The state of online reviews.

[[Corporal Dan]]

<rant>
Nowadays, more and more reviewers are becoming Corpo*****s(TM). There is always a slant. What I miss is the days when reviews were informative, and completely realistic. Nowadays a review can be broken down in the following way:


Introduction - Some history behind the product. Legacy of performance or whatnot.
Specs (ripped straight off the corporate website)
Computer specs (Typically a P4 at 3.5 Ghz with 20GB of Ram... completely unrealistic..)
Quake3 benchies
-640x460x16
-1024x768x16
-1024x768x32
-1600x1200x32
3dmark benchies
Overclocking results
Conclusion. Usually with a positive rating...


Let us begin.

640x480x16? I mean wtf. I used to play that res on my p100+voodoo2 combo. Who the bloody hell still uses that?

About 1600x1200? I bought a state-of-the art NEC 19" AG monitor last year... Oh, it can handle 16x12.... but only at 60Hz refresh. Instant Headache in a plastic box... I don't know who can afford those Sony 24"ers that can do it at 85+, but it certainly isn't me.... A poor, struggling student working part-time. For the longest time, I've been using 1024x768. There aren't really any games besides GLQUAKE or Q2 that run well on my computer at 12x10... let alone 16x12. Blame it on my GeForce2... Perhaps the $600 R300 will save me from my low-res hell *rolls eyes*

Overclocking results. I have had it with people buying cards based upon A SINGLE REVIEWER'S RESULTS, and bitching about not being able to achieve the results... People were telling me that their GF2s couldn't OC that high. I personally got it to 250/410 with no additionnal cooling. People also told me that the P3-700e overclocked like a mofo... easily hitting 933 at default voltage with stock cooling... esp. with the cB0 stepping. Imagine my surprise when MY SL45y chip could barely hold 890MHz at 1.85 Volts. Instabilities Galore. Buying anything based upon OC results is ridiculous. A product should be bought for it's speed and features at default clocks... Any gains made by OCing are just a nice little bonus... OCing should not take such an important place in reviews.

And has anyone ever noticed that there are almost NO BAD REVIEWS out there? There are 2 types of reviews. Good reviews and no reviews. If a product is a POS, it won' t get reviewed anywhere. Or if it does, the reviewers will downplay the suckage. If the product is even the least bit good, it will get a glowing review. Blah....

*sigh*

What I wish people would do is review stuff properly. that is, on multiple systems (if possible) and using the settings REAL PEOPLE would use. Do you know anyone who plays games with sound disabled? Maybe deaf people do, but not the rest of the gaming community. Enough with the wack-ass resolutions. Enough with all the settings turned off. I am also Sick&Tired of reviewers pimping their 3dmark2001 scores. That is the most biased, unrealistic benchmarking suite I have ever seen. Not to mention the meaningless results. Is a card that hits 12 000 pts that much behind a card that hits 13 000? It's a synthetic benchmark. It doesn't represent a realistic gaming environment. What should be done is more tests on games rather than these BS benchmarks...

</Rant>

[vampireuk]

The Quake III benchmarks make me laugh now, theres no point who wants to see it running at 10000+ fps? that impresses no one anymore. Well apart from Intel suits;) :p

I dont pay any attention to most benchmarks in fact its been a while since I've read any reviews its always the same and you know what the outcome will be

[[Corporal Dan]]

10/10 best product ever?

yea. most reviews end like that.

[vampireuk]

10/10 best product ever?

But only if it runs Quake III at 100000 fps:D

[[Corporal Dan]]

Naturally

a product that runs q3 1.17 @ 640x480x16 FASTEST at 99999 fps is a bif, fat POS!

[Kruno]

It must be doing that frame rate internally. There is no way your monitor could comprehend that type of frame rate lolz.

[[Corporal Dan]]

Just one more reason why reviews nowadays are absurd...

[Lou Natic]

The only real reason why all these lame old benchmarks are still in use is because there really haven't been any new games using new engines introduced this year that really tax the newer systems. All the more recent FPS games of this year are all Q3-based, so there is no real benefit from trying to use them as a benchmark. Serious Sam 2 benchmarks are in a similar boat, considering that engine is pretty much the same engine as the original. And then there is the biggest waste of time of them all, the 3dmark test, which can be faked and hacked numerous ways.

I totally agree with the need for the removing of 640x480 from any review of newer hardware, the lowest resolution should probably be raised to atleast 1024x768. For people insisting on playing their games at 640x480 resolution, they hardly need a Ti4600 (or a Ti200 for that matter). I want to see more emphasis on high resolution gaming: my monitor 19" KDS can do 85hz at 1600x1200-32 which is alot better than the average 60hz that most 19"ers on the market sport at the moment.

[Kruno]

bleh! I review my own things and then make a self conclusion. I don't need reviews giving me info.

[Smokey]

I alsoi just wanted to let Corp know that his "state of the art NEC" isnt that state of the art if it can only handle 1600*1200@60Hz :p My Iiyama Vision Master Pro 450 ( which is getting old) can handle 1600*1200@85Hz just like Lou Natics KDS.

About benchmarks, as I have a good 19" montitor with a GF3 I play all my games at 1280*1024@100Hz no less, also 1600*1200@85Hz if I dont want to use any FSAA and lower the anisoptic filtering. As for Q3 benches, I bought that game when I had my Celeron 433 + TNT1 :rolleyes: I think using games that are 6-12months old max.


Smokey

[vampireuk]

They should use Shogun Total War as a test, if it can run 4000 troops at once its good!:D

[[Corporal Dan]]

Originally posted by Smokey
I alsoi just wanted to let Corp know that his "state of the art NEC" isnt that state of the art if it can only handle 1600*1200@60Hz :p My Iiyama Vision Master Pro 450 ( which is getting old) can handle 1600*1200@85Hz just like Lou Natics KDS.

About benchmarks, as I have a good 19" montitor with a GF3 I play all my games at 1280*1024@100Hz no less, also 1600*1200@85Hz if I dont want to use any FSAA and lower the anisoptic filtering. As for Q3 benches, I bought that game when I had my Celeron 433 + TNT1 :rolleyes: I think using games that are 6-12months old max.


Smokey

Two years and $800 ago, buddy.

Back when most monitors couldnt do 12x10 @ more than 60hz

[[Corporal Dan]]

Doesnt Shogun use SPRITES?

lol

yea, and q3a is OLD as HELL

[NeoGeo]

i get fed up with all the game benchmarks... most people can relate to 3D Mark 2k1, why cant they just use that!!

[[Corporal Dan]]

Because 3dmark is the worst.

It is optimized for certain cards... they rhyme with Precidia.

Also, none of the game tests represent realistic gaming scenarios anymore.

[saturnotaku]

Corp, I hate to break it to 'ya but I think you got jacked on that monitor. My $200 Philips can even do 1600x1200@70 Hz (not great but tolerable for gaming). Of course, long as you're happy with it otherwise that's really all that matters, but that's beside the point here.

I absolutely agree that reviews of video cards today are essentially worthless especially when they're using Q3A and 3dmark as their only test beds. Would it kill them to use Jedi Knight II as a Q3A game? There also have to be other D3D and OpenGL games that are more recent for benchmarking.

If I see a review that only uses Q3A and 3dmark, I don't read it any more.

[[Corporal Dan]]

Aperture grille, awesome sharpness, tiny-ass dot pitch

awesome colors and uniformity

besides, 2 years ago...

it was a good buy

never had probs with it

[vampireuk]

sprites matter not! 4000 guys on a battlefield damnit!:p :cool:

[[Corporal Dan]]

how close can you zoom?

[vampireuk]

you can zoom really close in, they dont look brlliant close up but its quite shocking to see so many of them:)