Firingsquad on HardOCP´s "real-world benchmarking"

jmke · 23rd July 2006, 15:58

According to [H]ardOCP, "real-world" CPU performance testing means using a variety of AA, AF, resolution and in-game settings to try to average 40fps... or 35fps, or 73fps. Whatever the video card happens to max out at. "Real-world" benchmarks take no notice of your preference to run at a minimum of 60fps, if that's your flavor, or if you prefer lower resolutions and higher refresh rates to make things easy on the eyes, rather than extra eye candy.

jmke · 23rd July 2006, 16:03

Quote:

Meanwhile, the benchmark standard, refined over the years also shows that once you bump up resolution and settings, the differences between the CPUs are more or less eliminated. It becomes obvious to anyone with even nominal tweaking experience that there are two forces at play

the "problem" is that 99% of people out there don't know that you DONT need a super fast CPU to be able to play the latest games, they think that you need that $1200 CPU for gaming. And when they go out to buy a new GFX card they think that more memory on the VGA card is better, and they'll end up with a 512MB 6600GT instead of a 256Mb 7600GT and then complain that the games run bad.

jmke · 23rd July 2006, 16:08

Quote:

Firingsquad:
This silliness though that [H]ardOCP is somehow doing something dramatically different than other sites simply isn’t true and it needs to stop. Clearly they haven’t reinvented the wheel when it comes to benchmarking.

HardOCP has responded with this article:

Quote:

HardOCP:
Our reply to an attack on real world testing. Some will have you believe that a canned benchmark or gaming timedemo is a crystal ball into your gaming future.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

23rd July 2006, 17:00

It's good that people finally start to question reviews.

I do hate the H is flipping around the settings all the time, I want 1 "gaming settings setup with reasonable amounts of AA and AF at 1280x1024 or 1024x768", 1 "gaming settings at 2407 resoultion", 1 800x600 no AA AF run.

I also want to know how much power a CPU really has for the future therfore a 800x600 no AA AF run is a must have for CPU reviews. The graphs from H would make that very intresting.

I want more low end CPUs compared, especially a 3200+ and a P4 4 GHz, a P D805 and a Conroe 6300. If they want to argue that you do not need a faster CPU, this benches would show it clearly. There H could play their trump card best with the graphs again.

23rd July 2006, 19:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Rutar
It's good that people finally start to question reviews.

I do hate the H is flipping around the settings all the time, I want 1 "gaming settings setup with reasonable amounts of AA and AF at 1280x1024 or 1024x768", 1 "gaming settings at 2407 resoultion", 1 800x600 no AA AF run.

I also want to know how much power a CPU really has for the future therfore a 800x600 no AA AF run is a must have for CPU reviews. The graphs from H would make that very intresting.

I want more low end CPUs compared, especially a 3200+ and a P4 4 GHz, a P D805 and a Conroe 6300. If they want to argue that you do not need a faster CPU, this benches would show it clearly. There H could play their trump card best with the graphs again.

Agreed. While the whole "best playable settings" thing might be informative for people who know nothing about hardware, but enthusiasts probably just want/need a whole lot of hard numbers at different resolutions in different games. I don't need HardOCP's opinion on what's "good enough" for me, I'm intelligent and knowledgeable enough to figure that out on my own.

And Hard's Conroe review was pretty mediocre/bad, so I have no idea why they're defending it so much. They should just let it go instead of resorting to childish name calling against Firing Squad.

23rd July 2006, 19:32

one word: "childish."

jmke · 23rd July 2006, 19:53

both sides are childish, FS should not have responded to [H] "flaming" , and [H] should not have dissed other sites for not using their method of testing which is geared to more mainstream and less tech savvy people. nothing wrong with that, just don't say that other benchmark methods are bad because FS provides benchmark numbers at both low & high detail. But I do agree that FS lacks a bit of detail when it comes down to how they tested.

24th July 2006, 00:19

but it's very entertaining

23rd July 2006, 15:58	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	Firingsquad on HardOCP´s "real-world benchmarking" According to [H]ardOCP, "real-world" CPU performance testing means using a variety of AA, AF, resolution and in-game settings to try to average 40fps... or 35fps, or 73fps. Whatever the video card happens to max out at. "Real-world" benchmarks take no notice of your preference to run at a minimum of 60fps, if that's your flavor, or if you prefer lower resolutions and higher refresh rates to make things easy on the eyes, rather than extra eye candy. __________________

23rd July 2006, 19:53	#7
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	both sides are childish, FS should not have responded to [H] "flaming" , and [H] should not have dissed other sites for not using their method of testing which is geared to more mainstream and less tech savvy people. nothing wrong with that, just don't say that other benchmark methods are bad because FS provides benchmark numbers at both low & high detail. But I do agree that FS lacks a bit of detail when it comes down to how they tested. __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
GIGABYTE Refreshes 3DMark Vantage World Record in "OC Guru Is You"	jmke	WebNews	0	16th May 2010 16:09
Call of Duty: World at War performance in-depth	jmke	WebNews	0	17th November 2008 16:50
Corsair Dominator DDR3 Memory Sets New World Record	jmke	WebNews	0	1st August 2008 14:16
Corsair Dominator Hits 2462MHz - Sets Memory Frequency World Record	jmke	WebNews	4	21st May 2008 18:19
OCZ Technology Announces Partnership with Leading UK Reseller PC World	jmke	WebNews	0	21st August 2007 13:46
World In Conflict Multiplayer Beta Impressions	jmke	WebNews	0	15th July 2007 02:25
World of Warcraft Smashes Record	jmke	WebNews	0	2nd December 2004 10:31
NVIDIA and Blizzard Entertainment Team Up for World of Warcraft	jmke	WebNews	3	15th September 2004 12:43
AMD Athlon 64 FX Processor Honored as 2004 `Product of the Year' by PC World	Sidney	WebNews	0	8th June 2004 07:36

23rd July 2006, 17:00	#4
Rutar Posts: n/a	It's good that people finally start to question reviews. I do hate the H is flipping around the settings all the time, I want 1 "gaming settings setup with reasonable amounts of AA and AF at 1280x1024 or 1024x768", 1 "gaming settings at 2407 resoultion", 1 800x600 no AA AF run. I also want to know how much power a CPU really has for the future therfore a 800x600 no AA AF run is a must have for CPU reviews. The graphs from H would make that very intresting. I want more low end CPUs compared, especially a 3200+ and a P4 4 GHz, a P D805 and a Conroe 6300. If they want to argue that you do not need a faster CPU, this benches would show it clearly. There H could play their trump card best with the graphs again.

23rd July 2006, 19:32	#6
Tarantula Posts: n/a	one word: "childish."

24th July 2006, 00:19	#8
Rutar Posts: n/a	but it's very entertaining