WTF? THG Radeon Xpress Chipset overview?

[Crashman]

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20041108/radeon_xpress-07.html" target="_new">In view of the rest of the article, does this configuration page make sense?</A>

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[snotling]

makes sense if you want to compare the chipset with others...

what's your point?

if you want my opinion on the article, I think I've seen better on this website in the past and that the anandtech article on the same topic yesterday was a whole lot better.

half of the benchmarking is irrelevant.

one of them is why compare the integrated graphics with an X600xt when it's an X300SE look-alike on board? the differences are so great they're ridiculous and useless.

the same could be said of OpenGL results comparison of a system equipped with an X600xt to others using 6800GTs?

Everything about 3D should have been done without the X600xt...

Anyways, with the memory controler on die, All boards are so close in performance that pretty much every AMD64 benchmark is boring. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by snotling on 11/09/04 04:41 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Crashman]

What about the various cards used? Obviously they didn't show what cards were used on which system in most of the tests, and the cards were widely varied in performance!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[snotling]

I think all systems were tested with 6800GTs and only the R-E 200 with an X600xt...

but I can only go as far as guessing because that's the only way they could have done it and keep making a minimum of sense.

 

[Vapor]

I think all systems were tested with 6800GTs and only the R-E 200 with an X600xt...

but I can only go as far as guessing because that's the only way they could have done it and keep making a minimum of sense.

If so...why?! The review was to give a preview of what to expect from ATi's Chipset...and equiping it with a different video card from the rest pretty much invalidates half the data!!

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

 

[snotling]

I guess it was that way:

NF3+GF6800GT
K8T800+GF6800GT
RX200+GF6800GT

and the irrelevant: RX200+X600xt

comparing the first three makes sense but like I said, with the memory controler on Die, all chipsets are bound to offer similar performance.

Chipset comparison (for A64) should focus on features and hardware compatibility.

 

[Vapor]

I'm pretty sure it was that way for some benching and this way for most other parts:

NF3+GT
VIA+GT
ATi+XT
ATi+IGP

If you look at AT's review closer, you realize that there is a significant amount of performance in the chipset...and ATi very fast. I did not get a sense of success (on ATi's part) with THG's review.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.