BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 2,995
- 126
How are they more relevant if those five titles are the games nVidia asked reviewers to use?Originally posted by: chizow
I said a criteria like "Top 10 games from the last 2-3 months" is always going to be more objective and always going to be more relevant than what he claimed were objective benchmarks, especially if he's going to claim it was a list of popular titles.
How are they more relevant if they don?t include an adequate cross-section from range of titles?
I realize this is a foreign concept to you, but some people don?t have the ADD equivalent when gaming and hence still actively play slightly older titles, titles that are still quite demanding and still quite recent.
No, I?m saying a benchmark suite that includes both modern and legacy titles is more relevant and robust than one that only includes titles nVidia told reviewers to use. Without a large cross-section of titles the results can be skewed towards a particular vendor depending on what titles are used. A large enough title list reduces or even eliminates this problem.Are you saying the inclusion of random older titles like CoJ, RS:Vegas, and Jericho that never even satisfied any such popularity, relevance or best-selling criteria are more relevant than recent titles like COD5, L4D, FO3 or FC2?
What are you talking about? In the Cat 9.1 article ComputerBase included a range of new titles like CoD 5, FC 2 and S:CS. The difference is that they also included legacy titles, which is my point.How is a list of "Top 10 titles in the last 3 months" less biased than "Whatever is on Wolfgang's Hard Drive"?
Actually it has everything to do with it. I play Call of Juarez and Jericho and I?ll take any extra performance I can get.What a joke, this has nothing to do with the titles still being very demanding,
What the hell are you talking about?Unless your criteria is perhaps "Titles that hit the $9.99 Bargain Bin within 3 months of release" or perhaps "Poorly reviewed titles with Metacritic scores less than 60",
http://www.metacritic.com/game...=rainbow%20six%20vegas (score=85)
http://www.metacritic.com/game...z?q=call%20of%20juarez (score=72)
http://www.metacritic.com/game...richo?q=clive%20barker's%20jericho (score=63)
Not one of those titles has a rating below 60. Are you going to shut up about reviews now?
LMAO. Given they stated what titles have to be tested (unlike ATi who only stipulated the title count), I?m not sure how anyone could come to any other conclusion. But there you go, you never cease to amaze me.I'm really not sure how you can argue Nvidia's guidance is somehow "cherry-picked" or "marketing".
This has already been covered repeatedly.You should if you're going to claim "12 random titles on Wolfgang's Hard Drive" is somehow more objective or relevant than Top 10 titles from the last 3-4 months.
That doesn?t change the fact that the scores could be wrong like they were in Big Bang. I?m not saying one way or another, just pointing out that someone who was asking Derek to stand down as a reviewer should be considering such a scenario.I've already considered the possibility and cross-referenced older results and found they're not a carbon copy as they were in the past with months-old archived results.
Retract your lie Chizow: Nvidia did not list improvements in the titles AT tested.And Grid showed improvement, so you need to retract your lie.
You were wrong.
Retract it immediately and stop playing rhetorical games.
Err, no. 1.79% is well within the margin of benchmarking error.And Grid showed improvement, so you need to retract your lie.
Anyway, I never claimed there weren?t any performance gains, I merely pointed out the scores were an outlier compared to other reviews and after later testing it was found they weren?t accurate. Therefore you should be questioning the figures in your linked review, but you?re not. You?re happy to accept those because they paint nVidia in a good light.
Stop arguing in circles with your useless rhetoric and retract your lie: Nvidia did not list improvements in the titles AT tested.
Retract your lie Chizow and stop trolling.
Only after retesting was done that proved the first batch of benchmarks were not showing the true story. Which is my whole point ? the first benchmarks were not indicative of reality.And Crysis showed improvement once resolution/AA was increased.
Oh, I see. So you don?t even need benchmark scores now, it?s enough you can read Derek?s mind to tell us what he was thinking, and therefore retroactively apply this logic backwards to his results?Also I wasn't directly referring to their "benchmark result", as I've stated numerous times not all games, even if listed would show improvement, I was referring to his conclusion, which was clearly the outlier. He stated the drivers did not make any noticeable impact which was more or less a foregone conclusion as he didn't bother to test enough of the games listed or sufficient resolutions and settings to come to that conclusion.
So what are you arguing now exactly? That the scores were an accurate indication of reality but the conclusion wasn?t? :roll:
What utter hair-splitting and semantic games on your part.
If they weren?t wrong then how come they didn?t mimic that of other sites?No the benchmark wasn't wrong,
If they weren?t wrong how come AT corrected them later and admitted they weren?t an accurate indication of the state of affairs?
More total hair-splitting, semantic games and trolling on your part.Derek simply didn't test thoroughly enough to come to the conclusion he came to and later corrected his mistake by testing more titles and more resolutions/settings, which was my point about it being the outlier all along.
Answer the question Chizow: was the initial review an accurate reflection of Big Bang or not?
Answer the question and stop trolling and playing semantic games.
Absolutely, namely the point that the initial figures weren?t a true indicator in relation to what others were getting, and neither was the conclusion. But given at this time you don?t even understand what?s being argued, it?s no wonder you?ve totally lost the plot and just keep typing simply because you can use a keyboard.Are you really going to get behind those benchmarks as evidence to back your point?
Your arguments are like a fish out of water: they keep flapping out of reflex but they never achieve anything useful.
Actually that comment doesn?t make any sense whatsoever and it?s not surprising given it mimics your state of understanding of the situation.Yep, I understand you claimed numerous times that ATI had better and more robust drivers based on your experience, and now you're claiming you bought another Nvidia part because Nvidia's drivers are better and more robust. Makes total sense.
Again, fuck the averages. Ignore them if you like. We?re focusing on the scores that don?t include nVidia?s cherry-picked games, and observing performance gains missed in many other reviews.No it shows averages can clearly be skewed by subjective selections that favor one vendor or another, which is why averages and aggregates should not be used as a cumulative indication of performance.
Why don?t you ask them? Perhaps they tested another benchmark. Anyone with the most basic level of benchmark understanding knows you can?t compare figures across reviews.As for it being a "fact", I'm not so sure of that given they couldn't even replicate their performance gains a day later:
Except those ?idiotic? comments were later backed by Derek and his peers (according to him).Afterward? No you made all those idiotic comments about ATI drivers being superior in your experience long before you touched a 4850, which was what? 4 years after the last ATI part you used?
Answer the question Chizow: did Derek end up backing my claims about ATi driver superiority on the early Vista days?
Yet after I refreshed my frame of reference you were still claiming I couldn?t make a comparison. Meanwhile your frame of reference stopped at the 9700 Pro but you were all too eager to make sweeping generalizations about the state of ATi?s monthly drivers.Its hilarious you're attempting to justify comments made years before you finally decided to refresh your frame of reference.
How is that relevant? He still ended up backing my claims and proved you wrong.Derek didn't even enter the discussion until months later.
Answer the question Chizow: did Derek end up backing my claims about ATi?s driver superiority during the early Vista days, thereby proving you wrong?
That?s another lie on your part. I frequently continued to use older ATi parts when I swapped them into my system for testing purposes. But keep digging that hole further for yourself.But nice try, you explicitly claimed your opinion was based on your experience despite the fact you hadn't used an ATI part in years.
You still can?t seem to understand Derek ended up backing my claims which proved you wrong.And there you go again, trying to clump experiences you didn't have with online feedback, which aren't your experiences. You still can't seem to make the distinction, but this isn't surprising given your comments about Vista, Nvidia drivers and hot fixes, as a devout XP user.
You still can?t seem to understand I have relevant experience with the 4850.
You still can?t seem to understand your frame of reference stopped at the 9700 Pro so you?re in no position to be commenting about the merits of monthly drivers.
You still can?t seem to understand your frame of reference stopped at the 9700 Pro so you?re in no position to be commenting about the state of running modern games on modern ATi parts.
You still can?t seem to understand your frame of reference stopped at the 9700 Pro so you?re in no position to be attempting to argue against my claims about driver comparisons.
So you admit I was right then and you were wrong, given Derek ended up backing my claims?I never refused to accept Derek's claims, as has already been linked for you.
You?re ?sure?? How exactly? Did you pull that certainty out of your orifice?And I haven't said anything about your 4850 experiences other than I'm sure the conclusion was predictable in order to justify previously ignorant comments.
I see Azn is now drilling you about your choice of hardware purchases. So Chizow tell me, how does it feel to have someone questioning your buying rationale when they clearly have no idea what they?re talking about?I also found it incredibly ironic and not surprisingly hypocritical that you would still choose to purchase an Nvidia part that was by most accounts inferior to the 4870 1GB based on criteria you've set. And now, you're claiming your decision was based on Nvidia having superior driver features?!?!? LMAO. We certainly have come full circle with your hypocrisy.
How does that medicine of yours taste, hmmm?
Right, you made idiotic comments, period.Again, the difference is, I didn't make an idiotic claim that the comments were based on my experience.
So again I?ll ask whether they backed my claims, thereby making me right and you wrong?And yes, quoting the likes of Anand, Derek, and now Jarred is certainly compelling testimony, as they're absolutely more qualified to comment than you given they actually have access and relevant experience with the hardware simultaneously at any given time, unlike you.
Pervasive to whom? Your haven?t touched an ATi part since 9700 Pro so how are they pervasive to you?I'm not making sweeping generalizations and these results don't seem to be the outlier, they're pervasive.
So working on a fix is bad now?As for your fixes...what's that supposed to mean other than they were already working on a fix?
It?s also been demonstrated that I?ve received fixes the very next month that I reported a problem. Maybe they were already working on a fix, maybe they weren?t. The point is the end result, which was a fix within one month of me reporting it.Its already been demonstrated numerous times and confirmed by ATI's own driver team that it would most likely take 2 months in order to get a fix in due to alternating driver trunks.
I?m honestly not sure. Has the physics freezing been fixed in Mirror?s Edge? Even after another emergency hot-fix for another TWIMTBP title (pervasive, to use your terms) Azn is still reporting freezes with PhysX enabled.Is FC2 studdering even fixed?
Obvious to whom? You?ve tried newer tiles on your 9700 Pro, have you? Or are you making sweeping generalizations again based on FC2, which many who actually use ATi parts clearly recognize as an outlier?Its possible Nvidia takes longer with fixes for legacy titles, but its also clearly obvious Nvidia has better support for new titles, a claim I made very early on.
I?ve used modern ATi hardware (at the time) to run launch titles (at the time) without issue while nVidia users had problems in some of those titles, especially many TWIMTBP titles.
You still don?t get it: new titles are very important to me, but so are old titles.No need to start this again, I know you prefer support for old titles and aren't like the majority of users who buy new video cards for new games, and that's fine.
But I had references, quotes and links to credible sources and you still denied them. You were claiming claptrap like ?they were caused by other things in the system?, ?they?re not nVidia problems? and even worse, outright denying them.That's nice, except my references, quotes and links to credible sources are always going to be more relevant than your non-concurrent experiences riddled with 3 year holes.
And this was still after I had linked to forum threads with multiple dozen pages replicating the problems on a range of systems, and even after quoting nVidia?s fixes in their own driver readme.