Originally Posted by xxbassplayerxx
Wait wait wait wait... This site is and always has been an absolute 100% joke to me. Of all the sites I think are horrible, this one takes the cake (even moreso than .
This is the site that gives every
item they test at least a 9/10 and
gives it an award...
They have absolutely NO room to criticize other websites. Manufacturers and vendors only send products to Hardware Heaven for the awards.
Firstly, thanks all for the interesting discussion, there have been some good points made...
Regarding the above post, thanks for the feedback, i could quote review after review where we haven't given an award or have criticised a product but equally you could post a bunch where we gave out praise on something you might not have liked. So its probably more useful to address the issue of review samples as a whole and basically I would say that most sites reviews tend towards more positive (and award giving) than negative. Not because they are biased, scared of loosing money, etc but because manufacturers will rarely send out rubbish to get reviewed.
Does that mean the products everyone reviews are not worthy of awards? No. Is it an ideal situation, no. Its one of the reasons that in our upcoming site redesign we will be refreshing how we conclude articles and that may result in ratings/awards going. (I'm kind of undecided about that because for all I don't tend to care about scores in reviews I read, I know some do get value from them. There may be a happy medium somewhere...)
Originally Posted by peterbazooka
Whats so funny about this post is that I do not trust their website. I have been reading reviews for awhile and a lot of times they have the first reviews posted and to me they read more like glorified advertising than actual reviews. Before I quit reading their reviews I did not find them particularly useful for comparison, did not find them in depth enough, and did not think they would bring up issues or problems. I had an Alienware M11x (that is no longer made
) I had an r1 and when the r2 came out there were talks of it on the forums not being much faster because of cpu throttling and issues with optimus. So what does hardware heaven's extensive 20 page review say about it? They had exactly one slide with 2 tests made showing direct cpu computational power but no gaming comparison tests. And trying to manually compare the two reviews was only partly useful because some tests were not the same. It was all about how great the new one was but for me I could not use their 2 reviews to decide if I should upgrade...Utterly useless. Then only 14 months after the R1 and 8 months after the r2 the M11x R3 was released, it was the biggest change of all finally offering a significant gpu upgrade and the test suite between the R1->R2->R3 was so vastly different that no direct gaming (the reason for this laptop in the first place) could be made. It was all about how great the new dx11 gpu performed....advertising
To address the comment on our Alienware review. While i disagree with some of that post it does highlight one of the few problems with brand new testing for each review. If you have a new product, e.g. the R2 and don't happen to have a R1 kicking about then you cant compare. (And on that occasion we did ask Alienware for an R1 to use but they had none available). In more recent laptop reviews we have had other samples available on occasion, or more to the point, relevant samples and they have included comparisons. (E.g. Lenovo's Ideapad U410 vs Dells XPS13). I'd argue though that while there are occasions where we don't have a relevant comparison we are the only site (or one of a few) who takes the time to do things like test the performance of the USB 3.0 controller in each laptop.
This is where reading multiple quality reviews comes into play. Not saying things are perfect, but you work within limitations to the best of your ability... and we have some new stuff planned for future laptop reviews which will improve them too. Always an evolving process.
Originally Posted by ahnafakeef
I get it if this is pointed towards the review sites (to remove bottlenecks etc). But if a 3570K does not bottleneck a single Titan and performs the same as the 3770K ( at least in games that cannot use HT, which is almost every game nowadays except Crysis 3), then why is it silly for an end user to get a 3570K and a Titan?
No offense or anything, but it would help me understand your statement if you explained the reasoning behind it. Thank you!
As the article showed, the use of a i5 vs i7 can swing results by 10-20fps on a high end GPU.