Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Should Tomshardware be called Toms_way_its_meant_to_be_played ??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

Should Tomshardware be called Toms_way_its_meant_to_be_played ??

Total: 106 votes (17 blank votes)

  • YES
  • 57 %
  • NO
  • 44 %
June 23, 2008 7:59:12 PM

It's been almost a week since ATI has released HD4850 and Tomshardware is the only site that hasn't published a review. Instead, they have published 3 to 4 subjects about NVIDIA and how great their cards are, one of them talking about how NVIDIA smokes 3DMark scores with their last driver:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Nvidia-PhysX-GTX2800,5...

But they "forget" to mention that the driver isn't 3DMark certified as it is clearly violates the rules set by 3DMark:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/23/...

Don't they want to inform their readers about ATI HD4850? If you're watching the site's subjects closely you can see there are other examples of such behavior as well. Am I the only one thinking that Tomshardware is loosing its reliability? So, what do you think, should www.Tomshardware.com be renamed to www.Toms_way_its_meant_to_be_played.com ?
June 23, 2008 8:13:41 PM

No, I agree with you. It seems since this make over and new management, many things have taken a turn for the worse. Editing/proof-reading is the most noticeable, to me at least. The tone of some of the articles has changed from a more 'reporting' approach to an almost fan-boy approach. It's too bad, I have always valued the opinion and the information I found on Toms. Now I am beginning to reconsider that.
June 23, 2008 8:20:26 PM

@ OP: You are a fool.

Tom's Hardware did not give the GTX 200 series praise. They were very critical of the price, noise level, and power consumption. Read the whole article before your criticize.

There is a good chance Tom's Hardware is waiting until the 4870 is available to them so they can review them both at the same time.

If you don't like Tom's Hardware, then don't post here.
Related resources
June 23, 2008 8:23:43 PM

If you don't like people posting something negative about your dear toms then don't post in their thread!
June 23, 2008 8:23:57 PM

I agree with tseska69's point. I have been noticing grammar errors as well. That part of Tom's does need improvement.

Maybe they are inept at spelling and grammar, but that does not make them a fanboy.
June 23, 2008 8:26:31 PM

The Inquirer is bad. Lets face it intergrated PhysX, with Dx10.1 will be next top end and neither can make it happen yet. Both ATI and Nvidia failed this round.
June 23, 2008 8:27:03 PM

Quote:
@ OP: You are a fool.


Thank you for characterizing me...

Now about your answer, as you should know there isn't such thing as bad advertising....

I like Tom's Hardware, but i don't like these signs of loosing its liability. It looks like I am not the only one.

June 23, 2008 8:27:06 PM

njalterio said:
I agree with tseska69's point. I have been noticing grammar errors as well. That part of Tom's does need improvement.

Maybe they are inept at spelling and grammar, but that does not make them a fanboy.


Hoked on fonics wukred fur them? OH NOES I misspelled!!! Does that make me an Nvidia fanboi now? :o 
June 23, 2008 8:29:59 PM

Toms hardware because the software sucks
June 23, 2008 8:49:11 PM

B-Unit said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/HD4850-AMD-Radeon,5702.html

The NDA was not lifted until last Thursday, and even that was only a partial release, detailed specs were not allowed to be discussed.

Its called a news cycle people, nVidia owned last weeks, ATI will own this weeks. Get over it.


Umm guy the fact is that everyone else has given full reviews on the 4850 for some time now and Tom's still hasn't even given a single look at it. You can cite the NDA argument all you want but nothing speaks louder than proof.

You're pretty dumb if you can't see that Tom's has an Nvidia bias. Of course they gave an honest review of the GTX 200 series, how could they give any other when benchmarks don't lie? So, since the point of this thread went completely over your head, we're talking about the fact that for every one ATI story there's something like five Nvidia stories - this did not start last week FYI and no other sites have this same tendency that Tom's does. For every mediocre Nvidia review they give, they produce three other Nvidia stories that make them look damn good. Are you seeing a pattern here?'

Wake up.
June 23, 2008 8:51:32 PM

In Tom's's defense I must say that the -real- NDA doesn't expire until Wednesday, and until then all they can legitimately give us are performance "previews" and a few other tidbits that we could gather ourselves if we had the card in our hands.

I bet they decided that instead of fooling around with AMD's half NDA garbage they would just wait until Wednesday and post a complete review.

Still, a nice little preview of the card wouldn't have hurt anything...
June 23, 2008 8:52:48 PM

Not exactly B-Unit.
When there are a lot of reviews all over the web (including from sites like anandtech and guru3d) isn't such a behaviour from Tom suspicious? Were they waiting for 9800GTX+ to get in public to spoil ATI's release? You see there was time to spread the news about how the new un-approved (and never to be approved) driver "smokes" 3DMark scores and not enough time to review HD4850 (hey, it's only four days since it has been released, those other sites must have the ultra fast reviewers to get those reviews in time).
June 23, 2008 8:57:17 PM

maybe they don't want to post a review without detailed technical specs? or they are just being lazy and their 4850 is still in the box? there are always other possiblities (though i doubt the latter), but your view may be true
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 23, 2008 9:10:27 PM

modtech said:
If you don't like people posting something negative about your dear toms then don't post in their thread!


How does that work?

Why is the site worthy of criticism, however the critic is not?

Dude, can't have it both ways.

I think the OP's making mountains out of molehills and potentially off his meds, but so be it.

I'm not looking for the fluff benchies that I've seen on every single other site, I'm looking for the in depth review that no one is posting until the full NDA lifts.

Beyond3D still doesn't have their RV770 review up, The TechReports is nothing more than a handufl of benchies (much less than they usually use), to me that's a stronger indication of the state of the launch than that some people have a coupla benchmarks at a few resolutions up with little more to say look at our benchies, we think it good/bad.

Considering the number of contradictory early reviews out there, I don't care if there's no equivalent fluff piece on Tom's, and I don't really care what on the front page news either.
Now once the review finally comes out, that's when I'll decide about the objectivity of those involved.

Lars wrote a whole article on this BS with changing launch dates, and I tend to agree with it's basic premise that it's better to try to get it right than to only try to get it first.
June 23, 2008 9:13:05 PM

The "review" at Anandtech is a preview.I suspect Tom's is waiting for the actual card release where they won't have there hands tied by the nda that is still partially in effect.Sure it would have been nice if they had a look at the 4850 already,but they don't.The whole "Suprise we are gonna sorta launch our cards 5 days early because some euro etailers got jumpy!!!" caught alot of sites off gaurd.Including AMD's own site lol,try and find a mention of the 4850 on there own site.


http://ati.amd.com/products/index.html
June 23, 2008 9:19:56 PM

It's true original Tom's articles were far superior. He was a geek at another level. Now it's just commercialized like zdnet.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 23, 2008 9:20:33 PM

He said on their own site, not on a PR site.

Once again showing not a unified front, as by your arguing they should be everywhere you lookf for them or else someone is cheating / playing favourties.

June 23, 2008 9:24:38 PM

I guess that proves that AMD are nvidia fanboys too?Seeing how they don't mention there own card on there own site.
June 23, 2008 9:30:10 PM

The fact that there are people agreeing to my point of view shows that there is something wrong with Tom. If my argument was totally unbased then there would be a clear 100% in favour of Tom and it would have turn into a thread of me being a fanboy. Instead, there are people arguing with facts, from both sides. Was anyone ever thinking that we would be arguing about Tom's liability? The original Tom would never have such a thread, it was crystal clear that Tom was one of the most reliable hardware sites.
a b U Graphics card
June 23, 2008 9:31:08 PM

Toms isnt the only one, it isnt [H]ard to see others dont as well. If you want previews, go look at them. I made a post about this earlier. The sites that already did their previews in my mind, should do full reviews. If they dont, then question them, not Toms.
June 23, 2008 9:37:47 PM

Hrrmmmm,wise this one is,listen you should.
June 23, 2008 9:38:04 PM

Agreed with the op since HeatSinks tests if you still remember
Where they tested the worst HS's :pfff: 
But still comming to this forum because of you guys :hello: 
You are more reliable than Toms
June 23, 2008 9:53:17 PM

This is one of the worst things that can happen in review sites.
People sponsor you and they expect you to review something good about their product otherwise they won't sponsor you anymore.

If you can't beat them why not join them?
June 23, 2008 9:54:33 PM

The Way Its Meant to be Reviewed! well no official statement by Toms... maybe they are publishing the review tonight
June 23, 2008 10:00:29 PM

I doubt it otherwise they would have done it a long time ago, but you never know.
a b U Graphics card
June 23, 2008 10:27:57 PM

This thread will just show how pointless it is very soon
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 23, 2008 11:02:35 PM

johnie said:
The fact that there are people agreeing to my point of view shows that there is something wrong with Tom.


No more than other people agreeing that the earth is flat shows that the earth indeed is flat. Instead it just shows that other people share the same perception as you, right or wrong. :pt1cable: 

Quote:
Was anyone ever thinking that we would be arguing about Tom's liability? The original Tom would never have such a thread, it was crystal clear that Tom was one of the most reliable hardware sites.


Sure, there's always some disgruntled people out there, and there are also passionate issues as well. And if you knew anything about the history you'd know that Lars delayed a few reviews to ensure he did all the testing he wanted/required to do a good article. And those of us who wanted the best info appreciated that effort even if it meant they were third or even last to the table of reviews.

And yes we did have these arguments even when Thomas ran the site. I even had a few heated exchanges with him back in the day.
So seriously, don't tell us how things were , we were here, we know. And by your statements obviously you weren't and don't. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]
June 23, 2008 11:11:27 PM

njalterio said:
I agree with tseska69's point. I have been noticing grammar errors as well. That part of Tom's does need improvement.

Maybe they are inept at spelling and grammar, but that does not make them a fanboy.



get a lyfe
June 23, 2008 11:15:17 PM

One more thing:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Radeon-4850-4870,5667....

In this article, Tom says about the HD4850 that was on sale, in amazon's page, by mistake, and then deleted. Tom used the google's cache in order to find the the deleted page and "inform" us that the card has 480 stream processors. That was in 16/06/08, three days before the whole web gets stormed by previews/reviews. I wonder, didn't Tom had a real HD4850 in its hands at this time? It seems like everyone else had. Didn't Tom know the card has 800 stream processors? Hey, why would they be under NDA if they didn't know such things? But no... it was amazon's fault! They posted the wrong specifications! Tom just found the deleted page and informed its readers... They didn't know it has almost double stream processors. What is Tom to know such thing? One of the greatest hardware sites around? It was at no means a try to mislead the readers about ATI's release! It was amazon's mistake, and although they deleted the page, it was Tom's duty to inform us!
June 23, 2008 11:18:06 PM

marvelous211 said:
It's true original Tom's articles were far superior. He was a geek at another level. Now it's just commercialized like zdnet.



Commercialized undertones have been present on THG for.. well at least since I started reading and lurking here 10 years ago. Christ, I remember when THG used to look comparable to a geocities vanity page..


Anyways, people literally are blowing this out of proportion, there have been a number of news pieces about the 4800 series here on THG; I don't think that adding yet ANOTHER incomplete review to the sea of incomplete reviews is necessary
June 23, 2008 11:18:52 PM

Quote:
No more than other people agreeing that the earth is flat shows that the earth indeed is flat. Instead it just shows that other people share the same perception as you, right or wrong.


Now are you serious about that? Why don't you start a poll about that and see how it goes...
June 23, 2008 11:20:14 PM

I tend to agree with jaydeejohn they will likely give a great review as they should based on whats out there now. The performance is there and the price is great. It's no match for the gtx 280 and doesn't look like the 4870 will be either but once you factor in cost they are great cards.
a b U Graphics card
June 23, 2008 11:37:04 PM

bydesign said:
I tend to agree with jaydeejohn they will likely give a great review as they should based on whats out there now. The performance is there and the price is great. It's no match for the gtx 280 and doesn't look like the 4870 will be either but once you factor in cost they are great cards.

Wait for the 4870s !! And theres a bios update for the fan speeds/core clocks too, in idle :sol: 
June 23, 2008 11:37:32 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Toms isnt the only one, it isnt [H]ard to see others dont as well. If you want previews, go look at them. I made a post about this earlier. The sites that already did their previews in my mind, should do full reviews. If they dont, then question them, not Toms.

Agreed 110%.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 23, 2008 11:41:38 PM

johnie said:

Now are you serious about that? Why don't you start a poll about that and see how it goes...


Probably because I have better things to do with my time, you on the other hand obviously don't. :pfff: 

Quote:
Didn't Tom know the card has 800 stream processors? Hey, why would they be under NDA if they didn't know such things?


Well if you knew anything about the site, you'd know that Theo doesn't do the hardware reviews, that's for others to do (those under NDA), he reports the current rumours and news tidbits out there that aren't under NDA, and because of that separation the two can co-exist.
If the reviewers told the news people what they know that would either force them to silence it or else break their NDA losing future review products, either way they lose. Making sure that the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing allows them both to use all their resources to do their job as best they can.

Would you feel any less crazy-go-nutz if Theo knew what the final product was but instead just didn't write the article, or would you have complained back then for him not reporting what everyone else was at the time?

I have a feeling regardless of what they do you'd whine about something. Next it'll be the fonts used, and their bias against Helvetica! [:thegreatgrapeape:4]
June 24, 2008 12:06:05 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:

I'm not looking for the fluff benchies that I've seen on every single other site, I'm looking for the in depth review that no one is posting until the full NDA lifts.

As much as I usualy agree with your posts, but it seems you are a bit in "Toms can do no wrong" attitude atm :)  Could you tell me what several the best 16-25 pages reviews are lacking? I read at least several full reviews as detailed as GTX280/260 series (like techpowerup's), it would be really exageration to call them all "fluff benchies".

TheGreatGrapeApe said:

Considering the number of contradictory early reviews out there, I don't care if there's no equivalent fluff piece on Tom's, and I don't really care what on the front page news either.
Now once the review finally comes out, that's when I'll decide about the objectivity of those involved.

How long does it take to make full review? A week? Two? A month? Some sites managed to do that, Tom almost a week later still havent. Maybe there is no conspiracy (and PR money involved...) and they are just lazy, who can tell? :p 

TheGreatGrapeApe said:

Lars wrote a whole article on this BS with changing launch dates, and I tend to agree with it's basic premise that it's better to try to get it right than to only try to get it first.

I agree full review is the best way, but Toms had more than enough time for it if they wanted. Its possible they are just lazy, or waiting 4870 (this would end up with one review instead of two, guess what way would be better for AMD and nVidia?), but its also possible nVidia stretched PR pocket and informed 9800GTX+ is on the way to spoil 4850 launch, and Toms will include GTX+ details in 4850 review (or launch almost at the same time both reviews). Ofc, it may not happen, and even if it would - coincidents happens too, nontheless PR money happens as well :sarcastic:  And nVidia lately isnt soft and ethical in this regard.
June 24, 2008 1:11:09 AM

The reporting has been one sided. In the absence of a "full" review some sort of report would be prudent. I don't think this allows us to conclude any one being bought and payed for but it may beg the question.

Imagine for a moment I only read Tom's. My informed choice today would not be a 4850 but in actual fact at it's price it maybe should be. Instead I'd be reading about Cuda and PhysX and looking at the VGA charts and seeing all kinds of Nvidia cards above the 3870 (highest single ATI on the chart).

Whatever the reason in a Tom's world I'd be one sorry misinformed SOB.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 24, 2008 1:19:32 AM

Harrisson said:
As much as I usualy agree with your posts, but it seems you are a bit in "Toms can do no wrong" attitude atm :)  Could you tell me what several the best 16-25 pages reviews are lacking? I read at least several full reviews as detailed as GTX280/260 series (like techpowerup's), it would be really exageration to call them all "fluff benchies".


Do you have any of those that go into detail about the composition of the shaders, TMU clusters, change in caches/buffer handling, the ROP & memory crossbar and even how AA is handled now?
I've seen 'previews' that are multi-page, like that at computerbase, however they offer only some test results, nothing that gets to the heart of the differences between this architecture and the HD4K, when so much more has changed in Ati's design than in nV's which has essentially amplified their G80/92 design, whereas ATi's turned a few of their dsign strategies on their head.
I know Tom's can do wrong, there's been many reviews recently and in the past where we;ve commented on the mistakes here, however like I said in the other thread, I'm more interested in the architectural changes than in the performance in a handful of benchmarks, because sofar they've ranged from mediocre/poor against a GF8800GT to stellar super-ubber against a GTX2xx card. What should remain consistent from now until the card retires is any detailed description of what's inside and how it's supposed to work. Whether it does a good job of that or not is another story.

Quote:
How long does it take to make full review? A week? Two? A month? Some sites managed to do that, Tom almost a week later still havent. Maybe there is no conspiracy (and PR money involved...) and they are just lazy, who can tell? :p 


I don't know, however I would compare any of the current reviews out there now to even those of the HD3870 before it. But for something so different comparing like to like, the HD4K review at the TechReport looks like a Wiki article compared to the depth of the HD2K and even GTX280 review, and that B3D still has their GT200 review as the most recent would echo that situation, as does XbitLabs, that all 3 equally show no indepth articles, makes Tom's not that much out of place. As mentioned before it's like a preview versus a review, I perfer the more detailed latter variety.

Quote:
I agree full review is the best way, but Toms had more than enough time for it if they wanted.


As long as there's not major components to their review that aren't still under NDA. also remember that the new graphics hardware reviews are usually written now by the European (mainly German reviewers), so just like when Lars wrote them they were writen, and then sent for translation, so a change in the schedule would affect them more than someone who could simply write it and post it overnight with little external editing.

If you're just interested in the benchies you could just pull them off the German Tom's site which already has the benchies up, it's been up there since before this thread was created;
http://www.tomshardware.com/de/Radeon-HD-4850-ATi-GeFor...

EDIT: PS, if you think they're Pro-nV and that they're waiting for the GTX+ to help it out, perhaps you should look at those COD4 and Crysis results, doesn't seem to 'pro GTX+' IMO, the only ones that favour nV are UT3 and Mass Effect which should be no surprise to anyone reading the myriad of early reviews with the UT3 issues and the mediocrity of Mass Effect, I was surprised to see the HD4K above any nV product in Flight Sim considering the bias of Tom's towards nV in FSX, eh! ;) 

Either way, like I said before, I'm less interested in the performance of Ati vs nVidia than ATi 3K vs ATi 4K, and what's new and different. Considering the immaturity of both solutions, I doubt either one of them is anywhere near it's maximum potential, so I'd rather focus on something that won't change by next driver release rather than worry about the moving target of momentary performance.

Anywhoo to each their own, I prefer to ignore the benchies and wait for the analysis from the people I trust.
June 24, 2008 1:34:24 AM

I expect 48hr turn around for a review once your PC is setup properly ..

I too agree Toms has gone down hill slighty for reviews , they are Nvidia biased I think , And I think TomsHardware are not fans of AMD
June 24, 2008 2:13:28 AM

I used to be very confident of the information of this site but now i read other site because i think toms is manipulating the information for some companies interest like Nvidia, Intel
June 24, 2008 2:18:40 AM

I've never seen tom's do previews of x video card out of all the years I've reading this site.
June 24, 2008 2:21:11 AM

ovaltineplease said:
Commercialized undertones have been present on THG for.. well at least since I started reading and lurking here 10 years ago. Christ, I remember when THG used to look comparable to a geocities vanity page..


Anyways, people literally are blowing this out of proportion, there have been a number of news pieces about the 4800 series here on THG; I don't think that adding yet ANOTHER incomplete review to the sea of incomplete reviews is necessary


You can't deny Tom's original articles were great. He got to bottom of things from motherboards to CPU. His article was that got me hooked on to this site. Now the reviews are amateurish at best for the general audience.
June 24, 2008 2:27:19 AM

Funny how you complain that Toms is a NVidia/Intel fanboi site when I have always seen them as an AMD affiliate. They always had AMD engineering CPU samples when no one else did. Toms and AMD both based in Germany *cough*
Still maybe their "possible" tight links with AMD prevents them saying anything??

Still a bit odd tho?
June 24, 2008 3:06:53 AM

Johnie, for someone questioning Tom's grammar, you still are using "liability" out of context quite often. You corrected one of these mistakes in the opening post, changing the incorrect use of "liability" to "reliability", which is more fitting, but several of your other posts need to have this word swapped out with either "reliability" or "validity".

As many have already mentioned, Toms may not be posting their review yet, since it would be limited by a partial NDA, and the 4870 is not yet available. I would question the validity of "reviews" using beta drivers, who are under a partial NDA.

You're jumping to conclusions. If you're an ATI fan, you probably should be happy that the 4xxx series is being represented more fairly here.


PS: Charlie Demerjian has a personal vendetta against Nvidia. Stop listening to him.
June 24, 2008 3:21:08 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Do you have any of those that go into detail about the composition of the shaders, TMU clusters, change in caches/buffer handling, the ROP & memory crossbar and even how AA is handled now?
I've seen 'previews' that are multi-page, like that at computerbase, however they offer only some test results, nothing that gets to the heart of the differences between this architecture and the HD4K, when so much more has changed in Ati's design than in nV's which has essentially amplified their G80/92 design, whereas ATi's turned a few of their dsign strategies on their head.

We do know how many shaders, Texture Units, etc. new cards have. I agree its not extremely detailed yet, but its enough info for me for general understanding for now, what I'm more interested how this technology translates into the performance, - and we do have info about this. On the paper we had plenty of impressive products (2900XT anyone? How about famous FX5800 Dustbuster?), which didnt managed to impress in the reality. Thats why performance goes for me first, and ins/outs serves for me as cream on the pie :)  I'm still fascinated though by some advancements which havent made to the games yet, like tessellation and some 10.1 features. Too bad sometimes technology (regardless how good it is) doesnt translate to anything for the end user....

TheGreatGrapeApe said:

If you're just interested in the benchies you could just pull them off the German Tom's site which already has the benchies up, it's been up there since before this thread was created;
http://www.tomshardware.com/de/Radeon-HD-4850-ATi-GeFor...


Thanks for the link, it was released (updated?) yesterday - 23 June, and suprise suprise - they included not released 9800GTX+, which was send out to reviewers to spoil 4850 launch party. Do I get a cookie for the "lucky" guess in the last post? :hello: 

They tested it with ForceWare 177.39, which was released... 3 days before posting article? This answers the question how long the testing takes, and its isnt two weeks or a month, isnt? Now, did you find there elaborate info about 4850 technology which wasnt known before Tom's german article? No, unfortunately. This means it wasnt the reason to postpone the article. We can only conclude that even if it was actualy nVidia PR trick to spoil the 4850 party with GTX+, it wasnt succesfull at this point because of immature drivers (obviously, its the only explanation why faster card is slower than GTX in a few tests).
June 24, 2008 4:04:40 AM

As a shameless amd fanboy who could care less, I thought Tom's did what it could to present the amd scene during the recent dark days.

I stumbled over original tom's by reading his article on how to oclock a P1 using bus rather than clock multiplier. circa 97.

That original site was great - now there's typos and misleading/unclear grammaticals and jibberish recently - and that is dangerous. At least you new Tom was English with an accent :) 

Also, OMISSION is the dark side - fine points left out, but that can happen, and, really it's the manufacturer who is hiding something. I bot a mobo w 15 irq's just before the new acpi standards changed and went to 24 irq - and that was ABITch - and they knew - and gave me no speekady ingleesh - but that mobo was a parts dump released before xp - and M$oft had warned the mobo manu's of the coming changes. (I researched the dates - so my 1 yr old hot mobo needed a standard pc hal.) (circa 99)

But it 's hard to include everything in a good review.

Tom's is still my fav but I frequent Anandtech a lot lately.

vote no - and this is really a stupid thread
a b U Graphics card
June 24, 2008 5:07:59 AM

And, like I said, by tomorrow pointless as well
June 24, 2008 5:08:23 AM

BTW, to the topic question I think the answer is some cases (definately not all, but probably more often than we know or want to admit) is: "Should Tomshardware be called Toms_way_its_meant_to_be_payed". Its the same for any info site, money often pays for the music, regardless by whom - nVidia, AMD or Intel, its the same thing just different tune.
!