2900XT vs 8800GTS 320

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
I wonder how many Nvidia cards HOCP helps sell

Someone made a thread asking to decide between 8800GTS and HD2900XT there... my first thought was "WRROOOONG place to ask", so I went in and someone inevitably says this:

"HD 2900 XT is inferior in every way. Does that make the choice a bit easier for you?"

...

I wish I could smack people over the internet... and I dont even have anything to do with the company.. people over at AMD must be totally frustrated at how underrated their product is, I should know, since that happens to me all the time in what I do

If you look at pure "FPS" in many games the HD2900 may be a better card over the 320.

But when you factor in cost, heat, noise, power draw, IQ etc.

It's not the better card.

Why is that wrong?

Whats wrong is he said "in every way" and thats a big LIE... It performs better on average and has about equal IQ... Then it depends on whether you care about noise and power consumption (which I dont)

But whatever, let the misinformation spread... After all, Im not the one who gets the shaft

And for the record, I would buy a GTS320 too simply because its price is too good, however between the GTS640 and the 2900, the 2900 is by far the best choice to me

 

[dreddfunk]

Hey Wreckage-

Actually there is a very large audience. Very few people who view these threads actually post here, in fact many of them are not even registered users.

I honestly think it is immaterial whether or not they either post or are registered here, they are not an audience in the sense under discussion. They are part of the extended community of those who care about graphics products. They don't come here as impartial judges to determine the merits of a 'case' being argued by you or your antagonists. They come here as participants, as parties who have vested interests--and biases--already in play. Their search for information is already biased. The more bias that they view on these boards, the more inclined they will be to search only for information that confirms their own bias.

I know, I was one of those people that read this board for a long, long time before posting. I am neither without bias, nor too did the very biased dialectic being practiced here help or inform my understanding of my purchasing options one whit. Mostly, it was trash that had to be avoided in the search for balanced, rational posters.

In fact, I would suggest that you are idealizing the audience to which you believe you speak: they are not objective, impartial, unbiased observers sorting through vicious arguments in search of the truth. They're biased folks, folks who probably won't listen to those who too obviously hold the opposite bias. Even when speaking to this 'audience', you have to tread carefully when you step all over their biases at the risk of having them tune you out. Just because you don't see them tune you out, doesn't mean that they don't.

At best, the adversarial tactic does for this external 'audience' precisely what it does for actual posters: it polarizes them. They view like-biased posters with favor, and unlike-biased posters with distrust.

To summarize: you posit that the unheard-from audience comes here with an open mind; it does not. I sincerely doubt that you reach any more of that audience than you do of actual AT Video posters. Those that come to the forum with a like-minded bias will probably listen to your points; those that come to the forum with an opposite-minded bias will not.

Forums are all about debate. Without sides there would be no "point\counter point". In fact there would be no need for discussion of anything other than maybe troubleshooting.

Quite simply put, this is false. "Point/counter pont" can easily exist--as can debate--without sides as you've figured it here. Indeed, the dialectic process only truly works when the actions of both 'sides' are governed by seeking truth through the analytical process. In effect, both parties are on one 'side'--trying to get to the truth of the matter. When one, or both parties seek a predetermined outcome, then the process breaks down, as visually appealing as it might be. Then, and only then, are the two parties really on different 'sides'. Neither wants to find the truth unless the 'truth' confirms their own opinion.

The difference is between trying to argue towards or from a predetermined place (nVidia is better, ATI is better), and towards an initially indeterminate place (what is the best card to buy at $250), with no predisposed idea as to the necessary outcome.

This is not a self help group, it's just a tech forum and this section focuses on video cards. I don't mind that the discussions get heated, that's how debate works. As for "communities can monitor their own behavior", I'm guessing you don't visit forums much and that my "prefect world" statement is accurate.

It should be--that is what communities are all about: they're "self-help groups." 'Heated' debate is debate with no purpose and to no avail. 'Heated' debate challenges the egos of the participants involved and, as such, any real attempt at communication breaks down as the ego prioritizes its own defense over any semblance of 'truth'.

In fact, I spend a lot of time on message boards, and a lot of time in communities of people. Simply because message boards provide the requisite anonymity to allow humans to engage in some of their most base ego-centric behavior without apparent repercussions does not mean that they cannot 'police' themselves.

In fact, the 'culture' of AT Video is very much an example of the community 'monitoring' itself. The community has come to accept a certain standard of conduct and it maintains that standard. It's not a standard that I agree with, and I'll do my best to set a different standard, but it is a community-based standard all the same.

I've spent a lot of time coaching and in team settings. The best coaches don't wield authority with iron-handed egoism. They set standards that their teams internalize. The team then 'polices' itself for the most part, without the help of the coach. The coach doesn't even have to be the one doing this--respected teammates are often the ones who help set the standards of conduct. This dynamic holds true for leadership in any field. Anyone in a community can be a leader, simply by stepping up and setting a high standard of conduct.

I to am waiting for a fast single slot DX10 card. Hopefully an 8950GT

To extrapolate your example, the 7950gt debuted a little too high for me and, IIRC, never got down quite low enough. Something like that in a slightly lower price range, however, is exactly what I'm looking for. I'm hoping that the 8900gs kick Oblivion behind--right in time to get it as a gift for Christmas.

In general, I'm extremely happy that the 8-series seems to have erased any 'shader-intensive' leadership ATI had. For whatever reason, all the games in which I've been seriously interested have been shader-heavy. ATI had a better bang-for-the buck there. I almost chose the 7600gt over the heavily-discounted x850xt, but the x850xt does a little better in Oblivion.

Cheers.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
I wonder how many Nvidia cards HOCP helps sell

Someone made a thread asking to decide between 8800GTS and HD2900XT there... my first thought was "WRROOOONG place to ask", so I went in and someone inevitably says this:

"HD 2900 XT is inferior in every way. Does that make the choice a bit easier for you?"

...

I wish I could smack people over the internet... and I dont even have anything to do with the company.. people over at AMD must be totally frustrated at how underrated their product is, I should know, since that happens to me all the time in what I do

If you look at pure "FPS" in many games the HD2900 may be a better card over the 320.

But when you factor in cost, heat, noise, power draw, IQ etc.

It's not the better card.

Why is that wrong?

Whats wrong is he said "in every way" and thats a big LIE... It performs better on average and has about equal IQ... Then it depends on whether you care about noise and power consumption (which I dont)

But whatever, let the misinformation spread... After all, Im not the one who gets the shaft

And for the record, I would buy a GTS320 too simply because its price is too good, however between the GTS640 and the 2900, the 2900 is by far the best choice to me

You've got to be kidding me. (bolded above)
This tells me a lot about what you look for in a video card. (This assumes you are totally unbiased, in fantasy land).

8800 GTS640/320:

About equal in performance to 2900XT give or take.
Cooler
Quieter
Consumes less power
Excellent IQ
Cheaper (both 640 and 320) (excluding any blowout sales of the 2900XT)

ATI HD2900XT:

About equal in performance to 8800 GTS640/320 give or take
Hotter
Louder
Consumes more power
Image Quality debatable
More expensive (excluding any blowout sales of the 2900XT)

What were your words again? "the 2900 is by far the best choice to me".

On what planet? My god, you accuse others of bias, then make statements like this? No way can we see through that guise.

 

[Mem]

Terrible review IMHO and I'm not talking about performance ,you notice no Vista benchmarks at all?..Would of been nice to see Vista included, especially when you consider what these cards are really designed for.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: evolucion8
By Bit-tech.net http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...i_radeon_hd_2900_xt/22

First off, the card is obviously late. Very late. And normally when you?re late, you have to do something special. Unfortunately for AMD, R600 just isn?t that special because not only is Nvidia?s performance crown still intact, the card AMD has chosen to attack ? the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB ? has come away with all but a few chinks in its armour.

By Guru3d.com http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/26/

It is what it is, and the HD 2900 XT performance wise ended up in the lower to mid part of the high-end segment. Sometimes it has a hard time keeping up with a 320MB 8800 GTS, and in other scenarios we see performance close or equal to the GeForce 8800 GTX. Now that would be weird if we all had to pay 600 USD/EUR for it. AMD knows this, and knows it very well. This is why, and honestly this is fantastic, the product is launched at a 399 MSRP. Now I have been talking with a lot of board partners already and here in Europe the product will launch at 350 EUR; and that's just golden.

So we need to leave the uber-power-frag-meister-performance idea behind us and mentally position the product where it is and compare it with the money you have to pay for it. For your mental picture; performance wise I'd say GeForce 8800 GTS 640 MB is a good comparative product (performance wise). Then the opinion will change as you'll receive absolutely a lot of bang for your bucks here. At 350 EUR you'll have a good performing DirectX 10 compatible product, new programmable tessellation unit. It comes with 512 megs of memory. It comes with a state of the art memory controller, offers HDCP straight out of the box, all cards have HDMI connectivity with support for sound and if that alone is not enough, you receive a Valve game-bundle with some very hip titles in there for free. So yeah, you really can't go wrong there.

Beyond3d.com http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/16/16

With a harder-to-compile-for shader core (although one with monstrous floating point peak figures), less per-clock sampler ability for almost all formats and channel widths, and a potential performance bottleneck with the current ROP setup, R600 has heavy competition in HD 2900 XT form. AMD pitch the SKU not at (or higher than) the GeForce 8800 GTX as many would have hoped, but at the $399 (and that's being generous at the time of writing) GeForce 8800 GTS 640MiB. And that wasn't on purpose, we reckon. If you asked ATI a year ago what they were aiming for with R600, the answer was a simple domination over NVIDIA at the high end, as always.

While we take it slow with our analysis -- and it's one where we've yet to heavily visit real world game scenarios, DX10 and GPGPU performance, video acceleration performance and quality, and the cooler side facets like the HDMI solution -- the Beyond3D crystal ball doesn't predict the domination that ATI will have done a year or more ago. Early word from colleagues at HEXUS, The Tech Report and Hardware.fr in that respect is one of mixed early performance that's 8800 GTS-esque or thereabouts overall, but also sometimes less than Radeon X1950 XTX in places. Our own early figures there show promise for AMD's new graphics baby, but not everywhere.

Tech Report http://www.techreport.com/revi...d-2900xt/index.x?pg=16

Ultimately, though, we can't overlook the fact that AMD built a GPU with 700M transistors that has 320 stream processor ALUs and a 512-bit memory interface, yet it just matches or slightly exceeds the real-world performance of the GeForce 8800 GTS. The GTS is an Nvidia G80 with 25% of its shader core disabled and only 60% of the memory bandwidth of the Radeon HD 2900 XT. That's gotta be a little embarrassing. At the same time, the Radeon HD 2900 XT draws quite a bit more power under load than the full-on GeForce 8800 GTX, and it needs a relatively noisy cooler to keep it in check. If you ask folks at AMD why they didn't aim for the performance crown with a faster version of the R600, they won't say it outright, but they will hint that leakage with this GPU on TSMC's 80HS fab process was a problem. All of the telltale signs are certainly there.

Just highlighted a few things for ya.

Seems to be at or below a 640 all things considered.

I know there are certain people who support this card blindly but I don't think it exceeds the 640 overall and once you consider price, heat, noise, power draw, IQ it falls far behind.

Comparing the Hardocp review to other sites it is accurate. Other sites confirm that the 2900 does not do well in those games. I really don't see what there complaint is other than their own opinion is not based on fact.

i changed the highlights for ya .. like Creig might do ...

check out what it now says ... the HD2900xt is a competitor to the 640GTS ... and those are the early reviews

of course, we are going to do one here ... this weekend and early next week
Price? ... $320 ... i think i did good

 

[ronnn]

Generally I find hardocp reviews an interesting take on things. Only problem with them is, once they take a stand ..... Kyle will never admit to being an idiot. But this is balanced by the many who enjoy calling him that. So read his site and take it with a grain of salt.

 

[superbooga]

I don't think Hardocp is cherry-picking benchmarks that favor the 8800gts, they've been using the same games for quite a while now.

If they want to prove that they're not being biased about the settings, they need more graphs and screenshots demonstrating why they picked those particular settings. For example, if you look at Oblivion:

GTS320 min fps: 18
2900XT min fps: 27

They don't explain why the 18 fps is considered acceptable for gaming. Also, they don't give any numbers justifying the decrease in grass distance for the 2900xt, they just said "The GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB and 640 MB handled grass performance faster than the Radeon HD 2900 XT in our experiences".

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: superbooga
I don't think Hardocp is cherry-picking benchmarks that favor the 8800gts, they've been using the same games for quite a while now.

If they want to prove that they're not being biased about the settings, they need more graphs and screenshots demonstrating why they picked those particular settings. For example, if you look at Oblivion:

GTS320 min fps: 18
2900XT min fps: 27

They don't explain why the 18 fps is considered acceptable for gaming. Also, they don't give any numbers justifying the decrease in grass distance for the 2900xt, they just said "The GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB and 640 MB handled grass performance faster than the Radeon HD 2900 XT in our experiences".

it seems to me that most reputable sites max settings - if it is possible. They usually chose a target resolution and run identical rigs with only the GPUs being the variable. The identical scenes are run usually a multiple of times and the 'weird' numbers tossed out ... everything is averaged and we get a "result" ... one card is usually faster than the other.

in HardOCP, Kyle is free to "fiddle" with individual setting that favor nvidia cards - e.g. if "sun on grass" really slows the 2900xt but doesn't bother the GTS so much, he will make sure to test with it on .... otoh, if "grass shadows" kill the GTS but the 2900xt takes it in stride, the test is run with grass shadows off to favor nvidia

simple really ... using those same setting that favor nvidia used with the Radeons will naturally result in lower fps for AMD cards
--for him to really appear 'fair and balanced' he should run the game with *everything maxed* ... and see how fast the respective rigs run at the same resolutions and same AA/AF

for us to accept HardOCP conclusions we need to *trust* Kyle Bennett
-- and so far, i do not ... and from what i read elsewhere i call "biased" and unfair

at least that is my theory ^^

when Keys and i test out respective rigs, we will make them as close as possible in performance so that our cards are the main variable

we then use MAXIMUM settings at whatever resolution we can compare ... we run the same scene or test and compare FPS

not turning one thing on and leaving another off -- at the reviewers discretion is a very [very] bad idea

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: superbooga
I don't think Hardocp is cherry-picking benchmarks that favor the 8800gts, they've been using the same games for quite a while now.

If they want to prove that they're not being biased about the settings, they need more graphs and screenshots demonstrating why they picked those particular settings. For example, if you look at Oblivion:

GTS320 min fps: 18
2900XT min fps: 27

They don't explain why the 18 fps is considered acceptable for gaming. Also, they don't give any numbers justifying the decrease in grass distance for the 2900xt, they just said "The GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB and 640 MB handled grass performance faster than the Radeon HD 2900 XT in our experiences".

it seems to me that most reputable sites max settings - if it is possible. They usually chose a target resolution and run identical rigs with only the GPUs being the variable. The identical scenes are run usually a multiple of times and the 'weird' numbers tossed out ... everything is averaged and we get a "result" ... one card is usually faster than the other.

in HardOCP, Kyle is free to "fiddle" with individual setting that favor nvidia cards - e.g. if "sun on grass" really slows the 2900xt but doesn't bother the GTS so much, he will make sure to test with it on .... otoh, if "grass shadows" kill the GTS but the 2900xt takes it in stride, the test is run with grass shadows off to favor nvidia

simple really ... using those same setting that favor nvidia used with the Radeons will naturally result in lower fps for AMD cards

at least that is my theory ^^

when Keys and i test out respective rigs, we will make them as close as possible in performance so that our cards are the main variable

we then use MAXIMUM settings at whatever resolution we can compare ... we run the same scene or test and compare FPS

not turning one thing on and leaving another off -- at the reviewers discretion is a very [very] bad idea

I dont believe that for a second.

In the review, the 8800GTS 320mb has higher in game settings selected than the HD2900XT in every game.

It's not like he maxed everything out on the HD2900XT and put everything to half on the 8800GTS and said, "Hey, look, 8800GTS 320mb is faster."

The 8800GTS used higher in game settings and consistantly out performed or performed to par in every game.

 

[bfdd]

Wait I'm a noob because you think a site that says the hd2900xt isn't as good as you wish/hope/think/dream it is is bias and there's been multiple reviews saying YOU"RE WRONG. Then I ask the dude who thinks his card is faster than an 8800gtx to put it to the test me vs him? I'll downclock my card, my cpu, we can have the same settings fuck if he wants I have 3 different motherboards he can choose from, EVGA 680i, Foxconn 680i, and Gigabyte DS3 he can choose to bench on, his os, his game settings, i'll even pull the e4300 out of my brothers PC so we can have the same CPU and go buy the same ram if that's such a big deal to him too. The one being noobs are you guys who are the real bias ones. I would of bought an R600 card if they had been up to par and came out on time.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: superbooga
I don't think Hardocp is cherry-picking benchmarks that favor the 8800gts, they've been using the same games for quite a while now.

If they want to prove that they're not being biased about the settings, they need more graphs and screenshots demonstrating why they picked those particular settings. For example, if you look at Oblivion:

GTS320 min fps: 18
2900XT min fps: 27

They don't explain why the 18 fps is considered acceptable for gaming. Also, they don't give any numbers justifying the decrease in grass distance for the 2900xt, they just said "The GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB and 640 MB handled grass performance faster than the Radeon HD 2900 XT in our experiences".

it seems to me that most reputable sites max settings - if it is possible. They usually chose a target resolution and run identical rigs with only the GPUs being the variable. The identical scenes are run usually a multiple of times and the 'weird' numbers tossed out ... everything is averaged and we get a "result" ... one card is usually faster than the other.

in HardOCP, Kyle is free to "fiddle" with individual setting that favor nvidia cards - e.g. if "sun on grass" really slows the 2900xt but doesn't bother the GTS so much, he will make sure to test with it on .... otoh, if "grass shadows" kill the GTS but the 2900xt takes it in stride, the test is run with grass shadows off to favor nvidia

simple really ... using those same setting that favor nvidia used with the Radeons will naturally result in lower fps for AMD cards

at least that is my theory ^^

when Keys and i test out respective rigs, we will make them as close as possible in performance so that our cards are the main variable

we then use MAXIMUM settings at whatever resolution we can compare ... we run the same scene or test and compare FPS

not turning one thing on and leaving another off -- at the reviewers discretion is a very [very] bad idea

I dont believe that for a second.

In the review, the 8800GTS 320mb has higher in game settings selected than the HD2900XT in every game.

It's not like he maxed everything out on the HD2900XT and put everything to half on the 8800GTS and said, "Hey, look, 8800GTS 320mb is faster."

The 8800GTS used higher in game settings and consistantly out performed or performed to par in every game.

He's kind of ass backwards on that, it makes me think he really didn't read the review fully or any of our posts that indicate that he they couldn't possibly have all the settings on for both setups. That the HD2900XT required some HIGH settings to be disabled because the game was completely unplayable with them on.

 

[superbooga]

Originally posted by: apoppin
it seems to me that most reputable sites max settings - if it is possible. They usually chose a target resolution and run identical rigs with only the GPUs being the variable. The identical scenes are run usually a multiple of times and the 'weird' numbers tossed out ... everything is averaged and we get a "result" ... one card is usually faster than the other.

The problem is that this type of test isn't always useful for a buyer. In a typical test, only resolution and AA are adjusted. So what happens if you get an awesome 70fps at 1280x1024 and an unbearable 40fps at 1600x1200? Now you got to start picking which options to keep/disable to get the best playing experience. Also, how do you know whether or not 40 fps is playable? 40 fps is awesome for Supreme Commander, good for Oblivion, but terrible for F.E.A.R.

You can see the value of Hardocp's benchmarks when debating between a GTS 640 or 320. The former may score much better at 1920x1200 4xAA, but the two may be nearly identical when you drop it to 2xAA. This at least lets you know exactly what the 320 is capable of.

The truth is, there's not much of a difference between the 3 cards, except in STALKER (which we already know from other sites).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: superbooga

Originally posted by: apoppin
it seems to me that most reputable sites max settings - if it is possible. They usually chose a target resolution and run identical rigs with only the GPUs being the variable. The identical scenes are run usually a multiple of times and the 'weird' numbers tossed out ... everything is averaged and we get a "result" ... one card is usually faster than the other.

The problem is that this type of test isn't always useful for a buyer. In a typical test, only resolution and AA are adjusted. So what happens if you get an awesome 70fps at 1280x1024 and an unbearable 40fps at 1600x1200? Now you got to start picking which options to keep/disable to get the best playing experience. Also, how do you know whether or not 40 fps is playable? 40 fps is awesome for Supreme Commander, good for Oblivion, but terrible for F.E.A.R.

You can see the value of Hardocp's benchmarks when debating between a GTS 640 or 320. The former may score much better at 1920x1200 4xAA, but the two may be nearly identical when you drop it to 2xAA. This at least lets you know exactly what the 320 is capable of.

The truth is, there's not much of a difference between the 3 cards, except in STALKER (which we already know from other sites).

nope

don't pick and choose settings

in other words don't "tweak" the game by setting sun shadows 'on', grass density '30%' or lighting distance '50%' ... *tweaking* these settings individually will give a false picture and show one card well and another poor depending on HOW you set them

*all* settings should be tested at maximum or all settings tested on high or all settings tested on medium or all settings tested at low ...
in that way the OVERALL performance of the card is compared .... HardOCP gives no "comparison" whatsoever ... just what the reviewer already believes

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: superbooga
I don't think Hardocp is cherry-picking benchmarks that favor the 8800gts, they've been using the same games for quite a while now.

If they want to prove that they're not being biased about the settings, they need more graphs and screenshots demonstrating why they picked those particular settings. For example, if you look at Oblivion:

GTS320 min fps: 18
2900XT min fps: 27

They don't explain why the 18 fps is considered acceptable for gaming. Also, they don't give any numbers justifying the decrease in grass distance for the 2900xt, they just said "The GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB and 640 MB handled grass performance faster than the Radeon HD 2900 XT in our experiences".

it seems to me that most reputable sites max settings - if it is possible. They usually chose a target resolution and run identical rigs with only the GPUs being the variable. The identical scenes are run usually a multiple of times and the 'weird' numbers tossed out ... everything is averaged and we get a "result" ... one card is usually faster than the other.

in HardOCP, Kyle is free to "fiddle" with individual setting that favor nvidia cards - e.g. if "sun on grass" really slows the 2900xt but doesn't bother the GTS so much, he will make sure to test with it on .... otoh, if "grass shadows" kill the GTS but the 2900xt takes it in stride, the test is run with grass shadows off to favor nvidia

simple really ... using those same setting that favor nvidia used with the Radeons will naturally result in lower fps for AMD cards

at least that is my theory ^^

when Keys and i test out respective rigs, we will make them as close as possible in performance so that our cards are the main variable

we then use MAXIMUM settings at whatever resolution we can compare ... we run the same scene or test and compare FPS

not turning one thing on and leaving another off -- at the reviewers discretion is a very [very] bad idea

I dont believe that for a second.

In the review, the 8800GTS 320mb has higher in game settings selected than the HD2900XT in every game.

It's not like he maxed everything out on the HD2900XT and put everything to half on the 8800GTS and said, "Hey, look, 8800GTS 320mb is faster."

The 8800GTS used higher in game settings and consistantly out performed or performed to par in every game.

i know you don't *believe*

that is why we are going to TEST his settings wherever possible ... i wonder if my old CRT will still function .... it could do 16x12

again ... *why* i don't believe Kyle is because i don't have to disable the settings on my x1950p in Stalker [and sometimes in Oblivion] to get the same or better FPS than he gets with the HD2900xt ...

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: superbooga

Originally posted by: apoppin
it seems to me that most reputable sites max settings - if it is possible. They usually chose a target resolution and run identical rigs with only the GPUs being the variable. The identical scenes are run usually a multiple of times and the 'weird' numbers tossed out ... everything is averaged and we get a "result" ... one card is usually faster than the other.

The problem is that this type of test isn't always useful for a buyer. In a typical test, only resolution and AA are adjusted. So what happens if you get an awesome 70fps at 1280x1024 and an unbearable 40fps at 1600x1200? Now you got to start picking which options to keep/disable to get the best playing experience. Also, how do you know whether or not 40 fps is playable? 40 fps is awesome for Supreme Commander, good for Oblivion, but terrible for F.E.A.R.

You can see the value of Hardocp's benchmarks when debating between a GTS 640 or 320. The former may score much better at 1920x1200 4xAA, but the two may be nearly identical when you drop it to 2xAA. This at least lets you know exactly what the 320 is capable of.

The truth is, there's not much of a difference between the 3 cards, except in STALKER (which we already know from other sites).

nope

don't pick and choose settings

in other words don't "tweak" the game by setting sun shadows 'on', grass density '30%' or lighting distance '50%' ... *tweaking* these settings individually will give a false picture and show one card well and another poor depending on HOW you set them

*all* settings should be tested at medium or all settings tested at low

What's the big deal?

If both cards would have been tested at the same settings, the 8800GTS 320mb would still come out on top. HD2900XT would have lost by even more than this review showed and then we would be sitting here listening to even more complaints about how this review is BS and Kyle is the Anti-Christ, blah, blah....

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: apoppin

*all* settings should be tested at medium or all settings tested at low

What's the big deal?

If both cards would have been tested at the same settings, the 8800GTS 320mb would still come out on top. HD2900XT would have lost by even more than this review showed and then we would be sitting here listening to even more complaints about how this review is BS and Kyle is the Anti-Christ, blah, blah....

well for you i guess he must be your Messiah

what *i* am saying is that you are right ... IF he tested like EVERYONE else and the HD2900xt lost like he is making it to be worse than the GTS 320 ... he would look like a bigger nvidia fanboy and no one would take anything he writes seriously again
--as it is he "hides" his prejudice with his flawed methodology

So ... we are going to *compare* my HD2900xt [and others] with similar rigs with GTS 320/640 [and GTX is welcome to share even though it is a higher class of GPU]

OK with you ?
--confirm or debunk Kyle Bennett's updated review

 

[fierydemise]

HOCP reviews really bother me, simply because their tests are impossible to repeat. In theory we can repeat any test done using timedemos because those timedemos will run the same on any computer, HOCP uses someone actually playing which adds an infinite number of other variables to the test. The subjectivity of the tests also bothers me but my biggest problem with them is that when they reach an unplayable framerate how do they chose setting to reduce? I'm not saying HOCP does manipulate the numbers but their method makes misleading the reader very easy, say card X performs similarly at 1600x1200 with 2xAA and at 1280×1024 with 4xAA but does not perform well with 1600x1200 with 4xAA which set of numbers do you chose to display? You could display the card in the poorer light by giving one set of numbers and or a better one using the other and if you don't mention that both performed similarly the readers will never no. However while their test method bothers me the biggest problem I have is how the conclusions they draw don't seem to be supported by the data, this can be seen in numerous cases where the data shows relatively similar performance yet they declare one card the undisputed champion and in many cases these conclusions don't seem to mesh with those of other sites. I'm not saying their conclusions are wrong and the other sites are right however I tend to think that when multiple independent sources test the same thing the majority is generally right and HOCP tends to be in the minority.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: apoppin
well for you i guess he must be your Messiah

what *i* am saying is that you are right ... IF he tested like EVERYONE else and the HD2900xt lost like he is making it to be worse than the GTS 320 ... he would look like a bigger nvidia fanboy and no one would take anything he writes seriously again

as it is he "hides" his prejudice with his flawed methodology

So ... we are going to *compare* my HD2900xt [and others] with similar rigs with GTS 320/340 and GTX is welcome to share

OK with you

confirm or debunk him

He most definitely is not my "Messiah".

I'm perfectly alright with the tests you and keys are going to perform, but I dont expect the results to be any different than what we see in the HOCP review. BTW, are you going to be running the tests on your 1440x900 monitor, or did you get a new screen? I'm not quite sure how the tests are going to work since you are running a resolution that is lower than the one Keys is running.

I wish we could finally figure out of there is going to be a driver miracle for HD2900XT because I want one bad, but I'm unwilling to throw down $400 hoping that AMD will come through with drivers.

 

[apoppin]

well i only threw down $320 .. and another $700 or so for upgrades ...

but i may be able to get my old LCD working at 16x12 ... or Keys could run his at 14x9 ... it doesn't have to look pretty to bench it

 

[bfdd]

You guys are debating him selecting different settings except in MOST cases the settings were selected to make the hd2900xt PLAYABLE, read the f'in review, they wouldn't work or be playable on the hd2900xt hence he had to PICK different settings as close as he could to each other in order to get even decent results. It's not like he gimped the ati/amd card in any single test vs the 640 or the 320mb versions. You guys need to realize that and stop thinking this is bias, it's on par with the 640mb with less settings, how do we know that all these other sites even used the same settings, they're not nearly as indepth of a review and options selected as the hardocp review. I'm not bias at all, I wanted what was best for me when I bought my system hence my components, if this card was leaps and bounds better than what nvidia has to offer I'd already have one, it isn't it doesn't live up to the hype and get over it fanboys.

 

[apoppin]

how do you know what he did ... are you Kyle?

i am saying he DID gimp the HD2900xt because OTHER sites show it playable at higher resolutions and/or details than his tests show -with different results that make his GTS 329M look better

and we are gonna test it ... so unless you are Kyle, stop defending him and i'll stop saying he is full of it

we can bring it up again after we try to replicate his tests

 

[bfdd]

I don't even know who kyle is and I hardly even visit hardocp, I just stumbled across this review because of this thread. HOW DO YOU KNOW other sites didn't scuff results? You don't you don't know them you don't know kyle you don't know the truth, atleast he in his review specifically says what options he has on for EACH card and WHY he has certain ones off(on the card that didn't do super well) and why other cards which kept up in speed were able to run higher settings. Stop spinning this like it's some political debate. The real idiot is you. You got a great deal for 320, but the hd2900xt is nothing special and it's only advantage over the previous fastest ATI card is it's dx10 imo other than that it's nothing special and untill AMD/ATI releases something that can keep up with the 8800 series in power, performance, and cost. They're losing the gfx card war this time around.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: bfdd
I don't even know who kyle is and I hardly even visit hardocp, I just stumbled across this review because of this thread. HOW DO YOU KNOW other sites didn't scuff results? You don't you don't know them you don't know kyle you don't know the truth, atleast he in his review specifically says what options he has on for EACH card and WHY he has certain ones off(on the card that didn't do super well) and why other cards which kept up in speed were able to run higher settings. Stop spinning this like it's some political debate. The real idiot is you. You got a great deal for 320, but the hd2900xt is nothing special and it's only advantage over the previous fastest ATI card is it's dx10 imo other than that it's nothing special and untill AMD/ATI releases something that can keep up with the 8800 series in power, performance, and cost. They're losing the gfx card war this time around.

My friend you have a long way to go. I can not expect you to learn history in matters of days but it will take years. I once was like you back in 2001.

 

[bfdd]

I have a long way to go because you guys would rather trust a site that lists no specific settings for cards vs one that is giving you SPECIFIC settings and WHY they had to use them? How do you justify that? Because it's not the results you like? You guys are morons.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bfdd
I don't even know who kyle is and I hardly even visit hardocp, I just stumbled across this review because of this thread. HOW DO YOU KNOW other sites didn't scuff results? You don't you don't know them you don't know kyle you don't know the truth, atleast he in his review specifically says what options he has on for EACH card and WHY he has certain ones off(on the card that didn't do super well) and why other cards which kept up in speed were able to run higher settings. Stop spinning this like it's some political debate. The real idiot is you. You got a great deal for 320, but the hd2900xt is nothing special and it's only advantage over the previous fastest ATI card is it's dx10 imo other than that it's nothing special and untill AMD/ATI releases something that can keep up with the 8800 series in power, performance, and cost. They're losing the gfx card war this time around.

so according to you ... *all* the OTHER sites with similar benchmark results all conspired to make Kyle Bennett's results look bad

and the more you say the more idiotic you look ... it's pretty clear you didn't read any other reviews nor are you likely to understand what they did say as you mind is shut

i am willing to test this card and i will dump it if it is as bad as Kyle makes out to be

===========

Originally posted by: bfdd
I have a long way to go because you guys would rather trust a site that lists no specific settings for cards vs one that is giving you SPECIFIC settings and WHY they had to use them? How do you justify that? Because it's not the results you like? You guys are morons.

you are below moron to take HardOCP's word over every other reputable site's benches