ATI Radeon 9800: [H]ardOCP Scews the Benchmarks (Again)

[Ketchup]

OK, I am a patient fellow. I laughed it off when HardOCP spread (and possibly started, but can't prove it) the rumor that nVidia was going to scrap the FX Ultra. I said "whatever" when they held to this idea even when nVidia released a statement against this accusation. But now, they have really done it, and I want the AT community to know about it.

HardOCP just posted a review of the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro. Too tired to read through it all tonight, I decide to skip to the benchmarks. It is here that I am greeted with the following message under the test setup: "NVIDIA GeForceFX 5800 ? An Ultra DOWNCLOCKED to 400/400 to represent retail level 5800 performance, using driver version 42.69."

OK, let me get this straight, they have an Ultra in their hands, but they DOWNCLOCKED it. Why? That is a good question! I know what they said, but I know that is not the reason. I mean, why in the world would someone do that? It makes absolutely no sense to me really, and re-inforces my feelings that ATI is giving HardOCP mucho dinero for this piece of work!

If anyone feels they can in some way think of any reason as to why in the world HardOCP would publish such screwed benchmarks, and how in the world they think they can justify such an act, please post your thoughts. Of course, all AT'ers are welcome to publish your thoughts.

 

[SmuvMoney]

I feel that tests should have been done for the GeFX Ultra clocks (500/1000) and the GeFX regular clocks (400/800). I somewhat agree with the inclusion of 400/800 benchies since the Ultra will not supposedly not be available in retail channels. However, I disagree with the complete omission of the Ultra benchies. For the record, do I think the 5800 Ultra would have beaten the 9800 Pro in benchmarks? Only without AA/AF or in very CPU-limited scenarios IMHO. However, I think it would have been a better overall comparison to have the #1 & #2 cards from both Nvidia (5800 Ultra/Regular) & ATI (9800 and 9700) represented.

 

[Glitchny]

Originally posted by: SmuvMoney
I feel that tests should have been done for the GeFX Ultra clocks (500/1000) and the GeFX regular clocks (400/800). I somewhat agree with the inclusion of 400/800 benchies since the Ultra will not supposedly not be available in retail channels. However, I disagree with the complete omission of the Ultra benchies. For the record, do I think the 5800 Ultra would have beaten the 9800 Pro in benchmarks? Only without AA/AF or in very CPU-limited scenarios IMHO. However, I think it would have been a better overall comparison to have the #1 & #2 cards from both Nvidia (5800 Ultra/Regular) & ATI (9800 and 9700) represented.

just look at anands for the ultra benches, and i agree that they should have included the card at ultra speeds

 

[jjjayb]

Kyle has already said that if he ever goes into a store and sees an ultra for sale, he will personally update the review with the ultra benchmarks. I have to agree with them on this and I think it showed a lot of courage to do it. Why include the benchmarks for a card that 99% of us will never be able to buy because they won't be available. If you haven't pre-ordered it, you ain't getting it. The ultra was nothing more than a few token cards produced purely for benchmarking to try and win the performance crown. I also don't think the Ultra benchmarks are reliable anyway. I've seen too many reports of the cards downclocking themselves to 2d 300/300 speeds when running benchmarks for reviews. What is this going to do for your gaming experience when your card automatically downclocks itself? The benchmarks in the reviews don't reflect this because when it happens they let the card cool down and rerun the benchmark discarding the score from the downclocked bench. I've already seen more than a few reviews that mentioned there cards did this when benching. If this is happening with a 2 minute benchmark, what is going to happen when you are playing ut2k3 for an hour? How many times is your card going to drop 40% of it's advertised speed when you are in the middle of an intense firefight? Nvidia are the ones that didn't want 3dmark03 used because they don't think it is indicitive of game performance. From what I can see, nothing will show the true gaming perfomance you will get with the 5800 Ultra. It all depends on how often it gets hot and downclocks itself to only 300/300.

 

[blindtothagame]

what are you saying that ANANDTECH is gettin mucho dinero from ATI????????
did they screw up on the benchmarks?????
it is what it is ATI 9800PRO N 9700PRO RULE!!!!!!!!!!!
FX SUKS..........

 

[Beaner]

I don't think they skewed the benchmarks at all.
The Radeon is simply a better card.

 

[ctk1981]

I have to agree with the last three guys. For one, why do a benchmark on a card that is pretty much non-existant for most of us. Its not like we can go into a store and get one. Or even buy one off the internet (maybe, doubtful). And this isnt going to change either, its not like the Ultra is going to ramp up production and start selling them like their other parts. Secondly, they got beat plain and simple. Hopefully nvidias next part will be a better performer/competitor.

Im just kinda bummed I have a 9700 Pro now. I want a 9800 dammit. AA/AF speed improvements...yes! The other day I played Unreal 2 on my GeForce Ti 500 and about cried. All the stupid jaggies, poor performance, ugly ugly IQ...ah well, luckily my 9500 Pro should be here today for that computer.

 

[308nato]

I 100% agree with how Brent and kyle did the review. Why go to the trouble of using benches from a card that only pre-ordered buyers will get. They are saddled with the card. Their shopping is done. The peep who is shopping for REAL comparisons to cards they can choose from at retail is much more useful as a tool.

As far as the rumor about the Ultra being scrapped......isn't it scrapped?

I'll let Kyle speak for himself....(from rage3D forums)...



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by typedef enum
I must commend you for doing the right thing. In fact, I bet you will be the only one (unless they all jump on the bandwagon) to do this.

I mean...it would have been like 3dfx comparing the V5-6000 to everything else...despite the fact it couldn't be purchased via retail channels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well I think it is important to focus on what is available in retail. While it is all fun for us guys to get together in all these forums and argue tech, it comes down to something very real. 99% of H readers just want to know what they CAN buy and what they will get if they do buy it.

I think we were the only site (so far that I have seen) to compare against the non-Ultra 5800 and not use the Ultra at all. There will be some folks that will not be happy about that at all. I guess maybe I will get out my "ATI-Ho" dress this week and wear it.


__________________
Kyle Bennett
WebMonger @ HardOCP.com
Purveyor of Smoothness @ Ratpadz.com

 

[Viremia]

It seems as though every site around has the 9800Pro up against the FX Ultra. So HardOCP decides to not follow the trend and just focus on a comparison between products that either are available or will be very soon.

What's the problem?

If you want to see a comparison between the Ultra and the 9800, look at AT.

If you want to see a comparison between the non-Ultra and the 9800, look at HardOCP.

It's not like the underclocked the Ultra and didn't tell you. If you don't like how they do their reviews, don't read them. They didn't SCEW anything. They told you what they were doing, what they were comparing, and why. Nothing wrong with either AT's review or HardOCP's.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Ctkelly


Im just kinda bummed I have a 9700 Pro now. I want a 9800 dammit. AA/AF speed improvements...yes! The other day I played Unreal 2 on my GeForce Ti 500 and about cried. All the stupid jaggies, poor performance, ugly ugly IQ...ah well, luckily my 9500 Pro should be here today for that computer.

I am totally NOT bummed that I have a 9700 pro. I debated a lot over whether to get it or wait on the NV30. I bought a r300 the first week it was out and man-o-man am I happy I did. The FX finally shows up and runs almost identical to the r300 plus an additional 40decibels . I've gotten to enjoy a new card this whole time while others were waiting on a disappointing FX to get released.

The 9800 looks like a good card but the 9700 is so fast it's almost a waste as it is. I might checkout the 256mb version of the 9800 when doom comes out.

I've also got a Ti500 on my 2nd computer. I'm still pretty happy with it too. U2k3 puts the hurting on it a bit but otherwise it still is a badass card to this day.

 

[Ketchup]

Hey Guys, I totally agree with you that the new Radeon kicks butt. My point is, it would have kicked butt even if they didn't downclock the card, so why did they feel they had too? The FX wasn't slow enough?

 

[308nato]

Kyle has stated why. What more do you need for an answer?

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: Ctkelly
I have to agree with the last three guys. For one, why do a benchmark on a card that is pretty much non-existant for most of us.

Hmm, well if they were going by the availabilty factor, then why did they review the 9800 RRO? Can you go out and buy one today?

 

[focusdchaos]

Originally posted by: ketchup79

Originally posted by: Ctkelly
I have to agree with the last three guys. For one, why do a benchmark on a card that is pretty much non-existant for most of us.

Hmm, well if they were going by the availabilty factor, then why did they review the 9800 RRO? Can you go out and buy one today?

Not today, but you will be able to. That is the diffrence. You will NEVER be able to buy the Ultra in a retail store.

Geez. Some people just don't get it.

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: focusdchaos

Originally posted by: ketchup79

Originally posted by: Ctkelly
I have to agree with the last three guys. For one, why do a benchmark on a card that is pretty much non-existant for most of us.

Hmm, well if they were going by the availabilty factor, then why did they review the 9800 RRO? Can you go out and buy one today?

Not today, but you will be able to. That is the diffrence. You will NEVER be able to buy the Ultra in a retail store.

Geez. Some people just don't get it.

Hmm, I was just over at nVidia's site, and couldn't find the press release saying they are not going to make the FX 5800 Ultra. Very strange. Somebody wanna find it for me?

 

[ctk1981]

Yea exactly, you WILL be able to buy a 9800 Pro soon. And its not like you're going to have to go hunt for one either.


I guess I need to rephrase my comment about my 9700 Pro. I love it really. Its just that it has spoiled me. I will never buy a video card again that cant do AA/AF with decent frame rates. Before the 9700 I played games and never even paid attention to the IQ. Now it matters very much!

Edit: I dont know if I can find the link or not, but I believe it was stated by Nvidia that it will be a low production part. They are pretty much filling the pre-orders and after that good luck finding one.

 

[Ketchup]

Edit: I dont know if I can find the link or not, but I believe it was stated by Nvidia that it will be a low production part. They are pretty much filling the pre-orders and after that good luck finding one.

I thought I remembered reading that too, but couldn't find it. Then I remembered, it was in a press release by BFG, the manufacturer who is going to be releasing the card at the retail level.

But as far as I know, I have not heard directly from nVidia or any of the other manufacturers that the FX 5800 Ultra is not going to be readily available at some point. Just the rumors everyone else has heard.

 

[Mangler]

SO Ketchup....

what do you do for a living?? lol

 

[Ketchup]

So Mangler, what does that have to do with anything? I'll tell you if you really wanna know, I am just curious as to why you ask?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: blindtothagame

what are you saying that ANANDTECH is gettin mucho dinero from ATI????????
did they screw up on the benchmarks?????
it is what it is ATI 9800PRO N 9700PRO RULE!!!!!!!!!!!
FX SUKS..........

FX does not suck. It is just not as good as ATI.

 

[Viremia]

Originally posted by: ketchup79Hmm, well if they were going by the availabilty factor, then why did they review the 9800 RRO? Can you go out and buy one today?

Try this link. They say, that they are in stock. Price is pretty steep, but they are apparently available.

9800 Pro

 

[KickItTwice]

While the 5800 ultra was probably just a desperate attempt to get the performance crown back from ATI, I wonder if it is just a fraudulent marketing ploy. Here we have all the review sites ( except HardOCP ) comparing the 5800 ultra to ATI's offerings. The 5800 ultra doesn't even exist as a product offering for me to choose from. My question is " Why do these review sites compare a video card that I will not be able to buy with one that will be available in mass quantities?"

 

[mamisano]

Originally posted by: Viremia

Originally posted by: ketchup79Hmm, well if they were going by the availabilty factor, then why did they review the 9800 RRO? Can you go out and buy one today?

Try this link. They say, that they are in stock. Price is pretty steep, but they are apparently available.

9800 Pro

Wow, they have a pretty good Reseller Rating too!

Upon further research, they look like a NewEgg subsidiary....Menuing system looks "similar".

 

[ctk1981]

Good find on the 9800 in stock...but uhh...I dont believe it! Isnt the 9800 supposed to be released later this month, not like...right now? Maybe Im wrong.


For a part that is supposed to be available, where the hell is the FX Ultra then? I mean, if they dont start pumping these things out very soon you might as well believe all those rumors then!

And the FX does not suck...it blows, get it right! If they wouldnt have put a leaf blower on it for a fan, not taken up two slots, and released the thing in a more timely manner...they probably wouldnt have gotten as much $hit as they have now. Im hoping they learn their lesson and design there next part a little bit better...maybe actually release the thing to the general public so any of us can go out and buy one at any given time.

Maybe the real good question here is....why didnt they just use a GeForce FX 5800 in the first place? They are available are they not? Course, I suppose the debate would have been why wasnt an ultra included then. Ah well!

 

[Keysplayr]

I dont understand. I am able to play UT2k3 on my GeForce2GTS 32MB without any problems. Sure, it's without AA and AF, but that is barely noticable to me anyways. The game plays at 800x600 on my rig very smoothly. I havent tried any higher resolutions because I am happy with what it is set to currently. Im sure if I went up it would cripple my card. What settings are you running on UT2003 and your GFTi500? Is everything set to high? or max res? AA and AF?
Just curious.

Keys