The Worst Graphics Card Review EVER

[Quitch]

Move over [H], here comes the Doc

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthr...adid=33698698&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

 

[Radea]

Yeah, I saw that.

GF4 Ti is looking like quite the purchase

Edit, I just noticed they took down the 03 benches

IIRC (I saw this yesterday),

GF4 MX440 - ~2400
GF4 MX460 - ~2600
GF4 Ti4600 - ~4800
GFFX5900U - ~4600
R9700P - ~4800
R9800P - ~5000

It was hilarious

 

[Hanners]

The best part is that someone at Rage3D e-mailed the guy who wrote the article to question the scores.

The response?

'Oh, the guy who ran the benchmarks for me selected 800x600 by mistake, I'm going to make him run them again'.

Don't we all wish we had a benchmark slave?

 

[MuFu]

'Oh, the guy who ran the benchmarks for me selected 800x600 by mistake, I'm going to make him run them again'.

Wow, how very "hands on" of him!

MuFu.

 

[chavvdarrr]

so, it looks that if one runs games @800x600 GF4 is on par with expensive new "beasts"

 

[Pete]

The best part is that someone at Rage3D e-mailed the guy who wrote the article to question the scores.

The response?

'Oh, the guy who ran the benchmarks for me selected 800x600 by mistake, I'm going to make him run them again'.

Don't we all wish we had a benchmark slave?

Or maybe "the guy who created the graphs" mistakenly assumed 10x7 meant 1024x768, when it really meant 10x7 pixels.

 

[ben6]

Truthfully, I have no clue how a MX440 8x can get 2000 3dmarks in 2003.That's around 20x what I get <g>