Tom's strange...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Well, you guys're certainly biased.

You were certainly quick "confirming" irregularities of ATi drivers on your recent review, without waiting for an official statement from ATi, or asking ATi for an explanation.

In contrast, in the review "Aquamark3: Accurate Benchmarking for Old and New (DirectX9) Apps?" you were patient enough to wait for an official statement from nVidia or even bothered to ask nVidia for an explanation of irregularities on their drivers!

You basically accused ATi without giving them a chance to explain, whereas in case of nVidia, you gave them plenty of opportunity to do so.

I have an impression that you guys have been basically waiting to exploit ATi's weakness whenever possible, whereas for nVidia you've been quite patient. I mean, have you guys bothered to check the accusation made by Gabe Newell yourself? That was more than a month ago.

Also the Tom's statement in the review "Ready For The Winter Games: ATI Radeon 9800 XT" was kinda weird.

In contrast, Kyle from [H] is being praised for his recent (and bold) statement regarding nVidia's cheat (well, basically people started to like him suddenly). You cannot fool community (especiall hard-core ones) indefinitely, if you know what i mean. There are more of so-called ATi "fan boys" than nVidia ones I could see on various forums across the internet. ATi fan-boys? I think they've got a quite good reason to be... at this stage.

Now who's biased?

That said, I really love reading THG guide (have been reading it for 6 years). Graphic guide is only a small part of whole THG. I'm kinda disturbed, put it this way. Nothing major. Your benchmark results in recent reviews were excellent and conclusions well drawn with evidence. Still one of the best review sites, if not best. Cheers.
 
Interestingly enough too, the bright image on the Nvidia screenies kind of make it seem like its bleached out. Reminds me of the old analog automatic gain features in the old black and white CRT's. If a bright light came across the pic...BEWM! it washed out.

I took a look at some of the pics at digitlife (review of the Nvidia cards from 5600XT up) and noticed that sometimes things looked a bit just like that...washed out. Granted, the ATI screens did look a bit too dark. Thing that blows me away too is that on the TRAOD hallway screens, the panel indicator lights on all the walls and floor are totally absent in the Nvidia screens. This is a no brainer for me. Checking the IQ at any site I'm more impressed with ATI's lack of jagged edges than I am Nvidia...despite owning more Nvidia cards than ATI. [sarcasm]If image quality is important in games, then I'm a German gynecologist.[/sarcasm]

Sie sind die fantastischen Vulvablicke!


----------
<b>Got any of that beer that has candy floating in it? You know, Skittlebrau? </b> <i>Homer Simpson</i>

TKS
 
They all cheat man it doesn't matter who you buy, ATi has done it/is doing it, nVidia has done it/is doing it, SiS, Matrox, take your pick. If cheating will increase sales, they will do it. I don't think intel has been caught yet, but god knows... they probally will be at some point soon hehe.

Shadus
 
Bah, the leaked Half Life 2 demo works smooth as silk on my measly 9500 PRO. Doom3 is a little slower, but very playable.

Today's cards will be just fine in HL2 and Doom3. We don't have to wait for the next gen.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055
 
But I WANT the next gen. I want a PCI-EX card, even if it only matches the R9800P's performance (although I wouldn't refuse more performance of course). I'm with the R9600P Which I <b>LOVE</b>, but that's more about architecture constraints and my personal experiences/fears than wanting to be mid-range. I'm eagerly anticipating that and I KNOW that they will play the next titles without fail, but will they make my Longhorn Offic XPXS2005ULTRA Benchmarks Rock?!? I get 120 Excel Cells per second. I rock! 😱


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:
 
Just read your above post, Ape (10/26/03 08:58 PM
)

Holy $hit. Well said.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055
 
Awww , geee, shucks, Thanx!

However, I KNOW you would have said the same, in fact I live in fear of it Every day! :wink:


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:
 
Yep. We all love you Ape. More than you could possibly know :smile:


<b>I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy. :smile:
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
 
Can we do a forum "HUGZ" in this forum?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:
 
/me HUGZ the stuffin outta eden :smile:

<b>I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy. :smile:
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
 
When did Tom directly report on the 3dmark issue? How long did it take him to look at Aquamark? And on another note, go look at the wording and how he refers to Nvidia in basically all of his FX reviews, it's as if NV is always the one who bounces back, and never leaves the position of being "the king" as Lars or whoever refers to them
 
Would it make any difference if I included an ATI comment on the AM3 thing? No. Even after a whole week they can´t explain why it happens in their drivers. They confirm the findings but they don´t know in detail yet why it happens. Asking NV for a comment in the AM3 article is something different. I call their results invalid in the article. This is way more serious. Did I call ATI´s results invalid in the NV38/36 article? Did I use grey bars in the benchmark results? Did I write in the conclusion that ATI is cheating? Did I see the NV38/36 as the new king?

I thought that the "performance impression" part of the article might be controversial... but I did not expect that discussion on the AM3 issues.

Lars
 
@reever

We were and are not part of the 3DM beta program. We were not able to confirm those things when the story came up. Only the beta members reported about it at that time.

There are publications which said nothing about the whole story at all - and still do not speak about it. It´s always easy to look back and say that you could have done better. But we have to react at the time things happen - with as much information we´re able to get at that time. With more DX9 apps appearing we get a clearer image on the whole situation.

Lars
 
And during that time you did nothing until noone actually cared you helped (not you only but alof of other sites as well) Nvidia destroy Futuremark's reputation. And as mentioned before, you are quick to report this but it took you ages to report the 3dmark03 issue.

And you also quite often label ATI as one that has committed a crime when it's still unconfirmed rumour. Borsti, you also quite often label nvidia the innocent one that seems to have never done anything wrong. That's one of the reasons why people are picking on the issue. Not that you write bad about ATI, but the FACT that you also picture ATI in a bad light. And don't come saying that "i recommended a ATI card". Of course you will, imagine how you would look otherwise.

To give an example FX5800Ultra a pretender to the throne, maybe it's only me that considers that headline way out of line.

Perhaps use more neutral headlines and wording when it comes to mudslinging rumours and other rumours, whether that be company XYZ or whatever. It's that hard to try remain objective?

Wooba Wooba
 
Not that it's necessary, but it would have been nice to get a reply to my post as I think I described the position of many here quite clearly. I do realize you can't answer everyone's posts.

The main thing I would like to address is this statement;

<i><font color=red>Did I write in the conclusion that ATI is cheating?</font color=red></i>

No, you didn't but the implication WAS there, whether intended or not, and that's what really bothered me and others. Like I mentioned in my earlier post this segment gives the reader that impression;

<i><font color=blue>Earlier this year, NVIDIA drew a lot of flak over a number of questionable optimizations in their drivers for 3DMark 2003 - optimizations which could definitely be called cheats.</font color=blue></i>

That and calling the segment: "<i>Questionable optimizations in ATi's drivers?</i>", leaves the reader with the impression that you are equating the two, and it definitely prejudices anything reported afterwards.

While that's may not have been your intention, and may have been a result of translation or editing, it's still there.

In the end I think a less controversial/sensationalistic method would have been apropriate when dealing with such an explosive issue. I realize there is some edge and irony to some of the things written, but when it comes to issues like this the I's need to be dotted and the T's crossed, and of all the sections it's the most important to get right IMO.

Well, I've said my peace before and just wanted to add this, I'll recerve any judgement for later, just like I did for ATI (and nV before).


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:
 
It appears ATI has a little more to say about this.

Interesting that the issues addressed match-up perfectly with the 'issues' found in this and other reviews.

The Inquirer carries their response (including earlier tidbits) the final segment is also interesting.

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12437" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12437</A>

[pseudo rant to follow]

I'm really left with the impression that reviewers and sites are becoming extensions of the various card makers PR departments, either willingly or by fear of being left out of the loop (no reference card for you if you don't play nice). Without those 'favours' they have to review well after all those who played along. Anand's recent preview is a perfect example. Did anyone expect that this 'exclusive' preview was going to be negative?

Whether we get to the point where no review can be trusted depends on many factors. Review sites being fed pablum by the Mfr. would be the biggest to me, and next would be the cart-blanche forgive and forget attitude seen over the past months, where blatant attempts to fudge the info is swept under the carpet as if there is no history in this industry, finally seeing the inclusion of one or another product's AD smacked right in a review that we are supposed to view as objective has got to stop. Nothing caused more doubt and antipathy in the THG VGA Buyer's Guide than seeing the MSI FX5600non-ultra come out as the editor's choice, and to have that same distinction being trumpeted in an ad for that product on the very same page; a feeling of Conflict of Interest definitely comes to mind there. I understand that AD revenu is required, but didn't MSI have to get THG's permission to do that? If so, who thought it was a good idea to run the ad right beside the results of a test that needs to be seen as being impartial? I wonder how people feel now after having followed that recommendation, which was at odds with the majority of the forum here (the Fx5600U rev.2 was well respected though).

It appears to me that the various forums are becoming a better source of objective opinion (as well as biased opinion), where really the mass of information allows an individual to pick out the gems from the detritus for him/herself. Sure the forums are full of fanbois and ignoramuses, however with a bit of effort invested by oneself it's usually easy to filter that static out and form an edjucated opinion.
The resources availible to the various sites that have access to the Beta development stages, and have the ability to disect benchmarks and IQ comparisons will always be of great benifit and will be hard to reproduce on an individual level; but at least in that case the objectivity and detail of these tests will be their sole selling/attraction point, and therefore the sites would be more interested in maintaining their perceived integrity, regardless of the wishes of the card makers.

I see the addition of potentially 3 new players (and the loss of one minor one) as being a balancing factor in the future, where reviewers don't rely on 2 rather limited and exclusive revenue sources, thus allow for greater potential competition even in the advertising realm. Perhaps competition is a good thing there as well as in the marketplace itself.

OR at least that's how I see it.

[/pseudo rant]

That is all... end transmission.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom