It's [H]ard to find good reviews these days...

[Harnagel]

Some pretty crazy stuff going on at the OCP in response to their P4HT review, mass bannings and the like.

http://xtreme.routehero.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=4828&perpage=25&pagenumber=12

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00187/

[StealthHawk]

i don't remember what review i read, it might have been [H], and i thought the 3.06GHz with HT had abnormally high scores. it was ahead of HT disabled in every test by a good few percentage points at the very least. i go to Tom's and i see that HT doesn't do jack **** for individual tests, only for multitasking.

something is definitely amiss with several site's benchmarks.

[Harnagel]

Most of the reviews I read had the HT slightly lower on single threaded applications(esp. 3dmark) and a little higher on multi-threaded apps or while multi-tasking. All the while performance scaled up by about 3% over the 2.8 Ghz P4.

[H]ardOCP had an increase of 10% in 3dmark 2001 over a 2.8p4 with another 5% with HT enabled. When forum members questioned Steve about this they were banned, and we're talking a lot of long time members with thousands of posts, not just misc newbies.

It's all pretty crazy.

[pelly]

Kyle has come clean on their front-page...head over and take a look...

:eek:

[thcdru2k]

interesting how wide spread it became..people are so quick to try to take people down

[Harnagel]

1. I was never interested in taking anyone down.

2. I do think that integrity is very important when writing articles.

3. It was strange that the image was changed w/o any explanation, stranger that he denied it in the forums, and upsetting when many longtime forum members were banned for persuing the issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was only making observations on what I considered a somewhat remarkable event and have never had any intention of belittling or attacking anyone. Sorry if i came across like that.

I do think it's good that it became so widespread, it shows at least that our comunity is fairly well informed and question the information we're fed. It's happened more than once that a site has tried to put a spin on a review. Whether what happened at [H]ardOCP was intentional or not I have no clue, but it still makes for an interesting read.

[Riptide]

Originally posted by thcdru2k
interesting how wide spread it became..people are so quick to try to take people down
Nothing personal with regards to the integrity of reviewers but I don't trust anything I read unless it's out of a forum like this. Not after the p4s8x fiasco... I read 3 glowing reviews on this board, bought it, hated it, rma'd it... And I was FAR from the only one that had major issues with that piece of junk. I think reviewers on occasion are given cherry picked items and we get stuck with the junk that they never knew existed...

[ReDeeMeR]

What a load of bs, obviously Intel payed them up, couldnt be that they *didnt notice* that theyr whole system was overclocked, meh they just added couple more marks imo.

Intel = lying fags

[intercede007]

Can I ask exactly why everyone is crying over 500 3DMarks? Considering how wildly inconsistant the benchmark can be from run to run, 500 isn't a whole lot in the scheme of things.


As for the overclocked 9700. If he used the same card with the same settings on all the machines, who really cares if it was overclocked or not? The number isn't the important part, the SPREAD of the numbers is the consideration. Video card being equal, it then becomes a race between CPU's and their chipsets.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by intercede007
Can I ask exactly why everyone is crying over 500 3DMarks? Considering how wildly inconsistant the benchmark can be from run to run, 500 isn't a whole lot in the scheme of things.

3dmark is a lot more accurate than +/- 500 marks. something is seriously wrong with your system if you see such a high variance. +/-100 is probably the general accepted error, although i still find that to be execeedingly high. +/- 50 points has been my experience.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by ReDeeMeR
What a load of bs, obviously Intel payed them up, couldnt be that they *didnt notice* that theyr whole system was overclocked, meh they just added couple more marks imo.

Intel = lying fags

um, ok. so Intel only tried to bribe [H]? no other site AFAIK had such doubtful results. and if Intel paid them up, then [H] is just as bad as Intel, if not worse, for doing Intel's dirty work.

[pelly]

I think the big debate is over 2 things:

1) The HUGE difference b/w the 2.8 and 3.06 P4 results...

2) The HUGE improvement only [H] sees when HyperThreading is turned-on

It doesn't help matters much to see a huge Intel banner over the review ( knowing that it cost Intel a pretty penny for that much ad space )

Who knows?

:confused: :(

[ReDeeMeR]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
3dmark is a lot more accurate than +/- 500 marks. something is seriously wrong with your system if you see such a high variance. +/-100 is probably the general accepted error, although i still find that to be execeedingly high. +/- 50 points has been my experience.

Yup, I have 20 mark difference at max


Originally posted by StealthHawk
um, ok. so Intel only tried to bribe [H]? no other site AFAIK had such doubtful results. and if Intel paid them up, then [H] is just as bad as Intel, if not worse, for doing Intel's dirty work.

Well, it's the only reasonable explanation, we're just a bunch of dumb cash cows for intel, they place some *hype*whatever in theyr newest mhz-monkey, pays some known site like [H] and they can sit back and enjoy the money flowing in :D

[Harnagel]

Many people who read hardware reviews spend alot of money upgrading their system for gaming, or can be responsible for making large corporate purchases, or many smaller purchases for small companies.

Now I read [H]ardOCP's article and it says that I get a 17%(later changed to 13.5%) increase in performance going to a 3Ghz HT P4 from a 2.8Ghz nonHT P4. These are significant increases, enough to sway many buyers(gamers) and decision makers(though not necissarily interested in 3dMark2001) to purchase this new product.

The problem is that in actuality the HTP4 @ 3Ghz only gets about a 2.5% increase in performance in 3dMark2001 over a 2.8Ghz P4. [H]ardOCP peforance increase was off by a factor of 7(later changed to a "mere" factor of 5).

Let's take an average of 7 and 5 to make 6. Being off by a factor of 6 is like showing a 4.4Ghz P4 instead of a 3.06 Ghz P4(the difference between the 2.8 and the 3.06, 266Mhz x 6 = 1.6Ghz + 2.8Ghz = 4.4Ghz) I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is not a small mistake.

Once again, I hold nothing personal against [H]ardOCP and I offer no hypothesis as to their motive be it intentional or otherwise. I do, however, think that when such large anomalies occur they need to be rectified. Furthermore, the act of banning members who raise questions regarding the preceding is not indicative of a professional attitude.

Hopefully this will serve as the small warning the review industry needs every once in a while to remain strict with testing procedures and forthcoming with any and all relevant information. And moreover may it remind us as their audience to scrutinize all that we read.

--Barnacle

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by ReDeeMeR
Well, it's the only reasonable explanation, we're just a bunch of dumb cash cows for intel, they place some *hype*whatever in theyr newest mhz-monkey, pays some known site like [H] and they can sit back and enjoy the money flowing in :D

assuming that is the case, my point is that isn't the reviewing site just as guilty as or even more guilty than Intel? after all, they are the ones who are supposed to be professionals and show thier readers that they have integrity etc.

intetionally misleading people and "going along" with the big corporations like Intel makes them at least as guilt in my book. the thing i take offense with is that you seem to be blaming the corporate PR culture at Intel solely, and leaving [H] blameless.

it takes two to tango.

[legion88]

There is an assumption here that Intel is guilty of persuading HardOCP to do what they did. Whatever.

Is it not also reasonable (in fact, more reasonable) to believe that HardOCP did these things on their own? HardOCP is engaged in more mass deletions of user accounts and threads. They decided to do that on their own, right? Then why not change the graphics as well? And what was the reason for the change? I don't know. I don't see a reason being provided.

[Harnagel]

I see this as a likely scenario...

Intel ships a P4HT to [H]ardOCP while at the same time buying a large amount of advertising space(maybe paying a little more than normal), perhaps mentioning to put the P4HT in a good light.

[H]ardOCP does this, they review the P4HT as the best thing since waffles.

Some forum members see the benchmarks and start asking questions in the forums.

[H]ardOCP gets scared and changes one of the graphs, changing a 17829 P4HT 3dMark score to 17329(note:the latter number is still way too high compared to the p4 2.8).

Many forum members notice this and start really asking questions and posting images from their cache as proof.

[H]ardOCP completely denies having changed the graph then gets scared and starts a banning spree of any one who mentions this incident thus getting rid of their best forum members.

These banned members simply join other groups and word gets out as to what happened.

[H]ardOCP issues an apology for changing the graph (even though the numbers are still way off and they continue to ban people for mentioning the incident).

-This is just a possible scenario, I have no contact with the behind the scenes of [H]ardOCP so while I know all the stuff in the forums really happened I couldn't possibly know for sure about the Intel [H]ardOCP thing.

--Barnacle

[legion88]

Originally posted by Harnagel
[B]I see this as a likely scenario...

Intel ships a P4HT to [H]ardOCP while at the same time buying a large amount of advertising space(maybe paying a little more than normal), perhaps mentioning to put the P4HT in a good light.

(snip....)


What you described is similar to what many hardware sites go through. It does not have to be advertising space. For instance, sites could give a positive review because they received the hardware for free.

That was the 'excuse' that someone gave for a hardware site that reviewed graphics cards. The graphics card company was "nice" to the site so, as the reasoning goes, it was 'human nature' for the site to give an optimistic viewpoint of the product.

Anyway, if one were to compare some of the scores of HardOCP to Tom's Hardware, you may notice something.

HardOCP, Quake 3 (640x480, normal):
W/HT: 391 FPS
W/o HT: 383 FPS

Tom's Hardware:
W/o HT: 388.2 FPS
W/HT: 379.5 FPS

Just switch the labels "w/ht" and "w/o ht" and subtract 3 FPS from both of HardOCP scores, you will see that the scores are very similar.


Commanche 4:
HardOCP (640x480)
w/HT: 61.8 FPS
w/o HT: 60.2 FPS

Tom's Hardware (1024x768)
w/HT: 61.67 FPS
w/o HT: 60.69 FPS

Although the resolutions are different (I don't know why THG decided to benchmark at 1024x768. It was idiotic), the scores are quite similar. The difference between HT and non-HT is nearly meaningless anyway.

The SysMark score for Office Performance are nearly identical for THG and HardOCP. The score for Internet Content Creation was higher on THG. But the conclusion is the same on both sites.

The 3DMark2001 SE scores, however, looks goofy as so many pointed out. HardOCP's allegedly non-overclocked score even outpaces THG's 3.6 GHz score.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by intercede007
Can I ask exactly why everyone is crying over 500 3DMarks? Considering how wildly inconsistant the benchmark can be from run to run, 500 isn't a whole lot in the scheme of things.


That really could have been an honest mistake, but the way they clamped down on it in the forums with the draconic gestapo-like attitude and the secret bannings was beyond shameful! They banned people for even asking about the apology and they're not putting "banned" up by any of their names to try and keep the appearance of normality. That's just wrong!

I was following it on their boards for a while, I'd registered long ago but never posted 'til yesterday, then I made the following post:

http://www.surfnetinc.com/hayho/hard_post.jpg

Which disapeared two minutes later and CIWS shot me a PM telling me to back off and that if the issue was going to be raised on the boards it was going to be raised by Kyle and Kyle ONLY!

I responded back that I disagreed and posted a "Where's my previous post" thread. Next thing I knew I couldn't access the site anymore. :rolleyes:

[h] sucks, seig kyle!

[thcdru2k]

you'd think they'd just make an apology and unban..i thought it was a legititamate mistake at first. but they make themselves look really guilty.

[Switch]

Can someone point me to the apology? I'm not finding it on their main page.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Switch
Can someone point me to the apology? I'm not finding it on their main page.

this is [H] we are talking about. you never find any news from longer than 2 days ago. the apology was made on Friday.

here it is, you can search their News Archives and find it(that's what i did).

Honesty & Integrity:
If you think [H]ardOCP has been not been founded on honesty and integrity over the last five years, then you might as well stop reading now, as what I have to say will not pertain to you. We are an enthusiast site that existed before we were called "enthusiasts". We have watched the community grow and we have grown with it. Our readers are our peers and our number one concern, and never think any different.

There is a situation that we need to discuss that has been brewing since we posted the Intel 3GHz review on the 13th at 9pm CST. After two days of talking and listening to our readers and our peers that we have full trust in, it is evident that we have done something that is inexcusable.

After researching this fully for two days, I have been able to pull together 100% factual evidence that a single set of benchmarks in the 3GHz article were changed after publication of the article. The 3DMark benchmark was changed from "17829" to "17329". The fact of the matter is that we did not note this change. It is standard operating procedure that anytime a portion of an article is changed, outside spelling and grammar, it is noted and explained as to why the change was made. This was not done.

As I am Editor-in-Chief of HardOCP.com this is 100% fully my responsibility to make sure issues such as these do not occur. The change in the benchmark without notation is fully my responsibility and I did not fulfill my responsibility to you. For that I apologize.

Our detractors have been posting stories that have reached from one end of the spectrum to the other every since they smelled blood in the water. I assure you that we do not post lies, and we have never intentionally posted numbers or benchmarks that we have known to be wrong. Doing that is simply not in our character. We do not accept bribes and we do not play favorites. While this site has become my livelihood, it is never viewed as "for profit" business. Our first and foremost objective is to supply solid information to our readers. At this point, if you question our competency, I can understand as we have given you a reason for doing so. Please do not let this be a mark against our integrity and honesty.

I assure you that this will not happen again.

Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief [H]ardOCP.com

[saturnotaku]

That still doesn't explain why members (with 1000+ posts mind you) were banned for simply asking the [H] staff to clarify the issue. All they needed to say was "Whoops! There was a typo on the chart and we fixed it. The new image/score is the correct one. We apologize for any confustion." And that would have been the end of it.

Bottom line - none of this would have taken place if they didn't have something to hide. What happened to digitalwanderer is further proof of this.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by saturnotaku
That still doesn't explain why members (with 1000+ posts mind you) were banned for simply asking the [H] staff to clarify the issue. All they needed to say was "Whoops! There was a typo on the chart and we fixed it. The new image/score is the correct one. We apologize for any confustion." And that would have been the end of it.

Bottom line - none of this would have taken place if they didn't have something to hide. What happened to digitalwanderer is further proof of this.

i agree. this was no "mistake." it was done purposefully as far as i can tell. blunders this big are just ridiculous, in addition to the whole escapade of trying to kill the baby in the craddle by banning anyone who brings it up.

but....oh well. i could care less to finish this thought :p