[wolf2009]

Ye!, looks like some guys have started discussing what could be potentially be a Fermi review. So looks like fermi reviews will arrive next week.

Watch this topic

Esp this post

Quote:

Want to hear about more fun? The package i was expecting (and waiting for) arrived today - at another city 70 miles away - it got misaddressed by the vendor and could not be corrected even though they assured me it was, last night . . . .my choice was to go and get it at the shipping facility today - or wait until Monday . . . so, i drove an extra 3 hours to get it this afternoon . . . btw it was worth it the things i do for love

 

[nathris]

Wow I'm surprised ABT got one. They are fairly new on the scene, and their test methodology is pretty bad (they are still using a Conroe dual core and if you ask them they will tell you its faster than a Core i7 920).

 

[Craiga35]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris Wow I'm surprised ABT got one. They are fairly new on the scene, and their test methodology is pretty bad (they are still using a Conroe dual core and if you ask them they will tell you its faster than a Core i7 920).

Lol, seriously? That's awful.

OT: Can't wait to see these, it will be the deciding factor if I get a fermi or 5800 series card.

EDIT: This isn't really news though since as of right now its just speculation. By a stronger nvidia card he could mean the GTX 295. It's probably Fermi, but until it is confirmed I wouldn't post this as news.

 

[wolf2009]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris Wow I'm surprised ABT got one. They are fairly new on the scene, and their test methodology is pretty bad (they are still using a Conroe dual core and if you ask them they will tell you its faster than a Core i7 920).

hmm. i guess this is what you are talking about E6850 bottleneck investigation but then look at this Intel i5 750 Performance Test.

But then on looking closer that's just one part of their reviews, I was reviews done with Core i7 920 in the testbed, eg. Core i7 vs. Penryn vs. Phenom II with HD 4870-X2 & TriFire.

Also to poster above me, this may not be news, but there was news that reviews were pushed back. But looks like they will be launching in 7 days time on the 26th when nvidia launches fermi at pax

 

[SkillzKillz]

Ah excellent. Can't wait.

 

[SUPER PISSED]

Oh good, news that news is coming next week..

 

[wolf2009]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUPER PISSED Oh good, news that news is coming next week..

lol, well said

 

[Mygaffer]

Pointless thread is pointless.

 

[Chucklez]

Quote:

i will be testing: HD 5870 HD 48780-X2 HD 4870 GTX 280 and probably another faster Nvidia card

Wait no 5970? Wish they would get one to test side by side with the GTX480, but ehh beggars cant be choosers.

Also Metro 2033 is a biased benchmark cause one again its a "Way its meant to be played" game so pointless IMO. Also no Heaven benchmark? All I can said is I think this will be a fail review to me.

 

[antuk15]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris Wow I'm surprised ABT got one. They are fairly new on the scene, and their test methodology is pretty bad (they are still using a Conroe dual core and if you ask them they will tell you its faster than a Core i7 920).

He tests graphics cards with average joe CPU's that average people are using, Not everyone runs a 4Ghz i7

 

[MrDeodorant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antuk15 He tests graphics cards with average joe CPU's that people are using, Not everyone runs a 4Ghz i7

That's like testing a car's maximum speed in a traffic jam because not everyone has access to racetracks.

 

[Eduardv]

Can't wait for this,at last we will see a glimpse on how much the GTX 480 will surpass the 5870,this depends on buying it or not

Crosses fingers

 

[sLowEnd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chucklez Also Metro 2033 is a biased benchmark cause one again its a "Way its meant to be played" game so pointless IMO. Also no Heaven benchmark? All I can said is I think this will be a fail review to me.

The system requirement label just oozes bias.

Quote:

Minimum System Requirements: - Dual core CPU (any Core 2 Duo or better will do) - DirectX 9, Shader Model 3 compliant graphics cards (GeForce 8800, GeForce GT220 and above) - 1GB RAM Recommended System Requirements: - Any Quad Core or 3.0+ GHz Dual Core CPU - DirectX 10 compliant graphics card (GeForce GTX 260 and above) - 2GB RAM Optimal System Requirements: - Core i7 CPU - NVIDIA DirectX 11 compliant graphics card (GeForce GTX 480 and 470) - As much RAM as possible (8GB+) - Fast HDD or SSD

Not a single mention of any AMD or ATI product anywhere

 

[Chucklez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sLowEnd The system requirement label just oozes bias. Not a single mention of any AMD or ATI product anywhere

Exactly which is why it should be disregarded and replaced by the Heaven Benchmark. True DX11 benchmark which favors neither company.

 

[Name Change]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eduardv Can't wait for this,at last we will see a glimpse on how much the GTX 480 will surpass the 5870,this depends on buying it or not Crosses fingers

Amazing post as usual there Eduardv..

Hope it lives up the hype. So it can drop prices on 5870 or I may snag one of these.

 

[thegreatsquare]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris Wow I'm surprised ABT got one. They are fairly new on the scene, and their test methodology is pretty bad (they are still using a Conroe dual core and if you ask them they will tell you its faster than a Core i7 920).

Actually, I agree with their outlook on testing. I don't think they actually said the Conroe is faster, but that for gaming it is still more than adequate. And the E6850 they still pull out is more than adequate for gaming. As I do almost all my gaming on my laptop with a P8400 2.26GHz and 3MB cache, I know this is true. And they like to test CPUs at GPU dependent resolutions which is more useful.

Nobody with an i7 is gaming at 1280x1024 so why compare it to other CPUs at that resolution? Too bad that 1200p makes the difference between an old E6850 or an Athlon X4 630 and a i7 965 negligible. It's not their fault you can't comprehend that you really only need to buy a $99 Quad and some DDR3 RAM and throw all your e-peen into the best GPU all the other corners you cut could allow. If gaming is all, that's all you need to do. The rest is just cake.

 

[antuk15]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDeodorant That's like testing a car's maximum speed in a traffic jam because not everyone has access to racetracks.

No he's being realistic

People who compare cars to computers are silly...

 

[ljason8eg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antuk15 No he's being realistic People who compare cars to computers are silly...

No, actually he has a point. It's a GPU test. The CPU should be as fast as possible to remove any possibility of a bottleneck.

 

[MrDeodorant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antuk15 No he's being realistic People who compare cars to computers are silly...

Actually, that's the key to selling computers to the uninformed: make it a car analogy.

And let's be fair, a lot of people get stuck in traffic, and may want to know how their car will respond in such 'real-world' situations.

Finally, it's a little redundant to point out that a reductio ad absurdum is silly.

 

[Distaste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chucklez Exactly which is why it should be disregarded and replaced by the Heaven Benchmark. True DX11 benchmark which favors neither company.

While I do think they should be using multiple games/benches, I don't think it's fair to disregard it. NVidia's support to game developers, paid off or not, is one of the perks of buying their cards. Same goes for physX as well. If a bench that has physx does it with it disabled to be "fair" then it is biased and needs disregarded.

I understand using neutral games but you also need to test games that favor both sides. If you don't then you truly aren't showing real world performance. In the real world not every game is neutral and knowing how the cards perform in those biased games is important.