Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Nandro said:Thats one of the weirdest reviews I have seen. I understand their concept behind the review, yet in some of the tests the show the x800pro is faster or handles better resolution than the XT. See the BFV for instance. Is it possible the XT is almost clocked over its limit to the point of diminishing returns?
theELVISCERATOR said:The X800Pro at one hundred dollars less than the GeForce 6800Ultra was either matching or beating it in game performance.
and with almost 4 ghz at my disposal i second the motion...
mwuahahahah
yeah thats true, it didn't occur to me before. lol. i rather enjoy the apples-to-apples, its easier to gauge performance and compare the cards.ninthebin said:....the intro to it sort of translates to me as "and for the scum of the earth that enjoy this sort of review, we have wasted our time for you"
PowerK said:The bechmark seems to suggest that CPU hardly matters when it comes to high resolution + AA/AF gaming. Be it AMD or Intel. At least from looking at various graphs. This is very much like the recent CPU scaling article from FiringSquad.
But the [H] writer's conclusion is somewhat contradictory to what those graphs are telling. Also, 3 games and one of them (fs) already gives contradictory results to the conclusion.
Honestly... I have no idea how they have that conclusion with that data.
Yea, they're huge FanATIcs.coldfusion71 said:hardocps reviews are junk, playable is a subjective term and can be used to reenforce your biases. that site has lied about alot of the things in the past and has no credibility in by book ,anything that comes off that site is highly suspect to me .they also seem to be ati fanboys, if you have one review that totally contradicts every other review something stinks.
No flaming please, this thread was not made for trolling, nor for fanboyism so don't even bring it up.....coldfusion71 said:hardocps reviews are junk, playable is a subjective term and can be used to reenforce your biases. that site has lied about alot of the things in the past and has no credibility in by book ,anything that comes off that site is highly suspect to me .they also seem to be ati fanboys, if you have one review that totally contradicts every other review something stinks.
yeah its not really fair that the used a WHQL driver for ati and a 'candidate' for NV, but it looks like ATI is holding their own. i don't trust any NV drivers until they are WHQL AND heavily scrutinized. remember the FX drivers and 3dmark...... thats why i like the real gameplay comparisons, its not a playback so cheating won't benefitNandro said:It looks to me like they are pretty fair in their assesments. I think they should have allowed beta drivers in the last test on the Ultra x800pro and XT-PE only because the average user who uses their site will get the latest drivers, not caring if they are whql. I dont know if the results would have changed, but I know I would have been using the latest drivers. It would be nice to see them include the omega drivers for ati. I know in all the time I have had my 9800xt and 9700pro I have used them 90% of the time, and I'm sure alot of other gamers do as well. Most gamers are very competent when it comes to finding drivers and tools that will benefit their gaming.