PDA

View Full Version : This review is faked!!


Pages : [1] 2 3

Dazz
06-14-03, 02:13 PM
http://www.motherboards.org/jpgraph/reviewtestany.html?test=3dmark2003noaa&d1=4511&d2=3995&d3=2851&d4=4354&d5=2297&d6=3256&d7=4635&d8=3025&d9=2997&d10=4871&d11=4434&d12=4021&lab1=MSI Ti-4600 8X&lab2=MSI TI-4200 8X&lab3=MSI 460 MX&lab4=ASUS Ti-4200 8X&lab5=ASUS MX-440&lab6=ATI RADEON 9000 Pro&lab7=ATI RADEON 9700 Pro&lab8=ATI RADEON 8500&lab9=GB MAYA 9000 Pro&lab10=Crucial 9700 Pro&lab11=ATI RADEON 9800&lab12=BFG FX-5600 8X

http://www.motherboards.org/jpgraph/reviewtestany.html?test=ut03noaaab&d1=218.4&d2=209.1&d3=159.6&d4=210.1&d5=149.7&d6=164&d7=213.1&d8=154.2&d9=163.8&d10=217.5&d12=165&lab1=MSI Ti-4600 8X&lab2=MSI TI-4200 8X&lab3=MSI 460 MX&lab4=ASUS Ti-4200 8X&lab5=ASUS MX-440&lab6=ATI RADEON 9000 Pro&lab7=ATI RADEON 9700 Pro&lab8=ATI RADEON 8500&lab9=GB MAYA 9000 Pro&lab10=Crucial 9700 Pro&lab12=BFG FX-5600 8X

http://www.motherboards.org/articlesd/hardware-reviews/1252_6.html Sorry but them results are completly faked 218fps in a BOTMATCH! impossible no matter what hardware is currenlty out and 4500pts in 3Dmark 2003 with a Ti4600 is impossible even with a 30GHz processor i find it very hard to belive that the Geforce4 Range of cards can outperform a Radeon 9800Pro or Radeon 9700Pro in 3D mark2003.

Sazar
06-14-03, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
http://www.motherboards.org/jpgraph/reviewtestany.html?test=3dmark2003noaa&d1=4511&d2=3995&d3=2851&d4=4354&d5=2297&d6=3256&d7=4635&d8=3025&d9=2997&d10=4871&d11=4434&d12=4021&lab1=MSI Ti-4600 8X&lab2=MSI TI-4200 8X&lab3=MSI 460 MX&lab4=ASUS Ti-4200 8X&lab5=ASUS MX-440&lab6=ATI RADEON 9000 Pro&lab7=ATI RADEON 9700 Pro&lab8=ATI RADEON 8500&lab9=GB MAYA 9000 Pro&lab10=Crucial 9700 Pro&lab11=ATI RADEON 9800&lab12=BFG FX-5600 8X

http://www.motherboards.org/jpgraph/reviewtestany.html?test=ut03noaaab&d1=218.4&d2=209.1&d3=159.6&d4=210.1&d5=149.7&d6=164&d7=213.1&d8=154.2&d9=163.8&d10=217.5&d12=165&lab1=MSI Ti-4600 8X&lab2=MSI TI-4200 8X&lab3=MSI 460 MX&lab4=ASUS Ti-4200 8X&lab5=ASUS MX-440&lab6=ATI RADEON 9000 Pro&lab7=ATI RADEON 9700 Pro&lab8=ATI RADEON 8500&lab9=GB MAYA 9000 Pro&lab10=Crucial 9700 Pro&lab12=BFG FX-5600 8X

http://www.motherboards.org/articlesd/hardware-reviews/1252_6.html Sorry but them results are completly faked 218fps in a BOTMATCH! impossible no matter what hardware is currenlty out and 4500pts in 3Dmark 2003 with a Ti4600 is impossible even with a 30GHz processor i find it very hard to belive that the Geforce4 Range of cards can outperform a Radeon 9800Pro or Radeon 9700Pro in 3D mark2003.

i told ben6 this before... :)

he said that he didn;t know about the other score.s.. some of the ones he posted were merged with some bogus scores...

Dazz
06-14-03, 02:28 PM
If i got such good results i don't think i would be thinking of upgrading my card :D

digitalwanderer
06-14-03, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
http://www.motherboards.org/jpgraph/reviewtestany.html?test=3dmark2003noaa&d1=4511&d2=3995&d3=2851&d4=4354&d5=2297&d6=3256&d7=4635&d8=3025&d9=2997&d10=4871&d11=4434&d12=4021&lab1=MSI Ti-4600 8X&lab2=MSI TI-4200 8X&lab3=MSI 460 MX&lab4=ASUS Ti-4200 8X&lab5=ASUS MX-440&lab6=ATI RADEON 9000 Pro&lab7=ATI RADEON 9700 Pro&lab8=ATI RADEON 8500&lab9=GB MAYA 9000 Pro&lab10=Crucial 9700 Pro&lab11=ATI RADEON 9800&lab12=BFG FX-5600 8X

http://www.motherboards.org/jpgraph/reviewtestany.html?test=ut03noaaab&d1=218.4&d2=209.1&d3=159.6&d4=210.1&d5=149.7&d6=164&d7=213.1&d8=154.2&d9=163.8&d10=217.5&d12=165&lab1=MSI Ti-4600 8X&lab2=MSI TI-4200 8X&lab3=MSI 460 MX&lab4=ASUS Ti-4200 8X&lab5=ASUS MX-440&lab6=ATI RADEON 9000 Pro&lab7=ATI RADEON 9700 Pro&lab8=ATI RADEON 8500&lab9=GB MAYA 9000 Pro&lab10=Crucial 9700 Pro&lab12=BFG FX-5600 8X

http://www.motherboards.org/articlesd/hardware-reviews/1252_6.html Sorry but them results are completly faked 218fps in a BOTMATCH! impossible no matter what hardware is currenlty out and 4500pts in 3Dmark 2003 with a Ti4600 is impossible even with a 30GHz processor i find it very hard to belive that the Geforce4 Range of cards can outperform a Radeon 9800Pro or Radeon 9700Pro in 3D mark2003.
I think I'll just grab a bowl of popcorn and catch me a seat over on the couch and watch this from the sidelines, I sure ain't needed here.

I'm just afraid this might pop HB's brain in a bad way...it's pretty over-the-top! :eek:

MatiasZ[OC]
06-14-03, 02:37 PM
Nice score there with a 8500 at 3dmark2k3, somewhere around 3000, just as fast as my gf3 which hardly surpasses the 1000 marks :D ... i think is pretty clear he just randomly chose those numbers, if something is impossible there, is that radi 8500 score...:rolleyes:

Dazz
06-14-03, 02:39 PM
Yeah that MX beats out my Ti4400 :D

The Baron
06-14-03, 02:48 PM
3DMark is obviously fake, unless NVIDIA added optimizations to give the Ti4600 DX9 support :p

PreservedSwine
06-14-03, 03:01 PM
Not just Nvida. the R8500 is oulling in over 3,000 3dM03 points, lol:D

Kombatant
06-14-03, 03:23 PM
C'mon guys, haven't you heard about random number generators before? :D

SlyBoots
06-14-03, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by PreservedSwine
Not just Nvida. the R8500 is oulling in over 3,000 3dM03 points, lol:D

and what about the 9000p?:p

john19055
06-14-03, 06:37 PM
The highest I ever got with my TI4600 was 2175 in 3Dmark2003,and that was with everthing overclocked,don't know how he is getting them marks

SlyBoots
06-14-03, 06:54 PM
"don't know how he is getting them marks"

VooDoo;)

MikeC
06-14-03, 07:44 PM
I checked their forums and couldn't find a single post questioning the benchmark results. The review's been up for two days already and still no mention from them. Could the bogus results have been put there intentionally?

Spiritwalker
06-14-03, 08:09 PM
That site might have been hacked and those scores added. Look at these 2 quotes near the end of the article:
Game play
With the recent hullabaloo about 3dmark 2003 and benchmarking in general, I find it interesting that many reviewers are looking closely at how they review video cards. This is a good thing. For too long, reviewers have simply ran Quake3, 3dmark 2003, maybe a new test or two wrote a introduction and conclusion and called it a review. Even image quality comparisons can and are misleading, especially in the way that NVIDIA cards display anti-aliasing in games and in screenshots (here's a hint, the screenshot often doesn't show what's in the picture). It's always been my policy to describe game play in the current games I'm playing in addition to the benchmarks. I've started using FRAPs as well as general overall feelings of playing games.

It's always been my practice to show meaningful descriptions of how a video card plays the games. After all, why do you buy a video card? To play 3Dmark(any version?) Or do you buy a modern video card to play the latest games out there at playable frame rates irrespective of the benchmark scores? This is just something to think about.

That's not to say that I condone what apparently has been done. Unfortunately, requests for comment from NVIDIA have hit a stone wall. Their public response has been disappointing to say the least. It's important, as a reviewer to have all of the facts before making any assumption. To be frank, NVIDIA's stance has always been that it's better to use real-game benchmarks, because otherwise you spend resources trying to optimize for a benchmark that has 0 real-world use in games.

It's rather unfortunate that I don't have a RADEON 9600 to test for this review. It is this spring's ATI mainstream card in this price range Going by other reviews on the net, however, leads me to believe that it's a better buy for today's games than this BFG GEFORCE FX 5600 256MB, because the performance is better and the price is cheaper than this card.

Performance of the card was about 2x the Geforce3 Ti200 in virtually every respect, sometimes more. The RADEON 9700 outperforms the 5600 across the board, often by 2x or more. The problem here is that the price point of the card is out of line with the performance. If this card retailed for $149, like most regular GEFORCE FX 5600s with 128MB or even $179, I would have a much easier time recommending it.

At a MSRP of $249, I feel that this card is for want of a better word, overpriced for the performance and feature set of the card. I do understand that the 256MB of memory is a premium, but without the horsepower to back it up, the price leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. ATI's RADEON 9700 Pro, which I compared the 5600 to has a MSRP of $299 at the moment. For $50 more, you get a much better-rounded card with more performance all-around.

So what's good about the card? It just works. Every game demo and game I tried with the card worked right out of the box without any fuss or hassle. Further, the games I played with the card were fully playable i.e. I choose any resolution and play it. Often 4x FSAA at 1024x768 with 8x anisotropic filtering was playable too. I just wish performance was much higher than last year's Ti4200 in all respects. Had it kept the feature set the same and upped the performance to TI4600 or above level, I would have no problem recommending this card.



They dont fit with the numbers on the graphs

Solomon
06-14-03, 09:22 PM
Hahahaahahaahahahaha... How can someone release this review? The results are pretty messed up and we thought the Q3A crap at Anandtech was bad. Hehe. I never knew a Ti4200 could keep on the heals of a 9700 Pro. That's interesting. :rolleyes:

Bad review...

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

Greg
06-14-03, 10:16 PM
HALT!

Although the benchmark result may be ridiculous, it may have been due to a bug in the benchmark program. Here are my results from a few days ago:


Res FlyBy BotMatch
800 161.6 54.4
1024 162.7 54.5
1280 155.6 182.7


What tha? How do you explain that last figure?
This is not a joke. I performed the test with the deafult benchmark in the UT\Sys folder.

EDIT: Though, if I saw that result for a public review, I wouldn't have included it due to its obvious error..... Unless my hardware has been holding out on me all this time?... hmm.

EDIT2: I just bothered to examine the benchmarks rather than just glance toward them.... Haaahahahaheeeehohohoho.Ya.

solofly
06-15-03, 01:21 AM
Those benchmarks are pretty good... I mean is even one of these video cards right on the dot? I mean I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry for the reviewer...:eek:

nVidi0t
06-15-03, 01:28 AM
Close to 5000 with a Ti4600 in 3dmark03.

ROFL

Truly a joke.

ben6
06-15-03, 02:03 AM
You all noticed how my conclusiion had cards and benchmarks which weren't posted don't you? Nowhere in the benchmarks are a Ti200 results listed.

Another oddity, my review had Splinter Cell as a benchmark (read the conclusion, now find where Splinter Cell was in the results.)

3rd point, I'm not happy with the way the benchmarks were posted, period and am trying to get them rerun

4th point, sadly I wish I had all of those videocards.

5th point, normally, I would ask volt or MikeC to post a link to my reviews. I've done neither on this review, and in fact have asked them NOT to post a link.

6th point, I've never seen a 3dmark 2003 score anywhere near 2,000 on a Ti4600 on any card with default runs which my results were.

7th point I wish I had a 3000+ XP .

Read between the lines.

CaptNKILL
06-15-03, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by ben6

Read between the lines.

I try to do that every time someone tells me to, but really, if there are lines of text, how do you read between them? Theres nothing there. Thats why there are lines. If there was something between them, it would be a line too, so youd have to read between it and one of the other lines.... its impossible to read between the lines.


:D

ben6
06-15-03, 02:35 AM
heh I'm not going to spell it out for you .Anyway, I wish I had 10 Geforce4s/9800s/9700s/9000/MXs .

ChrisW
06-15-03, 03:17 AM
Even image quality comparisons can and are misleading, especially in the way that NVIDIA cards display anti-aliasing in games and in screenshots (here's a hint, the screenshot often doesn't show what's in the picture).
Yet again we see this. Will someone please explain exactly what Hypersnap does that other screen capture utilities do not do? I have seen this stated several times by GFFX owners and now even a reviewer is tipping us off. Even though so many people are pointing out that screen shots look much better than the image they see on the screen, nobody is looking into this. :confused: Just how hard would it be for the GFFX drivers to detect that Hypersnap is running and 'enhance' the captured image? Doesn't anyone else think it is weird that this was also required for 3DFX cards and now nVidia owns them?

gokickrocks
06-15-03, 04:17 AM
hypersnap can capture post-processed images, ie: post-filter

Dazz
06-15-03, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by ben6
heh I'm not going to spell it out for you .Anyway, I wish I had 10 Geforce4s/9800s/9700s/9000/MXs . So where did you get your results from?

ChrisW
06-15-03, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by gokickrocks
hypersnap can capture post-processed images, ie: post-filter
Yes, but how are we supposed to know the image it captures is what was actually rendered? (Especially when so many people that own the card say it doesn't look like what they see on the screen)