Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Best Gaming Video Cards for the Money: February 2007

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 6, 2007 10:15:41 AM

Detailed video card specifications and reviews are great - that is, if you have the time to do the research. But at the end of the day, what a gamer needs is the best video card within a certain budget.
February 6, 2007 11:22:07 AM

Quote:
*The Gainward BLISS+ 7800 GS cards, which actually have 7900 GT and 7900GS GPUs, are also fast AGP cards on par with the X1950 PRO. These are far more expensive and can only be purchased in Europe, however.

And Australia. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
February 6, 2007 12:48:45 PM

What, isn't Australia part of Europe?

Kidding!
Related resources
February 6, 2007 3:01:06 PM

the hierarchy chart is great... have not seen someone put something like that together in... well, ever really. So many of us "know" where these cards stack but never actually look at it in terms of tiers like that. Great job Cleeve.
February 6, 2007 3:10:19 PM

Thanks for the Kudos, Sojorner. :) 
February 6, 2007 3:17:15 PM

there's already one out there, but I second the kudos. that hierarchy is BRILLIANT. I will be very interested to see how it changes when the next ATI line comes out.
February 6, 2007 3:35:18 PM

Quote:
I second the kudos. that hierarchy is BRILLIANT. I will be very interested to see how it changes when the next ATI line comes out.


took the words out of my mouth :p  . Nicely done :) 
February 6, 2007 3:47:59 PM

The hiearchy is cool... but wrong...

it shows the 7950 GX2 higher than the x1950xt and the x1900xt. You can clearly see that in almost every benchmark (every one i looked at on thg vga charts) the x1900xt beats the 7950 GX2 Let alone the x1950xt and the x1950xtx!

(the x1950xtx KILLS the 7950 GX2... by like 80% @ high res/af/aa)
(78fps compared to 50fps in HL2, 61 compared to 48 in Oblivion etc.)

I looked at the hierarchy for about 7 seconds and saw this mistake, which seems to me a VERY major one. I hope that it is one of the few. I feel bad for the poor sap who spends $500 on a GX2 and then gets outperformed by a $250 x1950xt...
February 6, 2007 3:50:55 PM

Quote:
the hierarchy chart is great... have not seen someone put something like that together in... well, ever really. So many of us "know" where these cards stack but never actually look at it in terms of tiers like that. Great job Cleeve.


I tried to do something like a hierchy before, but it was just a mess. For one, the chart wasn't exactly right just due to the fact that I did not know every card in between and such. The hierchy is super awesome, no doubt about it. Keep it up.

One thing I wonder these days--not that I'm incredibly interested or anything--but what about mobile video chipsets? Not like your busy enough already spending hours of your time finding out the best video cards for the money or anything (I'm teasing of course), but will tom's ever publish any comparisons of mobile gpu benchmarks? There's like practically 20 different GeForce 7 series mobile graphics cards, and mobility radeons, Intel GMA 950s, etc...again you are doing awesome with your stuff and you could use a break, but maybe you could convince another Tom's Hardware dude/dudette to come up with a comparison/benchmark/hierchy chart of the mobile graphics chipsets?

One more thing Cleeve--IF you rated the Intel GMA 900 or GMA 950 in the hierchy (I realise they are not gaming chipsets here, just wondering where they stand as far as performance), where would they be? Intel, SiS, and VIA/S3 are certainly not gaming chipsets by any means, but do any of those even compare to, say, the FX 5200? If these graphics chipsets aren't your fortè, then ignore my questions--I mean, who besides me even gives a rats?

Still--I'm curious, so if you happen to know, I'd love to hear from you. Otherwise, ignore my fruitless curiousity...
February 6, 2007 3:52:48 PM

Please provide some benches to back that up dude.

The high res benches with the GX2 I've seen shows it whopping the X1950 XTX.
February 6, 2007 3:55:33 PM

Quote:
PLease provide some benches to back that up dude.

The high res benches with the GX2 I've seen shows it whopping the X1950 XTX.



I did...
I quoted THG VGA charts.

Quote:

(the x1950xtx KILLS the 7950 GX2... by like 80% @ high res/af/aa)
(78fps compared to 50fps in HL2, 61 compared to 48 in Oblivion etc.)


Here is a link if you want.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html?modelx=33&m...
February 6, 2007 4:03:16 PM

Great job, cleeve. i always enjoyed your posts and now it's nice to see it as a full fledged article. i also liked the performance benchamrks on the older amd64 chip in other article.
February 6, 2007 4:07:31 PM

Here's the difinitive GX2 vs X1950 XTX review at Xbitlabs:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/quality_...

The summary:

Half Life 2:
GX2 wins at 1280 res and higher

Oblivion:
X1900 XTX wins, but it's close. With FSAA the X1950 XTX pulls ahead

Battlefield 2:
GX2 wins

COD 2:
GX2 wins

Far Cry:
GX2 wins (close though)

FEAR:
GX2 wins

PREY:
GX2 wins

Quake4:
GX2 Wins

Serious Sam 2:
GX2 wins (close though)

Hit Man: BLood Money
GX2 Wins

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory:
GX2 wins (close though)

Tomb Raider Legend:
GX2 Wins

Titan Quest:
X1950 XTX Wins

IL2:
GX2 Wins

Age of Empires:
X1950 XTX Wins

Rise of Nations:
GX2 Wins

GX2: 13
X1950 XTX: 3
February 6, 2007 4:25:00 PM

honestly, since the last rev of the vga charts many here have called the sli setup (which includes the gx2) into question. When you look at any other bench you see the gx2 just as you describe cleeve... but here at tom's the vga charts paint a false picture. Any way of finding the issue there and resolving it or what?
February 6, 2007 4:32:26 PM

Thats good to know that xbit has benchies that better represent true performance (i think). but what was the THG article based off of, if not their own VGA charts? kinda odd

A. that their VGA charts are wrong
B. that their article was apparently based on other peoples benchmarks?
February 6, 2007 4:34:05 PM

Go for Xbit over THG when it comes to the "definitive" article on graphics cards?
Synergy6
February 6, 2007 4:35:36 PM

Was that a question? If so, I would have to simply say, i dunno. But xbit's benches fit this THG article better than THG benches fit.. their own article...
February 6, 2007 4:36:48 PM

I love the GPU charts comparing the different Radeons and Geforce cards. It´s pretty brave to publish it since every dimwit will question it (based on their subjective observations). Great article! :D 
February 6, 2007 4:38:00 PM

Comeon guys, let's not get Cleeve in trouble here :D 
February 6, 2007 4:43:35 PM

meh, using other benchies as a base for an article is not bad in-and-of itself... but having resident charts that contradict said article calls things into question. Like I said, since the last rev of the charts most ppl here knew there was something up with the sli marks, but n00bs will really be scratching their heads.

I only asked a question. 8)

Don't want you gettin in trouble there Cleeve. 8O Still think these are great articles man.
February 6, 2007 4:54:54 PM

Quote:
meh, using other benchies as a base for an article is not bad in-and-of itself... but having resident charts that contradict said article calls things into question. Like I said, since the last rev of the charts most ppl here knew there was something up with the sli marks, but n00bs will really be scratching their heads.

I only asked a question. 8)

Don't want you gettin in trouble there Cleeve. 8O Still think these are great articles man.


I agree completely.

I don't think that questioning why an article from a site and benchies from the same site don't agree is exactly "dimwitted"...
February 6, 2007 5:08:40 PM

even if THG's benches did not have SLI issues, they never test cards with as many games as quoted by cleeve above (16!!!). Obviously for this kind of article, it is necessary to consider a site with SO MANY MORE games benchmarked than THG ever does.
February 6, 2007 5:13:29 PM

Quote:
even if THG's benches did not have SLI issues, they never test cards with as many games as quoted by cleeve above (16!!!). Obviously for this kind of article, it is necessary to consider a site with SO MANY MORE games benchmarked than THG ever does.


I agree... My sole point is that THG benches and the THG article do not agree and that is strange.
February 6, 2007 5:35:30 PM

Quote:
but what was the THG article based off of, if not their own VGA charts? kinda odd

A. that their VGA charts are wrong
B. that their article was apparently based on other peoples benchmarks?


Don't worry about me getting in trouble fellows! There's no conspiracy or subversion here, nothing that I'm worried about the world seeing anyway. :) 

I'm not commenting directly on THG's charts, which are certainly useful as a resource.

However, when I make a recommendation or write an article I take all sources of information into account, not just one site's... THG or not.

I used Xbitlab's review as a representation of the norm, but it's not like they're my only source of info either. If you look across the web you will see that most GX2 vs X1950 XTX benches agree with it. Of course, certain benches like the ones at THG do not jive perfectly with it, but there are always variables in hardware setups and testing methods.

So, without having personally reviewed a GX2, my method is to look at all available sources of info when forming conclusions. Which is what I've done here, and I stand behind that. :) 

As a writer for THG, I don't have a problem with saying that I respect Xbitlabs or any number of other hardware sites. I consider them colleagues, not rivals.
There's alot of people doing alot of good work out there, I would never plagiarize it but I don't have a problem with citing a respected source as justification for my conclusions.

As far as suggesting the article is 'based on other people's benchmarks', that's pure sensationalism. The bulk of the article is about the best cards for the money. The Hiearchy chart is a small part of the article, and it's based upon my experience and knowledge. Yes, some of that knowledge comes from thoroughly reading up on all the material I can get in addition to personal experience, but this isn't a benchmark comparisaon - it's a general hiearchy chart.
February 6, 2007 5:45:58 PM

tell you what, i wouldn't mind benchmarking games for a living like all these people at these sites seem to do, they're living the dream
February 6, 2007 7:36:26 PM

Quote:
What, isn't Australia part of Europe?

Kidding!

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

damn that ball & chain. :wink:

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
February 6, 2007 7:43:00 PM

Is something wrong with the VGA charts?

Looking at the Hard Truck Apocalypse 1600x1200 graph, it shows the x1800xt oc as the best card, then x1900xtx, then the 8800gts. The 8800gtx is farther down the charts.

On top of that, the GX2 is way below the X1950XTX in every single high res bench except 3dmark06. There seems to either be some invalid data there or something is just wrong with the charts.

BTW, Cleeve, nice article as always. Very helpful for people that don't follow hardware like us forum addicts.
February 6, 2007 8:03:33 PM

Quote:
Was that a question? If so, I would have to simply say, i dunno. But xbit's benches fit this THG article better than THG benches fit.. their own article...


Yes, it was a question. Hence the "?" and lack of a rhetorical answer.
Synergy6
February 6, 2007 8:09:45 PM

Quote:
The hiearchy is cool... but wrong...

it shows the 7950 GX2 higher than the x1950xt and the x1900xt. You can clearly see that in almost every benchmark (every one i looked at on thg vga charts) the x1900xt beats the 7950 GX2 Let alone the x1950xt and the x1950xtx!

..



Ditto on the plain jane X800 and 6600GT. I had both of them and benched and played them like crazy with same CPU/memory/OS/etc, and they were pretty darned close to equal. I wouldn't put one clearly over the other.

Also, I look at the Radeon side and wonder if ATI hasn't just made a mess of card-naming. I mean... 9 (NINE) X800 variants?? What were they thinking?
February 6, 2007 8:14:24 PM

Quote:
even if THG's benches did not have SLI issues, they never test cards with as many games as quoted by cleeve above (16!!!). Obviously for this kind of article, it is necessary to consider a site with SO MANY MORE games benchmarked than THG ever does.


I agree... My sole point is that THG benches and the THG article do not agree and that is strange.

Why on earth would that be strange?

They are not written by the same person and different folks can disagree. I can't recall the last time I've beem in total agreement with all co-workers about every topic. The same data can be interpretted in many ways. The number of ways you can test these systems is inumerable so it would not be surprising if different folks got different results. This can be caused from items ranging from drivers to the version of the software used to test to configuration options in the software.

If you were to note the performance differences between the cards you will not they are not great but rather shades of gray. If there had been huge differences I may question why. If you understand the chart that Cleave created, there is only a large noticable differnce in performance for a 3-level difference. His chart shows a single level difference. Even this can be very small since a line must be drawn someplace.
February 6, 2007 8:21:42 PM

One more thing..........

Guys, Pls dont nit-pick over a single category up/down.
As Cleeve said it takes 3 Levels for there to be a strong noticable difference.

If you think a card is misplaced by two levels, lets take a look.
A single level is a shade of gray that can be explained away so easily.
February 6, 2007 10:44:21 PM

I felt kind a sad when I saw my brand new Video Card (AGP 7600GS) at the same level with 7300GT GDDR. Why that card didnt appear in the article?
And... Can I OC my video card to a 7600GT? :roll:
February 7, 2007 12:42:57 AM

Quote:
Can I OC my video card to a 7600GT?
Never. :twisted: The 7600GT's clock and memory speeds are leaps and bound ahead of the GS.
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2007 2:14:58 AM

I agree for the most part, especially on the memory side.

But the core is reachable with some effort, it's just that the memory has limits to it's specs, but some GSs (once again Gainward breaking the norm) have nice memory and can OC above the GT;

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gainward...

Even the plain GS has potential, but is held back by the GDDR2 memory, even at insane core speeds (much faster than the GT);
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce7...
February 7, 2007 2:42:40 AM

Quote:
but what was the THG article based off of, if not their own VGA charts? kinda odd

A. that their VGA charts are wrong
B. that their article was apparently based on other peoples benchmarks?


Don't worry about me getting in trouble fellows! There's no conspiracy or subversion here, nothing that I'm worried about the world seeing anyway. :) 

I'm not commenting directly on THG's charts, which are certainly useful as a resource.

However, when I make a recommendation or write an article I take all sources of information into account, not just one site's... THG or not.

I used Xbitlab's review as a representation of the norm, but it's not like they're my only source of info either. If you look across the web you will see that most GX2 vs X1950 XTX benches agree with it. Of course, certain benches like the ones at THG do not jive perfectly with it, but there are always variables in hardware setups and testing methods.

So, without having personally reviewed a GX2, my method is to look at all available sources of info when forming conclusions. Which is what I've done here, and I stand behind that. :) 

As a writer for THG, I don't have a problem with saying that I respect Xbitlabs or any number of other hardware sites. I consider them colleagues, not rivals.
There's alot of people doing alot of good work out there, I would never plagiarize it but I don't have a problem with citing a respected source as justification for my conclusions.

As far as suggesting the article is 'based on other people's benchmarks', that's pure sensationalism. The bulk of the article is about the best cards for the money. The Hiearchy chart is a small part of the article, and it's based upon my experience and knowledge. Yes, some of that knowledge comes from thoroughly reading up on all the material I can get in addition to personal experience, but this isn't a benchmark comparisaon - it's a general hiearchy chart.

Six edits, and still no "other sources" being named besides X-Bit...
Needless to say this isn't the first time Tom's has been called into question as a viable source of information, in fact, it's not the first time since I've been reading forum's tonight...

Hmm... *Looks elsewhere for information...
February 7, 2007 3:37:27 AM

Quote:


Six edits, and still no "other sources" being named besides X-Bit...
Needless to say this isn't the first time Tom's has been called into question as a viable source of information, in fact, it's not the first time since I've been reading forum's tonight...

Hmm... *Looks elsewhere for information...


Six edits? For damn sure! I'm walking around land mines here that have been dropped by people more interested in controversy than the capability of video card hardware.

You want "other sources'? I start naming other sources, everyone gets their panties in a knot some more. No, I'm not playing that game. Try Google.

You want to make a mountain out of a molehill and play the incompetency/controversy card, good for you. but if you want to discuss hardware, I'll respond. I challenge you to "Look elsewhere for information" and prove me wrong.

None of this changes the fact that the 7950 GX2 is on average better than the X1950 XTX. You want to present evidence to the contrary, I'll happily engage you in a discussion about it.

But if you're more interested in bickering over the politics instead of the hardware, have fun without me...
I'd rather invest my time in things like imperfect video card heiarchy charts that actually help some people, instead of engaging self-righteous folks who spend their time pointing out flaws, real or imagined. :roll:
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2007 4:14:47 AM

While Cleeve's not gonna play that game, let me :twisted: , cause I'm more than familiar with the variety of benchies out there.

I can just keep posting more and more that back up the idea that even though there is alot of back and forth that in general the GX2 outperforms the X1900XT and even the X1950XTX, hope this early flavour is enough to quiet the critics, because usually critics aren't worth the F'in effort.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800...
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/geforce-8800/index...
http://www.guru3d.com/article/content/375/1/
http://www.behardware.com/articles/637-1/ati-radeon-x19...
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

Pretty much all those show the GX2 beating the X1900XT/-1950XTX more often than not, and often by a good margin. And the more recent the benchie the better as theGX2 drivers improved.

While I'm not a fan of the GX2 by a long shot, I'm not ignorant of when it can benefit and when it can't (games that don't support it's version of SLi), it's no slouch and more often than not outperforms the best single card of "it's generation", although also not a 'single card' itself.

Seriously I don't understand your point of quoting all of Cleeve's post to try and paint some nefarious aspect to his research. His research is based on all the collected info and input, which is the spirit it was based on from the thread it was based on. It doesn't have to jive with the Charts, which personally I have much more problem with than Cleeve's recommendations. And while I don't agree with all the placings I can see the case for pretty much all of them, and I know from experience his willingness to consider any well supported argument for/against something.

Are you suggesting that Cleeve should change his opinion simply to conform with the test results derived by whomever made the VGA charts?
IMO the Charts are for FAQin' IDIOTS who can't F'in read or research for themselves and simply like the pretty charts and pictures (hence my thread about the FX12K), while Cleeve's article is about taking the info and providing reasoned and supportable statements about his opinon on what's the best gaming cards for the money. You don't have to agree, but don't bitch about something outside his control.

Perhaps if you had looked elsewhere like you said you would, you'd see it's a pretty solid effort.

Now you post your 'viable source for information' and I betcha I could find flaws with some of their writings (if they have more than a handful of reviews/articles to begin with). I know from experience it's better to get the picture for many sources, because few of them can do enough to be the 'sole source of info'. Heck I can find a handful of reviews that contradict everything written. Best to look at all available information to form your opinion, which is exactly what Cleeve has done here, and while I might disagree from my point of view because I value some things differently, I don't question his motives in trying to help people find the best deals, not just post graph A versus graph B in a single (often single run) test.

IMO, you can question his suggestions or ranking (but provide some supporting info, don't talk outcha a$$), but you can't question the integrity of his effort.

BTW, I'll try not to edit too much to avoid the confusion of the unwashed.
February 7, 2007 4:18:06 AM

Quote:
Was that a question? If so, I would have to simply say, i dunno. But xbit's benches fit this THG article better than THG benches fit.. their own article...


Yes, it was a question. Hence the "?" and lack of a rhetorical answer.
Synergy6

Uhm, I thought your question was worded more like a statement than a question, I thought that the "?" might have been a typo. Sorry... no need to be rude though...
February 7, 2007 8:47:52 AM

Quote:

Are you suggesting that Cleeve should change his opinion simply to conform with the test results derived by whomever made the VGA charts?


Not sure where I suggested this...

...but I've always thought you were a bit of a dick, Ape. Not that I'm not sometimes as well, and I'm sure I'm not the most knowledgeable person on here at all, far from it (that's why I'd been coming here). We're all kind of prickish around here, which is unfortunate. It's difficult to know who the "experts" are here in the forums as well. Perhaps people that TEST for Tom's should get special OBVIOUS tags in the forum so we can tell who's REALLY knowledgeable and who just thinks they are. <- SUGGESTION.

What I don't understand is how Tom's can have so much...well, scandal...and still be called credible. Between the poor (or lack of) editing, the conflicting reports on hardware, and needing to even QUOTE other sources, I have to ask some questions - or I just wouldn't be very wise.

I was kind of under the impression that this was supposed to be a well executed top source of information, and that you guys did all your OWN research...and were supposed to be providing us with BASE RESULTS. What you guys are telling us by quoting all these other sources is that you're not the ones benchmarking hardware, but that you're getting your information from other sites....

If that's the case, why should we read Tom's? Shouldn't we just go to the original source ourselves? Wouldn't that eliminate human errors, such as typos and misquoting that might be caused in the transfer to your site? Just posting a question guys.... No need to get in a huff now. I just want to know where my purchase decisions are coming from, and to make the best ones like everyone else.
February 7, 2007 11:44:17 AM

Quote:
I agree for the most part, especially on the memory side.

But the core is reachable with some effort, it's just that the memory has limits to it's specs,...


OK, So I can use a Zalman VGA Cooler e OC my 7600GS core to 550Mhz. That'll make some diference.
But, the higher memory clock will faster my VC? I think the GPU frequencies are a bottleneck to memory clock.
So, if I OC my card to 550Mhz GPU, my effective DDR 800Mhz memory clock won't be a bottleneck.
February 7, 2007 12:47:43 PM

Hiya Cleeve! First off nice job with your video card ratings. They are informative and well thought out. You have been here long enough to know that if you poke your head up to do something like this there will be someone who will swing an axe at it (LMAO)!!! Please keep up the good work. I am completely comfortable using your suggestions as a guide for purchasing a video card. In the end anyone purchasing a video card should be doing some of their own homework before buying to make sure the understand what their needs are and what the potential purchase can provide them. Have fun all. :) 
February 7, 2007 1:25:07 PM

Quote:

What I don't understand is how Tom's can have so much...well, scandal...and still be called credible.


Same old story. Where's the scandal, Ryan?

Is the scandal that I have a body of knowledge based on being well-read when considering a videocard's capabilities? Wow. I'm Joe Scandal! All this time I thought that it was better to keep your eyes and ears open as a journalist, when I was really supposed to be ignoring the body of evidence so that self-righeous scandal-seekers like you could be satisfied!

I guess it's scandalous for a Physicist to read a Physics textbook before doing any research projects of their own. It's CHEATING!

Your definition of scandal is laughable, Ryan.


Quote:
I was kind of under the impression that this was supposed to be a well executed top source of information, and that you guys did all your OWN research...and were supposed to be providing us with BASE RESULTS.


Good lord. How much more sensationalism can you get?

This is not a review of the 7950 GX2, no matter how much you'd like to pretend it is. Do you see any benchmarks for the GX2, Ryan? Have I plagiarized something from another site and included it in the article? No.

If I write a review specifically about the GX2, will I get a card in hand so that I have personal experience with it? You bet I will, like every other videocard review we've ever done.

This is an editorial article about the best cards for the money, based on my experience and research. In a small portion of that editorial article, I made a videocard heiarchy chart to help the sort of person who would upgrade to a 7300 GT from a 6800 GT, based on the model number.

Now, in that chart I decided to put the 7950 GX2 above the X1950 XTX. I didn't have the time or resources to personally benchmark every card in the chart in every game in the world, but I did that because I believe it belongs there based on the body of evidence, a body of evidence that I don't limit to the site that pays my salary. So you can yell scandal all you want, but that's what it comes down to.

I'm not going to close my eyes to information because it makes the whiney, scandal seeking and self-righteous among us uncomfortable.


Quote:
If that's the case, why should we read Tom's?


You should read Tom's because we have some great journalists who do their best to discover the truth about PC hardware and present it in such a way that it is helpful and beneficial to the reading audience.

And because we're dead sexy.
February 7, 2007 2:11:41 PM

Quote:
in general the GX2 outperforms the X1900XT and even the X1950XTX

Yes, and I wish I had never helped those unwashed in the attack on Cleeve. My wonderment was around the contradiction between the ranking overall on his list compared to the vga charts and not an attack on what he did. I agree with his ranking, just have a problem with the vga charts. (have for quite some time) I understand that there are a ton of tests represented there and cannot just be "updated" quickly. It was just a question.

I regret that what started as questioning by a few has degenerated to an attack on Cleeve... this was not intended nor needed. He has done a good job with the article and the info there should prove useful to all interested. I will now go and gouge out mine eyes such that I cannot look upon beauty that is life as punishment for my transgression.

oww! that hurts... ok, maybe just a self-noogie then? ;) 

Quote:
We're all kind of prickish around here

Speak for yourself. :p 

IMHO there is a difference btween educated with opinion and ignorant but vocal. I find "prickish" to fall towards the latter, and I think that the forums are about 50/50 on that line. Albeit some of the former do have prick-like tendencies, they still have some wisdom and much can be gotten from their rants. (who falls where on that line is a whole different subject) :wink:

Quote:
And because we're dead sexy.


umm... yikes. 8O
February 7, 2007 2:15:56 PM

Quote:


And because we're dead sexy.


umm... yikes. 8O

Did u forget Sarah? :p 
February 7, 2007 2:21:34 PM

Quote:

Yes, and I wish I had never helped those unwashed in the attack on Cleeve.


I really don't have a problem with people challenging my conclusions. You are well within your right to do so, and I am not a perfect human being. Sometimes I'll be wrong, and frankly I'd rather know about it than pretend I'm perfect. I think it's a good thing to defend a conclusion and share the reasoning behind it, so don't feel bad about that at all.

But to start pointing fingers and crying 'scandal' when I haven't plagiarized a single bloody thing... I mean, give me a break.

As a journalist, that is far and away the lamest BS I've had to deal with yet. That is so sensationalist and blown out of proportion that I honestly wonder if Mr. Micah has an agenda.
February 7, 2007 2:33:06 PM

Quote:

Did u forget Sarah? :p 


Speaking of Sarah, Mr. Micah happens to be the fellow who called her "another California bimbo showing herself off" for agreeing to pose in our holiday guide pictures:

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Holiday-Buyers-...

Wow. Classy fellow, that Mr. Micah... :roll:

Seems to have it out for THG employees. I wonder why he comes here, if our journalism is so horrible, we're so scandalous, and we're worthy of personal insults like that?
February 7, 2007 2:33:52 PM

Yeh, but on the forums ud have to be completely perfect not to be flamed every second.
Thats why u shouldnt take most of what ppl say seriously and not accept their challange, because all of ur minor imperfections are magnifyed on the internet.
February 7, 2007 2:36:01 PM

Quote:

Did u forget Sarah? :p 


Speaking of Sarah, Mr. Micah happens to be the fellow who called her "another California bimbo showing herself off" for agreeing to pose in our holiday guide pictures:

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Holiday-Buyers-...

Wow. Classy fellow, that Mr. Micah... :roll:

Of course. Everytime I see him post I think of that.

I wonder if thats why we hadnt seen here on the thread as much.
I wonder if she'll ever be back.. :cry: 
February 7, 2007 2:49:47 PM

that is the whole thing though, I was not attacking your conclusions. (at least was not intending to) Simply wondering about the aparent contradiction within the site... beyond that I have nothing at all against what you put in the article and think the ranking chart you made is brilliant. THAT should be the vga charts IMO instead of what we have here. n00bs and experts alike can see at a glance where card X sits in relation to card Y. Just a nice, simple chart based off of an average of many benchmarks. It is good stuff.

As for "scandal"... err... umm... ya, not really knowing the poster there I have no idea but is sounds like a baseless flame and nothing more.
a b U Graphics card
February 7, 2007 4:35:03 PM

Quote:

Are you suggesting that Cleeve should change his opinion simply to conform with the test results derived by whomever made the VGA charts?


Not sure where I suggested this...

Well perhaps it's your writing skill that's the problem.
You quote Featherstone's question that asks why the article and the charts are incongruous in your reply and comment on Cleeve backing up his article (and the tangent about his edits :roll: ) closing with the "viable source of information" jab. If you weren't trying to tie the two, then I ask you again, WHY quote the whole reply? Perhaps next time you'll do a better job in preparing your reply instead of just hiting the 'quote' button. Also where are the 'viable source(s) of information' you speak of?

Quote:
...but I've always thought you were a bit of a dick, Ape.


Hey, can't help it, I'm a dick to A$$holes and Pussies, figure out your role, we've established mine.

Quote:
What I don't understand is how Tom's can have so much...well, scandal...and still be called credible. Between the poor (or lack of) editing, the conflicting reports on hardware, and needing to even QUOTE other sources, I have to ask some questions - or I just wouldn't be very wise.


Look around at all the sites, the same thing happens. Firingsquad's, [H]'s, Digit-Life, EB's, at some point everyone's has a review that contradicts themselves a few months later if they're honest and competant, because drivers changed, CPU/VPU/Memory bottleneck dissapear, game selections change, etc. The only reason there's 'Scandal' is when people make more out of it than it is, and I haven'ts seen 'scandal' since the CPU issue which seemed more like honest oversight.

And quoting other sources is standard fair for good reviewers because they don't like in a bubble inside a vacuum. An article (think op/ed) like Cleeve's NEEDs that outside information because the bredth of options is far great than most reviewers can get their hands on at one time. So for old card, new cards, and all the available options on an ever changing price range, the best way is to pool all the information. And don't fool yourself, just about every site does it if they're competant and aware of the rest of the industry (sometimes incestuously). Since no one has all the breaking information, one day it's bit-tech, the next it's digital-daily, then it's HKePC, and sometimes it's THG. the only difference is that you don't notice their reference tags all the time.

Quote:
I was kind of under the impression that this was supposed to be a well executed top source of information, and that you guys did all your OWN research...and were supposed to be providing us with BASE RESULTS.


Re-read the article series, it's not just about base results it's about researching the available information regardless of source and pulling it together into a guideline op/ed piece to boil down all the available info Cleeve has at his disposal. This isn't a 'review', it's more of a market analysis.

By the time you got even a quarter of the testing done to match the information from the Xbit, Techreport, Digit-Life and FS, you'd have a whole new series of cards and games to test. This method gets a valuable resource together without it becoming outdated before it's even posted (baring a release on the week of posting).

Quote:
Wouldn't that eliminate human errors, such as typos and misquoting that might be caused in the transfer to your site?


Actually I don't think anything Cleeve wrote could be grievously interpreted based on a typo, and since there is no quote, how do you 'misquote'? It's boiling down all available up to the minute info and bringing the opinion forth. The fact that he does take input, and will change the information (see previous lists) based on constructive feedback/information shows that it's a more valuable asset than some other sites where the conclusions remain the same but the auto-links to pricewatch/newegg are the only things that change.

Quote:
Just posting a question guys.... No need to get in a huff now. I just want to know where my purchase decisions are coming from, and to make the best ones like everyone else.


If that's all you're doing I ask again, WTF is with pointing out his edits?!?
And while you're at it, post me to these reliable fonts of information, because I tell you from my experience of reading so many different sources, everyone has at least one review/article that in the light of the future they wish they could go back and change.

Perhaps you didn't intend the implication of your writing, in which case I would apologize for my reaction but also recommend you improve your writing style; however that doesn't seem to be the case and by the reactions of others I'm not the only one who felt that way. Prove me wrong, because your post wasn't just asking a question, that was featherstone's original post, which is why I left it unchallenged my first two readings at work, as it's a reasonable question. I only entered the fray when you made your post essentially challenging Cleeve's integrity, and then Cleeve not wanting to go into the mud-slinging with you. I understand, he has to be somewhat respectful of the potential 'readers' etc. I do not have any such constraint or need for restraint.
My previous post in the thread was to help illustrate the GS v GT overclocking issue, a positive contribution. So truely yours must have had that something 'special' to illicit this reaction, while Featherstone's did not.

I'll apologize for my reaction if you can convince me that you meant nothing by your comments in the fashion most people have taken them.

Otherwise I'll remain the dick and you can be the

Fair enough?
!