tom im pissed at you!!!!

[rcf84]

http://www.madonion.com/hardware/halloffame/

Athlon 32-bit scores

1. ATI RADEON DDR
2. NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS/Pro
3. NVIDIA GeForce DDR
4. NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
5. NVIDIA GeForce SDR
6. NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Ultra
7. 3dfx Voodoo5 5500
8. NVIDIA RIVA TNT2/Pro

Cards run with all of the different optimizations in 32-bit. The CPU is an Athlon 800MHz.

WELL NOW LETS SEE TOM ONLY DID HIS WITH A INTEL P3. Why cause his praised nvidia so much that he cant show his readers an athlon w/ radeon could beat his lovely geforce2 gts + pro.

 

[Killerkris]

Do you blame him? Nvidia rule really. And so do athlons. I am sure he has a fine reason why he onyl used a P3.

Please dont hurt me.....please

 

[Kodiak]

I'm getting a RADEON All-in-wonder -- spending so much money I could've bought a Geforce2 Pro 64MB DDR up here...
Still, I'd say that Geforce2 is a better card. It performs better & more consistently (Radeon only approaches Geforce2 performance in particular tests at particular resolutions with particular colour modes etc), and has arguably better software support than ATI's cards (although I personally have had amazing experience with ATI's customer support
And if you're going to play games, nVidia is pretty much the only choice now.
However, and this is a key point that's often missed -- there IS more to life (and computing) than games. True, we don't like to face that fact sometimes, but there is. Radeon is a solid all-around performer which is clearly a contender (although not a champion) in the gaming arena, but the All-in-Wonder has things which Geforce2 simply doesn't, such as TV input & output, etc. And don't knock it till you've tried it -- watching TV on the computer may not sound like much fun, but I've been using ATI's PCI-TV on my 15" for a year now, and can't give it up -- watching my favourite sitcoms in a window while chatting, answering mail, writing my webpage etc. Can't wait to do it on my incoming 19"
Anyhoo, don't be pissed at Tom. First of all, it ain't helping you none
Second, I thought he gave a very fair review of radeon, certainly much better than many posters around here with their highly technical "Geforce rules! Radeon Sucks" (or the analogous "Intel/AMD Rules! AMD/Intel Sucks!" )

If you're happy with your card -- great, share your experience peacefully

PS, i've looked at your attached URL, and it mystifies me -- what are they basing their rankings on (the devil's in the details), and what does it say/prove? It seemed pretty useless and unprofessional to me...

 

[Guest]

From what I've heard, the Radeon beats the GeForce 2 GTS with older drivers, but the GeForce 2 GTS just wins (or equals) using Detonator 3 (emulating HyperZ memory management in the Radeon). I think the GeForce 2 Pro is a quite a bit faster than the Radeon, and the Ultra beats it hands down (of course it's more expensive though).

Remember, performance scores even in 3DMark depend on lots more than just the difference between two extremely similar graphics cards.

 

[smn198]

Madonion is the creator of the industry standard benchmarking suites including 3Dmark 2000 and sysmark 2000. I'm sure they would have conducted the test properly.

 

[Kodiak]

I'm sure the site itself is reputable enough; however, I only had time to check the page at the URL, and it had no details that I could find -- this is it:
1. ATI RADEON DDR
2. NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS/Pro
3. NVIDIA GeForce DDR
4. NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
5. NVIDIA GeForce SDR
6. NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Ultra
7. 3dfx Voodoo5 5500
8. NVIDIA RIVA TNT2/Pro
Cards run with all of the different optimizations in 32-bit. The CPU is an Athlon 800MHz. "

Just the ranking and that little blurb at bottom, no link to details etc. it seems they built the rankings based on database of results rather than direct comparison...
Thanx for the info though!

 

[Kodiak]

>>I'm sure they would have conducted the test properly.

I've just spent a wee bit more time on the page, it appears the results were compiled from database of USER SUBMITTED benchmarks.
It's fun to look at etc, but I wouldn't take it seriously enough to base any sort of conclusion on it -- the error margin and uncertainty factor are just too large (for my personal taste only, of course

 

[jg38141]

however, A good point is brought up here and it is a point I've e-mailed tom about in the past. If the most widely used and available gigaherz chip is the athlon, which tom himself has said, then it's depressing that the benchmark results he gives for graphics are most often on the pIII-1000. Not that I mind the pIII results, but I think that he should also give results on chips that people actually own. Most giga+ machines you can buy in stores are also AMD chips, so a benchmark would mean a lot more to me if it had a little more practical application. This is a long time peev of mine and one I'd like tom to fix. It is also the only real problem I've ever had with the page, so please don't think I'm Tom bashing.


"Are you saying that I can dodge bullets?"

 

[RavenPrime]

I agree that Athlon based systems would be more useful to me and a lot of people on this board but not to everyone. The PIII still holds the market share. Also, stability on my system has been problematic(I blame the chipset and not the Athlon). This is a big issue if you are trying to run a lot of benchmark tests on a system you just assembled. I think the Intel i815 is much more stable and reliable than anything the Athlon has going for it(see my post Chipset-AMD vs Intel). This means Tom can get an i815 PIII system up and running for benchmark tests much more quickly and easily than he can with an Athlon system. Therefore he can get the results out to us that much faster.
Rather than get all pissed off, try to be a little understanding and appreciative of the hard work it takes to get any of this information out as fast as Tom does it.

James

 

[Grizely1]

IF you would read the article maybe you would know.

ITS BECAUSE WHEN HE DID TESTS ON THE GEFORCE 256 AND GEFORCE 2 GTS's, THE P3 1GHZ WAS THE BEST! AND HE WANTS TO KEEP THE TESTS FLUENT!

A little reading never hurt anybody.

 

[jg38141]

just two quick things
1. Intel does hold the market share, true, but they do not sell the most 1ghz+ processors.
2. (for grizley there) I know why he runs the tests on pIII's and for the sake of past compairison he should keep that up, but would it be bad to add an athlon score as well?


"Are you saying that I can dodge bullets?"

 

[Grizely1]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I read it.

Oh well...

 

[toonces]

two things

1. let's READ the mad onion review. the test was at 1024x768x32. okay. if you look at tom's own scores at http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q3/000721/index.html his own scores show that at that resolution and higher, the radeon does better than the other cards he tested. he also said that this was a good high end card. i think that tom is less biased than you make him out to be.

2. adding amd scores to video card tests wouldn't be "bad" but it would be more time consuming than practical. the point is to compare one card to others, not to see how one card does on two different systems. once you can demonsrate how one card can fare against others, doing more testing on other platforms is just that, more testing on other platforms. it doesn't add anything towards telling you if you should get a geforce card versus a radeon. it would help if you were looking for an entire system, but then again he is only focused on testing individual components.

<font color=red>booyah, grandma, booyah..</font color=red>