HardOCP

[tommybhoy]

Same as last year Andy, they(CPC) said the 6990 wasn't all that, then changed the games used for testing(surprise surprise, Nvidia favoured titles) when the 590 appeared, then it gets an award despite pushing out virtually the same numbers on most games that isn't favoured by either!

From their comments section regarding the review:

'scoring...

590 - RECOMMENDED
Performance - 10/10
Features - 8/10
Value - 8/10
Overall - 8/10

6990
Performance - 10/10
Features - 7/10 (different but just as useful features as a 590, yet lower score)
Value - 7/10 (cheaper than 590, yet lower score)
Overall - 8/10 (same overall score but not recommended)'

Priceless!

The bit that made me laugh the most at the time though was:

'Therefore, the GTX 590 3GB has to get our approval based on the quality of the GeForce 267.71 launch driver that we used.'

It was that good it got pulled by Nvidia because of the Rice Krispie phenomenon!

 

[ALXAndy]

I have a graphics card megatest in one of my issues which brings the 590 out on top and berates the 6990 for bad drivers.

Mind you I have to say that out of the two I would have the 590. It's smaller and more compact and quieter. IIRC it runs cooler too.

What's hilarious though is how their recommendations changed overnight in one issue.

Basically they used to recommend a 550ti at the low end, 560ti mid range and 570 at the top end.

All of a sudden that changed to a 6850 low end, 560ti mid and 6970 2gb at the high end with no mention as to why. It's obvious really, the 570 runs short on vram. But nowhere have they pointed out that vram matters.

 

[tommybhoy]

All of a sudden that changed to a 6850 low end, 560ti mid and 6970 2gb at the high end with no mention as to why. It's obvious really, the 570 runs short on vram. But nowhere have they pointed out that vram matters.

You must have missed why they changed it to the 6970 mate.

It was because they tried multi monitor gaming and the 6970 was the 'fastest' even beating SLI/CrossFire gpu's/setups as they couldn't recommend them due to apparent microstutter 'that haunts dual setups'(not their exact words but along those lines) whether being single/dual card variants which made BFBC2 totally unplayable iirc.

 

[buchtis]

No idea if this help but I pretty much only use Anandtech for reviews as they seem the most credible and well put together.

 

[ALXAndy]

You must have missed why they changed it to the 6970 mate.

It was because they tried multi monitor gaming and the 6970 was the 'fastest' even beating SLI/CrossFire gpu's/setups as they couldn't recommend them due to apparent microstutter 'that haunts dual setups'(not their exact words but along those lines) whether being single/dual card variants which made BFBC2 totally unplayable iirc.

Haha that's funny because in the gpu megatest they praise the 590 for having excellent drivers and no issues at all

Makes me LOL does CPC. The hypocrisy on show every month is hilarious. Known haters of multiple GPU systems, yet botlicked the 590.

 

[Locky]

Nice try.

I'd take Anand's reviews over any that were posted here, ESPECIALLY the ones posted by OcUK's marketing staff...

The very fact that I have worked at ocuk and posted benchmarks my self know that you get the card in a system RAPE it and post results, that is all.

 

[tommybhoy]

Loved how you expressed OcUK's testing methology Locky!

 

[ALXAndy]

Nice try.

I'd take Anand's reviews over any that were posted here, ESPECIALLY the ones posted by OcUK's marketing staff...

It wouldn't be very clever for OCUK to side with one product over another as they would then be stuck with a huge pile of cards they can't sell.

Inevitably reviews anywhere can only be used as a rough guide. At home in your actual PC with the product you read the review of your scores will be all over the place. It's there that counts, in the real world.

Most reviewers now use hyped up ultra systems with which to benchmark the cards. This is fair enough, as you want to see what they are truly capable of. However, due to that absolutely nothing you read in the review will match what you will get at home unless you too wasted £3k on a board CPU and ram.

I can't tell you how many coolers I bought and got rid of that performed absolutely nothing like they did in reviews. Then one day I read a Custom PC review and in the small print right in the middle of it it said that all of their tests were performed on an open bench in an air conditioned office.

What chuffing use is that? when you are on the borderline with a Phenom 2 Deneb every last C counts. I know that because my CPU would bomb as soon as it hit 54c. The only cooler that I bought that ever lived up to expectations (even if mine doesn't seem to work as well as one in the open air in an air conditioned office ) was my NH-D14.

 

[Twirlywoos]

ALL reviews are not worth steam off ****, the best reviews are the real adopters and users, to be honest the reviews of ocuk are worth looking at, a bit vague but informative and they have nothing to gain from siding with brands.

Agree 99%, I would have said 100% but HardOCP took 1% away from me

 

[Locky]

Loved how you expressed OcUK's testing methology Locky!

It is OCUK ya know

Gibbo, used to give me and rich samples, be it gfx cards, cpu's whatever.

Once it went into tech, it was raped to inch of it's life , results taken.

how else do you research for the latest systems and bundles.

Ocuk have nothing to gain from bias against a brand and as Andy says it wouldn't be a very good idea.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I find the Techreport latency tests very interesting and hopefully more review websites will do this.

I like in the HardOCP reviews now if an AMD card wins in a test,they say the Nvidia card is smoother without showing any data. Even their MP testing is pointless as the data is not repeatable anyway.

If they were to show latency results it would mean something, but the only way they could confirm this otherwise is to do double blind tests which I doubt they will do.

Funnily enough Galaxy is now a major sponsor of them.

 

[Mojo]

I do like Anandtech I must admit, their bench site is very useful. However, I always get a little disillusioned when I see the games they use to benchmark. They only have games which are either A: heavily optimised for AMD or B: heavily optimised for Nvidia.
The only game I can see that treats the cards realtively equally in their lineup is Portal 2.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I personally think the following would be the best way to test games:
1.)Test at least two different levels in each game
2.)Show framerates
3.)Show latency
4.)Use custom time demos

This would involve more work but would be a fairer assessment of GPU performance.

 

[ALXAndy]

Here it is. The article where the headlines systematically **** off every Radeon card and bum lick the Nvidias.

6850 lacks gaming grunt, yet is now their card of choice at the low end.

6870 is fast, but not worth having

6950. But the 560ti is as fast !

6970. But the 570 is faster.

6990. The 590 is faster.

550ti. No faults at all it seems !

And skimming through due to many pics, the 590. Which just so happens to have amazing drivers and work perfectly in every test, even though every other month they say that multiple GPUs don't work at all.

I think they went to Lollage College and put on their green glasses.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So if the HD6850 is "slow" then the GTX460 1GB is also slow too??

CPC have always been biased and they merged with bit-tech too!!

However,they are all part of Dennis Publishing,so you need to remember this when reading their reviews.

 

[ALXAndy]

So if the HD6850 is "slow" then the GTX460 1GB is also slow too??

CPC have always been biased and they merged with bit-tech too!!

However,they are all part of Dennis Publishing,so you need to remember this when reading their reviews.

It cracks me up man. The 590 review came out three months before they posted this. However, the 590 was /Jimmy Saville super smashing great, yet three months later they posted an article showing their hatred for multiple GPU set ups and how nothing works in it because it isn't supported.

As I say, definitely graduates of Lollage College.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Remember at the time of the HD5870,bit-tech consider the HD5870 overpriced even though it launched at around £300.

"Quite honestly, after 18 months between the last and this generation it's not really a large enough jump in performance to make us very impressed by the performance for a £300 product."

Yet,both the GTX580 and GTX680 offered similar performance increases over the previous fastest cards and previous fastest Nvidia cards and yet cost £400. These got better value for money scores - 8/10.

The HD5870 1GB was the first DX11 GPU and cost £300!! It got 7/10 and the GTX480, 6/10 for value for money.

Also,don't get me started on their stupid HandBrake scores.

They seemed to show the AMD CPUs had stupidly low scores - my mates have AMD CPUs and I tested them against the Intel CPUs I had, and the relative positions looked NOTHING like what bit-tech showed.

In the end I started my own thread on Hexus and it seems whatever bit-tech was doing was weird.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Here is the HandBrake 0.9.5 chart I compiled:

http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss33/CAT-THE-FIFTH/HexusHandBrakeresults22-02-2012-1.png

I used three different kinds of files for encoding.

Look at the bit-tech results:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/12/07/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1100t-review/4

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/01/intel-core-i3-2100-review/6

My Core i3 2100 does NOT beat a 3.7GHZ Phenom II X4 in HandBrake 0.9.5 which was the latest version at the time bit-tech did their Core i3 2100 review.

 

[Mysterae_]

I still enjoy reading review sites when I'm looking for hardware (considering a gpu and 30" monitor upgrade so researching now ) and I always take the middle of the road of reviews, an average if you like. Information about a particular brand is far more useful. What accessories you get, the design, the efficiency of cooling, noise level etc. That's what I go hunting for.

For a refreshing change on review sites you should check out TTL's site Overclock3D.net, it's pretty good and gaining popularity. The video reviews on the tv channel are great, like a mate having a chat with you.

 

[Helios1234]

It cracks me up man. The 590 review came out three months before they posted this. However, the 590 was /Jimmy Saville super smashing great, yet three months later they posted an article showing their hatred for multiple GPU set ups and how nothing works in it because it isn't supported.

As I say, definitely graduates of Lollage College.

I remember speaking to someone from Bit-Tech and when I said Crossfire 6850/6870 was amazing (which it was at the time based on my own tests compared to a GTX 580), he kept saying Crossfire sucks. When I asked him if he had actually tested Crossfire and why he had such a view, he said that he used Crossfire a few years ago (when it wasn't mature) and since then hasn't bothered... So his opinion was based on premature technology and his stubborn attitude stopped him from revisiting dual GPU configurations to see how it had improved. The problem was that he wouldn't accept the fact that he was wrong and kept acting as if he knew more than anyone (which he didn't). Some reviewers are so arrogant it hurts. They never liked to be proven wrong and when they are, they just dismiss it. TTL is another one...