I don't wanna be stepping over any lines--is that it stays pretty much above the "he said she said" fray and focus's on the technology. It is the only place I know that does this and doesn't require a EE or CS degree to understand. The information about how the fxu performs vs. an r300 is readily available in other places.
 
I guess this is the best place for this. If your for no comparisons from competing companies, why not then just have them all run on the same hardware. So then the NV30 (p)review just released would have used the same rig setup as the R300. I dont think that would have been to much to ask. If their is some reason that this would not have been feasible, I would be glad to hear of if.

later,
 
same as epicstruggle , leave the individual tests/reviews as they are, but try to stick with one cpu / mobo ( nice reason to stop upgrading ;0 ) . Could always go back and redo some numbers for the older tests ? Of course if theres a 'dead time' between video cards , an article using that data with some analysis wouldnt go amiss..

-dave-

if i want 20 video cards in a new review then i goto ibxt or toms ;) , but i'd prefer review time to go on better individual results NOT lots of numbers with little detail ...
 
Are they mutually exclusive ?

I would like 3 and 4, or are they mixed together to make 2 ?

I'm interested in smart testing, no run the benchmarks and fill 10 pages with the results with little to no explanations as to why the results are as such.

I want in deep explanations about what it does, how it does it, why it's good/bad and how good/bad it'll be in the future.

I'm interested in how a product compare to the maker previous generation, in term of performances, and to its direct competitor equivalent (same generation) products.


So which number should I vote for ? :?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top