Seems like a lot of money to me...
btw, do the pictures of the console-type controllers have anything to do with the review, or is it just a teaser shot?
Originally Posted by Flibblebot Seems like a lot of money to me...
btw, do the pictures of the console-type controllers have anything to do with the review, or is it just a teaser shot?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Page 1 Finally, the most interesting part of the bundle is the USB game pad that came as a bit of a surprise to me it comes complete with both analogue and digital controls. Having used it for a bit of NFS: Carbon over the Christmas period, its a pretty good controller but unfortunately it will not be replacing my trusty wired Xbox 360 controller.
awww ffs couldn't you just use graphs to show the performance at identical settings like all the other sites do? It's KINDA logical to test for the best "playable" settings, but still.. Comparing cards would be so much easier if they would've been ran at same settings.
The first one. Except that it would be "Framerates in timedemo with known settings"... B-Ts way might be good if "playable" was a standard and if everyone knew how much of a difference the advantages in graphical settings actually make in a specific game
But as I said, this thing will split opinions for sure.
The problem with time demos is that they aren't realistic. You may get 200+FPS on a timedemo, but how often are you going to play that timedemo in real life? Never.
You are going to use a graphics card to play a game at the best possible view. Which is why I agree with Tims testing method.
Jipa, it ultimately depends what you're after... If I'd tested this card with timedemos and just reported frame rates, I could well have recommended its purchase because it's faster than most 8800 GTS cards out there.
Instead, the additional performance gained isn't worth the £50+ premium because it doesn't translate into big improvements in image quality in currently popular titles. Thus, it's not recommended at its current price because it represents poor value for money compared to stock 8800 GTS cards and stock 8800 GTX's that sell for £50 either side.
Well that depends on the lenght of the demo doesn't it? If you take a, let's say 5 minutes, of demo from normal gaming, I'd say it represents the real life gaming pretty well. Besides, nobody usually says the maximal FPS, only average and minimum. These two are, in our 5 min demo, very close to the real life gaming.
Some sort of combination of these two methods would be optimal, but I understand it would add too much job to the reviewer.
This Week Only Offer
was £314.99 ex vat
£309.99
£364.24 inc VAT
so VAT is about 15% there....
in continental Portugal it is about 25%, here it is about 15% with the extra taxes for transport for the islands (Madeira is special, we pay far more that Azores for transport) and port taxes (lot higher that Azores and any port in Portugal).... it gets at about 30% :( , that is why i buy in shops that get their hardware from Germany, transport fees are really small and it comes all in a plane, less taxes than a port.
time demos suck, i want to know what i can do with a GC at nice FPS. not the maximum FPS, keep your way to review hardware, i like it :D
Originally Posted by Jipa Well that depends on the lenght of the demo doesn't it? If you take a, let's say 5 minutes, of demo from normal gaming, I'd say it represents the real life gaming pretty well. Besides, nobody usually says the maximal FPS, only average and minimum. These two are, in our 5 min demo, very close to the real life gaming.
It's very close to real life gaming, yes, but it doesn't actually tell you whether there's actually any benefit to those higher frame rates. Once you get above a certain framerate, gameplay is smooth; the question is whether you can actually make use of the additional performance on offer, by increasing in-game quality settings or anti-aliasing, etc.
(I hope and promise this is my last post to this thread :P)
That was pretty well said, and I think I understand the point behind this method now. It's very good system on single cards, but as a reader does not know how heavy an additional setting is for the card, it's hard to compare two results. It stays as "some benefit".
That's all for now, I just had to make clear to everybody I'm not interested in the maximum FPS...
Hi guys, just added a note to the bottom of the review as Foxconn got back to us regarding the high price and current poor value for money.
Quote:
Foxconn got back to us this morning regarding the price and it's good news on that front. Company representatives tell us that the card will now be priced at around £320 including VAT, with stock arriving "in the next week or so". We will keep our eyes peeled for availability and update you when the card is on sale. Obviously, at £320 (instead of £350) the card's value for money prospects will change significantly and if the lower pricing becomes a reality, Foxconn's card represents a very worthwhile purchase.
I wish you'd review 20" and 24" resolutions instead of 24" and 30".
Not that I dislike the layout and distinctiveness of your reviews, they're great. It's just that, well yes the argument could be called that people with sufficiently powerful gfx cards cards could run playable settings on such large monitors, but I would think it more beneficial if reviews were done for resolutions that people are going to be playing at today. Yep, there are more and more people with 24" widescreens, but I'd hazard a guess that not many have splurged on a 30" orgasmatron.
It's kinda fun to see what it would run at on 30", but it's more a novelty for the majority of readers here, I would guess.
I dunno. A lot of 'imo', but my 2penneth.
PS: Please include maybe one test on a 20" widescreen for future 8800GTX/S reviews. Please with cherries and cream.
Comments 1 to 22 of 22
Shame though, I thought it would be a budget OC card, so if it hit £50 above the Palitt card (Palitt is £260~) then it would be spot on!
btw, do the pictures of the console-type controllers have anything to do with the review, or is it just a teaser shot?
Other than that GJ.
Bit-Tech use "Which card allows the best settings at this resolution is actual gameplay"
Which is more realistic? Which gives a better indication of the card for you?
Edit:
Ouch.. what was that price again?
OcUK 8800 GTX
This Week Only Offer
was £314.99 ex vat
£309.99
£364.24 inc VAT
But as I said, this thing will split opinions for sure.
You are going to use a graphics card to play a game at the best possible view. Which is why I agree with Tims testing method.
Instead, the additional performance gained isn't worth the £50+ premium because it doesn't translate into big improvements in image quality in currently popular titles. Thus, it's not recommended at its current price because it represents poor value for money compared to stock 8800 GTS cards and stock 8800 GTX's that sell for £50 either side.
Some sort of combination of these two methods would be optimal, but I understand it would add too much job to the reviewer.
so VAT is about 15% there....
in continental Portugal it is about 25%, here it is about 15% with the extra taxes for transport for the islands (Madeira is special, we pay far more that Azores for transport) and port taxes (lot higher that Azores and any port in Portugal).... it gets at about 30% :( , that is why i buy in shops that get their hardware from Germany, transport fees are really small and it comes all in a plane, less taxes than a port.
time demos suck, i want to know what i can do with a GC at nice FPS. not the maximum FPS, keep your way to review hardware, i like it :D
That was pretty well said, and I think I understand the point behind this method now. It's very good system on single cards, but as a reader does not know how heavy an additional setting is for the card, it's hard to compare two results. It stays as "some benefit".
That's all for now, I just had to make clear to everybody I'm not interested in the maximum FPS...
Poor Timmy!
pS: Yep I prefer the 'Bit Tech Method' ta.
;)
I don't know how many times it has to be said, but a timedemo is never going to be a good indicator of actual game performance...<rolls eyes>
Not that I dislike the layout and distinctiveness of your reviews, they're great. It's just that, well yes the argument could be called that people with sufficiently powerful gfx cards cards could run playable settings on such large monitors, but I would think it more beneficial if reviews were done for resolutions that people are going to be playing at today. Yep, there are more and more people with 24" widescreens, but I'd hazard a guess that not many have splurged on a 30" orgasmatron.
It's kinda fun to see what it would run at on 30", but it's more a novelty for the majority of readers here, I would guess.
I dunno. A lot of 'imo', but my 2penneth.
PS: Please include maybe one test on a 20" widescreen for future 8800GTX/S reviews. Please with cherries and cream.