PDA

View Full Version : Impartial reviewers?


GrayRaven
11-27-03, 05:05 AM
These are from the gaming nexus Review of the 9800 xt and the fx 5950

Number 1:

http://www.gamingnexus.com/Screenshots/Review/390/3dmark03.gif

Number 2:

http://www.gamingnexus.com/Screenshots/Review/390/aquamark.gif



Does this strike anyone as a bit biased :P?


The full article is here (http://www.gamingnexus.com/Review.asp?ID=390&page=1)

Ady
11-27-03, 07:07 AM
If I loved a conspiracy theory, I'd say they made the 3d MARK chart 0-8000 to make the 9800XT win look very small at first glance and that they made the Aquamark chart only display 3700-4050 so the 5950s' very small win would look gigantic at first glance.

However, the rest of the review doesn't look that bad. I had a quick read through it and didn't seem biased to me. They even had IQ shots pointing out how the 5950 isn't rendering as much as the 9800XT.

Maybe they just made a silly mistake with the one chart? meh.

digitalwanderer
11-27-03, 07:47 AM
I don't know that I'd go shouting "foul!" at the reviewer, I think that's MSOffices default way of making charts. I had a similar problem with a chart for a review and I had to add a third column with a value of "1" just to get the graph to scale from 0-4000 rather than from 3700-4000.

I think it's a case of someone who just ain't that good with Office rather than any conspiracies. :)

Hanners
11-27-03, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
I think it's a case of someone who just ain't that good with Office rather than any conspiracies. :)

Agreed - God knows I made a horrendous chart in Excel for my last article, and couldn't get it to look how I wanted it to at all. :rolleyes:

digitalwanderer
11-27-03, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Hanners
Agreed - God knows I made a horrendous chart in Excel for my last article, and couldn't get it to look how I wanted it to at all. :rolleyes:
Do me a favor then and find out where/how I access stuff I upload to my FTP folder at EB.

I can do the graphs for people, I just don't have any way to host them online and last time I uploaded an excel sheet for someone neither of us could find where I put it. :rolleyes:

I used to make forms in excel back in the mid-90s for a living and got rather good at making it work for me. (Me and excel get along very well together. :cool: )

stncttr908
11-27-03, 10:37 AM
The only real problem I have with reviews such as that are their graphs. Look at the Aquamark graph. Visually, it represents a 300% increase with the 5950. However, looking at the scale, it only represents less than 10% of the whole spectrum.

dan2097
11-27-03, 01:58 PM
They skimmed over af/fsaa a bit.

I dont think that chart shows their biased. They did a similar one in favour of ATI for FFXI

GrayRaven
11-27-03, 04:53 PM
I think that's MSOffices default way of making charts. I had a similar problem with a chart for a review and I had to add a third column with a value of "1" just to get the graph to scale from 0-4000 rather than from 3700-4000.


:) Yeah, I think you're right. I only got halfway through the review before I got pulled away. The chart on the last page is the exact opposite :P.

sxotty
11-27-03, 06:51 PM
Youguys ever tried right clicking on the axis and manually putting in 0 for the starting value? :)

Razor04
11-27-03, 10:37 PM
Damn...I was just about to post that sxotty. I can't tell you how many times I have had to do that this semester for lab. Custom axis' are a must to get the right graphs. Professor hates Excel and would much rather see us use something like MATLAB for graphs...but Excel is light years easier...just needs some TLC to get what you want. But as it has been pointed out before...this is Excels fault not the reviewer.

cthellis
11-27-03, 11:16 PM
<laughs> That is one ass-tastic chart! I wouldn't run to bias, though--just someone not paying enough attention to stupid charts. The FFXI one is equally dumb the other way.

Offhand not a good review, but mainly because it's lacking in depth though it SEEMS to want to try to bring everything into play (Image Quality comparisons, performance, AAxAF...) Just offhand a simple review, not going far enough or well enough, and with a few stupidly-formatted charts.