Last message on previous page:
The ME II comment made we laugh. I don't get what everyone is so mad about, tom's did a review of the 4850. What more do you guys want?
^ and to dumbass johnie, if you read the actual article for the 2000, they explained why they didn't use ati.

Yup, I hate to say it but I have to take back what I said before - it seems Tomshardware really is Nvidia biased if they won't release a proper 4870 review after this long

i agree...

I honestly think it's bias that they haven't released a 4870 review, and also that it's ridiculous to claim a review of the 4850 is just as good.

This is all the more so as they reviewed the 260 as well as the 280.

The fact that ATI didn't send them a test card, or whatever the exact wording was that someone posted to this effect, doesn't matter anymore, as it's been available on retail for quite some time.

Yep^

Tom show us the sub -1000 $ system!!! guess what!! NVIDIA AGAIN!!!

NVIDIA IN WHOLE THREE CATEGORIES!!!! BOTH CHIPSETS AND SLI CONFIGURATIONS!!! THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS!!!

Hey, at least they aren't as bad as [H].

They certainly should have reviewed a 4870 by now, but this points to a weakness of AMD when it comes to dealing with the media - something they have a track record of - not the most media-savvy company in the world.

Not to mention these really annoying environmental news items, totally unrelated to technology. I don't come here and read the news posted so I can bump into some green-fanatic reporting totally arbitrary to my interest news about environment just to please there self of an ego and agenda.

Furthermore when I pointed this out as a comment to the news article. My comment was deleted.

Boo hoo, they havent done a review yet, what a bunch of babies.LOL

Most people get their reviews elsewhere and then just chat about them here instead of the other forums. Reasoned balanced moderators here - makes a big difference. Still not perfect, but then no forum is.

I completely agree with The_Abyss. Our complaints in this thread are only complaints about the website and not related to the forum in any way. The website today is a just business like other businesses, and we're criticizing them as such, and due to its former reputation as a great source of balanced reviews and information.

The forum is different. The moderators are balanced as you say, and the user base balances itself out.

That said, I think the criticism of the website and its bias still stands, and I've been unconvinced by the arguments made in support of the decision not to review the 4870.

yeah! tom isn't as bad as many other sites...


we should be happy then!

Yea, except that [H] did a great and unbiased review of the 4800 series

I wouldn't say it's completely without fault, but it is much improved over some of their previous reviews.

Biggest problem with [H]'s reviews is inconsistency, and the inability to make the 'best playable' style review work, focusing more on making a difference to show rather than detailing how the setting best suit the game and hardware (who plays with grass disabled and view distance crippled in Oblivion?).

Perhaps, I don't even play Oblivion though =)

But more seriously, you can see how the settings suit the game by referring to the graph over the chart. It'll show you whether its spiking irregularly or not.

I still think HardOCP's style is a lot better than most sites and more indepth than using a "min/max/avg" which tells you almost absolutely nothing about what the gameplay experience is like

Look Grape, with the way things are going especially with the system builder marathons if you can look at me and say "What? Of course there is no consumer detrimental bias in THG this week!" - well, i'd be pretty disappointed with you. This isn't about you/me/other posters, this is about the people who click on the links at the frontpage of the website and are lead to believe the best value for their money is 8800 GTS SLI on Nforce boards for 450$ according to the system builder marathon when it truly isn't right now.

Yeah except the graphs are often the error in the apples to apples, and then the reviewers say they mean nothing, we're supposed to just take their opinion, which is a terrible way to defend what is supposed to be self-explanatory apples-to-apples. If there's an issue with the part that should be straight forward then it's difficult to give weight to the part that has very little objective data and a ton of subjective to decide on what's 'max playable'. That's my major issue with that method, it almost needs a 'max playable' plus 'max similar' to do a better job of exposing the hardware differences and anot differences from run to run.

I agree it has the potential to be, I think their application is what's at issue. I prefer a hystogram than mix/avg/max as well because it tells me if that min is for a very brief dip or if it a deep trough with the max being the anomaly overshoot that messes with the average.

Well as I know the reviewers of those three pieces, I'll take your disappointment over thinking them shills, since I know better.
The thing is and don't take too much offense, but I'll trust the two reviewers over you, and actually everyone in this thread. I may respect many other people's opinions and the benefit to them having differing opinions (which is why this thread is still dragging it's sorry A$$ along instead of closed and deleted), but there's no people I trust more in the forum (although some equally) than the two authors of those '$X build' articles, and will the n00bz who don't know them may question it, I'm not coming on for the ride. I can't speak to the authors of the HD4800 articles as they're not the same crowd, but I trust Don and Thomas. My only issue is with the timing of the article at just around launch time for new hardware, but I know that wasn't likely their decision either (schedules, deadlines and all). You may have trouble taking it at face value, but I don't.

I also don't like that reviews are slower since the move of THG back to Europe, but we kinda knew that would happen when they got bought by Best of Media.

I don't disagree with that statement, but it's a big leap saying that versus what's being said in this thread.
The reality is that this is no different than all the outdated before published magazine articles. Because of schedules and lead times, this happens alot, and for it to be a surprise to anyone say more ot me about them than the articles.