Toms Hardware = n00b bait

Lets not forget that that Tom's guide is an enormous undertaking. Have you ever seen any other site that has a list of basically every video card from the 7300LE all the way to 8800Ulta in one big list?? And one you can highlight and switch between many different games, resolutions and tests?! Its actually an amazing recourse and you should not expect it to be as accurate as a detailed test done between just a few cards like most benchmarks are. I think it is very well done and more than expectable accurate for most of the major cards considering what it is and entails.

Again comparing it to Anandtech seems to support this.

[QUOTE="wklzip"][QUOTE="Store24"]

Well here you go, using your own site against you.

AnandTech Oblivion Benchmarks - http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=6

Toms - http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=858&model2=713&chart=309

They are using different measuring systems but the both show the same thing in 1024x768 - 8600GTS > 7950GT > 8600GT.

LOL You guys are pathetic...

Store24

The only difference is that Anandtech used ultra high settings without AA+AF, tomshardware used 4AA+8AF and that is true, oblivion is more shader intensive. The 8600gts> 7950gt> 8600gt is known everywhere. what people are laughing at stuff like "x850xt is performing better than the 7800gtx".

Well here are the Anandtech Oblivion benches, they dont have the X850XT but they do have the X1800XT and it is just about exactly the same difference from the 7800GTX that Toms shows even though the nubers are different.

Anandtech - http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2746&p=4

Toms - http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=854&model2=726&chart=296

Again I'm not seeing any glaring differences between these two tests. Certainly nothing to just blast Toms over, if anything this again just supports the accuracy of toms.

And to the two name callers, do you see how I'm doing this? I'm actually providing links to actual benchmark pages and talking about the numbers in a rational manner. Not just throwing out general site names and saying "your a noob because these guys are better". I'm actually comparing them line for line, something you apparently have not actually done.

You're completely missing the point here.

The problem is that: Tom's Hardware fails to realise that changes in performance and hardware occurs over time and that they fail to record these changes. Where as other tech sites don't archive results and nstead record benchmarks monthly or so (with updated hardware/software), Tom's hardware simply records the performance of a product at launch and only sparsely (if ever) update their charts.

Tom's hardware is only reliable when they record the performance of hardware at the same time as other tech sites. For example; if anandtech and TH both receive the HD 2900 XT at launch and they both run the same benchmarks (and they get similar results), then we can say that both sites are reliable. However, this is when TH falls behind--TH records the performance of the 2900 XT at that moment and inputs the data into their VGA charts for future reference.

Now, it's been more than a few months since the 2900 XT's launch, and drivers have improved drastically. Tech sites such as anandtech do an update of the 2900 XT (not as the primary focus, but as side focus to say a card like the 8600 GTS/HD 2600 XT GDDR4) with improved drivers in hand for everyone to reference to. TH, however, do not correct their VGA charts to show improvements in performance due to a faster CPU/RAM/mobo/driver package, and simply continue to reference their initial performance numbers.

TH records data records data as at such a date, and continue to use those numbers in their VGA charts (they may update sometimes, but they don't update all cards with respect to each new driver/CPU/RAM/mobo release) for the rest of the product's life. This is simply inaccurate and where most critisism lies.
Other sites provide benchmarks through time as faster products are released that improve overall performance of the video card.

It is hard to find exact benchmarks, but I would insist on you finding benchmarks between TH's performance of the 2900 XT and another site's performance of the 2900 XT after 7.8 or 7.9 w/hotfix drivers.

Have you guys heard of cross referencing? I mean taking info from one site when there are ton of others doesn't make you smart...modai119

Exactly and I have always done that. But around here if you reference just Toms with a link to show one card is better at most games then another, without taking the time to list all the other sites you also looked up, you get called a noob.

Toms is just the easiest to reference and is certainly accurate enough to give people a general idea about most cards.

[QUOTE="Store24"][QUOTE="wklzip"][QUOTE="Store24"]

Well here you go, using your own site against you.

AnandTech Oblivion Benchmarks - http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=6

Toms - http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=858&model2=713&chart=309

They are using different measuring systems but the both show the same thing in 1024x768 - 8600GTS > 7950GT > 8600GT.

LOL You guys are pathetic...

Wesker776

The only difference is that Anandtech used ultra high settings without AA+AF, tomshardware used 4AA+8AF and that is true, oblivion is more shader intensive. The 8600gts> 7950gt> 8600gt is known everywhere. what people are laughing at stuff like "x850xt is performing better than the 7800gtx".

Well here are the Anandtech Oblivion benches, they dont have the X850XT but they do have the X1800XT and it is just about exactly the same difference from the 7800GTX that Toms shows even though the nubers are different.

Anandtech - http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2746&p=4

Toms - http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=854&model2=726&chart=296

Again I'm not seeing any glaring differences between these two tests. Certainly nothing to just blast Toms over, if anything this again just supports the accuracy of toms.

And to the two name callers, do you see how I'm doing this? I'm actually providing links to actual benchmark pages and talking about the numbers in a rational manner. Not just throwing out general site names and saying "your a noob because these guys are better". I'm actually comparing them line for line, something you apparently have not actually done.

You're completely missing the point here.

The problem is that: Tom's Hardware fails to realise that changes in performance and hardware occurs over time and that they fail to record these changes. Where as other tech sites don't archive results and nstead record benchmarks monthly or so (with updated hardware/software), Tom's hardware simply records the performance of a product at launch and only sparsely (if ever) update their charts.

Tom's hardware is only reliable when they record the performance of hardware at the same time as other tech sites. For example; if anandtech and TH both receive the HD 2900 XT at launch and they both run the same benchmarks (and they get similar results), then we can say that both sites are reliable. However, this is when TH falls behind--TH records the performance of the 2900 XT at that moment and inputs the data into their VGA charts for future reference.

Now, it's been more than a few months since the 2900 XT's launch, and drivers have improved drastically. Tech sites such as anandtech do an update of the 2900 XT (not as the primary focus, but as side focus to say a card like the 8600 GTS/HD 2600 XT GDDR4) with improved drivers in hand for everyone to reference to. TH, however, do not correct their VGA charts to show improvements in performance due to a faster CPU/RAM/mobo/driver package, and simply continue to reference their initial performance numbers.

TH records data records data as at such a date, and continue to use those numbers in their VGA charts (they may update sometimes, but they don't update all cards with respect to each new driver/CPU/RAM/mobo release) for the rest of the product's life. This is simply inaccurate and where most critisism lies.
Other sites provide benchmarks through time as faster products are released that improve overall performance of the video card.

It is hard to find exact benchmarks, but I would insist on you finding benchmarks between TH's performance of the 2900 XT and another site's performance of the 2900 XT after 7.8 or 7.9 w/hotfix drivers.

LMAO!!! :lol:

Oh my...

[QUOTE="Wesker776"][QUOTE="Store24"][QUOTE="wklzip"][QUOTE="Store24"]

Well here you go, using your own site against you.

AnandTech Oblivion Benchmarks - http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=6

Toms - http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=858&model2=713&chart=309

They are using different measuring systems but the both show the same thing in 1024x768 - 8600GTS > 7950GT > 8600GT.

LOL You guys are pathetic...

Store24

The only difference is that Anandtech used ultra high settings without AA+AF, tomshardware used 4AA+8AF and that is true, oblivion is more shader intensive. The 8600gts> 7950gt> 8600gt is known everywhere. what people are laughing at stuff like "x850xt is performing better than the 7800gtx".

Well here are the Anandtech Oblivion benches, they dont have the X850XT but they do have the X1800XT and it is just about exactly the same difference from the 7800GTX that Toms shows even though the nubers are different.

Anandtech - http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2746&p=4

Toms - http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=854&model2=726&chart=296

Again I'm not seeing any glaring differences between these two tests. Certainly nothing to just blast Toms over, if anything this again just supports the accuracy of toms.

And to the two name callers, do you see how I'm doing this? I'm actually providing links to actual benchmark pages and talking about the numbers in a rational manner. Not just throwing out general site names and saying "your a noob because these guys are better". I'm actually comparing them line for line, something you apparently have not actually done.

You're completely missing the point here.

The problem is that: Tom's Hardware fails to realise that changes in performance and hardware occurs over time and that they fail to record these changes. Where as other tech sites don't archive results and nstead record benchmarks monthly or so (with updated hardware/software), Tom's hardware simply records the performance of a product at launch and only sparsely (if ever) update their charts.

Tom's hardware is only reliable when they record the performance of hardware at the same time as other tech sites. For example; if anandtech and TH both receive the HD 2900 XT at launch and they both run the same benchmarks (and they get similar results), then we can say that both sites are reliable. However, this is when TH falls behind--TH records the performance of the 2900 XT at that moment and inputs the data into their VGA charts for future reference.

Now, it's been more than a few months since the 2900 XT's launch, and drivers have improved drastically. Tech sites such as anandtech do an update of the 2900 XT (not as the primary focus, but as side focus to say a card like the 8600 GTS/HD 2600 XT GDDR4) with improved drivers in hand for everyone to reference to. TH, however, do not correct their VGA charts to show improvements in performance due to a faster CPU/RAM/mobo/driver package, and simply continue to reference their initial performance numbers.

TH records data records data as at such a date, and continue to use those numbers in their VGA charts (they may update sometimes, but they don't update all cards with respect to each new driver/CPU/RAM/mobo release) for the rest of the product's life. This is simply inaccurate and where most critisism lies.
Other sites provide benchmarks through time as faster products are released that improve overall performance of the video card.

It is hard to find exact benchmarks, but I would insist on you finding benchmarks between TH's performance of the 2900 XT and another site's performance of the 2900 XT after 7.8 or 7.9 w/hotfix drivers.

LMAO!!! :lol:

Oh my...

What a wonderful and thought out response. :roll:

It seems like AMD cards are the ones that end up getting the shaft. They must have had some SERIOUS driver issues, as you can hardly find a 2900XT review that doesn't get clobbered by the 8800GTS (all the reviews are old). Now that the 2900Pro has proven slightly more than the GTS' equal, the 2900XT should be a much better card than advertised. I really wish people would update their reviews more often, especially with the release of new graphics-intensive games. I really don't care about getting 120fps vs 100fps on HL2; I care about getting 60fps vs 50fps in WiC and Bioshock.

It's MUCH more important to get reliable reviews than to have reviews with a lot of bells and whistles. And it's not just tomshardware, it's a lot of sites that give pretty shady benchmarks, and it kinda pisses me off. That's why I like forums. Despite arguments/flammers, you're going to get the best assessment of videocards right here. :)

I'm gonna make you all LULZ at Tom and his pathetic charts:

But then again,practically all benchmarks from review sites are absolute crap.

Indestructible2

I have been quite pleased with Toms Hardware over the years, and their numbers are not far off. Also, I'm not about to listen to any individual that uses "LULZ" or misspells "crapt." Besides, all you have shown us is one chart containing the fps each card was able to run at and their settings. It did not include the system they were using to run the game.

I play Oblivion with my pc(see it on my blog), on these settings I go more than 10 FPS I swear!

I don't know what this test is, but it sucks!

[QUOTE="Store24"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"]

8600GTS ahead of 8800GTS? 7600GS close to X1900GT? LULZ!

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=858&model2=713&chart=291

Indestructible2

No the 8600GTS is the very same as the 8800GTS. That that is MS Flight Sim X evenyone knows that game is all screwed up on all cards.

Give it up, I dont even know what you are trying to prove. You are just kind of embarrassing yourself...

8800GTS a high end card? its a mid-high end card imo. price point and power determine this for me. anyway thodid you look at that 8600GTS? the core clock is set at 675mHz and the RAM at 2016mhz! i call BS as well. great find man. Tom = Fail.

8800GTS a high end card? its a mid-high end card imo. price point and power determine this for me. anyway thodid you look at that 8600GTS? the core clock is set at 675mHz and the RAM at 2016mhz! i call BS as well. great find man. Tom = Fail.

Rhamsus

Last time I checked the 8800GTS was a high-end card with only the GTX/Ultra topping it.

Those are indeed the core and memory reference speeds for a 8600GTS:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce8.html

Don't you see that FS X is limited by the CPU on all video cards above the 7600GT at that resolution?

I wonder who fails at what here.

[QUOTE="Rhamsus"]

8800GTS a high end card? its a mid-high end card imo. price point and power determine this for me. anyway thodid you look at that 8600GTS? the core clock is set at 675mHz and the RAM at 2016mhz! i call BS as well. great find man. Tom = Fail.

Gog

Last time I checked the 8800GTS was a high-end card with only the GTX/Ultra topping it.

Those are indeed the core and memory reference speeds for a 8600GTS:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce8.html

Don't you see that FS X is limited by the CPU on all video cards above the 7600GT at that resolution?

I wonder who fails at what here.

Totally agree with you.

[QUOTE="Rhamsus"]

8800GTS a high end card? its a mid-high end card imo. price point and power determine this for me. anyway thodid you look at that 8600GTS? the core clock is set at 675mHz and the RAM at 2016mhz! i call BS as well. great find man. Tom = Fail.

Gog

Last time I checked the 8800GTS was a high-end card with only the GTX/Ultra topping it.

Those are indeed the core and memory reference speeds for a 8600GTS:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce8.html

Don't you see that FS X is limited by the CPU on all video cards above the 7600GT at that resolution?

I wonder who fails at what here.

GeForce
8600 GTS

Core Clock (MHz)675

Shader Clock (MHz)1450

Memory Clock (MHz)1000

where are you getting 2016MHz from? am i missing something here as my bro's PC uses them and they do not even overclock that high.

and as i said In My Opinion i do notconsider it as high end. high end in my eyes is 400 price point or higher, but thats my opinion.

[QUOTE="Gog"][QUOTE="Rhamsus"]

8800GTS a high end card? its a mid-high end card imo. price point and power determine this for me. anyway thodid you look at that 8600GTS? the core clock is set at 675mHz and the RAM at 2016mhz! i call BS as well. great find man. Tom = Fail.

Rhamsus

Last time I checked the 8800GTS was a high-end card with only the GTX/Ultra topping it.

Those are indeed the core and memory reference speeds for a 8600GTS:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce8.html

Don't you see that FS X is limited by the CPU on all video cards above the 7600GT at that resolution?

I wonder who fails at what here.

GeForce
8600 GTS

Core Clock (MHz)675

Shader Clock (MHz)1450

Memory Clock (MHz)1000

where are you getting 2016MHz from? am i missing something here as my bro's PC uses them and they do not even overclock that high.

and as i said In My Opinion i do notconsider it as high end. high end in my eyes is 400 price point or higher, but thats my opinion.

Yo man MEMORY CLOCK EFFECTIVE SPEED IS 2000MHz DDR (1000MHz) of 8600GTS.

DDR3 = Double Data Rate Version 3. That mean 2000MHz not 1000MHz

Also OBLIVION is a SHADER INTENSIVE GAME

never really followed up in this thread but i laugh...because we're all trying to give our input on these charts and yet...have all of us gone out and tested every card on the market with the setup any hardware review site...lol and we still, including i, post our opinion. Our and everyone else's opinion is VOIDmrhankeydinks

Why did you bumped this thread? u.u

[QUOTE="mrhankeydinks"]never really followed up in this thread but i laugh...because we're all trying to give our input on these charts and yet...have all of us gone out and tested every card on the market with the setup any hardware review site...lol and we still, including i, post our opinion. Our and everyone else's opinion is VOIDwklzip

Why did you bumped this thread? u.u

What do you expect? It's a business. Like Television and radio. Do you think Tom's hardware was started for kicks and giggles? It's all for pointless a fun? I time wasting extravaganza? Some sort of escapade?

It's sponsored by manufacturers, distributors, publishers and vendors whom wish to promote and sell product. So if Tom's hardware wants to continue getting paid he best tell you to buy what he was paid to tell his viewers to buy.

"GEE, I'M BORED!! I know what I will do. I will purchase and review hardware and all of the expenses will come out of MY pocket. And I will do this for kicks & giggles because the thought of random strangers investing their money into the wrong hardware will keep me from sleeping at night." I seriously doubt that's how Tom's hardware was founded.

Hey,there's quite a few people here on GS and at overclock.net who post these half-assed charts whenever people ask about grafx cards.

Indestructible2

To be quite honest (I don't visit overclock.net, so I know nothing about that spot) I haven't seen anyone on GS post these charts before....that is, until now when you had to bring it to everyone's attention because you seem to have something against Tom's Hardware.

Let it go. If you don't like what the charts offer, then ignore them. There's not sense in trying to bash someone's good nature. Tom's Hardware runs the benchmarks and records the info. Then it all gets posted. If you don't like the results, you're more then welcome to run your own.

Who cares? It still gives you a baseline to compare one card to another. While the FPS #s are off the rankings and general difference between the cards is generally correct.

And Yeah I played Oblivion for months on a 6800GT at 1280x1024and it was really good. But I played it in bloom with medium settings and grass turned all the way off. It was totally unplayable in HDR and with max settings that probably wouldn't be too far off.

Store24

funny i have a far slower proc and same gfx card, 6800gt and had hdr and some grass

[QUOTE="mrhankeydinks"]never really followed up in this thread but i laugh...because we're all trying to give our input on these charts and yet...have all of us gone out and tested every card on the market with the setup any hardware review site...lol and we still, including i, post our opinion. Our and everyone else's opinion is VOIDwklzip

Why did you bumped this thread? u.u

It's fun to rekindle fierce flames