LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHow's the thread meant to work? You could reserve a few posts, then people could post with suggestions and you take the best ideas and put them in one of the reserved spaces and rotate when they're all used.
How's the thread meant to work? You could reserve a few posts, then people could post with suggestions and you take the best ideas and put them in one of the reserved spaces and rotate when they're all used.
Its not going to get hidden away then.
Is it possible to have a google spreadsheet visible that can be viewed in the forum and updated by a number of users?
The thread I started is just to pool some ideas and suggestions.
When we get consensus we can get a sticky put up or start the actual thread.
I want to keep this thread open for my love of Bit-tech!
Another stellar effort by Bit-tech:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...0-3gb-review/1
Terbinator (24-03-2011),watercooled (24-03-2011)
The only 'review' I've seen where the 590 is consistently faster. What an absolutely repugnant company.
Kalniel: "Nice review Tarinder - would it be possible to get a picture of the case when the components are installed (with the side off obviously)?"
CAT-THE-FIFTH: "The Antec 300 is a case which has an understated and clean appearance which many people like. Not everyone is into e-peen looking computers which look like a cross between the imagination of a hyperactive 10 year old and a Frog."
TKPeters: "Off to AVForum better Deal - £20+Vat for Free Shipping @ Scan"
for all intents it seems to be the same card minus some gays name on it and a shielded cover ? with OEM added to it - GoNz0.
watercooled (24-03-2011)
If it wasn't so tragic that a number of people do actually TRUST Bit-tech to be objective that 590 review would be hilarious. Considering their ability to jedi hand-wave and to deflect arguments I wonder if their writers are interested in a career in politics?
You'd think a company which sells a magazine, I mean asks for money for the damn thing, would be slightly less idiotic.
I wonder what happened to Bit-Tech? I just found this review of the exact card I have and they're complementary about it!
Nvidia cards are no doubt better for folding but Bit-tech also failed in this article too:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...-for-folding/1
They seem to have forgotten to use a new client for AMD cards which improves scores dramatically:
http://forums.hexus.net/hexus-hardwa...ext-level.html
Another classic:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...-2100-review/1
The video encoding "results" are way off it seems!!
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1501/14/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...k,2833-17.html
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 03-07-2011 at 12:01 AM.
Well I can say from experience that graph is a load of .... Maybe they went to great lengths to cherry pick the exact settings and video which work better with quicker threads? Even so, I really don't see how a dual-core 2100 compares to a Thuban chip in Handbrake - again, from experience I know how far from the truth that is.
Including the same chips several times over and using a proprietary scoring system is a bit convenient to say the least...
Edit: Here's yet another graph, from Techradar, seems much more like it!
Last edited by watercooled; 03-07-2011 at 12:26 AM.
I have a Core i3 2100 myself and my Q6600 when mildly overclocked to around 2.9GHZ will still beat it:Originally Posted by watercooled
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1501/14/
Having said that they did rate the A8-3850 higher than a i3 2100 but this was due to its better IGP. Even their results for an A8-3850 are way too low:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...-3850-review/5
If you look at these reviews you can see the opposite:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1649/7/
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-a8...-32222-17.html
I still don't understand how a Core i3 2100 can best a Phenom II X6 in running 7-zip and MPC??
The whole point of more cores is the fact you can dedicate cores to tasks. If you dedicated 5 cores to 7-zip and a single one to MPC the Core i3 2100 would end up being slower.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 03-07-2011 at 12:37 AM.
Their points system really gets to me, barely anyone else does it instead of time/fps. It just implies they're obscuring something.
The defence of flawed testing methods is strong among some of their members:
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthrea...=212263&page=4
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthrea...=212326&page=2
Why are some people defending such flawed methods?? I just pointed out loads of websites showing the OPPOSITE result. I own a Core i3 2100 myself and even my mildly overclocked Q6600 is better for video encoding.
Count me in for the comparisons if you wish. Heck, even send me a video to transcode, along with settings etc if you like. Not that I think it will change the situation with BitTech...
CAT-THE-FIFTH (04-07-2011)
That actually is a good idea TBH. Perhaps start a HandBrake chart like with the 3DMark11 thread??
Your probably right!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
