Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tom's Hardware Video Card guide getting worse and worse..

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 10, 2007 10:54:27 PM

Tom's Hardware is supposed to be the best of the best at reviews and benchmarks. I come to Toms Hardware every single day and read every article, watch every video. And in the last few months, something is totally clear about Tom's Hardware versus other review sites. Its all in the details. Tom's video card reviews are almost dead last in terms of how complete, informative, etc. This is for the following reasons:

Lets take the HD 3870 card for example. Now here is where Tom's failed.

#1 No crossfire benchmarks? How can you have a ATI video card review without crossfire? its totally absurd at this day and age. Totally unacceptable.
#2 And this made me LOL, and probably everyone else too. What the hell is the point with the dual video card Dx10 2007 http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx...
what is the point of this nonsense page? I mean games like MS simulator, Doom 3, and Might and Magic?

Are you serious? How about sticking to your review, and including games that matter like perhaps Crysis, ut3, Quake Wars, Orange Box, Hellgate london, and things people actually play in droves?

I don't know who is doing the work for these 2007 VGA charts, or what have you, but it looks like pure laziness to me. Maybe the people doing the reviews are not being supervised like they should and are just playing TF2 all day long while on Tom's dollar. I don't know.

But there has got to be some serious updating to the VGA charts when your including cards like the G92, RV670, crossfire, SLI and all the newest technology.

Not stupid MS flight simulator, might and magic, nonsense!

So here is what I think is worthy of Tom's site.

#1 Full market roundup of all the G92 cards with benches
#2 Full market roundup of all the HD3800 series cards with benches
#3 VGA charts that people actually can learn something from.
#4 Updates of all the cards EACH time a new driver comes out for it.

You do those 4 things, your #1 in the world at hardware video card wise.

That is the key to what makes a good site right? lets not get away from the basics.
#1 thing that makes a successful sight is to generate content people who visit CARE about and WANT to read!

This is where the site is failing in the video card review department.

Now I laid it out right there what people want to see. 1-4 above. If the people getting paid by Tom putting up these video card reviews can't do it, then I think Tom should hire somebody who can do it. Its business, Tom is in this to be the best.

I visit no less than 8 hardware review sites a day reading up on everything, and on video cards and I know what makes a good review.

If your going to review anything new from ATI without crossfire, don't even bother. After all, I think its safe to say most everyone with a X38 wants to know, and X38 is pretty much the dominant platform for the enthusiast market.

Thats my opinions, I hope things get fixed. If they don't or can't get fixed, I will freaking quit my job, go work for Tom and fix it myself. I know exactly what to do, and can do it easily.

LAAkuma
December 10, 2007 11:25:03 PM

+1


Leave Battlefield 2142 as I play it :p 
December 10, 2007 11:38:28 PM

+2 i mean how ridiculous is it that i have to use doom 3 to see how much fps my games average on steam games (because some steam games use the doom 3 engine) and yeah how will i know how my 8800gt will fare at playing crysis on 1280 x 1024 should i decide to upgrade?

come on tom's stop being so close-minded.
Related resources
December 10, 2007 11:49:39 PM

I think oblivion performance still shows the overall power of any videocard.

But the chart should be updated, it's not that much work.
December 10, 2007 11:56:55 PM

Yes newer games would definitely be a plus.
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 12:07:40 AM

Some valid points, but two things that are off base;

No one does #4 anywhere. The closest is the driver reviews from places like TweakTown and such and that's for 1 or 2 cards in limited number of games (mainly 3Dmarks). Also would you use Betas or WHQL only? If using Betas the cards wouldn't be done testing before another one leaked out. And if not you might still go 3-6 months between some driver updates.

As for M$ it belongs in there as much as anything else because it's such a different game, and you want consistency too. 3-4FPS , 2 sims (FSX and a driving one IMO) and 2 MMO / RPGS would give you good balance within a review. Hellgate doesn't belong in a big review, there's just not enough need. You go with the titles that have consistency and are game-engine defining, so Crysis, QET, HL2:E2/TF2 , UT3 all make sense because of their application to other games in general and because of how they strain PCs. If anything I'd put COD4 aheadof Hellgate.

Anywhoo, I think you'll find agreement from most of us here on the VGA charts, but I don't think they're aimed at us, I think they're aimed at the Best Buy "Tell me what to buy" buyer, and while updating the VGA charts would be nice, I'd simply prefer they concentrate on the full reviews instead because charts are for people who don't really look in depth anyways.
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 12:11:32 AM

teh_boxzor said:
(because some steam games use the doom 3 engine)


D3 engine is still pretty limited compared to the value of the UT3 engine, which will likely power more games than HL2, D3 and Cryengine combined, although it may be close.
December 11, 2007 12:54:09 AM

HI guys, thanks for the encouragement of the basis of my argument.

GreatApe. I hear you on the driver update thing. Some sites do it. But to say no other sites do it is something I know Tom's doesn't care about, because Tom's is a LEADER.. Leaders don't copy what other people do, they make up their own standard and others follow them.

I think if Tom's wants to be the leader, they have to do what I said. And like I said, if they don;t have the right people to do it, I will do it for them.

I mean Tom's has the capacity to be the worlds best hardware review site. But they can;t do it with the weak hardware reviews they have been doing. I REALLY think there has to be a new rule in effect or something at Tom's studios. Rule #1. No playing any games during working hours whatsoever, or your fired, unless your specifically reviewing that game. It looks like to me a bunch of non-professional gamers are doing these reviews and works.

LAAkuma
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 1:11:19 AM

LAAkuma said:

GreatApe. I hear you on the driver update thing. Some sites do it. But to say no other sites do it is something I know Tom's doesn't care about, because Tom's is a LEADER.. Leaders don't copy what other people do, they make up their own standard and others follow them.


I understand what you're saying, but as someone who did the Catalyst forum sticky for just over a year reviewing each release on 1 card in a bunch of games/apps, I can tell you that keeping a list of cards from both IHVs current would be a full time job, which translate to a pretty heafty cost. And you still wouldn't please everyone, because by the time you got the latest batch finished someone would launch Beta driver XXX.xx that negates your work in some people's minds.

Quote:
I mean Tom's has the capacity to be the worlds best hardware review site. But they can;t do it with the weak hardware reviews they have been doing. I REALLY think there has to be a new rule in effect or something at Tom's studios. Rule #1. No playing any games during working hours whatsoever, or your fired, unless your specifically reviewing that game. It looks like to me a bunch of non-professional gamers are doing these reviews and works.


The thing is there aren't dedicated studios for this, the reviwers are a collection of people with other jobs, wich is the same for every other site, and true of Thomas Pabst when he started the site. Unfortunately the resources available aren't such that it makes it easy to allow for that kind of depth and detail. Pretty much all sites do what they can and then they do something different from others to diffferentiate themselves.

I'd love to see the VGA charts be more up to date, but I think in the grand scheme of things to me, they're less of a concern than seeing more detailed specifics into the games themselves and into their use in things like HTPCs and non-traditional areas. I prefer the details rather than the charts, but I do agree that if they do exist they must be kept current on at least a quarterly basis.
December 11, 2007 1:41:44 AM

Does anyone here Know Tom so they can tell him about this growing concern?

LAAkuma
December 11, 2007 1:52:15 AM

I wanna know why they used a over clocked 8800gt ,was it to make the 3870 look bad? i think they should either use normal ones or use a over clocked 3870
December 11, 2007 1:59:35 AM

Ahhh I am not sure about this but I think they are gonna bench some new games and add them to the chart. Some of the newer cards were already benched on some of the newer titles so I imagine they could just incorporate that information into the charts and then bench some of the older cards on the newer games....etc........

:heink: 

December 11, 2007 2:02:09 AM

I agree. TH needs to pull up their socks.
December 11, 2007 2:16:04 AM

All valid points.
However i do realise that updating these benches with new games is a LOT of work. Like a LOT.

I use them more for comparing which card is better, not really the EXACT fps i can get from what h/ware.
December 11, 2007 2:23:18 AM

What I don't understand is why Tomshardware used those old games in the first place. I mean the chart was done over the summer I beleve and there were good games out then too. Whats with doom 3 and magic might w/e or war hammer?
And what kind of crap drivers where they using for the 3800s? They had the 3850 on par with a 7950GT and X1900 series. If you look at other reviews, the 3850 destroys both of those series.
Also if people didnt notice, the 3870 was also Overclocked. 825/2400. But its still had crappy results.
December 11, 2007 2:50:12 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
...I think they're aimed at the Best Buy "Tell me what to buy" buyer, and while updating the VGA charts would be nice, I'd simply prefer they concentrate on the full reviews instead because charts are for people who don't really look in depth anyways.


Funny you say that.

About 4 years ago when i really started to get into PCs I went into Best Buy to purchase a video card, I had no idea what to get, I just needed Command & Conquer generals to run on my PC at the time. So, I was going to purchase a Radeon 9600 (wasn't a bad card than) and the guy helping me at Best Buy took me to Tom's Hardware Guide and the VGA charts to show me that my product wasn't even being benched any more, and that I should proceed to purchase a 7800GTX for $400.

Ahhh, thanks for bringing back the memories. :D 


Anywho, on a more serious note.


I don't think most of you understand how much time goes into updating every card from the Radon X1k series to the current NVIDIA 8 series and HD3k series of cards. That's this many cards...

Radeon X1300 128/256/512 (3)
Radeon X1300 Pro 256/512 (2)
Radeon X1600 Pro 128/256/512 (3)
Radeon X1600XT 256 (1)
Radeon X1650 256/512 (2)
Radeon X1650 Pro 256/512 (2)
Radeon X1650GT 256/512 (2)
Radeon X1650XT 256 (1)
Radeon X1800XTX (1)
Radeon X1800XT 256/512 (2)
Radeon X1800GTO 256 (1)
Radeon X1900XTX (1)
Radeon X1900XT 256/512 (2)
Radeon X1950XT 256/512 (2)
Radeon X1950GT 256/512 (2)
Radeon HD2400 Pro 256/512 (2)
Radeon HD2400XT 256/512 (2)
Radeon HD2600 Pro 256/512 (2)
Radeon HD2600XT 256/512 (2)
Radeon HD2900 Pro 512/1024 (2)
Radeon HD2900GT 256 (1)
Radeon HD2900XT 512/1024 (2)
Radeon HD3850 256/512 (2)
Radeon HD3870 512 (1)

* 40 total cards

GeForce 7200GS 128/512 (2)
GeForce 7300LE 128/256 (2)
GeForce 7300GS 256/512 (2)
GeForce 7300GT 256/512 (2)
GeForce 7600GS 256/512 (2)
GeForce 7600GT 256/512 (2)
GeForce 7800GT 256 (1)
GeForce 7800GTX 256 (1)
GeForce 7900GT 256 (1)
GeForce 7900GS 256 (1)
GeForce 7900GTX 256 (1)
GeForce 7950GT 256/512 (2)
GeForce 7950GX2 1024 (1)
GeForce 8400GS 256/512 (2)
GeForce 8600GT 256/512 (2)
GeForce 8600GTS 256 (1)
GeForce 8800GT 256/512 (2)
GeForce 8800GTS 320 (1)
GeForce 8800GTS 640 (1)
GeForce 8800GTX (1)
GeForce 8800GTX Ultra (1)

* 31 total cards

I may have missed some, most was from memory, the others were from a Newegg's help. But as you can see, it's a long list. It's a total of 71 cards combined from both companies.

Now, take 71 cards, benchmark them in Crysis, on Low, Medium, High, Very High, and with a mix of 2x/4x and beyond AA, than UT3 and it's settings, World in Conflict on Low, Medium, High, and Very High on with a mix of settings, FSX, Call of Duty 4, and you'll soon understand why these things take a VERY long time to update.

And if you want to do what some have suggested, which is to update the charts with every new driver, and you're talking about 16 hour days for weeks on end just to get the charts up to date...until the next driver comes out.

I hope that this gets across the point that you should be happy that they do these things for you, and that you can use this as a reference, because as far as I know, Tom's Hardware Guide is the ONLY site to have a full, comprehensive list of cards, as well as games to select from, on specific settings. Not only this, but Tom's Hardware benches at OC levels sometimes as well to give you a better representation of the cards.

Constructive criticism is great and all, but don't go over board and just be thankful that a site is offering tools to the public such as the VGA Charts. :kaola: 
December 11, 2007 2:50:41 AM

maybe tom's is getting paid by nvidia to make their cards look good?
December 11, 2007 2:54:57 AM

Ok so I guess you are making the assumption that Tom's gets to keep every card they evaluate.
I don't think so, just look at the cards on the list then add up the cost of maintaining that inventory. How many hours would it take to run the tests as you keep adding cards.
I wish they did not test as if we all could afford huge flat screen monitors.
I preferred the static charts that just listed the spec for the cards.

I still think a 7600 GS 512 AGP is a good card, but what do I know?
December 11, 2007 3:06:57 AM

teh_boxzor said:
maybe tom's is getting paid by nvidia to make their cards look good?



Naaa if they were getting paid they would have benched more games. I "personally" prefer Nvidia cards. To me they work no matter what....no need to really fool with them.

I think the....cpu and gpu charts are useful especially if you are looking to upgrade. I would rather have an idea about how a new GPU performs with a certain game before going out and getting the game or deciding I need to upgrade to a new video card.
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 3:39:10 AM

justinmcg67 said:
Funny you say that.

About 4 years ago when i really started to get into PCs I went into Best Buy to purchase a video card, I had no idea what to get, I just needed Command & Conquer generals to run on my PC at the time. So, I was going to purchase a Radeon 9600 (wasn't a bad card than) and the guy helping me at Best Buy took me to Tom's Hardware Guide and the VGA charts to show me that my product wasn't even being benched any more, and that I should proceed to purchase a 7800GTX for $400.

Ahhh, thanks for bringing back the memories. :D 


No problems, I remember when I e-mailed Lars/Borsti to tell him his 3Dmark list from a review was colour photocopied and pasted to the counter top of the local Future Shop (which was later bought out by BestBuy and now you find them side-by-side in malls because people think they're different and thus think they are 'shopping around' by visiting both - which are the same people I usually mean).

Funny thing everyone starts out somewhere like that, and then some take that limited knowledge and improve upon it. And when you learn more of course you learn just how limited any single set of tests can be, and the best thing to do is to read multiple sites (without which most people wouldn't know the subtle differences like the 8XAA differences, and TAA/CSAA/etc.)

You missed a few cards (I'm sure I noticed it more than most because you specifically mentioned it, so I actually re-checked the list), but it accurate in the relationship and easily converys the difficulty of the task.
I may have missed some, most was from memory, the others were from a Newegg's help. But as you can see, it's a long list. It's a total of 71 cards combined from both companies.

Also, instead of making another post (I'm going out) just an FYI to everyone, TOM aka Dr Thomas Pabst hasn't contributed or owned the site in a long time. He is the creator, but he's not directly involed anymore, and so trying to bribe him wouldn't make much sense. :pfff: 

December 11, 2007 3:39:38 AM

I have to agree about the point regarding the new DX10 charts. They benched DX10 cards, but with no DX10 titles. It just seems off base.
December 11, 2007 3:52:39 AM

I know exactly how to do the system if I worked for Tom. And I mean exactly. Of course, if he started such a system, he would have to start over with any cards he wanted to display, and use those for x time.

Its very simple really. Very.

Before the new year, you get a few boxes. They all have the fastest chips in them you can buy at the time.
You then swap out each card and drivers, and bench them all as you get them during the year. So your not sitting there doing 100 cards in a row, its more like 1-4 a week, all year long perhaps. very easy.

Then at the end of the year, you get new boxes reflecting the fastest at that time, that you keep another year, and go from there.

For each new year, you simply take say, the hottest 4 or 5 gpu's of the last year and add them to the database for the new year.

I mean I don't even do this for a living, but its literally so easy.

Right now, right now right now, at this time, there are only a few video cards people would even consider buying. So might as well start the new database right now. Start with.
8800 GT 512
8800 GT 256
8800 GTS G92
HD3750 512
HD3850 512
HD3850 256

Those are the only cards anyone should consider buying right now. and those will be real popular I would guess all the way through 2008.

That would start off 2008 on a clean slate.

Each one of the above cards should be in SLI and Crossfire as well, and displayed in the SAME table as the single cards, and each time the drivers are updated for NVIDIA and ATI, each card should be benched again and the tables updated.

Right now there is really only 3 markets.

Cheap - 3850
mid range -3870-8800 gt
and high end 8800GTS G92 or crossfire ATI

Thats it.

LAAkuma
December 11, 2007 3:52:53 AM

Hey all, I take the charts with a grain of salt, they gives me a general idea, and reviews are what generally make up my mind on a purchase.

But having said that, I WOULD like to see how my BFG 8800 GT OC2 compares to the card I upgraded from.

GeForce MX 440. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
December 11, 2007 7:27:22 AM

Amen... I think everyone is feeling this right now. As for the VGA charts with the amount of video cards there are... Not to sound to critical, but I dont know about you guys but I really dont care how a x1300 or a 7200gs performs on any benchmark other than knowing I can browse the internet. With that being said maybe they should just shrink down the number of video cards being tested that way they can afford to spend more time benchmarking video cards that the majority of the people are interested in. This way we can see how the cards are improving with newly release drivers.
December 11, 2007 8:33:47 AM

Tom's is really dropping the ball on this one, these charts suck, ESP for ATI who update their drivers every month that is why i dont use these charts anymore.
December 11, 2007 8:49:53 AM

LAAkuma said:
Does anyone here Know Tom so they can tell him about this growing concern?

LAAkuma


Lool Laakuma. You really are new to this forum, not? There used to be a tom. But that was years and years and years ago before the greedy ads took over the place ;) 
December 11, 2007 9:43:20 AM

I also visit Tom's every day and read every article and MS Flight Simulator is my only interest, not some shoot em up game! There is a need and room for both of us.
December 11, 2007 10:16:52 AM

If you do something do it right or don't do it. Don't come here telling us it takes too much time that's why we do a bad job. How can I compare the 3850 and 3870 at clock vs a 8800 GT OC. I heard, not sure, that the hd38xx OC really well and you compare them at clock. Then I have to ask why. How do I know which one is better?

Also I would love if they finally added some MMO titles too. I know a good one to test. It makes every card out there cry and tier apart. Vanguard SoH.

It's not bad if some tests don't include older cards. Just get the newer cards and the better cards from previous rounds. Now I have no clue, only looking at this chart, if the card I'm planning to get is going to run Crysis at all. If you add a 1950, 2900, 7800, 7950 and the newer versions to the test, I can see, compare other game results versus these cards and then look at the game and see if I can expect to even keep 1fps.
a c 175 U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 11:20:31 AM

I'd like to see newer cards on the list, but I think for what it is, a comparative tool, it does a reasonable job. It sounds like some of you are looking for a screwdriver to do a hammer's job. Start with the VGA charts to find candidates; get ideas, and then research more specifics wherever they may be. Take them in context, and they can be very useful. Could they be better? Sure, just like everything, but that doesn't mean they're bad.
My suggestions for "improvement" would be:
1. Don't OC anything in the tests. Do them ALL at stock. OC results are too variable to put in charts, and depend on too many confounding factors, like cooling, PSU quality, and other components.
1a. ...but maybe find a way to indicate generally how well the card OC's. Maybe mention vendor offerings that are factory OC-ed.
2. Find a way (if it isn't done already) to allow user community input into the games tested.
2a. Put games into tiers for how demanding they are; you play Tier-X games? Then you should get a Tier-X GPU or better for playable (30+) fps.
December 11, 2007 11:55:47 AM

I dont think they OC'd any cards on the list. If they OC'd that card manually they would have got much higher clocks. I think they just obtained a factory OC card because the stock cards are the same price as the OC cards right now, if you can even find them. That being said I have yet to see ANY factory OC cards from ATI yet, thus they were not included on the list. The list contains the cards you are likely to buy retail, a factory OC 8800GT or a stock 3850.
December 11, 2007 11:57:44 AM

I think they should of used the DX10 Charts to start fresh with a new chart, all DX10 games on the list leave the old list for archive for DX9 cards.

World in Conflict, Bioshock, Crysis, Unreal Tournament 3 and PT Boats DX10.

The time would of been better spent.

I for one thought that I was going to see DX10 games on the charts and too my disappointment I did not.
December 11, 2007 12:24:04 PM

(Toms not directly involved anymore) So, who's in Charge Ape? - is it you?
Ryan.

P.S - I agree with the initial poster..
a c 175 U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 12:25:14 PM

DX10 games are not mainstream yet, and won't be for some time to come. Unmodded XP will be dominant for a long time. Some comparative notes on XP vs. Vista might be useful if there is a fairly constant percentage difference between the two. Otherwise, this is asking for a doubling of work, when the overall rankings should still be relevant and useful. As the charts are reworked on test boxes with Vista / DX10, I'm sure titles like Crysis will be included.

Pet peeve: Apologies if English is not your native language, but "should of" and "would of" are uneducated butchery. "Should've and "would've" are the contractions of "should have" and "would have," respectively. /pet peeve

December 11, 2007 1:01:18 PM

There is still no reason to use a factory OC'd model over a normal model. And don't come with the one is the same price. You can add a OC moddel, but it's silly to make the OC model the only model available. How can I compare the results between a non-OC version to a OC version. Also because you can't find a normal version doesn't mean I can't find one cheaper or get the OC'd version, because they also are rare.

If you want to inform everyone what the GPU is, you have to use the ref model. You can't use a special OC'd versions or other things. It's too hard to compare them. And I should be able to use this list as a shopping-guide, don't need to do too much research, but we disagree on this point I guess. Let's hope they will add a standard GT model soon.
December 11, 2007 1:48:29 PM

Interesting topic, anything that makes Tom's site better is good for me. :) 
December 11, 2007 1:50:13 PM

There is a perfectly good reason to use a factory OC model as opposed to a stock model. You cant find a stock model and you have to get the factory OC model. Just like several of my friends who have been trying to buy an 8800GT since it came out(I was lucky to get my stock 8800GT shipped out the second day after release), they are all poor and each bought the cheapest model they could find period. Not one of them got a stock model.
December 11, 2007 2:44:07 PM

I like the idea of starting over with just the DX10 cards with just DX10 games going forth. And yes there are only a limited number of DX10 games, but that will change. At first the chart will be most useful for the enthusiast or those with an eye toward where they will be gaming in say 6+ months (when more DX 10 games are coming out), but need to make a purchase now. But as more DX10 games come out it will become more of concern to mainstream (mid-range) card owners who go OMG I must play this game...can I handle it?

I'd only add DX9 games to the DX10 card game list if they are popular AND make a single mid-range most recent gen of DX9 cards cry for mercy. Like Oblivion http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_dx102007.html?mo...

Trying to include all the information from DX9 games on the DX9/10 cards is simply going to be get ponderous for testing and review. Especially when you throw in the XP/Vista performance issue. So the reviewers have my sympathy.

I'd lock down the DX9 testing suite only adding new games that are both popular and make single graphic cards scream for mercy. Its not going to be all that big a deal if the next big thing is a DX9 game that the x1300 can play avg. of 20fps on.

As for the Vista vs. XP issue...I game on both systems and frankly, I'm not sure if Vista (DX9 performance) should even be addressed until after SP1.

Then there are driver revisions. Realistically a chart taking those into account can only be updated often, if you are doing a small number of games and cards. Perhaps a quarterly update of the top 2 cards in each price range (enthusiast, mid-range, and value) with the newest drivers would be best doing the others only when a driver revision improves speed so dramatically that one card over takes something in the next level up.

I wouldn't like to see more pre-overclocked reviews unless its comparing the pre-overclocked to what would normally be a faster card or others of the same type. That way you can see if paying the extra $$ for the higher end makes more sense to close the performance gap by buying the higher end instead of just getting a pre-overclocked card. Comparing it the other way really doesn't help much other than to say "See superclocked card uber!"
December 11, 2007 3:04:50 PM

buzzlightbeer said:
I wanna know why they used a over clocked 8800gt ,was it to make the 3870 look bad? i think they should either use normal ones or use a over clocked 3870



Nvidia does'nt have a non overclocked card to test .... they all have to be maxed to the limit to get their benchmarks from the factory . :lol:  And yea dx9 tests are stupid for the new gen cards .... face it dx9 is about dead !
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 3:20:36 PM

This isnt about "good job bad job" , nor about getting every lil scrap of info out. Just having all these cards gone thru is tedious as it is, let alone driver upgrades all the time. Anyone whos worked for themselves knows that time is money, whether its you or someone youve hired. If the company allows only a certain allotted amount of time, then thats how much you have, and doing all these cards in between playing games isnt reality. I think the Ape hit it on the head, a good start, and fairly comprehensive as well, with the inclusion of so many cards. Lets remember, none of us started out as enthusiasts, nor did we know how expensive it can be. This is for beginers and is also useful for more advanced players/users. I think its more about how good and useful the charts are opposed to what they lack, just by going to the response of this thread as the others like this one. They are important, but to include every aspect is asking someone to open their wallet, and that may not be a possibility
December 11, 2007 5:05:46 PM

LAAkuma said:
and bench them all as you get them during the year.

and that is different from what is going on now in what way?... ;) 

LAAkuma said:
I mean I don't even do this for a living, but its literally so easy.

and that is WHY you don't do it for a living... ;)  With any job like this (or programming, or writing movie scripts, or...) it always seems "literally so easy" to an outsider. It never is though.

LAAkuma said:
Right now, right now right now, at this time, there are only a few video cards people would even consider buying. So might as well start the new database right now. Start with.
8800 GT 512
8800 GT 256
8800 GTS G92
HD3750 512
HD3850 512
HD3850 256

Those are the only cards anyone should consider buying right now. and those will be real popular I would guess all the way through 2008.

so wait... they will be popular THROUGH 2008? so then that means they will last more than a year by your standards here? so what about the cards that are a year old now? what about the ones that are released in the next year? Your current list of 6 cards is woefully off even by your own timeline. If a card is viable for a year or more (as you have already stated) then CURRENTLY that list should include ALL cards that are a year old, which it does not.

plus... many ppl do not have the budget to get "the only cards anyone should consider" and so must settle for something from the previous generation that still performs well but without the cost. (x1k/gf7 series)

its very simple really. very. ;) 

rock on.
!