The Way its Meant to be Reviewed?

Discussion in 'Beyond3D News' started by Dave Baumann, Dec 8, 2003.

  1. MaxPower_NVN

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, me too...I use the address bar or the "run" command line textbox as a "text sanitizer" all the time... I had to make it sound like I was going to more trouble though. ;)
     
  2. Geo

    Geo Mostly Harmless
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,116
    Likes Received:
    213
    Location:
    Uffda-land
    Umm. . .are the last seven pages worth reading? Was getting tired. :?

    If no one provided this answer, the once-famous/since disappeared Typedef Enum did a Parhelia review on NVN about a year ago. Here: http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/matrox_parhelia/index.shtml

    Tho I was amused by Baron having a delayed hissy over the ULE vis-a-vis NVNews debate. Don't hold it in at the time, friend, you may hurt yourself.
     
  3. Mariner

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    237
    That's a point - whatever happened to Typedef Enum? I've not seen him post anywhere for ages. Has he just taken up a new username?
     
  4. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doesn't the discussion about the usefullness of F-buffer proof my point? :D

    @MaxPower_NVN:
    I haven't read the NVNews reviews at the time of the R350 release. So maybe I have missed some very objective reviews about the relevance of the features of both ATI and NVidia cards. (Playing advocates devil: that you guys considered the ATI feature a buzzword is not suprising :wink:

    BTW I have no experience reviewing hardware. As I stated before, I am one of the readers. But I am a scientist and I know how difficult it is to look at testresults without being influenced. Even if you think yourself that you are not influenced by external sources.
    For instance, you might not be influenced when you received the videocard for testing, but I assume you have heard or have attended the press conferences from Nvidia and ATI PR people when they unveil a new card.

    When I consider the reviews from large well-known sites from that period like for instance Anandtech, Tom's, HardOCP, Firingsquad etc etc. I think they majority wasn't that objective about those features.

    BTW I haven't heard from you or all the others whether you expectations on the future-proofness of the 9700Pro (or the 5800 Ultra) was correct.
    (or any different from the 8500, GF4 and GF3)

    I'm not trying to accuse anybody about anything, but I think it is a part of the discussion that is very interesting and demands reviewers to take a good look at their work again. If you think you hit the nail on the head with those reviews, then by all means please continu in the same way.
     
  5. Tim Murray

    Tim Murray the Windom Earle of mobile SOCs
    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Mountain View, CA
    Hey, I consider UltraShadow even MORE of a buzzword than the F-Buffer because it was backed up at the NV35 launch by those "Doom 3 benchmark scores." It's just that the possible example of Doom 3 and US would make me an easier target than the F-Buffer, more important in theory but still not exposed at all.
     
  6. MaxPower_NVN

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you're correct in saying that it is difficult to not be influenced when looking at test results. However, I maintain that being influenced and exhibiting bias are two different things. In my reviews I want to be as fair and professional as I can. I don't subscribe to the train of thought that you have to be unduly negative/critical in order to obtain credibility or an unbiased status.

    Back to your earlier post for a second:
    Sorry, I didn't mean to avoid that question. At the time of the 9700Pro's release I would say that I would have been a bit surprised to see how well it holds its own still today. However, in hindsight (always 20/20 and all) I'm not really all that surprised seeing how the later ATI hardware is more of a refresh than anything else. As far as how well do I think I've done in the past regarding "crystal balling" how future proof a card is...let's just say I'm not batting a thousand. :) No one does, or will IMO...too many unknowns but something I want to always try to be more accurate on.

    I quickly learned to take the PR releases with a grain of salt (whew, is that a tired cliche nowadays or what? ;) ). Those releases don't really affect my reviews as MikeC does most/all of our hardware preview articles. He does a great job at separating the wheat from the chaff...I chew on that a bit and then come to my own conclusions for my next few reviews.

    I haven't been around long enough to have reviewed GF3 or 8500 cards. My first was of a Gainward Ti4800SE. I'd encourage you to read at least this final page of that review and let me know how accurate you think I was in my predictions/conclusions. Dave doesn't want this thread to be an "NVNEWS" focused thread (and understandably so)...so if you'd like to email me at maxpower@nvnews.com that'd be fine too. I hope I answered your questions and thanks for the excellent thoughts. :)
     
  7. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see no problem with using a good honest benchmark program which is accurate.

    But no such thing exists now a days, theres too much money to be gained a lossed to gurantee that any one program is 100% bias free, on top of that you have the video card manufacturers and GPU deisgners altering drivers to adapt for benchmarking software (its not just Nivdia, ATI are just as bad)

    3Dmark2003 is one of the biggest jokes of recent times, not only is it a particaurlly poor DX9 benchmark but its compromised every 12 seconds, with results from the same hardware bobbing up and down it loses its worth instantly.

    I also don't have a very high opinion of futuremark either, they say they're going to release documentation on what drivers are acceptable, surely if any such drivers are released it doesnt require a patch on 3dmark2003 behalf, suggesting they're trying to force the drivers to remove specific optimisations, a battle i fear they will always lose, especially when Nvidia stand outspokenly against futuremarks ideals, if they think they can win a war against Nvidia then they're wrong, and in the process they only hurt themselfs by giving their own benchmarking software a bad reputation.

    All eyes are being turned at AM3 which so far is a much more honest benchmark, but theres already been problems with that, Nvidia "cheats" and the always honest :roll: ATi's "bugs" both incidently giving better frame rates.

    I say use benchmarks, but use GOOD benchmarks, any review site that adds 3dmark2003 as part of the review suite I will simply skip through that part, if its added to prove any specific aspect I will just ignore it. If its relied on to heavily in any way, i will have no hesitation in never visiting any particualr review site again anytime in the near future.

    There are website now totalt removing benchmarks from their review suite, their common sense is much more deserving of the publics time I feel. However keep syntehic benchmarks as a small part of a large overall review and you cant much go wrong.

    -Princess_Frosty
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...