Problems with Charts go here:
- Thread starter Ombudsman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Peripherals
ooo-darko-ooo
Distinguished
- Apr 19, 2008
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
I just registered to give feedback about the Charts that I used to love. 🙁
But now, it's all big and [strike]crappy[/strike]clunky, everything is messed up.
Why is there a 'Top charts' section?!? There's only 9 of them... remove the number, remove the 'Top' and you shall have enough place to put them all.
Why should I go 2 pages down to get my CPU chart? Or at least put all the links at the top.
Another way to do it would be to put the descriptive text in an expandable section.
So we get all our links and you get to say whatever you like about the links.
Or you could just remove it since you repeat it before the actual charts.
One thing is for sure, just remove 1 copy of that text; it's not useful to duplicate it.
The drop-down are very wrong... I often get a horizontal scrollbar for no reason.
The new drop-down won't remember the current page/last selection. That really hurts in EVERY pages.
Where are the old charts? CPU 2006, 2005, ...? You have the data; you might as well put it up. They were a nice way to show us where we come from and how it evolved. And I still have some working machines that aren't at the bottom of the 2007 version...
If I click the result number in the CPU 2007, I get no description of he rig used to get that result.
My guess it you still have this information but it's just not up there?
If you go in the non-dual/quad VGA charts, guess what is all over the top? All the SLI and CF stuff, WHY!?!
The old, 'track 2 card in the bunch' was great.
You could easily track the cards you want to compare and still get the big picture with about rest.
The painful card selection isn't stored anywhere... so you have to redo it all the time.
The selection could be a lot easier if it you just pop a multi-value list; we select them all in 1 shot and voilà!
Another better way for the selection would be to have templates filled with the component with approximately the same prices.
It's rare that you want to compare low vs. high end stuff...
Even simpler, 3 version of the links to the charts... 1 for each base template (low, mid, high).
I have to admit that right now, I have no idea how the base template was built (a bit of everything but not all?).
The added information about the component is nice.
The dragging is useless and prevents me from highlighting the information that I would like to copy/paste (a new since it's no longer an image).
The removing is fast enough so it's ok.
The graph is too big. If it was leaner, we would be able to see an acceptable amount of information in 1 page, not 3.
The size/format of the ads on the right feels better and more concise.
A legend somewhere would be nice for those who can't remember what was the 3rd/4th number in the /,,//,/ sequence. 😗
ex:
Intel 2x Core 2 Extreme QX9775
Yorkfield,3200/400,5400,667,Socket 771,32+32kB,12 MB
I know that you want to SELL video card when someone is in that section. Could you at least filter the ads to the type of cards the user is comparing?
If I have only 88XX in my graph, it's probably useless to show me ads about 9600 cards... don't you think? 😀
Or is it the only model available to your paying advertisers?
Please bring back the old one until you, at least, keep the same features.
Start by being efficient... then make it pretty.
It's not that critical it this section doesn't look as 2.0 as the rest.
Don't trash the good stuff/content for the sake of uniformity.
For now, I feel like going elsewhere for the information I need since it's becoming harder to actually reach it here.
A big list of name/numbers would do the job for me, but I understand that some like the colors and all...
It painfully takes forever to get the good names in the list and to navigate between the benchmarks.
Please, make it better
BTW, I'm using Firefox 2.something
Darko
But now, it's all big and [strike]crappy[/strike]clunky, everything is messed up.
Why is there a 'Top charts' section?!? There's only 9 of them... remove the number, remove the 'Top' and you shall have enough place to put them all.
Why should I go 2 pages down to get my CPU chart? Or at least put all the links at the top.
Another way to do it would be to put the descriptive text in an expandable section.
So we get all our links and you get to say whatever you like about the links.
Or you could just remove it since you repeat it before the actual charts.
One thing is for sure, just remove 1 copy of that text; it's not useful to duplicate it.
The drop-down are very wrong... I often get a horizontal scrollbar for no reason.
The new drop-down won't remember the current page/last selection. That really hurts in EVERY pages.
Where are the old charts? CPU 2006, 2005, ...? You have the data; you might as well put it up. They were a nice way to show us where we come from and how it evolved. And I still have some working machines that aren't at the bottom of the 2007 version...
If I click the result number in the CPU 2007, I get no description of he rig used to get that result.
My guess it you still have this information but it's just not up there?
If you go in the non-dual/quad VGA charts, guess what is all over the top? All the SLI and CF stuff, WHY!?!
The old, 'track 2 card in the bunch' was great.
You could easily track the cards you want to compare and still get the big picture with about rest.
The painful card selection isn't stored anywhere... so you have to redo it all the time.
The selection could be a lot easier if it you just pop a multi-value list; we select them all in 1 shot and voilà!
Another better way for the selection would be to have templates filled with the component with approximately the same prices.
It's rare that you want to compare low vs. high end stuff...
Even simpler, 3 version of the links to the charts... 1 for each base template (low, mid, high).
I have to admit that right now, I have no idea how the base template was built (a bit of everything but not all?).
The added information about the component is nice.
The dragging is useless and prevents me from highlighting the information that I would like to copy/paste (a new since it's no longer an image).
The removing is fast enough so it's ok.
The graph is too big. If it was leaner, we would be able to see an acceptable amount of information in 1 page, not 3.
The size/format of the ads on the right feels better and more concise.
A legend somewhere would be nice for those who can't remember what was the 3rd/4th number in the /,,//,/ sequence. 😗
ex:
Intel 2x Core 2 Extreme QX9775
Yorkfield,3200/400,5400,667,Socket 771,32+32kB,12 MB
I know that you want to SELL video card when someone is in that section. Could you at least filter the ads to the type of cards the user is comparing?
If I have only 88XX in my graph, it's probably useless to show me ads about 9600 cards... don't you think? 😀
Or is it the only model available to your paying advertisers?
Please bring back the old one until you, at least, keep the same features.
Start by being efficient... then make it pretty.
It's not that critical it this section doesn't look as 2.0 as the rest.
Don't trash the good stuff/content for the sake of uniformity.
For now, I feel like going elsewhere for the information I need since it's becoming harder to actually reach it here.
A big list of name/numbers would do the job for me, but I understand that some like the colors and all...
It painfully takes forever to get the good names in the list and to navigate between the benchmarks.
Please, make it better
BTW, I'm using Firefox 2.something
Darko
Agreed. Old charts > new charts.
Functionality aside, why are the charts not updated? I'm speaking specifically of the VGA charts, but I'm sure the others suffer this as well.
The new GeForce 9xxx series cards have been out months now, but I see no mention of them in either of the charts? In fact, the charts stopped being updated with the release of the HD3850/3870.
The charts are what helped build this site. Shame shame on letting them lapse like this.
It almost begs the cynicism : How many Tom's Hardware global teams does it take to update a website?
Tssskk.
Functionality aside, why are the charts not updated? I'm speaking specifically of the VGA charts, but I'm sure the others suffer this as well.
The new GeForce 9xxx series cards have been out months now, but I see no mention of them in either of the charts? In fact, the charts stopped being updated with the release of the HD3850/3870.
The charts are what helped build this site. Shame shame on letting them lapse like this.
It almost begs the cynicism : How many Tom's Hardware global teams does it take to update a website?
Tssskk.
GSTe
Distinguished
- Oct 6, 2006
- 656
- 0
- 18,990
These charts are the same as the 'new' UK ones. I was using the US site so I wouldn't have to deal with those crappy UK ones, and now you change these too? Bah!
The charts were the best thing about this site, and now you have meddled with those too? For what purpose?
Honestly, after the loss of all the great people that used to post here, this with the charts is surely the death knell.....
The charts were the best thing about this site, and now you have meddled with those too? For what purpose?
Honestly, after the loss of all the great people that used to post here, this with the charts is surely the death knell.....
Honestly, these new charts are horrible. They are clunky, slow, and ridiculously large (and this is on a 19" monitor at 1280x1024). Do you know why the old ones were so great? They were SIMPLE, clean, and loaded lightning-fast. AND, the highlighting of the 2 products you had selected was great, because it showed you what you asked for IN THE CONTEXT OF the rest of them.
Why, oh why, did you people tank something that was so beautiful? I can no longer recommend the charts to anybody as a good product-comparison resource.
Why, oh why, did you people tank something that was so beautiful? I can no longer recommend the charts to anybody as a good product-comparison resource.
Flakes
Distinguished
- Dec 30, 2005
- 1,868
- 0
- 19,790
ooo-darko-ooo :
I just registered to give feedback about the Charts that I used to love. 🙁
But now, it's all big and [strike]crappy[/strike]clunky, everything is messed up.
Why is there a 'Top charts' section?!? There's only 9 of them... remove the number, remove the 'Top' and you shall have enough place to put them all.
Why should I go 2 pages down to get my CPU chart? Or at least put all the links at the top.
Another way to do it would be to put the descriptive text in an expandable section.
So we get all our links and you get to say whatever you like about the links.
Or you could just remove it since you repeat it before the actual charts.
One thing is for sure, just remove 1 copy of that text; it's not useful to duplicate it.
The drop-down are very wrong... I often get a horizontal scrollbar for no reason.
The new drop-down won't remember the current page/last selection. That really hurts in EVERY pages.
Where are the old charts? CPU 2006, 2005, ...? You have the data; you might as well put it up. They were a nice way to show us where we come from and how it evolved. And I still have some working machines that aren't at the bottom of the 2007 version...
If I click the result number in the CPU 2007, I get no description of he rig used to get that result.
My guess it you still have this information but it's just not up there?
If you go in the non-dual/quad VGA charts, guess what is all over the top? All the SLI and CF stuff, WHY!?!
The old, 'track 2 card in the bunch' was great.
You could easily track the cards you want to compare and still get the big picture with about rest.
The painful card selection isn't stored anywhere... so you have to redo it all the time.
The selection could be a lot easier if it you just pop a multi-value list; we select them all in 1 shot and voilà!
Another better way for the selection would be to have templates filled with the component with approximately the same prices.
It's rare that you want to compare low vs. high end stuff...
Even simpler, 3 version of the links to the charts... 1 for each base template (low, mid, high).
I have to admit that right now, I have no idea how the base template was built (a bit of everything but not all?).
The added information about the component is nice.
The dragging is useless and prevents me from highlighting the information that I would like to copy/paste (a new since it's no longer an image).
The removing is fast enough so it's ok.
The graph is too big. If it was leaner, we would be able to see an acceptable amount of information in 1 page, not 3.
The size/format of the ads on the right feels better and more concise.
A legend somewhere would be nice for those who can't remember what was the 3rd/4th number in the /,,//,/ sequence. 😗
ex:
Intel 2x Core 2 Extreme QX9775
Yorkfield,3200/400,5400,667,Socket 771,32+32kB,12 MB
I know that you want to SELL video card when someone is in that section. Could you at least filter the ads to the type of cards the user is comparing?
If I have only 88XX in my graph, it's probably useless to show me ads about 9600 cards... don't you think? 😀
Or is it the only model available to your paying advertisers?
Please bring back the old one until you, at least, keep the same features.
Start by being efficient... then make it pretty.
It's not that critical it this section doesn't look as 2.0 as the rest.
Don't trash the good stuff/content for the sake of uniformity.
For now, I feel like going elsewhere for the information I need since it's becoming harder to actually reach it here.
A big list of name/numbers would do the job for me, but I understand that some like the colors and all...
It painfully takes forever to get the good names in the list and to navigate between the benchmarks.
Please, make it better
BTW, I'm using Firefox 2.something
Darko
But now, it's all big and [strike]crappy[/strike]clunky, everything is messed up.
Why is there a 'Top charts' section?!? There's only 9 of them... remove the number, remove the 'Top' and you shall have enough place to put them all.
Why should I go 2 pages down to get my CPU chart? Or at least put all the links at the top.
Another way to do it would be to put the descriptive text in an expandable section.
So we get all our links and you get to say whatever you like about the links.
Or you could just remove it since you repeat it before the actual charts.
One thing is for sure, just remove 1 copy of that text; it's not useful to duplicate it.
The drop-down are very wrong... I often get a horizontal scrollbar for no reason.
The new drop-down won't remember the current page/last selection. That really hurts in EVERY pages.
Where are the old charts? CPU 2006, 2005, ...? You have the data; you might as well put it up. They were a nice way to show us where we come from and how it evolved. And I still have some working machines that aren't at the bottom of the 2007 version...
If I click the result number in the CPU 2007, I get no description of he rig used to get that result.
My guess it you still have this information but it's just not up there?
If you go in the non-dual/quad VGA charts, guess what is all over the top? All the SLI and CF stuff, WHY!?!
The old, 'track 2 card in the bunch' was great.
You could easily track the cards you want to compare and still get the big picture with about rest.
The painful card selection isn't stored anywhere... so you have to redo it all the time.
The selection could be a lot easier if it you just pop a multi-value list; we select them all in 1 shot and voilà!
Another better way for the selection would be to have templates filled with the component with approximately the same prices.
It's rare that you want to compare low vs. high end stuff...
Even simpler, 3 version of the links to the charts... 1 for each base template (low, mid, high).
I have to admit that right now, I have no idea how the base template was built (a bit of everything but not all?).
The added information about the component is nice.
The dragging is useless and prevents me from highlighting the information that I would like to copy/paste (a new since it's no longer an image).
The removing is fast enough so it's ok.
The graph is too big. If it was leaner, we would be able to see an acceptable amount of information in 1 page, not 3.
The size/format of the ads on the right feels better and more concise.
A legend somewhere would be nice for those who can't remember what was the 3rd/4th number in the /,,//,/ sequence. 😗
ex:
Intel 2x Core 2 Extreme QX9775
Yorkfield,3200/400,5400,667,Socket 771,32+32kB,12 MB
I know that you want to SELL video card when someone is in that section. Could you at least filter the ads to the type of cards the user is comparing?
If I have only 88XX in my graph, it's probably useless to show me ads about 9600 cards... don't you think? 😀
Or is it the only model available to your paying advertisers?
Please bring back the old one until you, at least, keep the same features.
Start by being efficient... then make it pretty.
It's not that critical it this section doesn't look as 2.0 as the rest.
Don't trash the good stuff/content for the sake of uniformity.
For now, I feel like going elsewhere for the information I need since it's becoming harder to actually reach it here.
A big list of name/numbers would do the job for me, but I understand that some like the colors and all...
It painfully takes forever to get the good names in the list and to navigate between the benchmarks.
Please, make it better
BTW, I'm using Firefox 2.something
Darko
There are obvious errors in the 3.5" Hard Drive Charts under the "interface performance" section. You may need to select "View All Products" to view the drives in question.
There are two ATA/133 Hitachi T7K500's in the 180MB/sec range:
Hitachi GST Deskstar T7K500
HDT725040VLAT80, ATA/133, 400GB, 8MB
189.50MB/sec
Hitachi GST Deskstar T7K500
HDT725050VLAT80, ATA/133, 500GB, 8MB
188.80MB/sec
Those results are impossible for the ATA/133 interface, which has a maximum potential throughput of 133MB/sec. It appears that someone mistakenly keyed in results for the wrong drives when creating the charts. And I suspect the drives to which those results actually belong are the two Hitachi T7K500 SATA 3Gbps models listed in the 80MB/sec range:
Hitachi GST Deskstar T7K500
HDT725040VLA360, SATA/300, 400GB, 16MB
88.40MB/sec
Hitachi GST Deskstar T7K500
HDT725050VLA360, SATA/300, 500GB, 16MB
87.70MB/sec
Those results are not consistent with these drives, which are surrounded by PATA models. Even if you are willing to believe these SATA 3Gbps models could perform that badly, we know the results given for the ATA/133 models are simply not possible. So someone had to have entered the wrong results for the PATA models. And the Hitachi SATA models seem like the most plausible candidates.
There are two ATA/133 Hitachi T7K500's in the 180MB/sec range:
Hitachi GST Deskstar T7K500
HDT725040VLAT80, ATA/133, 400GB, 8MB
189.50MB/sec
Hitachi GST Deskstar T7K500
HDT725050VLAT80, ATA/133, 500GB, 8MB
188.80MB/sec
Those results are impossible for the ATA/133 interface, which has a maximum potential throughput of 133MB/sec. It appears that someone mistakenly keyed in results for the wrong drives when creating the charts. And I suspect the drives to which those results actually belong are the two Hitachi T7K500 SATA 3Gbps models listed in the 80MB/sec range:
Hitachi GST Deskstar T7K500
HDT725040VLA360, SATA/300, 400GB, 16MB
88.40MB/sec
Hitachi GST Deskstar T7K500
HDT725050VLA360, SATA/300, 500GB, 16MB
87.70MB/sec
Those results are not consistent with these drives, which are surrounded by PATA models. Even if you are willing to believe these SATA 3Gbps models could perform that badly, we know the results given for the ATA/133 models are simply not possible. So someone had to have entered the wrong results for the PATA models. And the Hitachi SATA models seem like the most plausible candidates.
- Apr 7, 2008
- 8,771
- 22
- 30,965
pencaouate
Distinguished
- Nov 3, 2008
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
Hi,
I'am interested in the SSD technology and I saw your performance charts.
My problem is that on your "all benchmark SSD charts" there are no details on the benchmark performed.
For example, I don't know the details of the database I/O benchmark pattern, the Web server I/O pattern, the file server I/O pattern except that you ran IOMeter to measure the performances.
Could you give some details on these pattern (block size, R/W ratio, ...)
I'am interested in the SSD technology and I saw your performance charts.
My problem is that on your "all benchmark SSD charts" there are no details on the benchmark performed.
For example, I don't know the details of the database I/O benchmark pattern, the Web server I/O pattern, the file server I/O pattern except that you ran IOMeter to measure the performances.
Could you give some details on these pattern (block size, R/W ratio, ...)
The price/performance index. Used to be you could select this comparison from the list of benchmarks. Now despite reading the reference that this tool exists I cannot, for the life of me, find it. Perhaps I'm just too thick. Would someone please end my frustration and tell me in very clear, easy to follow terms so that I am guaranteed to find it. Better yet, post a link if possible. I really used to like this site but despise the obstacles to finding something I believe should be bold, in your face, front and centre, but isn't.
P.S. Being forced to "sign up" to resolve an issue with the site is unreasonable.
I officially despise this site now. "Bestof"media is a misnomer.
Advice: restore all the value to the community that was offered by the originator and then add your greedy marketing invasive crap to it. There is a reason the community existed here. You morons don't seem to get it. You come along to exploit the communities without understanding the community. Keep giving the community what it had... your "improvements" aren't.
I know there are people within this community that could create a new site that captures the quality and functionality of the old TH.. I only hope they do. "Bestof" deserves to own a ghost town.
P.S. Being forced to "sign up" to resolve an issue with the site is unreasonable.
I officially despise this site now. "Bestof"media is a misnomer.
Advice: restore all the value to the community that was offered by the originator and then add your greedy marketing invasive crap to it. There is a reason the community existed here. You morons don't seem to get it. You come along to exploit the communities without understanding the community. Keep giving the community what it had... your "improvements" aren't.
I know there are people within this community that could create a new site that captures the quality and functionality of the old TH.. I only hope they do. "Bestof" deserves to own a ghost town.
- Apr 7, 2008
- 8,771
- 22
- 30,965
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff — it isn't even close- Started by Admin
- Replies: 54
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?
- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question I have an old system in the basement that has really basic specs, but am planning to give it just a little uplift with an RTX 5060 ti 16gb- Started by Guy_who_thinks_hes_cool
- Replies: 8
-
Question A scared question but I have to ask ?
- Started by Guy_who_thinks_hes_cool
- Replies: 9
Latest posts
-
Question Chronic Freezes on ASUS Vivobook Go E1504FA
- Latest: Detective_Khalifah_dtcfscd
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram