What's new
Carbonite

South Africa's Top Online Tech Classifieds!
Register a free account today to become a member! (No Under 18's)
Home of C.U.D.

Review sites and reliability - The truth

Re: NVIDIA GTX 980Ti 6GiB

Decided to move this to the right thread since this is about the GTX 980Ti. Specifically the GIGABYTE edition as pictured earlier.
This review, specifically this page - Gigabyte GeForce GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming SOC Review - DX11: Futuremark 3DMark 2013
Shows 3DMark FS and FS Extreme scores as follows.
3DMark FS = 18,152
3DMark FS Extreme = 9,246
Rig is
5960X @ 4.4GHZ
16GB DDR4 @ 2133MHz
Driver is 353.12
Windows x64 8.1
AX 1200i PSU

My Rig
5960X @ 4.5GHz
16Gb DDR4 @ 3333MHz
Driver is 353.12
windows x64 updated 8.1
AX 1500i PSU

Hilbert is using the old X99S XPower from MSI. I'm using the GIGABYTE X99 SOC-Champion (F4i)
My results
3DMark FS = 17,321
3DMark FS Extreme = 8,687

My Case!
Something is wrong. Not with my results but his.
His GPU Score (Extreme) is 9,600 mine is 8,886. Almost 1,000 points higher!
His Physics score is lower as it should be but his GPU score is much higher than it should be.
1. His pics show no systeminfo at all and no monitoring data so hard to determine where it's going wrong
2. There's no FM link to his score, naturally because you can't submit (Time measurement data not available error) with no systeminfo.
3. There aren't many 980Ti results on HWBOT but the ones that are there around the same 3DMark Extreme score, all have GPU's oc'd to 1400MHz+ with memory at 1800MHz +

Lastly, This is precisely why reviews mostly are just unreliable. I think it's an honest mistake and it may have been introduced by OC Guru where the initial overclock was set and the clocks stuck, even when reset.
However, The synthetic results as represented in that review are inflated, the GIGABYTE G1.Gaming SOC 980Ti does not deliver that performance out the box.

To match the score he has shown I need to run
1434MHz / 1850MHz - Certainly not stock (Stock is 1354MHz boost and 1753MHz mem)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-5960X,Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. X99-SOC Champion-CF - 9,210 GPU score is 9505, still lower than his
 
Re: NVIDIA GTX 980Ti 6GiB

 
Re: NVIDIA GTX 980Ti 6GiB

Yeah they made a boo boo with that, now I wonder how many other results are skewed.
 
Re: NVIDIA GTX 980Ti 6GiB

The numbers in the entire review are wrong because of it.
What I was saying in the other thread. Most reviews these days are unreliable.
TitanX review used 347.84 drivers, this review uses 353.12
 
Re: NVIDIA GTX 980Ti 6GiB

[MENTION=64]ShockG[/MENTION] You've been saying this for a while now about these review sites. Expose these fraudulent fax! :)
 
Re: NVIDIA GTX 980Ti 6GiB

I sent Hilbert a PM. Let's say I give it 24 hours. If not I'm walking straight to HQ about this! Not acceptable and it's been going on for so damn long now.
That's clearly misrepresenting a product (amongst many).
 
Re: NVIDIA GTX 980Ti 6GiB

Out of curiosity and a bit OT, but what is a good site for reviews/news? I was a fan of Guru3D but felt that their content was slipping and stopped visiting them
 
Re: NVIDIA GTX 980Ti 6GiB

Hey dude, this is spread over several threads. If you want, give me the posts you want together and I'll copy them to a new thread. I'm thinking copy the posts regarding this from the AMD thread as well as these posts to your other topic about review issues?
 
Re: NVIDIA GTX 980Ti 6GiB

Hey dude, this is spread over several threads. If you want, give me the posts you want together and I'll copy them to a new thread. I'm thinking copy the posts regarding this from the AMD thread as well as these posts to your other topic about review issues?
Yes please do. Delete all related posts in other threads and stick them in the right place.
My apologies for spamming the forum.
 
Re: NVIDIA GTX 980Ti 6GiB

Na not at all, I'm just thinking it'll be easier if all the info is in one spot.
 
Re: NVIDIA GTX 980Ti 6GiB

Out of curiosity and a bit OT, but what is a good site for reviews/news? I was a fan of Guru3D but felt that their content was slipping and stopped visiting them

[MENTION=64]ShockG[/MENTION]

This man has a valid question. Myself included is a Guru3D fan, but if their results is off by such an amount..

Is there any reviewers/sites that you would recommend/trust?

Cheers
 
you'll need to verify results from several sources.
By that I mean, read more than one review and compare their latest review with a previous review of the same kind of hardware. See if there's any hardware consistency, drivers etc.
This isn't necessary for SSDs, memory, etc. However GPUs pose a very different problem. There's nothing wrong with using say 353.12 drivers for X card, then using the same for another brand GPU etc. Provided the system remains the same, you can keep those results. However, should a new driver come out, then previous results are not reliable nor should they be used. This is why you should be weary of reviews that feature, more than 10 cards, heck I'd say even 6 cards, but I give it the benefit of the doubt. 10 games at 3 resolutions with 10 cards, means running benchmarks 300 times. Assuming at the least each benchmark is 2minutes, that's 10 hours of benching, not including changing out hardware, resetting the driver, actually starting the various benchmarks etc. That 10 hours is more like 12 hours.

So I can't say there's one site to trust, just read a bunch and for goodness sake, we should actually read reviews, not jump to the scores and award.
Hexus, Overclockers.net, Anandtech (definitely), ocaholic, TheSSDReview, heck it doesn't matter what you read. Just check it against other reviews and look for consistency, especially if 3DMark is used, because that benchmark had very little variance.
 
you'll need to verify results from several sources.
By that I mean, read more than one review and compare their latest review with a previous review of the same kind of hardware. See if there's any hardware consistency, drivers etc.
This isn't necessary for SSDs, memory, etc. However GPUs pose a very different problem. There's nothing wrong with using say 353.12 drivers for X card, then using the same for another brand GPU etc. Provided the system remains the same, you can keep those results. However, should a new driver come out, then previous results are not reliable nor should they be used. This is why you should be weary of reviews that feature, more than 10 cards, heck I'd say even 6 cards, but I give it the benefit of the doubt. 10 games at 3 resolutions with 10 cards, means running benchmarks 300 times. Assuming at the least each benchmark is 2minutes, that's 10 hours of benching, not including changing out hardware, resetting the driver, actually starting the various benchmarks etc. That 10 hours is more like 12 hours.

So I can't say there's one site to trust, just read a bunch and for goodness sake, we should actually read reviews, not jump to the scores and award.
Hexus, Overclockers.net, Anandtech (definitely), ocaholic, TheSSDReview, heck it doesn't matter what you read. Just check it against other reviews and look for consistency, especially if 3DMark is used, because that benchmark had very little variance.

Yip I took one look at that review and thought about selling my Titan X and grabbing a Gigabyte GTX980Ti G1, luckily I saw your post and read through the whole review.
I generally don't trust reviews an anyway but always liked Guru3D, now that they're off the table I'll just have to do my own research like I always did.
 
PM'd the person in charge, nothing back.
The fans of the site, act oblivious to it as usual.
even worse, this G1 card, much like the 780Ti GHz and the 980 before are prone to crashing the driver.
This is a BIOS issue within the card and as it is I"m working on a fix. But then again, because being first with a review is more important than being reliable, he wouldn't know or write about this issue. as long as he has an exclusive that's all that matters.
Useless!
 
PM'd the person in charge, nothing back.
The fans of the site, act oblivious to it as usual.
even worse, this G1 card, much like the 780Ti GHz and the 980 before are prone to crashing the driver.
This is a BIOS issue within the card and as it is I"m working on a fix. But then again, because being first with a review is more important than being reliable, he wouldn't know or write about this issue. as long as he has an exclusive that's all that matters.
Useless!

Yip I mentioned it on oc.net and was instantly shot down lol
Fanboys...
 
They are clowning. All of these people speak as if they have some special insider information. Elitism and their little clubs. If only they knew :)
 
They are clowning. All of these people speak as if they have some special insider information. Elitism and their little clubs. If only they knew :)

Obviously you don't live under a bridge on the interwebz, didn't you know everyone with a keyboard is a grandmaster on the whole universe?? Just pick any topic, create thread, wait.

:p
 
The odd thing is as of this moment, about 5min or so ago we may have a fix for the crashing on the Graphics card with 353 and higher driver.
He will get it and believe it came from somewhere in the ether, and forget that the person he ignored helped test the bloody thing.
 
The odd thing is as of this moment, about 5min or so ago we may have a fix for the crashing on the Graphics card with 353 and higher driver.
He will get it and believe it came from somewhere in the ether, and forget that the person he ignored helped test the bloody thing.

lol Yeah bud, piss poor from Guru3D.
Eh I won't bother with their reviews anymore, I can generally test most gpu's myself an anyway.
 
I have never trusted Guru3D. It's easy to see that the majority of their reviews are copy-paste-change from their previous reviews (often with error from the previous reviews!), which doesn't instil much confidence.

As for AnandTech, I find their reviews have gone downhill since Anand left. In particular there are a lot of copy errors which makes them look seriously unprofessional. And their PSU "reviews" are a joke.
 
Last edited:
And I've been banned :rolleyes::D

Hahahah sigh. If you ever wanted proof that GURU3D is BS well here it is.
 
Well the writings on the wall there bud. Kudos to you [MENTION=64]ShockG[/MENTION] , You've done a lot more than meets the eye and your perseverance is commendable. You're like the Troy of the Tech age, Respect.
 
Last edited:
banned-guru3d.png~original


Right, I have also joined the ranks of the banned. Funny enough, he did an IP ban on me for guru3d.com but not forums.guru3d.com xD

All of my posts have been removed, but I had the foresight to save the pages after each post I made. I have them zipped and uploaded here https://app.box.com/s/q7u5u2frw7fvcupiiom698iq0wfp2jxn

For those wanting to read, the action starts on page 5. I only logged in to comment after ShockG was banned, other than that I was following it as a guest. For those not interested in reading everything, I'll include the relevant bits below along with the times of the posts (these are relevant).

Hilbert Hagedoorn said:
I tend not to reply to remarks that are abundantly clearly mentioned in the article. If you actually bothered to read the text in the article, it's all in there really. The results are valid.
They are not Hilbert.
I read what you wrote.
Which is I quote
These tests have been performed with a 20~21 Degrees C room temperature, and remember this card is factory tweaked towards 1291 MHz (baseclock is 1241).
1. No built in OC mode in OC GURU will give you the performance you have shown. It's not possible
2. Are you saying you're not showing default out the box performance at all? Which is it? Because A. - This card will not give those numbers out the box, regardless of OC GURU settings. B. The only way to get those numbers is via an overclock 1450Mhz+, which I assume is different from your section where you actually overclock the card.

So yeah, those results are not right, care to provide a FM link perhaps?

Base for this card is 1150MHz, Boost is 1241MHz, real clock goes to 1354MHz
Even if your particular sample was clocked 50MHz higher for some reason so that Boost is 1291MHz, that would still put the real clock under load at around 1390~1410MHz. Still not enough to give you a 9600 GPU score.

So I'm just trying to figure out how you managed these results.

I care about this because Monday I'm calling out GIGABYTE for lying and sending out press samples that are vastly different from retail, or maybe just maybe there's another explanation.

With a 50MHz+ clock boost taking the real clock to 1404/1391MHz I get 8,846
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-5960X,MSI X99A XPOWER AC (MS-7881)

ShockG - I want this thread back on topic, if you feel the need to complain to Gigabyte over a 250~300 point differential in 3DMark, by all means please do so. I am a bit done with the tone and endless argument though.

Best of luck to you, guys back on topic please.

Fender178 said:
Get over trying to prove Hilbert wrong he debunked your theory. 2nd of all not all Graphics cards OverClock the same. Hilbert got what we call is a golden card. Good luck trying to prove that Gigabyte lied which they did not.
He didn't debunk anything.
Debuking means providing evidence contrary to what is being stated.
Thus far he has said nothing.

P score is irrelevant because it's dependant on your CPU and RAM. Your graphics score is 9.1k.
the P score is an algorithm which combines all the individual scores with different weighting. The GPU score is incorrect at 9,600!
The 980Ti at the factory clock speeds cannot generate that GPU score, even with LOD tweaks, etc.
That kind of GPU score can only come about with a much higher clock speed. It is not within margin of error. There isn't a single person who can run identical clocks claimed in the review on a similar system who will get the results the review has shown.

I've provided the Futuremark links and the screenshots. All my results are in line with the rest at HWBOT. These alone are not ;)

[It is at this point that ShockG is banned]

Hilbert Hagedoorn said:
ShockG - I want this thread back on topic, if you feel the need to complain to Gigabyte over a 250~300 point differential in 3DMark, by all means please do so. I am a bit done with the tone and endless argument though.

Best of luck to you, guys back on topic please.
Wow you're pathetic. I normally browse as a guest and only log in when I feel the need to comment. You can't handle the heat so you take the passive aggressive approach of banning the user. That's really, really weak.

I guess now you're going to ban me for not kissing your ass.

I am really impressed that the 980ti really out performs the Titan X in Metro Last Light @4k an 11fps difference. While in other games tested it was on par or 1-2 fps difference.

Oj.Overclock.Me said:
Wow you're pathetic. I normally browse as a guest and only log in when I feel the need to comment. You can't handle the heat so you take the passive aggressive approach of banning the user. That's really, really weak.

I guess now you're going to ban me for not kissing your ass.
The guy he banned was a troll and you are showing disrespect and not being on topic and I reported you as well.

Fender178 said:
I am really impressed that the 980ti really out performs the Titan X in Metro Last Light @4k an 11fps difference. While in other games tested it was on par or 1-2 fps difference.


The guy he banned was a troll and you are showing disrespect and not being on topic and I reported you as well.
So anyone who posts saying that the results are not possible is a troll? People are not allowed to think for themselves and have debates but should instead swallow every word said as divine?

Oj.Overclock.Me said:
Wow you're pathetic. I normally browse as a guest and only log in when I feel the need to comment. You can't handle the heat so you take the passive aggressive approach of banning the user. That's really, really weak.

I guess now you're going to ban me for not kissing your ass.
I find it kind of upsetting that users can't question results and just be wrong about it.

When I read this article, I saw a 25% increase in Metro LL and also checked all the numbers myself. I still have questions about that result and a couple others, but on the whole, they're close enough that I just let it slide.

I don't see anything disrespectful in his posts. So basically what I am to take from this is: Do not question results unless you're right about it.

Which is a really unhealthy relationship to have with an enthusiast user base who is really just concerned about getting the right numbers.

Oj.Overclock.Me said:
So anyone who posts saying that the results are not possible is a troll? People are not allowed to think for themselves and have debates but should instead swallow every word said as divine?
Yeah idk, I half agree with you. I think that if there is a discrepancy it should definitely be pointed out. I don't think every discrepancy is malicious -- it could lead to learning something about how the architecture works, or why there is a difference in performance (970 memory issue comes to mind). GShock kind of ignored that portion of it though and just automatically assumed it was Gigabyte/Hilbert at fault -- and not like some strange underlining cause. I don't think he should have been banned personally but I don't own the site.

DiceAir said:
i'm just awaiting some more reviews to see performance between brands.
Yeep, ASUS is the one I'm waiting on, they always do funky cool stuff.

If anyone feels a need to dispute anything, totally fine. You can have your word but at one point the discussion stops. I asked nicely to get back on topic, then the first post he makes is to thread crap again. He's out, as simple as that.

Hilbert Hagedoorn said:
If anyone feels a need to dispute anything, totally fine. You can have your word but at one point the discussion stops. I asked nicely to get back on topic, then the first post he makes is to thread crap again. He's out, as simple as that.
1. The topic of this thread is the Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1.Gaming graphics card, or more specifically your review of said card. His posts were perfectly on topic. If questioning the topic counts as going off topic then what's the thread for? Do you want 100 people saying "Great review" or do you want community input and interactivity?

2. You'll see that his post was at the same time as yours, it was also a lot longer than yours so logic dictates to me that he started typing his post long before he could read your "warning".

3. I saw a validation link from him, so you can't say his claims are fabricated. I'm not saying he's right and you're wrong, but I have not yet seen you respond with a validation link?

The above is why I posted times, note that the post that got ShockG banned for "ignoring the warning" was at the exact same time as the "warning" itself!

Oj.Overclock.Me said:
3. I saw a validation link from him, so you can't say his claims are fabricated. I'm not saying he's right and you're wrong, but I have not yet seen you respond with a validation link?
Isn't he not comparing the same thing though? The one he linked is a reference that's overclocked. Not the G1. The reference Ti's probably have TDP limiting on the boost, similar to the reference 980's. Which would definitely impact the score, especially in a synthetic benchmark. And we're not talking about a 10-15% gap, the difference between his result and Hilberts is 5%. If you run 3DMark 20 times you get 5% margin of error. This isn't to mention that none of the other gaming really show anything weird or strange for a card that's clocked 18% higher.

Again, I don't think he should have been banned but he doesn't really have an argument against that result. Hilbert's score seems fine.

Denial said:
Isn't he not comparing the same thing though? The one he linked is a reference that's overclocked. Not the G1. The reference Ti's probably have TDP limiting on the boost, similar to the reference 980's. Which would definitely impact the score, especially in a synthetic benchmark. And we're not talking about a 10-15% gap, the difference between his result and Hilberts is 5%. If you run 3DMark 20 times you get 5% margin of error. This isn't to mention that none of the other gaming really show anything weird or strange for a card that's clocked 18% higher.

Again, I don't think he should have been banned but he doesn't really have an argument against that result. Hilbert's score seems fine.
What makes you say he's linked a reference card? He's already said he's running the exact same card

Maybe I'm missing something but surely anyone can grab a validation link that will support their argument, eg. [saved after the original link was changed, which was relevant to my next post]

There is always a margin with these things that can be affected by RAM speed, other stuff running in the background, even which SSD you have in your system.

And I'm pretty sure Hilbert was not particularly pleased with the fact he was, along with Gigabyte, being called a liar. Because let's not beat around the bush, that's what was pretty blatantly being suggested here.

morbias said:
Maybe I'm missing something but surely anyone can grab a validation link that will support their argument, eg. [quoted and saved after the original link was changed]

There is always a margin with these things that can be affected by RAM speed, other stuff running in the background, even which SSD you have in your system.

And I'm pretty sure Hilbert was not particularly pleased with the fact he was, along with Gigabyte, being called a liar. Because let's not beat around the bush, that's what was pretty blatantly being suggested here.
The system with the lower score has higher clock speeds on the graphics card and processor, I'm sorry but a different SSD isn't going to make up for that.

Anyway, I've made three points I'd like Hilbert to address. Either he can provide me with honest answers on all three, or he can hide from what I know are tough questions by banning me as well. If he chooses to ban me it'll speak volumes as that is as good as saying he CAN'T answer my questions.

Oj.Overclock.Me said:
The system with the lower score has higher clock speeds on the graphics card and processor, I'm sorry but a different SSD isn't going to make up for that.

Anyway, I've made three points I'd like Hilbert to address. Either he can provide me with honest answers on all three, or he can hide from what I know are tough questions by banning me as well. If he chooses to ban me it'll speak volumes as that is as good as saying he CAN'T answer my questions.
You seem to have the notion that I need to answer your questions just because you say so ? Not really. I am done with this topic. Best of luck though.

Oh and btw, your attitude is what in the end will get you banned, that is pretty much the only part you have correct.

morbias said:
Maybe I'm missing something but surely anyone can grab a validation link that will support their argument, eg. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-5960X,Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. X99-UD4-CF

There is always a margin with these things that can be affected by RAM speed, other stuff running in the background, even which SSD you have in your system.

And I'm pretty sure Hilbert was not particularly pleased with the fact he was, along with Gigabyte, being called a liar. Because let's not beat around the bush, that's what was pretty blatantly being suggested here.
This is a very unhealthy attitude for a website of this type. People in this thread are questioning a result. Asking the people in this thread to go back on topic when they are literally discussing the results of the card in the topic is completely unacceptable. Even if the user(s) are wrong with their questions, the questions were never addressed. They were ignored for a few pages despite a pretty impressive amount of effort the user put into recreating the test.

Which makes me realize the whole purpose of this article is really just an ad, right. Like we're all here as enthusiasts to sell a product to, and when we started to question the product, it really endangers the advertising purpose of the website.

And then I came to the conclusion that this is my hobby, I'm not really here to be sold to? So I'll just be on my way. The website really seems to be more aligned with the interests of the manufacturer here than the users, which is unfortunate.

Hilbert Hagedoorn said:
You seem to have the notion that I need to answer your questions just because you say so ? Not really. I am done with this topic. Best of luck though.
Then you have just answered me and anyone else who has even had the slightest hint of doubt.

You are infallible
What you say is law and no proof or evidence is needed
Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong
You will make up reasons for banning people (I have pointed out for all to see that ShockG could not POSSIBLY have seen your post before he made his post)

Your results are in question and you are not willing to back them up, CAN'T you?

Oh, and if you want to ban me for my attitude without addressing my questions that's your prerogative. It will do nothing but reinforce everything I have said.

Oj.Overclock.Me said:
Your results are in question and you are not willing to back them up, CAN'T you?
.
You're so right, I photoshop the results and then I put them online to fool you all.

As to your remark, the proof is the screenshot in the article and as such, the results are not in question. Anyone can question anything. I just re-ran the test, there's a 100 point difference, nothing more, still way over 9100 points.

BTW to the others, this is why you guys see me so little in the forums replying on articles. There are always a small group of users questioning stuff, and this is the result.

Here enjoy:
[picture showing 9,477 points with NO info on the system used other than "a" graphics card that works with OC Guru 2 running at 1279 MHz]

Hilbert Hagedoorn said:
You're so right, I photoshop the results and then I put them online to fool you all.

As to your remark, the proof is the screenshot in the article and as such, the results are not in question. Anyone can question anything. I just re-ran the test, there's a 100 point difference, nothing more, still way over 9100 points.

BTW to the others, this is why you guys see me so little in the forums replying on articles. There are always a small group of users questioning stuff, and this is the result.
Sarcasm is not a great way to deal with issues, I have not been sarcastic towards you. I also never claimed that you Photoshopped anything.

I can show you a screenshot of over 10,000 and claim it was done at stock speed while in reality it isn't. You haven't shown a validation with SysInfo enabled to prove otherwise, so you have proven nothing other than that it is possible to get your score and we have to take your word that the clock speeds were untouched.

You wrote a review which has questionable results and people that question questionable results are the reason you're not here? Are we expected to blindly believe everything?

Oj.Overclock.Me said:
You wrote a review which has questionable results and people that question questionable results are the reason you're not here? Are we expected to blindly believe everything?
Validation is disabled in my benchmarks as we review a lot of embargo stuff that we do not want to see online.

Anyway, I do not expect you to believe anything whatsoever. You clearly have no confidence in our articles/content and myself, question begs .. why are you still here other then trolling the hell out of this thread ? Surely there are better websites and forums out there better suited for a man of your intellect.

Oj.Overclock.Me said:
The system with the lower score has higher clock speeds on the graphics card and processor, I'm sorry but a different SSD isn't going to make up for that.
At first I was wondering what you were talking about but yeah, this is entirely my fault, I had several tabs open and I posted the wrong link. I was meant to post this one: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-5820K Processor,MSI X99S SLI PLUS (MS-7885)

But to be totally honest I don't think it at all matters as you are clearly set on believing that the results are fake one way or the other.

@Reardan - Nothing wrong with discussing results, but it is possible to do that without insinuating people are liars. Also I think it's common sense to read more than one review about a product before buying it, no?

I would just ignore Oj.Overclock.Me because he is nothing but a troll who has no evidence to backup any claims of proving that Hilbert's results being fake.

Back on topic.
Makes me wonder on the highest Oc that can be achieved with this card is? I wonder if you could get close to what users get with the 970s and 980s.

Lol after seeing some troll here i am guessing that AMD fanboys is having a brain fart after seeing GTX 980 Ti poor guys cannot see anything positive on AMD side.

Doom112 said:
Lol after seeing some troll here i am guessing that AMD fanboys is having a brain fart after seeing GTX 980 Ti poor guys cannot see anything positive on AMD side.
People who are that invested in a brand that they feel the need to defend one or the other out of blind loyalty, defending a purchase or otherwise would instead do well to just get a life..

All these years of people bickering about which is better and why makes me really weep for humanity at times.. buy what is within your price range that works for you. All the rest of the bitching and whining and arguing is just a waste of energy.

Hilbert Hagedoorn said:
Here enjoy:

I'm still not convinced your clock speeds are right. Efficiencies for the 980 Ti are around 6.9-7.2 points/GPU MHz on a heavily tweaked bench setup (LOD, the works). If we take the score in the review, you're showing an efficiency of over 7.5 points per MHz on something that is "out of the box" - that would mean you didn't use any tweaks? I simply don't understand ow you're getting better performance on a non tweaked setup than ANYONE has gotten out of a heavily tweaked setup?

Here's a link if anyone wants to see for themselves [B][U]http://url.hwbot.org/1eaCQm9[/U][/B]

Hilbert Hagedoorn said:
Validation is disabled in my benchmarks as we review a lot of embargo stuff that we do not want to see online.

Anyway, I do not expect you to believe anything whatsoever. You clearly have no confidence in our articles/content and myself, question begs .. why are you still here other then trolling the hell out of this thread ? Surely there are better websites and forums out there better suited for a man of your intellect.
So questioning something that seems improbable or impossible is trolling? If that's the case, every person capable of thinking for themselves is a troll? We have a sample group larger that just your review, but your review is the odd one out. Oh, and nothing in that system is under any sort of NDA.

morbias said:
@Reardan - Nothing wrong with discussing results, but it is possible to do that without insinuating people are liars. Also I think it's common sense to read more than one review about a product before buying it, no?
I'm not insinuating anyone's a liar, I'm insinuating that a mistake has been made.

Fender178 said:
I would just ignore Oj.Overclock.Me because he is nothing but a troll who has no evidence to backup any claims of proving that Hilbert's results being fake.
I didn't once say they were FAKE, I did say they seem to be WRONG. See above. You, however, seem to be another believer that you get two types of people in life - mindless sheep who accept everything for face value, and trolls who question the impossible and improbable.

Doom112 said:
Lol after seeing some troll here i am guessing that AMD fanboys is having a brain fart after seeing GTX 980 Ti poor guys cannot see anything positive on AMD side.

ScoobyDooby said:
People who are that invested in a brand that they feel the need to defend one or the other out of blind loyalty, defending a purchase or otherwise would instead do well to just get a life..

All these years of people bickering about which is better and why makes me really weep for humanity at times.. buy what is within your price range that works for you. All the rest of the bitching and whining and arguing is just a waste of energy.
Ironically if I have to pick sides I'm with NVIDIA, but the one thing I am for sure is a truth fanboy. I want to get to the truth whether it is any one of the following:

The frequency wasn't as set
The frequency was reported incorrectly
The run was tweaked for the highest score possible and not representative of out the box performance
Other (please elaborate)
 
Just another tidbit I need to add. In your graphs you include older graphics cards as well. This is to get a direct comparison between the two cards, right?

Over here we have GeForce GTX 780 Ti review - Introduction, and if we look at the 3DMark 11 scores we see P13496 and X5114. That was done with a Core i7-3960X clocked at 4.6 GHz. If we look at your review of the Gigabyte GeForce GTX Titan X we see on page 8 that you're now on a Core i7-5960X at 4.4 GHz (and undoubtedly a newer graphics driver), but if we go to the 3DMark 11 scores we see the same P13496 and X5114 in the graphs. The same is true of the graphs in the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 98-0 Ti G1.Gaming review, have a look at the 3DMark 11 graphss. That isn't a fair comparison, is it? It is not representative of the true performance difference between the 780 Ti and the two newer cards, is it? Yet if we don't reference back to the 780 Ti review we don't know that it was tested on a COMPLETELY different platform.

The same can be seen with 3DMark 13, on the 780 Ti we see a score of 9,935 which is still referenced in the Titan X review (graph) and the G1.Gaming review (graph).

There are obvious flaws in the testing methodology, why are you so closed to the idea that you may have made a mistake?

That was apparently too much, as by 11:43 I was banned.

I'm not going to say anything, but you have all the facts in front of you. If you feel I may have purposefully left things out to misrepresent what happened, the entire thread is saved in the attached zip file for you to compare.

I'll leave it up to each of you to draw your own conclusions.

I may be banned, but it's not over until the fat lady sings and trust me she's just getting warmed up.
 
Last edited:
Wow. Can't believe you and shock got banned for questioning the results. Clearly Hilberts results are jipped with.

I for one will not use that site anymore for reviews.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Damn

You'll should turn this into a video and paste it all over YouTube and Facebook

You'll can hire me when it becomes a movie

:p
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom