Why we cant force tomshardware to update the vga charts so soon

[razor512]

we cant have them doing this when the work becomes too monotonous

[flash=640,480]http://embed.break.com/NTEzMzEw[/flash]

 

[amdfangirl]

Well the HD 2 series performs almost the same as the HD 3 series. Same with some of the nvidia cards with the 8 and 9 series.

BTW: I think your old avatar was cooler...

 

[sam1]

Tom's Desktop VGA and DUAL&QUAD VGA charts are the worst.

They still use cat 7.1 and forceware 9x.xx drivers for the cards. If they try to be "fair" i.e. use the same driver, OS, & settings for every card, that might be understandable. However the new cards like geforce 8 or Radeon HD 2k or 3k series need the NEWEST drivers. Why? Look at this example: HD 2900XT was released in Q2 2007. And they use frigging catalyst 7.1 for that? When was cat 7.1 release? In Jan 2007, and HD 2900XT didn't even exist. How ridiculous is that. Most people will refer the VGA charts for comparison, but who in the earth is gonna use Forceware 97.xx for their pwnage roxer omfg 8800GTX SLI setup?

And the games and software they use to generate the charts, are ridiculous too. Look at flight Sim X, nearly all the cards above 7600GT give 22-23 FPS, no matter at what res be it 1024 or 1920. If everything is working correctly, it's logically wrong. It is so obvious it's a game or driver related issue, and they never bother to correct that.

They failed to use the games are actually represent real performance of the cards. The games they used are not even the ones they used for the benchmarks in reviews. (If you look back to at the old articles about R400 vs G60 for example.) Did the people who created the chart just randomly pick some games like warhammer?

Finally the worst part. Since they started the "Best Graphics Cards for the Money - Month/year" Article, they've been referring to the desktop VGA chart for the relative performance. Now you know the VGA chart is seriously flawed and means nothing, how can they rely on the chart to write the ranking of the GPUs in the last pages of their "Best Graphics Cards for the Money" article? Utterly ridiculous. Instead of writing new code for improved layout of the chart, why don't they do a CORRECT chart first.

There's no reason to read tom's articles any more.