extensively updated Tom's Hardware Guide VGA Charts without Matrox ????

[Amiga Blitter]

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/index.html

[ZokesPro]

Tom's an ass.

Edit: It doesn't surprise me to find that he left out Matrox from the list. It's disappointing but not surprising.

[Guru]

mailto:lars@tomshardware.com

[Indiana]

Originally posted by Guru
mailto:lars@tomshardware.com

Yes, this is the email to use. And even if you're never getting an answer, the mails seem to be read.
Lars kept posting comparision charts which erraneously listed the GeForce4 as having two 400MHz RamDACs (it has 2x 350MHz), and I wrote a mail complaining about that after it was done again in the GF FX preview. He did not update/correct the GF FX preview and I never got an answer, but in the next review (the R9500/PRO one), the table suddenly was correct...

[Chrono_Wanderer]

we all know it's toms... no comment... stupid biased commercial site... a load of bulls*hit

but it doesn't surprise me either

[crow8k3a]

looks like the emails worked, they put it up on their site.

course they didn't bother to update some of the benches, and of course no FAA/ AA comparison, so all the tests are worthless to me. If possible i always run w/ FAA on. 8x6 FAA looks ton better than non FAA at 1024.

[Gohan]

But something must be wrong. Only 8200 3Dmarks? On a 3,06 Ghz System?!
On my P 2,4 i have reached allready 8500!
And look at JK2. The P is never slower than a GeForce2 Ti...

[Faramir1966]

They used only the oldest drivers as far as i remember......
Must have been those that came on that driver CD.......

[Faramir1966]

Oops...looks like i was wrong....they used the latest drivers.......
But then again........who cares whats Tom is saying.....?
At least not me......

[Reckless]

What r u lot upset about If you don't like Toms Hardware (or more to the point cannot see past some of the gloss...) then don't read the artices. Nearly all reviews are skewed in one way to suit whatever purpose. Yet another review running the same tests DOESN'T make the product any better (or worse). Unless there's a massive improvement in drivers I see no reason to restate what's already known about anything.

If you like the card you have (whatever that may be) and it does what you want then why should you care what anyone else says about it. If however you can't believe you wasted a truck load of hard earned cash on a p. o. s. then I recommend you dispose of it quickly and move on

[crow8k3a]

the reason you care what media says about it, is that the media controls whether a non-matrox fans consider buying a matrox card, because a large portion the mass majority does believe what the media says, especially in the computer industry.

I on the otherhand like matrox cards, and i want them to make money on them so that they can continue to produce the cards that i want.

Toms on the otherhand, doesn't seem to benchmark correctly, and or skews teh benchmarks. Such as in the previous benches w/ ut2k3 in his earlier article. my 1.3ghz system out performed his 2. some ghz p4 w/ parhlia and identical drivers, yah right, whatever tom.

if u don't have anything intellegent to say in these forums, please educate yourself, then come back later.

[Guru]

Take it easy already! His scores are just as "wrong" with the G-Fart cards!

[Reckless]

Originally posted by crow8k3a
if u don't have anything intellegent to say in these forums, please educate yourself, then come back later.

I'm well educated thankyou.

[borat]

calm down guys its only an article at toms its not like the entire matrox buying collective source their information from the site, and if the masses dont want matrox products there is a reason behind this(and its not marketing(though a small percentage of it is)). merry christmas and happy holidays.

[Guru]

Seams his ati scores are off aswell!