Tom's Hardware.. Nvidia or Ati biased..?

I don't know the actual consensus but what I read just now made my jaw drop:

They are using Last Remnant in their test suite, but:

Quote:

---

Because you can't activate AA for the game manually and Nvidia drivers can't handle such effects, we use the default settings for the game (4x AF).

---

Of course the text alone is not that shocking...
What is shocking if you then continue to read the test results:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...p,2297-13.html

And they included these results in their final judgement.
Something is totally :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed up over there.

Why does ATI get the floor wiped wth them on Hawx?

AFAIK, The 4890 Destroys nvidia in that game yet toms show a far different representation

Toms
http://media.bestofmicro.com/C/F/207...80_4aa_8af.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TG01

I don't know the actual consensus but what I read just now made my jaw drop:

They are using Last Remnant in their test suite, but:


Of course the text alone is not that shocking...
What is shocking if you then continue to read the test results:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...p,2297-13.html

And they included these results in their final judgement.
Something is totally :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed up over there.

---

I'm assuming there on short on cash flow.

That seems to be the only reasoning behind such preposterous results.

Perkam

Depends who's the highest bidder. There is no bias when you think about it.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...d4890/hawx.png

Look at how the 4890 goes from behind the GTX 260 to above the GTX 285 by the last chart. Basically, ATI performs best at high AA/AF and high resolutions, and Toms Hardware stayed away from all three.

Perkam

Toms has sucked hard for years.

I automatically ignore people that quote their "tests".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.

Depends who's the highest bidder. There is no bias when you think about it.

---

:rofl::ROTF::D

I laugh, but it's probably true. :shakes:

Ooh drama....nice. But yeah that review does look kinda fishy.

I've come to the realization that most reviews out there are a joke now, and the best thing to do is to see independent reviewers on boards like these to find results

i tell my friends that toms hardware is intel nvidia biased but they never believe me and still use it. thats most likely why all of them use nvidia and intel. wonder what they think of this.

Fact: Nvidia destroys ATI in HawX with DX9 and DX10 enabled.

HOWEVER, turn on the DX10.1 option and it is a whole different ball game as ATI wipes the floor with Nvidia.

Tom's Hardware biased? Not so much biased as unskilled corporate wannabes.

Tom's is a horrible site, the only purpose to go to Tom's is to find out how NOT to make a tech site that does reviews and testing of computer components.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

I've come to the realization that most reviews out there are a joke now, and the best thing to do is to see independent reviewers on boards like these to find results

---

i wouldn't say they're ALL a joke, but it's not hard to tell when they're getting a little something extra under the table.... like everyone here i read every review i can find (forum or site) on any piece of hardware before i make my investment. you just have to take stuff like this with a grain of salt.

I started hating Tom's when they wrote that article about the Pentium D 805, and how it was such a great overclocking processor. Only 80c under load! Come on now. At least give people good advice. Not everybody is going to listen to the whole story when they attempt the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stukov

Tom's is a horrible site, the only purpose to go to Tom's is to find out how NOT to make a tech site that does reviews and testing of computer components.

---

Actually, some of us still remember the time when Tom's was THE best hardware review website out there. This was before it went downhill with the BoM merger.

Notice something ODD about the game selection?

They didn't test Crysis...where the regular 4890 wipes the floor with the OCed 275:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...c/crysiswh.png

And here are the 4890 OC numbers:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...0/crysiswh.png

Perkam

Considering neither card attains playable framerates at ANY resolution in those tests, I would say the game is whipping the stuffing out of the cards rather than one card being better than the other. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Considering neither card attains playable framerates at ANY resolution in those tests, I would say the game is whipping the stuffing out of the cards rather than one card being better than the other. ;)

---

Have you played Crysis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Have you played Crysis?

---

On a regular basis actually and generally ATI cards USED to get better framerates than Nvidia cards in it (DX9 version). However, the last few Nvidia driver releases have improved their performance significantly. 30 fps average is generally playable but in heavily forested areas that 30 can and will be cut significantly and the game will seriously bog down.

If you look at the graph above, it seems more a race to who finishes last rather than any card delivering meaningful performance.

However, looking at the tests on the linked review at Tom's there are some questions that popped up:

- Why test high end cards without 2560 resolution?
- What is their test setup? I see "i7 920" and a bunch of GPUs listed and that's it
- In some cases, AA tests were eliminated at certain resolutions.

All in all the article seems to raise more questions than it answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Considering neither card attains playable framerates at ANY resolution in those tests, I would say the game is whipping the stuffing out of the cards rather than one card being better than the other. ;)

---

The fact that the regular 4890 is consistently equal to or better than GTX 285 performance numbers in Crysis means nothing to you? :stick:

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

The fact that the regular 4890 is consistently equal to or better than GTX 285 performance numbers in Crysis means nothing to you? :stick:

Perkam

---

Performance numbers ONLY matter when the lead is in "playable" terms, like Dead Space :rofl::ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Actually, some of us still remember the time when Tom's was THE best hardware review website out there. This was before it went downhill with the BoM merger.

---

yea thats been awhile. at least 5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TG01

Because you can't activate AA for the game manually and Nvidia drivers can't handle such effects, we use the default settings for the game (4x AF).

---

I don't know anything about this game, but if the reviewer means that the game simply won't run on NVIDIA hardware with AA because of drivers then I don't see any problems with turning off AA. What would be the point in doing the benchmark when only ATI cards were in it? The best course of action would have been to just not use that benchmark though.

its very easy MAKE an ATI or NVIDIA winner in review ... if you choose "right" settings in games, right locations in games, right Games ...

i wrote some article about it, but in czech language ...

First part: Choosing tha Games ... Look at the differences

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/.../vykon_ati.png

Calculated from "ATI games": Fallout 3, Left 4 Dead, Call Of Duty 5, World In Conflict, Call Of Duty 4, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky, Race Driver GRID, Tom Clancys HAWX, Far Cry 2, Devil May Cry 4.

Look at 4890 and GTX 275

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...kon_nvidia.png

And from "NVIDIA" games: Dead Space, Bioshock, Tomb Raider Underworld, GTA IV, Crysis Warhead, Brothers In Arms, Half Life 2, Company Of Heroes, Mass Effect, UT3, Mirrors Edge, Enemy Territory.

Look at 4890 and GTX 275

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...klad_vykon.png

Complete 22 games ...

In 2nd part will look at difference between settings, location and another things ...

you can get AA if you rename exe to ut3.exe
but i imagine you would lose specific driver enhancements for the last remnant, so i dont know how valid that would be.

"Tom's Games" is pretty good though:rolleyes:. That is the whole reason I have a $2000 machine . . . to play flash games!

There were valid reasons for Tom's Games getting a facelift (tongue in cheek). It just depends on your point of view. Rob and Ben probably wouldn't call it valid.

My personal experience is GTX 285 performs equally if not slightly faster overall than an oced 4890 in most scenarios. ATI offers a slightly better IQ, cheaper price but much noisier than the 285. I don't believe 4890 cannot pass 260 in Crysis and fall so behind 285.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

Notice something ODD about the game selection?

They didn't test Crysis...where the regular 4890 wipes the floor with the OCed 275:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...c/crysiswh.png

And here are the 4890 OC numbers:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...0/crysiswh.png

Perkam

---

What the point of turning AA on? So you can get unplayable framerates for both cards.

Crysis with a higher resolution and no AA actually yields better image quality(and more importantly playable frame rates), than this test.

In my opinion, unless we are testing multi chip solution that can handle the load, crysis should not be test with AA because its simply an exercise in futility.

This test would be valid if one of the cards yielded playable framerates, but both are equally unplayable.

The only point of turning AA I can imagine is so ATI cards come out looking better than they really are, as xbitlabs is the only website, that has the 4890 coming out ahead a gtx 285 in crysis warhead. The only bloody website on the entire net including anandtech which is probably the 2nd most favorable review for the 4890.

I definitely question the results of this tomshardware review, however I also question xbitlabs review on NV stuff because I have already found lots of biased evidence against them.

My gaming machine has a 4890 and a 4870x2, I don't have any card from the g200 generation.

I wouldn't dare turn on AA and sacrifice the rest of my settings so I can turn on AA.

Crysis warhead is still choppy on this setup and this is with a core i7 at 4.5ghz.

biased? perhaps... but I'd say who ever is testing EndWar is not biased, it's dumb masochist!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...p,2297-14.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

biased? perhaps... but I'd say who ever is testing EndWar is not biased, it's dumb masochist!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...p,2297-14.html

---

quoted from the very same page:

Quote:

---

This game really isn’t ideal for benchmarking, since a software limiter caps its frame rate at 30 FPS.

---

yeah, exactly, well... hum... errrr... why use it as a benchmark then? they already say themselves why this game is absolutely useless as a benchmark and yet they still put it in the review. what kind of logic do i need to do smth like that? :p:

Well it doesn't indicate bias, it indicates a lack of common sense.

Or a lack of necessary games on the reviewer's part...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

What the point of turning AA on? So you can get unplayable framerates for both cards.

Crysis with a higher resolution and no AA actually yields better image quality(and more importantly playable frame rates), than this test.

In my opinion, unless we are testing multi chip solution that can handle the load, crysis should not be test with AA because its simply an exercise in futility.

This test would be valid if one of the cards yielded playable framerates, but both are equally unplayable.

The only point of turning AA I can imagine is so ATI cards come out looking better than they really are, as xbitlabs is the only website, that has the 4890 coming out ahead a gtx 285 in crysis warhead. The only bloody website on the entire net including anandtech which is probably the 2nd most favorable review for the 4890.

I definitely question the results of this tomshardware review, however I also question xbitlabs review on NV stuff because I have already found lots of biased evidence against them.

My gaming machine has a 4890 and a 4870x2, I don't have any card from the g200 generation.

I wouldn't dare turn on AA and sacrifice the rest of my settings so I can turn on AA.

Crysis warhead is still choppy on this setup and this is with a core i7 at 4.5ghz.

---

Stop trying to over-complicate it m8.

The 4890 regular is equal to the GTX 285 in Crysis.

What does that mean? It means that when you go crossfire with the 4890, you get GTX 285 SLI performance for hundreds less.

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Or a lack of necessary games on the reviewer's part...

---

That's almost common sense, right?

LoL, nice try OBR...:rolleyes: :down: :shakes:

Yes Tom's site begin to be useless. I see here that many of you have confidence in xbitlabs, when i used this site for some Cpu comparation , it was told to me by some users in this news topic that xbitlabs are not veridic.
Anyway a good site from my country ROMANIA lead by MONSTRU and his friends, i think you guys know MONSTRU..:up:
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/...-2560-copy.png
http://lab501.ro/placi-video/nvidia-...-radeon-4890/6
It's an interesant review single CF/SLI, TRI SLI/ 3 4890, STOCK/OC review GTX 275/4890.:up:

There are a lot of variables when doing reviews. Unfortunately to this day I haven't seen anyone do it 100% right. IMHO what you need is:

- Exact driver settings for both setups. This is so important because it allows: 1 people to reproduce results, 2 indicates what the game would look like
- Screenshots. I am not talking at every setting, but when comparing ATI vs Nvidia you got performance and IQ. I don't want someone's "it looks better on [...]". Take some uncompressed screenshots and let me decide what looks better. I want to see what I am getting when going for one vs the other. Also reviewer can now compare side by side for our benefit (for those who care)
- System specs.. obviously. I mean really we have no idea what these reviewers are doing, but if we have system specs at least someone can reproduce the results (or try to)

With any one of those pieces missing the review is incomplete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

On a regular basis actually and generally ATI cards USED to get better framerates than Nvidia cards in it (DX9 version). However, the last few Nvidia driver releases have improved their performance significantly. 30 fps average is generally playable but in heavily forested areas that 30 can and will be cut significantly and the game will seriously bog down.

If you look at the graph above, it seems more a race to who finishes last rather than any card delivering meaningful performance.

However, looking at the tests on the linked review at Tom's there are some questions that popped up:

- Why test high end cards without 2560 resolution?
- What is their test setup? I see "i7 920" and a bunch of GPUs listed and that's it
- In some cases, AA tests were eliminated at certain resolutions.

All in all the article seems to raise more questions than it answers.

---

I found Crysis and Crysis Warhead playable at 25 FPS or better. Which is something I cannot say with other games. 30 FPS is certainly not need in order for this game to be playable. But lets not confuse playable and ideal though... :D

4xAF lmao, isn't that stupid by itself? I've never used anything below 16xAF since x1950 Pro. On powerful HD4850 i never even thought of either lowering this setting or even disabling it. Performance hit is negligible, but image quality gain is like off the charts.
Maybe thats why NVIDIA is so much better, because AF hits them so badly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Actually, some of us still remember the time when Tom's was THE best hardware review website out there. This was before it went downhill with the BoM merger.

---

Yeah I know, back then, at least for me it wasn Anandtech vs Tomshardware. Even before he sold out it was starting to slip a little bit, they champoined Intel hardware a bit more than they should have (this is back in the A64 vs P4 days).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stukov

Yeah I know, back then, at least for me it wasn Anandtech vs Tomshardware. Even before he sold out it was starting to slip a little bit, they champoined Intel hardware a bit more than they should have (this is back in the A64 vs P4 days).

---

tom's ph2 review had insane bias in it.. so i dont think the old bias has completely been forgotten

I'd like to see someone actually point out bias where it can't be put down to a bad reviewer. Lots of claims, no evidence. I understand that the "THG paid ad" bandwagon does have a lot of room though, so I forgive you for jumping on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

I'd like to see someone actually point out bias where it can't be put down to a bad reviewer. Lots of claims, no evidence. I understand that the "THG paid ad" bandwagon does have a lot of room though, so I forgive you for jumping on.

---

It was bias several years ago when they knew what they were doing, now they are just a bunch of monkeys spasming on a football.

Well the past is meaningless, nobody goes to read Athlon 64 vs P4 reviews now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

Well the past is meaningless, nobody goes to read Athlon 64 vs P4 reviews now.

---

It wasn't meaningless when the present was 4-6 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stukov

It wasn't meaningless when the present was 4-6 years ago.

---

Yea... and last I checked 2009 wasn't 4-6 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

Yea... and last I checked 2009 wasn't 4-6 years ago.

---

Something is always in the past. You would have to have some pretty good foresight to talk about something occuring in the future or some pretty good timing when talking about something exactly when it happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randomizer

Yea... and last I checked 2009 wasn't 4-6 years ago.

---

All the posts previous to this are the past, get out of the thread if you dont like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Fact: Nvidia destroys ATI in HawX with DX9 and DX10 enabled.

HOWEVER, turn on the DX10.1 option and it is a whole different ball game as ATI wipes the floor with Nvidia.

---

I wouldnt call 2-5 FPS whipes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAR

I wouldnt call 2-5 FPS whipes.

---

To me, when a $300 HD 4890 is about 4-7 FPS faster than a $400 GTX 285 at 1920 and above with AA enabled, that is a sound whipping. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

To me, when a $300 HD 4890 is about 4-7 FPS faster than a $400 GTX 285 at 1920 and above with AA enabled, that is a sound whipping. ;)

---

Dont get me started about the 4890 review on your site, how you have it beating the GTX 285, thats hilarious :ROTF: does the fact that ATI is in Canada have anything to do with it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAR

Dont get me started about the 4890 review on your site, how you have it beating the GTX 285, thats hilarious :ROTF: does the fact that ATI is in Canada have anything to do with it ;)

---

ATi is currently an American company under the ownership of AMD.

In 1984 Kwok Yuen Ho immigrate to Canada
In 1985 with 2 other HK immigrant found Array Technology Industry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.

ATi is currently an American company under the ownership of AMD.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAR

Dont get me started about the 4890 review on your site, how you have it beating the GTX 285, thats hilarious :ROTF: does the fact that ATI is in Canada have anything to do with it ;)

---

I hate to break it to ya but ATI no longer supports us. They cut us loose a bit before the HD 4890 review. I made that VERY public in the HD 4770 review so I am about the last person on earth to tag an ATI bias on.

As for the scores, that can be chalked up to one thing: HawX is one of my favorite games right now and I play it ALOT. As such, I have determined that the in-game test is HIGHLY inaccurate (which is also mentioned in the review) so actual gameplay time is used.

I hate to defend my own methodologies but in this case I know I am doing it bang on instead of using a short cut and using the 2-minute in-game demo.

The DX10.1 code path means the AA efficiency of ATI's current cores can be magnified by a significant amount in this game. That is why the GTX 285 beats the HD 4890 without AA while the HD 4890 surges ahead when AA is turned on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

All the posts previous to this are the past, get out of the thread if you dont like it.

---

Uh...huh. Ok :clap:

GAR, Sky is a very very unbiased reviewer in a sea of bad eggs so I would show him a lot more respect.

I wont even start to discuss your biases or mine :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

I hate to break it to ya but ATI no longer supports us. They cut us loose a bit before the HD 4890 review. I made that VERY public in the HD 4770 review so I am about the last person on earth to tag an ATI bias on.

As for the scores, that can be chalked up to one thing: HawX is one of my favorite games right now and I play it ALOT. As such, I have determined that the in-game test is HIGHLY inaccurate (which is also mentioned in the review) so actual gameplay time is used.

I hate to defend my own methodologies but in this case I know I am doing it bang on instead of using a short cut and using the 2-minute in-game demo.

The DX10.1 code path means the AA efficiency of ATI's current cores can be magnified by a significant amount in this game. That is why the GTX 285 beats the HD 4890 without AA while the HD 4890 surges ahead when AA is turned on.

---

and why would ati cut support for you guys? do they not like the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

I hate to break it to ya but ATI no longer supports us.

---

I'm sure Nvidia has laid a better groundwork of supporting reviewers and I'm quite sure they have benefited from it.

The fact that ATI can no longer support every review site is only indicative of the recession and the fact that one company cannot support all review sites ALL the time and they rotate to other sites to accomodate everyone.

None of the above, however, has anything to do with the choice that reviewers make either to post the most honest benchmark results or to post skewed results, as there is slight evidence of in Tom's results.

If Motley Fool presented evidence that Bear Stearns is a good buy a year go, then it will lose credibility as a result of its actions and the same is true for review sites.

No, we don't hate Tom's, but there are consequences for skewed results, hence this thread.

Perkam

I have tested all of the cards from both camps, im not talking strictly gaming use, i use many of them for my customers, especially ati since Matrox RT X2 HD recommends using an ATI card, and many of my customers do video editing, but i gotta tell you, i run into problems with ati all the time, none with nvidia. I build about 7 high end pc's a week on average. Im not saying ati always gives issues, but if i run into one, it has something to do with ati's drivers. As far as gaming goes, again, nvidia has more support from the game developers, and as far as DX 10.1 goes, im sure the 3 titles that support it dont really matter for most people, HAWX is a good game, but Battle Forge got a 2.0 rating out of 10 didnt it? by gamespot i believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

and why would ati cut support for you guys? do they not like the truth?

---

See the response below as it hits the nail right on the head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

I'm sure Nvidia has laid a better groundwork of supporting reviewers and I'm quite sure they have benefited from it.

The fact that ATI can no longer support every review site is only indicative of the recession and the fact that one company cannot support all review sites ALL the time and they rotate to other sites to accomodate everyone.

---

I completely agree with this. It is a sign of the times.

However, to think for even a moment that any site is getting "paid" by ATI or Nvidia for a positive review is completely insane. This doesn't go for you Perkam but to others who have posted here and in other threads claiming just this.

There is alot to say about this subject but I will break it down into two categories. The first of which are sites that manufacturers cannot AFFORD to ignore (Anandtech, Hothardware, Chilehardware, Toms, etc.). The other sites much like ours (I don't hold any illusions about our current place in the industry) always tread on very thin sheet of ice between saying something that makes a manufacturer pull support and always blowing sunshine up our readers' butts to make said manufacturer happy. As such, some sites (us included) have already the lost support of a number of companies for...well...speaking the truth. I am not saying this is what happened to us and ATI but I am opening a bit of the door as to what goes on behind the scenes so to speak. Other companies stick behind sites as long as the reviews are balanced. It is a game of politics. Simpe as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAR

I have tested all of the cards from both camps, im not talking strictly gaming use, i use many of them for my customers, especially ati since Matrox RT X2 HD recommends using an ATI card, and many of my customers do video editing, but i gotta tell you, i run into problems with ati all the time, none with nvidia. I build about 7 high end pc's a week on average. Im not saying ati always gives issues, but if i run into one, it has something to do with ati's drivers. As far as gaming goes, again, nvidia has more support from the game developers, and as far as DX 10.1 goes, im sure the 3 titles that support it dont really matter for most people, HAWX is a good game, but Battle Forge got a 2.0 rating out of 10 didnt it? by gamespot i believe.

---

I absolutely, completely agree with you. Nvidia's devloper support is second to none and ATI will never catch up. However, it is still possible for ATI to make use of certain applications through driver development and DX10.1 implementation.

As for Battle Forge; don't get me started. With or without DX10.1 it both sucks and blows chunks.

Maybe ATI marketing department is spending all their money on liquid helium. I see liquid helium benches popping up once a week rather than nearly non existing at all. But seriously, I don't this the recession has anything to do with cutbacks, with HWC.

HWC by far and large is the most popular Canadian review site out there. It has even international appeal as the positive feedback about its reviews, even seen here by most members. I have to say those skymtl, quit being so modest.

Perkam, I think its a little naive to think this is all related to the recession. There are only about two dozen websites worth a damn or people visit for reviews(in the entire world), HWC typically on that list. When a company can make crazy ass events where they bench liquid helium, I think they can afford to sent a few review cards out every year, especially the marketing it creates if it gets a good review. AMD still sending cards out to benchers, and honestly only a small and obscure group will see these cards. However the type of marketing ATI might want to get from reviewers might be a glowing review.

I think AMD cut HWC for a different reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAR

Dont get me started about the 4890 review on your site, how you have it beating the GTX 285, thats hilarious :ROTF: does the fact that ATI is in Canada have anything to do with it ;)

---

That is a total abomination.

285 is a faster card.

They favor ATI...
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1336600

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

That is a total abomination.

285 is a faster card.

They favor ATI...
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1336600

---

The GTX 285 is a faster card yes but not in all cases, particularly when DX10.1 is used by the HD 4890. ;)

I wish when I read this...

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-23.html

The information that the 285 was the faster card would have jumped out at me more...

I come away thinking you are an ATI fan.

"Most people look the other way when it comes to overclocking due to voided warranties and potential stability issues."

You neglected to mention ONLY ATI cards warranties are voided, EVGA and Nvidia officially allow this, and keep your warranty in tact. A huge point when buying a high end expensive video card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

Maybe ATI marketing department is spending all their money on liquid helium. I see liquid helium benches popping up once a week rather than nearly non existing at all. But seriously, I don't this the recession has anything to do with cutbacks, with HWC.

HWC by far and large is the most popular Canadian review site out there. It has even international appeal as the positive feedback about its reviews, even seen here by most members. I have to say those skymtl, quit being so modest.

Perkam, I think its a little naive to think this is all related to the recession. There are only about two dozen websites worth a damn or people visit for reviews(in the entire world), HWC typically on that list. When a company can make crazy ass events where they bench liquid helium, I think they can afford to sent a few review cards out every year, especially the marketing it creates if it gets a good review. AMD still sending cards out to benchers, and honestly only a small and obscure group will see these cards. However the type of marketing ATI might want to get from reviewers might be a glowing review.

---

Here is the thing: quality has NOTHING to do with sample allocation. That's the reality in this industry. It all depends on whose ear you have and whose you don't.

I'm not going to cry over spilled milk since I will most likely get my samples through other channels ( as I did with the HD 4770 and I won't be under NDA. That means pre-release articles which I am more than happy to do.


Back on topic.

I took the time yesterday to go through the article on Tom's with a fine toothed comb and from what I can tell, they were having some driver issues. Both the Nvidia and ATI cards behaved inconsistently which in my past experiences usually means improperly uninstalled drivers. Trust me, when doing a review with multiple cards over the course of a few days, it becomes very easy to forget to reimage your HDD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

That is a total abomination.

285 is a faster card.

They favor ATI...
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1336600

---

Open up your eyes:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...f_9.html#sect1

The 4890 regular comes very close to beating the 285 and the 1Ghz 4890 beats the 285 outright:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...0/crysiswh.png

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

I wish when I read this...

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-23.html

The information that the 285 was the faster card would have jumped out at me more...

I come away thinking you are an ATI fan.

"Most people look the other way when it comes to overclocking due to voided warranties and potential stability issues."

You neglected to mention ONLY ATI cards warraentys are voided, EVGA and Nvidia officially allow this, and keep your warranty in tact.

---

Actually, not really. EVGA and XFX allow overclocking but now that XFX offers ATI cards, the warranty officially extends to ATI cards as well. On the flip side, from first hand experience, ASUS and Gigabyte will come down on you like a ton of bricks if they suspect failure through overclocking was the reason for an RMA (that goes for BOTH Nvidia and ATI cards). :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

Open up your eyes:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...f_9.html#sect1

The 4890 regular comes very close to beating the 285 and the 1Ghz 4890 beats the 285 outright:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...0/crysiswh.png

Perkam

---

Close... yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Actually, not really. EVGA and XFX allow overclocking but now that XFX offers ATI cards, the warranty officially extends to ATI cards as well. On the flip side, from first hand experience, ASUS and Gigabyte will come down on you like a ton of bricks if they suspect failure through overclocking was the reason for an RMA (that goes for BOTH Nvidia and ATI cards). :up:

---

I cant find their phone number...

http://www.xfxvideocards.com/

I want to call them...

I have already been through this with Visiontek...
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=685888&mpage=6&key=

Based on your responce, I just called them.

Toll Free: 866-VTEK-411

I spoke with Alan, he is there now.

He told me that removing the stock cooling would void your Limited Lefetime warranty.

He told me that most wait until the 3 years expire, then opt to change out the stock cooling. That way you don't void your limited Warranty.

Alan at Visiontek thinks I am correct... Call him!

He further told me that he has replaced the stock cooling on his Nvidia card... Snicker!!

Talon, we get it, you like nvidia. thats your personal choice.

I like ATI, thats my personal choice.

dont go around spouting information like your unbiased because its just not credible and its a waste of time for you and everyone else. I have pretty much given up on doing the same for ATI, its pointless because people who like nvidia just like nvidia and vice versa. Your better off letting people read their own reviews and make their own decisions - or do you think you should be making decisions for other people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

I cant find their phone number...

http://www.xfxvideocards.com/

I want to call them...

---

lol you fail, thats not even their website :rofl:

http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/Help/ContactUs.aspx - UK number but a number nonetheless

Forget that then... :down:

I would like to see that in print on their web site...

Everyone has their preference. I just find many people will cry foul after they have bought a card and someone comes out with a review that says a competing solution eats their new $300 purchase for breakfast. It's called denial and its an ugly, ugly thing. ;)

Don't care much about becnhies, only game at resolution up to 1680 x 1050, use FSAA only when it works (or when I can see the difference) which is why I could not give a flying ********* what who ever may say.

Just wish I could help my brother to get his 4870 to work on Windows 7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

However, to think for even a moment that any site is getting "paid" by ATI or Nvidia for a positive review is completely insane.

---

I am so going to bookmark this post. I don't think I can count to a number high enough to indicate how many people I could shut down with it :ROTF:

I wish they wouldn't use 3DMark06 to test Graphics cards. :confused:

It's MUCH more CPU dependant than Vantage.
This should be all about the GPU.

Vantage would let the 200 Series GPU's shine more in score...

3DMark06 for 8 Series and ATI cards...

Vantage for the 200 Series. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

3DMark06 for 8 Series and ATI cards...

Vantage for the 200 Series. :up:

---

Then they shouldn't use either one, because they are "biased" benchmarks.

Maybe so? But you still see allot of 06 results posted.

It always favored ATI cards, and also helps to hide the Ph word. (2 Chops in 1 blow)
3DMark06 is not Nvidia's friend. It never has been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

3DMark06 is not Nvidia's friend.

---

And SuperPi is not AMD's friend yet people still use it. How about we stop using any benchmarks? :p:

Yes, Let's run Mirrors Edge, or Cryostasis.

Let's get to the truth! :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

Open up your eyes:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...f_9.html#sect1

The 4890 regular comes very close to beating the 285 and the 1Ghz 4890 beats the 285 outright:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...0/crysiswh.png

Perkam

---

Oh man, you could have used any other website but Xbitlabs :shakes:

Xbitlabs is second to Tomshardware for having the weirdest, most inconsistent benchmarks I've ever seen..

I think it's inevitable that all reviews will lean toward one or the other camp a bit, just by the vary games they select to review.

Just about every game runs better on one card brand, than the other.

Do I think they move their numbers deliberately? no...
You simply set up testing conditions where one brand shines.
Good numbers yes, but just like in 3DMark06, games also run better on 1 brand of card usually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

I think it's inevitable that all reviews will lean toward one or the other camp a bit, just by the vary games they select to review.

Just about every game runs better on one card brand, than the other.

Do I think they move their numbers deliberately? no...
You simply set up testing conditions where one brand shines.
Good numbers yes, but just like in 3DMark06, games also run better on 1 brand of card usually.

---

I agree. What you are saying is true...for the regular 4890.

But the 1Ghz 4890 beats the 275 consistently and equals the 285. No review will doubt that.

Perkam

HD 4890 @stock is more or less GTX 275 equal, now, regarding their max OC on stock cooling, which one comes on top ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Actually, not really. EVGA and XFX allow overclocking but now that XFX offers ATI cards, the warranty officially extends to ATI cards as well. On the flip side, from first hand experience, ASUS and Gigabyte will come down on you like a ton of bricks if they suspect failure through overclocking was the reason for an RMA (that goes for BOTH Nvidia and ATI cards). :up:

---

so will BFG Tech, dont ever say anything about oc while your on the phone with them. (past experience)

They're pretty equal before and aftee overclocking.

It seems after looking through the overclocking on every review I side in favor of Ati for the lower price point and much cooler temperatures. Which is weird that they get cooler as they raised clocks.

They both overclock like 13% which leads to a close to 13% increase in performance of course some game are aiti and some are nvidia wins consistantly. I think each side should work to improve the games they lose on to equal or better performance levels whether than just slightly improve the ones they win on.

As for how biased some of these reviews sites are it's hard to say as they flip flop depending on who's paying them more or donating more products to them.

Toms has gone way down hill since BoM took over. As far as bias goes, meh, I could care less. As others have stated you can make any video card win any benchmark you want by manipulating the tests.

I look over the reviews, throw criticism when they do something stupid, and maybe browse the forums once in awhile answering a few questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaldor

Toms has gone way down hill since BoM took over.

---

Mostly with regards to site design (why the newspaper look?). :p:

Btw, some nostalgia for fans of the old VGA charts: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics2005.html