Gfx reviews by amateurs

[Novdid]

Don´t you just hate it when amateurs write a review that totally makes you mad and makes you wonder why people in some cases follow their advises?

(No I am not saying that you the enlightened MURCers follow their advises)

Read this! http://www.hardavenue.com/reviews/3d4500.shtml

On the second page the man claims that Kyro II does hardware FSAA that is soooo much better than software FSAA. It is maybe true that hardware AA is superior to software AA, but when did Kyro perform AA in hardware. If I am correct the Kyro performs usual supersampling like Radeon and the Gefarts.

Why it does it so fast compared to the MX is the fact that FSAA in a low resolution like 640x480 in 4x supersampling is rendered effectively in 1280x960. (You can also say that each frame is rendered four times.)

That leads to the conclusion that if he would post results at resolutions above 1024x768 (a resolution which Kyro II already blows the MX away) the Kyro will get framerates that in some cases is more than double than those of the MX. You can get a hunch of that in the FSAA tests.

With the help of his results he later concludes that the MX overall is faster than a Kyro II.

He sais: "Geforce2 MX card is a little faster in most tasks yet cheaper."

He doesn´t even say in which color depth he tests the cards. Well in Q3A we know which depth normal and HQ is but we don´t get any info about the settings in Serious Sam and 3dmark2001 (which I think is default setting 1024x768x32)

These things makes me so mad. And you who say that Tom and Anand don´t know what they are saying (that is maybe true), they atleast know a lot more than these losers out there.

[CHHAS]

That's about the worst review I've ever read

[Maggi]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">- Geforce2 MX card is a little faster in most tasks yet cheaper</font>

interesting how he ignored that in almost all of his 1024x768 benchmarks, the KyroII slams the GF2-MX so hard, it ain't funny anymore ..

Well, I admit, it is funny to see the KyroII performing so much better than the MX.

[Novdid]

I think he is getting money from Nvidia.

But why did he post the FSAA scores and the benches at 1024. He should have stayed in 640x480 to shine some more light on the MX.

[dZeus]

Doesn't the Kyro-2 use multi-sampling FSAA and not Super-sampling FSAA ?

At least, that's what I thought

[Novdid]

I think it is supersampling and not multisampling.

At least according to Anand. He´s usually correct in these sort of things.

[This message has been edited by Novdid (edited 23 April 2001).]

[Nuno]

Lately I tend to be a little KyroII biased, but generally speaking the review is so bad that it hurts.

I din´t think he´s getting any money from anybody, he´s just lazy or plain dumb.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">This is infact the first and only test used in this review that utilises Direct 3D rendering.</font>

SO that´s actually a good thing?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">In both 16bit and 32bit the Herc MX has an advantage over the Herc 4500. I really believe that this is primarily based on the fact that the Herc 4500's drivers aren't quite optimized for DX8 yet.</font>

Of course, next DX8 Kyro drivers will unleash all the DX7 T&L power that the mighty 3dmarks use... LOL

[CHHAS]

Reply from the author of the review:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Hi,
I'm sorry you found my review the "worst ever", please remind me to read your next review, why don't you.
I didn't get the chance to read every post here, please reply or email me if you want to discuss something.

Yes, it is easy to critisice others work, very easy. The use of a 700mhz pc has given me nothing but people telling me how unfair it was for the kyro II etc etc. If it wasn't designed for a budget pc hercules shouldn't of had advertised the fact it is for budget gamers.

I apologize I had no other card to compare, I only had a GF2 MX on me at the time, and I only had the card for 4 days (it goes to many magazines/sites after me etc.).

"Also nice how he stopped benching at the resolution where we are still largely CPU limited"

Again, I ran short here. I only had a POS 15" monitor available at the time that maxed out @ 1024x768.


------------------
Nathan "nza" Davison
Hardware Avenue www.hardavenue.com
</font>

From the thread here : http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/noncgi...ML/002655.html

[Gurm]

Mail him and invite him to read THIS thread. Or to come in here or to our IRC channel. We can easily explain to him why his review sucked. We can even be nice about it. He probably just has no clue about writing reviews. (Although why he got a pre-release Prophet 4500 is beyond my understanding...)

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Novdid]

I didn´t know that the folks over at Beyond3d also disliked the review.

That shows how bad it really was.

[CHHAS]

I posted the link to the review after seeing your post here

[Nzaweird]

*sigh*

Ok, fire away. Please reread the sections that you found incorrect (as i updated the review a bit e.g. made myself more clear).

I know by running a site like mine I am vulnerable to this sort of stuff, but please remember im not out there to cause a stir. The review is the way ive seen it and thats that. Don't like it, then email me or where i can see it (e.g. my forums), not asking these questions directly to me is unfair and pointless.

Cheers.


------------------
Nathan "nza" Davison
Hardware Avenue
www.hardavenue.com

[Gurm]

Who wants dibs? I'd do it but you all know me... I'd be a little... abrupt.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Novdid]

It´s good of you to come to these forums and ask us to talk directly to you. I have to give you credit for that.

I just think the review could have been more correct, from a technology view.

[Maggi]

Nice draw, Nzaweird !

you're actually the first reviewer that cares about feedback !

imho, it's not really "up-to-date", to benchmark those cards @ 1024x768 and below, but since you now explained that your monitor maxes out at that res, you had no better choice.

This is problematic (?) when it comes to display quality, cos when your monitor is that old, you cannot draw any valid conclusion about its visuals.

Besides that, one of the major benefits of HSR is that you won't be trapped in overdraw, killing all available bandwidth in higher resolutions and thus the KyroII would have slammed the MX in 1280 and beyond.

If you find the time and are willing to rework your review further, I definately recommend to use a newer monitor, run all benches in 1280 & 1600, have a close look at the visual quality (2D & 3D) and then make a final conclusion.

I very much apreciate your effort !



Cheers,
Maggi