Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

THG RD580 review......Sad, Sad, Sad

Tags:
  • Motherboards
  • Overclocking
Last response: in Overclocking
Share
March 5, 2006 1:13:09 PM

I can not believe this that THG would sink this low again and again and again.

It appears that maybe somebody is paying somebody to mislead the users of ATI products or anyone considering doing so.

This review has to be the worst biased review I have ever seen in my 30 odd years.

I have a Opteron 146 build @ 2950 mhz
OCZ PC4000 2GB Kit 2x 1024 Gold Edition @ 3-4-4-6 timings @ DDR 536.
I am running A DFI SLI-DR mobo
ATI Original X1900XT..... yes only one card for now.
250GB SATA II Seagate

In Fear with all maximum settings and the DX8 shader option is off and the one just below it is OFF.

The rest of the settings is either ON or set to Maximum and at 1600 x 1200 4AA/16AF and the Effects are even at Maximum settings and multi is at 10 x 295 and DDR is at 1T command rate..... 180 settings ASYNC.

Computer setting in fear is set to Maximum

Toms has to be the worst review place I have come to in the past 5 years.

This is outragous....

I get AVERAGE 54 Frames per second using the FEAR INTERNAL testing program.

Yes 1 card
Yes at 2950mhz
Yes all maximum settings
yes DDR 536.....2GB KIT OCZ GOLD EDITION EL
Yes 1T command rate
Yes ASYC 180 setting
Yes one HD SATA II

I am getting one of these boards the ASUS A8R32-MVP Deluxe hopefully Tommorow and I will test it and hope to show some SERIOUS NVIDIA ASS WOOPING.

More about : thg rd580 review sad sad sad

March 5, 2006 1:28:26 PM

By the way look at firing squads

1600 x 1200 4AA/16AF frames they got with 2 cards X1900XT/X1900XTX = 65 frames.

Now between Medium and Maximum settings the Frame drop on medium is about 5 frames less.....so if firing squad was on medium settings.....then maximum settings would be around 70 frames on their STOCK SETUP.

Either way it goes to show........my OC'ed system with one card and at maximum settings gets 54 frames......I can't wait till I see what my build gets with this new mobo and a future X1900XT or XTX setup.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/asus_a8r32-mvp_delu...

Firing squads setup:

System Setup

AMD Athlon 64 FX-55

ASUS A8R32-MVP Deluxe

2GB OCZ DDR400 SDRAM

ATI RADEON X1900 XTX
ATI RADEON X1900 XT
CATALYST 6.2

250GB Maxtor Hard Drive Maxline III SATA Hard Drive w/16MB Cache

Windows XP Professional SP1

DirectX 9.0c
March 5, 2006 1:43:23 PM

I would request all users to use the FEAR internal test.

I also request THG to tell us what demo they used for these results and ALLOW us to download their Time Demo to see for ourselves.

This is somthing ALL review sites should allow for us to do to ensure there is no BIAS reviews or fill the pocket reviews.

Come on THG tell us.....I am dying to KNOW and download your demo.
Related resources
March 5, 2006 1:47:17 PM

Just incase some were wondering......

MY card is at STOCK speed.
March 5, 2006 2:03:32 PM

Was your benchmark with soft shadows enabled? If you click “Maximum” for graphics settings without individually changing each setting, softshadows will not be enabled.
March 5, 2006 2:06:51 PM

Yes it was enabled as I had to adjust what I wanted, as your correct if a person were to just click Maximum then the FEAR test would set what it wants to setup.

You must set it up the way I did Manually all Maximum settings including the effects and the computer setting.

Also anything that could be turned ON was.....except the DX8 shader and the one setting below it.....usless settings for the what Card I am running and most in todays market.
March 5, 2006 2:13:28 PM

People with X1900 XTs don't usually need to use DX8 shaders and pixel doubling. :lol: 
March 5, 2006 2:15:45 PM

Quote:
People with X1900 XTs don't usually need to use DX8 shaders and pixel doubling. :lol: 


Yes ain't it nice....... :) 

Now go run the test Internal one for me......and see what you get with your build. I am interested even though your 7800 GT's are the CO..... = OC'ed versions.

I am running the ATI original 6.2 catalyst drivers incase some were wondering.
March 5, 2006 2:21:03 PM

I don't think you can order me around. :wink:
Anyways, on 1280x960 with 4XMSAA and 16XAF I got an average of 66FPS and a minimum of 41FPS. (Soft shadowing disabled)
March 5, 2006 2:24:48 PM

I would never consider it ordering you around......just was a suggestive thought.

Could you please try 1600 x 1200 4AA/16AF all maximum settings and SS ON and set computer to Maximum setting.

Basically use what I used.... Thks.
March 5, 2006 2:25:57 PM

I have two LCD montiors at 1280x1024; I can not use 1600x1200.
If you're trying to prove to me your setup is better, you're not impressing anyone.

Oh by the way, you're not getting an average of 54FPS on 1600X1200 with 4XAA and 16XAF with softshadows enabled.
On Hardocp they got an average of 48.3FPS on 1600x1200 with 2XAA and 16XAF with softshadows disabled.
March 5, 2006 2:34:51 PM

In know way was it to prove it was a better setup only that I was interested to see what 2 x 7800 GT's could do at 1600 x 1200 and all maxed out.

I guess I won't know with your build. I hope someone else can shed some light onto this with thier builds.

It goes to show some review are not always what they seem to be.

Take a look at this way.... 1 card X1900XT.....setup I have has proven to many on other forums and even locally to better or compared to some Dual Core setups.

Which would you prefer....this would depend on what you want out of your build.

That being said........lets not get off subject here......

THG review SUCKED and they need to review it again, based upon my results and yes I did Quake 4 and Far Cry and many other tests using the tests made by HOC benchmarking.

I cna tell you this my build has acheived better scores then some review sites OC'ed builds.

Gee maybe I should open a website review place and do reviews.

I would even allow Users to send in thier reviews....once verified.

I rather see Real User reviews then some website time demo's which they don't want to disclose...... why? is that.....hmm not sure really.
March 5, 2006 2:35:30 PM

Quote:
I have two LCD montiors at 1280x1024; I can not use 1600x1200.
If you're trying to prove to me your setup is better, you're not impressing anyone.

Oh by the way, you're not getting an average of 54FPS on 1600X1200 with 4XAA and 16XAF with softshadows enabled.
On Hardocp they got an average of 48.3FPS on 1600x1200 with 2XAA and 16XAF with softshadows disabled.


"Oh by the way, you're not getting an average of 54FPS on 1600X1200 with 4XAA and 16XAF with softshadows enabled. "


Oh by the way YES I am.
March 5, 2006 2:39:01 PM

Oh my mistake; somehow you've recieved an X1900 XT that can magically outperform a pair of X1900 XTXs in F.E.A.R.
March 5, 2006 2:48:11 PM

Dude it is about the Build.....not just the Card.
March 5, 2006 2:50:48 PM

guys , calm down ...you are using FEAR internal test ..that's not a measure for real time gameplay at all ...it is just a simple test ...propablt THG has used a real time demo ..
March 5, 2006 2:51:09 PM

"Dude" I am right here. You are not getting an average framerate of 54FPS on 1600X1200 with 4XAA 16XAF and softshadows enabled. Don't believe me? Check hardocp, tomshardware, anandtech, firing squad.
I know my cards are not the fastest out, but I also know the X1900 XT isn't capable of framerates like that with those settings.
March 5, 2006 2:55:43 PM

i guess you're just another nvidia geek who 'accidentally' bought ati card for an upgrade? THG have their own method and setup when they review the parts....... that is why it's called a REVIEW........ Since you got a better frame rates with the same card as they've reviewed, so, why don't you just feel proud and get on with life or let people know that you have a better setup and guide in how to create that setup which will make people's life easier?
March 5, 2006 2:56:59 PM

The reply above is for Madmaxx33
March 5, 2006 2:58:12 PM

There is still no way he's getting 54FPS on 1600X1200 with 4XAA 16XAF and softshadows enabled. :lol: 
March 5, 2006 3:00:08 PM

Quote:
i guess you're just another nvidia geek who 'accidentally' bought ati card for an upgrade? THG have their own method and setup when they review the parts....... that is why it's called a REVIEW........ Since you got a better frame rates with the same card as they've reviewed, so, why don't you just feel proud and get on with life or let people know that you have a better setup and guide in how to create that setup which will make people's life easier?


Dude that was my whole point of this thread..... I am not sure how some could have missed that point.
March 5, 2006 3:01:17 PM

Quote:
There is still no way he's getting 54FPS on 1600X1200 with 4XAA 16XAF and softshadows enabled. :lol: 


Well dude sorry to disapoint you. You are very welcome to fly all the way to Canada and come see it for yourself.
March 5, 2006 3:01:42 PM

this is tottaly stupid ...a card that have 48 pipline pixel cann't handle a game at 50 FPS a verage ...what the hell is that suppose to mean ? ..

if it is not capable of that ...then it is just a big waste of money ..
March 5, 2006 3:06:50 PM

Quote:

Well dude sorry to disapoint you. You are very welcome to fly all the way to Canada and come see it for yourself.
Or I could just remain at the conclusion that you're lying or don't have the same settings enabled that you’ve posted.
Quote:
this is tottaly stupid ...a card that have 48 pipline pixel cann't handle a game at 50 FPS a verage ...what the hell is that suppose to mean ? ..
The X1900 does not have 48 pixel pipelines. It has 16 pixel pipelines and 48 shader units.
March 5, 2006 3:07:07 PM

Quote:
this is tottaly stupid ...a card that have 48 pipline pixel cann't handle a game at 50 FPS a verage ...what the hell is that suppose to mean ? ..

if it is not capable of that ...then it is just a big waste of money ..


I would say it would be a waste if it could not handle it, but I run fear at all the settinsg above and it Rocks........Average 54 frames...

It is only 16 pixelpipes......and 48 Shaders rammed through it in a more efficiant way then Nvidias.

I don't care above review sites 48 frames, 50 frames....or ones that state 38 frames.

I get average 54 frames........ cry and whine Nvidia fans.

Now look at this way...it goes to show REAL users can do better than certain reviews......why?......because we know what the heck were doing.... :)  :)  :) 

Oh and let me remind you it is ONE X1900XT that I HAVE.....not 2
March 5, 2006 3:08:58 PM

Quote:

I get average 54 frames........ cry and whine Nvidia fans.

You just lost all credibility.
March 5, 2006 3:15:50 PM

Hardcop Review below was done Jan 24..... weeks before the 6.2 drivers were even released on Feb 9th or the 10th.

Therefore they were using the OLDER drivers 6.1 that came on the CD for the card......lower scores will result using those drivers.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=OTUzLDMs...
March 5, 2006 3:18:08 PM

My mistake; I didnt' realize a driver update could improve performance that greatly. :roll:
March 5, 2006 3:20:48 PM

Quote:
My mistake; I didnt' realize a driver update could improve performance that greatly. :roll:


Well it did and also improved my 2006 score it upped it 400 points from the Older 6.1 crappy driver.

ATI is suppose release the 6.3 driver.....hopefully soon to get even more of a boost in scores and FPS in certain games.
March 5, 2006 3:21:07 PM

really ? 16 just ? ...the rest is vertex shaders ? ..WTH ...then the icoming 7900 will out perform this one ...as it has already 32 pipline pixel !

I think that the perofrmance in 7800GTX is near to X1900 ..as current games usually don't use shaders that much ...

I don't know why ATI is insisting in keeping the piplines and increasing shader units .....unlike Nvidia ..which is always increasing pips ...two different strategies .. but which is better ?
March 5, 2006 3:26:23 PM

400 points in 3DMark06 isn't as large a gain as you've reported with your X1900XT.
March 5, 2006 3:51:22 PM

Quote:
this is tottaly stupid ...a card that have 48 pipline pixel cann't handle a game at 50 FPS a verage ...what the hell is that suppose to mean ? ..

if it is not capable of that ...then it is just a big waste of money ..


I would say it would be a waste if it could not handle it, but I run fear at all the settinsg above and it Rocks........Average 54 frames...

It is only 16 pixelpipes......and 48 Shaders rammed through it in a more efficiant way then Nvidias.

I don't care above review sites 48 frames, 50 frames....or ones that state 38 frames.

I get average 54 frames........ cry and whine Nvidia fans.

Now look at this way...it goes to show REAL users can do better than certain reviews......why?......because we know what the heck were doing.... :)  :)  :) 

Oh and let me remind you it is ONE X1900XT that I HAVE.....not 2





From what i've seen around the web X1900XT DOES have 48 shaders but ATi now uses a combined pixelvertex shader.
March 5, 2006 3:51:58 PM

Quote:
really ? 16 just ? ...the rest is vertex shaders ? ..WTH ...then the icoming 7900 will out perform this one ...as it has already 32 pipline pixel !

I think that the perofrmance in 7800GTX is near to X1900 ..as current games usually don't use shaders that much ...

I don't know why ATI is insisting in keeping the piplines and increasing shader units .....unlike Nvidia ..which is always increasing pips ...two different strategies .. but which is better ?


Yes 32 pixel pipe if this is correct as some places state it may only have 24.

If it is 32 pixel pipes it only has 16rops a 2:1 ratio = 16 x 2 = 32
ATI is 48 pixel sahders 16rops and using a 3:1 ratio = 16 x 3 = 48

ATI more shaders per clock, basically pumping more shaders 32 pixel shaders into the 16rops = 48

Nvidia is only pumping 16 pixels shaders into 16rops = 32

Which is better time will tell.

I just reread an article I read a while ago and I will post it here.

http://www.mvktech.net/content/view/2644/38/

Now my thread is not going to start a PISS war about which is better Nvidia Or ATI.

Keep on topic HERE about the THG review, as it should be look into again.
March 5, 2006 4:31:46 PM

Quote:

Now my thread is not going to start a PISS war about which is better Nvidia Or ATI.

I believe you started it when you posted false information.
March 5, 2006 4:34:28 PM

So your whole thread is based on the fact that you beat a review sites benchmarks? Whop dee do, congratulations. Benchmarks are usually more toward average performance. If you are any good at tweaking your system, you SHOULD be able to beat those benchmarks, especially with a newer driver, as they often do improve performance.

As for you actual results, I will believe 'em when I see 'em, so to speak. And most review sites use real time demos TMK, not internal benchmarks, so either way, you aren't comparing the same things.

And I doubt that THG or any other site is going to re-review a product based on your info.
March 5, 2006 7:56:45 PM

I doubt they would re-review it either, but since they won't allow me to have their time demo. Then why not THG do the internal test of the game, not fair I want to use what they use, but can't.

They can use what I used for testing, any user can do this.

In response to the accusation by heyyou. It was not False Info and for some to say i will believe when you see......Ok buy all that i have and then try it, also no guarrantee that you will get the same performance.

It is all about the hardware and tweaking..... 50 frames with 2 X1900XT cards in certain reviews is hard to swallow, when I am doing 54 frames with one on My OC'ed build.

The only thing i have OC'ed is my CPU and memory. Think about if i OC'ed my card.

Therefore why not the review sites OC better to see what the capabilities of the motherboard and a Good Cpu can do. This is what people want to see not a shaded review based upon older hardware a timed demo that could be Nvidia enhanced....yeah I will believe it when I see it with my own eyes.
March 5, 2006 8:03:48 PM

Quote:

The only thing i have OC'ed is my CPU and memory. Think about if i OC'ed my card.

Yeah, you'd probably tell us you were getting 200FPS on those settings.
March 5, 2006 8:05:22 PM

It would be nice to be able to use the same benchmarks that the review sites use. More helpful for comparisons.

As far as them reviewing systems overclocked to their full potential, I doubt we'll see that. The majority of readers only run their rigs or at least most components at stock speeds. They want a comparison of what a product will do off the shelf so to speak. A site would have to do two revies for us to see OCed results, and I doubt that we will see that anytime soon.

Remember you yourself said that buying the same rig as yours is no gaurantee of the same perfromance, so you shouyld necessarily fault THG for differing from your numbers.
!