Preview August 2009

Status
Not open for further replies.
desiibond

desiibond

Bond, Desi Bond!
Re: Tried and Tested - Graphic Cards

Just one doubt.

When you are testing a budget graphics card like 8400 and 9400, why are you using QX9650 and ASUS P5Q3? I have a feeling that due to this, synthetic benchmarks will be completely misleading!!

And who on earth buys QX9650??

Please, when you next time do such reviews, use hardware that is well used in the market. Use a balanced rig for such tests.

Like sub 5k cpu and sub 5k mobo for sub 5k card and sub 10k proccy and mobo for sub 10k card. It doesn't make any sense testing a 2k GPU on 40k proccy and 40k GPU on 2k proccy!!!!
 
toofan

toofan

Technomancer
Re: Tried and Tested - Graphic Cards

Desibond absolutely right. Its always confusing that what fps we will get with our machine.

So in future you can take this point into consideration.
 
toofan

toofan

Technomancer
Re: Myths about open source

Not so good. Agent has just tried to fill up the two pages. The information given is not up to mark. And most times useless.

4/10
 
Raaabo

Raaabo

The Dark Lord
Staff member
Admin
Re: Tried and Tested - Graphic Cards

desiibond said:
Just one doubt.
When you are testing a budget graphics card like 8400 and 9400, why are you using QX9650 and ASUS P5Q3? I have a feeling that due to this, synthetic benchmarks will be completely misleading!!

And who on earth buys QX9650??

Please, when you next time do such reviews, use hardware that is well used in the market. Use a balanced rig for such tests.

Like sub 5k cpu and sub 5k mobo for sub 5k card and sub 10k proccy and mobo for sub 10k card. It doesn't make any sense testing a 2k GPU on 40k proccy and 40k GPU on 2k proccy!!!!
Click to expand...

The reason such tests are done on the highest possible hardware is to remove any bottlenecks, so that we can actually get the scores of the cards, and not of the slowest hardware component. Also, we're planning on sticking to the same hardware for some time, so might as well start with some of the highest available. This will help you compare newer cards later on, to the ones in this test.


toofan said:
Desibond absolutely right. Its always confusing that what fps we will get with our machine.

So in future you can take this point into consideration.
Click to expand...

With 97861398756987345 different possible configurations out there, how are we supposed to tell you what scores you will get on your rig. All we can do is tell you what's fast, and what's good. If our tests reveal that card X is 20 fps faster than card Y, then even on your system card X will be faster than Y, but maybe only by 10 fps, or even less, but faster nonetheless.
 
toofan

toofan

Technomancer
Re: Tried and Tested - Graphic Cards

/es, You are right. Your aim is to tell which is the fasted card available in the budget. But the hardware used by you is a dream for many.

Bye the way Card Test were excellent. And I like to mention a good thing which you follow very rarely. That is At last of the test ( In LCD test also) you provided the buying guide as per the budget and requirement. I will suggest you to follow this trend regularly also as this is the decision maker for the confused ones.

9.5/10 (1/2 mark deducted for not comparing Palits HD 4850).

I tell you one thing,in last of 2007 you tested processors and motherboards. I bought the processor and MB from the decision maker provided at the end of those tests.
 
desiibond

desiibond

Bond, Desi Bond!
Re: Tried and Tested - Graphic Cards

Raaabo said:
The reason such tests are done on the highest possible hardware is to remove any bottlenecks, so that we can actually get the scores of the cards, and not of the slowest hardware component. Also, we're planning on sticking to the same hardware for some time, so might as well start with some of the highest available. This will help you compare newer cards later on, to the ones in this test.
Click to expand...

Name one current gen processor that can bottleneck 8400GS or any sub 5k card!!! My 7750 BE is able to drive HD4770 without any effort. Atleast you should've considered a processor that is inside or around 10k and one that is selling like hot cakes in the market.


Raaabo said:
With 97861398756987345 different possible configurations out there, how are we supposed to tell you what scores you will get on your rig. All we can do is tell you what's fast, and what's good. If our tests reveal that card X is 20 fps faster than card Y, then even on your system card X will be faster than Y, but maybe only by 10 fps, or even less, but faster nonetheless.
Click to expand...

And so, you picked the processor that 0.000000000000000000000001% of buyers consider.

here are the list of processors that are hot in market:

Intel :

1) E5200
2) E7400
3) Q9450
4) i7 920
5) E8400

AMD:

1) Phenom II X2 550
2) Phenom II X4 920
3) Phenom II X4 940

You could have gone for E8400 or E5200 if you prefer Intel or X2 550/X4 940 if yo uprefer AMD.
 
L

Lucifer

Reviewerus Prolificus
Re: Tried and Tested - Graphic Cards

desiibond said:
Name one current gen processor that can bottleneck 8400GS or any sub 5k card!!! My 7750 BE is able to drive HD4770 without any effort. Atleast you should've considered a processor that is inside or around 10k and one that is selling like hot cakes in the market.
Click to expand...

Another explanation and a practical example. Assume a graphics card benchmark. You want to keep everything else constant, so any change in performance scores (FPS whatever) can be attributed to the change in graphics card. Therefore a particular CPU, RAM, board and hard drive are used and stuck with throughout the test.

Now remember in this test we also had cards like the GTS 250 and the HD4850, which aren't entry-level even though they may be priced lower. Also remember when you say drive without any effort and I say bottleneck - these are two different things.

A Sempron 1150 will drive even a GTX 295 - as to say it will work, but not optimally. Now if you were to (hypothetically) replace your 7750BE with an X4 965BE, the hike in FPS would be noticeable. If you were to use a Core i7 975 and matching system, it would be greater. The fact that there is positive scaling indicates a bottleneck NOT the ability to work with some hardware or "drive it". Therefore we use as fast a system as possible to avoid bottlenecks.

desiibond said:
here are the list of processors that are hot in market:

Intel :

1) E5200
2) E7400
3) Q9450
4) i7 920
5) E8400

AMD:

1) Phenom II X2 550
2) Phenom II X4 920
3) Phenom II X4 940
You could have gone for E8400 or E5200 if you prefer Intel or X2 550/X4 940 if yo uprefer AMD.
Click to expand...

Preference isn't of concern. Intels Core 2 Duos and Core i7s still lead the performance numbers when it comes to games and even AMD doesn't deny that. Which is why we use Intel CPUs for such graphics tests and all high-performance testing. If anyone recalls a few years back we used Athlon 64s - because they were the best. It's a matter of which brand of CPU is better at the time. These CPUs are hot sellers, but we wanted something to show the limit of what these cards could do - sans bottlenecks. Which is why the QX9650 - it's a darn good though darn expensive CPU.
 
toofan

toofan

Technomancer
Re: Tried and Tested - LCD screens

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 (Ultima 90i cooled)
Mobo: ASUS P5K Deluxe
RAM: OCZ XTC PC8500 4x1 GB - 1066 MHz @ 5-5-5-15
Graphics: ZOTAC GeForce GTX 285 AMP! @ 700/2600 MHz
Storage: 150 GB WD Velociraptor + 1 TB WD Black + 500 GB WD 5000AAKS
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate x64 (genuine retail copy)
Sound: ASUS Xonar Essence ST
Speakers: 'Sangram' modded Altec MX 5021
Cabinet: CM STACKER RC 830
Display: ViewSonic VX 2025 WM
Click to expand...

Killer Configuration. Awesome
 
Dark Core

Dark Core

Freak Beta 1
Re: Wikipedia – behind the pages

@Anorion
Gud Article,
From Presentation to the content, the article was interesting. Still now many had used Wikipedia - and never had seen what's behind it, Tnx digit for showing what's behind the pages
 
vickybat

vickybat

I am the night...I am...
Re: Tried and Tested - LCD screens

the price of samsung 2233rz is mentioned around 9-10k in the august 09 issue whereas its around 20k as mentioned in techtree.PLEASE comment*www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?print=1
 
vickybat

vickybat

I am the night...I am...
Re: Tried and Tested - LCD screens

Anorion said:
LCD monitors in the market get tested.
Click to expand...
the price of samsung 2233rz is mentioned around 9-10k in the august 09 issue whereas its around 20k as mentioned in techtree.PLEASE comment*www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp...le.jsp?print=1
 
toofan

toofan

Technomancer
Re: Tried and Tested - LCD screens

techtree always has high price. Don't ever check that site. Its a bandwidth hog.


check here.
*www.theitwares.com/monitors/monitors.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom