I think it would be nice to have all requests made by both sides made available to us the readers on a per review basis.
And make it known to the companies that their requests will be made available to us.
We deserve all this information to allow us to see how these companies are conducting themselves and what sort of spin they want to attempt to place on the review we receive, whether you acquiesce or not.
What else is there we don't know about this review in the frame of requests made by AMD or Nvidia ? We already have heard some rumblings about a game called Hawx 2 and a benchmark of said game nvidia has been pushing.
Can some light be shed on these other still hidden topics we have not been given a clear picture of ?
I agree with you, that it would be nice to know what kind of issues the different companies pushes.
I also didn't mind an overclocked nVidia card in the test, since GTX460 is a special card where this kind of OC isn't uncommon.
And I hope there will be a follow up review, because the review seemed rushed. I am curious why crossfire seemed to be a bit better than the 5-series cards.
And lastly I would really like to see a subjective/biased section to the review. A sort of section that you do what you can to find out where a card shines, and where it sucks. Like find out that its great with one game engine, high or low resolution, with/without heavy AA and so on. That way it's easier to see if I'm going to be especially happy or unhappy if I get the card.
Also, while i in general dislike overclocked parts compared to stock parts (which are not also represented in overclocked specs) when the article is not specifically about overclocking, you argued the case for including the card well and included sufficient notifications to not set me off. The only hostile oppinions i have is towards nVidia for not making the card 465 instead of 460 OC when it's close to, and in some cases beat 470. It's sort of like including i7 920 OC@4Ghz (and stock) when reviewing Phenom x6 1090T at stock.
It's not that the evga card was oc'd that is the issue. Plenty of other sites include them and while some keep results from such cards to a separate graph/page, others don't. I would suggest most reading a gpu review are savvy enough to know what they're looking at and draw conclusions accordingly.
Where I have a problem with the evga card is that it is the one specifically requested by nVidia. [And why not, it's the one currently available with the near heaviest oc so why wouldn't nVdia want this one included?]
In short nVdia wanted to cherry pick the oc'd card you were to use and you let them. And we can get all Machiavellian over the fact that nVdia sent these cards out so no doubt each sample was again cherry picked.
The EVGA is available to buy, so regardless if they're "cherry picked" of not, why does it matter? If you buy one, it's going to perform exactly the same as another EVGA 460 FTW. It's not like it was a stock speed card that has been cherry picked so that it reaches extremely high OC's to give the false impression all 460's will overclock so well.
If you buy one, I think though you are very very likely to end up with a much higher power draw than this card had. The result of this specific card is EXTREMELY good for a 460FTW - I've seen results where this approaches GTX470 power draw (at load), apparently because this specific sample had very very low voltage while others did not. Now if that was just luck or not I can't tell but I think it would paint a bit of a different picture if power draw at load were ~50W higher. Other than that, including a OC card looks fine by me as long as the reference one is mentioned. Personally though I think a card with about a 800Mhz clock (and a bit less memory clock too) would have made more sense, as that is much closer to what common OC cards are clocked at.
I was on the fence, until reading above post. If the reviewed GTX 460 FTW sample's power draw is not typical, this makes a strong case against including it in the review. The article itself discloses the sample came direct from NVIDIA, who had every reason to pick one that makes them look good.
I applaud the full disclosure provided, but I'd be disappointed if I ended up buying an OC'ed 460 only to discover its power consumption is above what is quoted.
Even if you buy two of the same card off the same shelf at the same store there is still the possibility you get two cards with different power consumption merely because they may not use high precision resistors in the voltage feedback loop so one or the other inherently runs at slightly higher stock voltage.
I propose a fairly easy way to detect this, you only need to measure GPU voltage (memory voltage to a lesser extent) to see if it's a tweaked card or within expected deviations for power consumption, assuming all else about the layout and component specs remains the same.
Oh hey, I found one in "low stock"--for $291. Not such a competitor to the Radeon HD 6870 at that price, now is it?
It's probably mostly a fake card (i.e., extremely limited quantities). New Egg has 43 GTX 460s listed. Eight of them are clocked at 800-815 MHz. EVGA is the only company that has one clocked above 815 MHz, and they clock it at a whopping 850 MHz. If so many GPUs could clock that high, don't you think Zotac, Palit, Gigabyte, Galaxy, or MSI (all of which have a GTX 460 clocked at 800 MHz or higher) would have one clocked above 815 MHz?
And this is the day after Nvidia's big PR stunt. If availability is this short now on a card that launched three months ago, do you think it's going to improve in the future? Not at that price, it won't.
In fairness, the external exhaust model is still in stock at Newegg (240, 230AR) and the internal exhaust model is still available (230, 220AR) direct from EVGA as of Sunday 10/24 1pm PST.
Time will tell how long supply remains available (as acknowledged in the article) but for now an 850MHz 460 1GB with a warranty is still a viable option.
Today there is still limited availability. But what about in the near future when there likely isn't, or when there are factory overclocked Radeon HD 6870s? What then?
Will the article still leave the EVGA GTX 460 FTW in all of the charts but no factory overclocked 6870? Will the article conclusion still say, "Meanwhile if you care about a balance of performance and power/heat/noise, then it’s the 6870 versus the EVGA GTX 460; and the EVGA card wins in an unfair fight."?
And more to the point, what will happen a casual reader who comes along months down the line wanting a good video card but only glancing through reviews? Will he be given the impression that a typical factory overclocked GTX 460 outperforms a typical 6870, even though we both know that on average, the 6870 wins handily? That was Nvidia's goal with this whole stunt. And this site helped them with it.
There's a time and a place for "this part is an awesome deal today even if it will soon be gone". But a review of a major new card launch isn't it.
"Meanwhile if you care about a balance of performance and power/heat/noise, then it’s the 6870 versus the EVGA GTX 460; and the EVGA card wins in an unfair fight. As an overclocked card in a launch card article we’re not going to give it a nod, but we’re not going to ignore it; it’s 5% faster than the reference 6870 while at the same time it’s cooler and quieter (thanks in large part to the fact that it’s an open-air design). At least as long as it’s on the market (we have our doubts about how many suitable GPUs NVIDIA can produce), it’s hard to pass up even when faced with the 6870."
It's clearly stated that it's an EVGA card, not any overclocked card, and that it probably will have limited availability. The article even goes on to state:
"Without the EVGA card in the picture though, the 6870 is clearly sitting at a sweet spot in terms of price, performance, and noise."
If a casual reader can't actually read, then admittedly they might end up in the difficulties you describe. Anyone else who reads the article will get very relevant advice. That advice might change with Cayman, if Nvidia's price cuts aren't permanent, if Nvidia has anything other than a paper tiger 580 to respond with, and if AMD can put out 6870s with a significant stock overclock at about the same price. That's no different from any other article, though - which is why the date is always on the top of every page.
I believe OC'd cards are too much of a variable for an article which people will be referring to for the next year or so. OC'd cards with any significant OC have very limited quantities (otherwise the company will just release a stock card with those specifications). So my opinion is that OC'd cards should be included only in exceptional cases and they should be given only a single page in the article in those cases.
As a standard rule, OC'd products should not be used in reviews of new non-overclocked products.
Unless of course the over-clocked product represents the majority of products that an average consumer would find readily available in the market at the same or lower price point of the new part being reviewed. If the over-clocked product represents an anomaly available from only one vendor at a similar price point, then it should not be included in a review comparing to a reference non-overclocked product.
because less people are aware it's an overclocked version. The majority of computer users see a good review of the 460, see one sold for a good price in the store, buy it, and don't get the same results, because they have purchased a normal non OC'ed card.
It's ironic that this cherry picked card is the exact one that everyone wants to see (I very much wanted to see this one). And so logically, it was the one that they did in the review here.
The idea is nice in theory, but so much of what they review is new product being tested under NDA that they CAN'T tell us what they're getting, and let us decide before they publish what the content will be.
All in all the review you posting about put Amd's new cards in a very favorable light. I don't understand why people would have been complaining about the Evga cards inclusion in the comparison charts. It was a solid review.. and I think it's a bit of a shame that you had to clarify it with this secondary followup.
I "DO" agree with some other posters here though. a small note on some of the politics surrounding a launch should be touched up on... Just little things like what Amd or Nvidia (or Intel, Microsoft, Apple etc.) are hoping to have included in a review. You know, off hand comments.. that give us a little insight.
Fully appreciate the eagerness of the Anand staff to avoid any possible misunderstanding with the readers! Have just registered specifically to express this very attitude. As for the issue, I believe that, as it has been many times mentioned below, we deserve being fully informed about the choice we have, but AMD (or any other company in its position) also deserves a fair-play - its own overclocked part presented as a possible alternative. The factory overclocked parts surely have the right to be tested, especially when their performance gain happens to be so clear as in the case with the EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW, But I would have preferred, for example, the Palit Sonic Platinum to be tested, as it is really available. Single page or not is not at all critical. And, frankly, I don't believe that all the buyers of the EVGA card would run to check the power draw ...
The EVGA 460 is a standard card available at retail. As long as you include a stock version of he 460, why not include the also-available OC'd card? It would be nice to see an OC'd and overvolted 4850/4870 in your review, though.
I think the right thing to do would have been to give the GTX 460 FTW its own separate mini-article.
Since these overclocked GTX 460s are apparently what Nvidia intends to use to compete with the 6870 at its $239 price, and the factory OC'd cards vary in clock speed and performance, test the 460 at various overclocks to analyze exactly how much it needs to be OC'd to be "worth it." I.E., at 820 MHz it doesn't beat a stock 6870, but at 830 MHz it does, or whatever.
Agree! While I did not mind the inclusion of the EVGA FTW card, I would have loved it to be compared to overclocked HD6870 and HD6850. I do understand that you did not have enough to test OCing and should do a follow up article, in which you should have included 460 FTW. If you did not have to test the EVGA card you might have time more time to concentrate on the main attraction of the review (HD68XX). Take Care, J
Exactly. Looking at GTX 460s on the market, a large proportion don't even run at stock (675 MHz), instead opting for low overclocks (700, 715, 725 MHz).
nvidia has been friendly to factory-overclocked cards since the TNT2 (if not longer) and they are pretty much a fact of life. In addition, that EVGA FTW has been around since way before the 6870 launch so is not a paper launch to show up the new Radeon.
I think it's entirely justified to include the card, my only comment was that the technical details were omitted in the article so it was confusing to compare it to other OC'ed 460s.
If you're going to incude the OC card from manufacturer A you should include an OC card from manufacturer B.
Heck going on Nvidias logic why dont we only test OC models, they are all freely available.
Did Nvidia ask for an overlcocked 5870 to be included in the 480 review? I think not. I dont like the idea of any company influencing reviewers. IT STINKS.
Since the 6850/70's have just been launched there probably isnt alot out there in regards to factory overclocks. Plus (my guess) is AMD won't make those cards so good that they start to compete with the new 6X cards coming out next month that are in a different price bracket.
Nvidia on the other hand did something right in the 460 (been awhile..) and those loyal (or neutral to both companies) are going to continue to look at it with great interest... which means ofcourse that Nvidia will run with it for all it's worth.. trying to make the 460 look as good as it possibly can. Not a hard thing to do really and since AMD currently has the upper hand that's about all they can do until the next launch of a new Geforce series.
1. They supplied a card for comparison that is not available to retail 2. They supplied a oc card that was inappropriately compared to reference clocks 3. They cherrypicked the best very best oc card they could and supplied it to anandtech 4. They pressured AT into including it 5. AT complied. 6. Magically, AT did not include a price for the EVGA 460 oc card, so as to make value comparisons.
As far as I am concerned, AT has lost a LOT of credibility. I guess it's going to be hardocp.com from now on.
You just don't get it don't you? You use overclocked designs from one company (worse, challenger company) but not the other. Fair? There are a million and one "standard retail" OC'd Radeons including 6800s out there too. OC'd cards need to be handled in separate cases, perhaps even separate articles, but this is the first-time launch review and should be kept apples-to-apples as yourself also said.
i understand you wanting to be up front and honest with everybody. but you have nothing to apologise for. every single person that i turn to your website comes away refreshed, rejuvinated and "clean" knowing that someone, somewhere, does honest, thorough, not "cut and paste from the PR" and non-sponsored reviews.
Pff, whatever. The whole point of the article was to show the new 6800 series.
They failed.
1. Diverted time away from the product to review and include a competitors "hand picked" product and admittedly didn't finish the review the way it was intended to be done.
2. Pitted an overclocked card against a stock card and made no attempts to give a fair comparison by overclocking the 6800 to show its potential. This leaves the readers here misinformed with the notion that a 460 FTW will be the better purchase when we have no idea how a 6800 will compare under similar circumstances.
3. You receive free samples by vendors to shed a light on new products. This article has become more about manufacturers and review site ethics and the competitors card instead of the stated goal. You potentially upset your vendor and obviously a number of your readers and damage the only thing that keeps you above the rest of your competing sites... your reputation.
If I were an investor in (product A) and AT was my project manager whose results stir up controversy and simultaneously give props to my competitors (product B)... Well I would think someone would be on the chopping block.
2. Ohh no, it's OVERCLOCKED versus STOCK!! Now if nvidia had called this the GTX 461, then it'd be fine?? It is a retail product. It makes graphics go fast. It costs $$. Sure it's possible to OC the 68xx, and that would be a great piece of additional info.
Again, missing two fundamental points. 1) Hand picked product delivered by Nvidia. 2) Diverted time and didn't give a complete review of the product at hand, most probably caused by taking time to review a competitors product...
Lets not be a fanboy here. This is pretty common sense stuff.
I didn't mind it because like you said it's available on the market with full warranty as any other videocard. It's not like you OC'd your own 460 in which case results would vary much more than using 2 of the same factory OC'd cards. Also in doing my own comparisons based on your results with local prices here, that particular OC'd 460 turns out to be an excellent choice. I think you'll find it's the fan boys making the most noise because they feel it doesn't make their "team" of GPU maker look as good. But possibly in future it might be best to include factory OC'd parts from both sides to try keep both parties happy. Anyway, thanks for the review and keep up the great work!
Yep, in my mind parts are parts. I thought it was a good review of AMD's new offerings and I liked how the OC'd 460 was thrown in for comparison as a kicker.
Props to you, been reading AT since you were a teenager. I didn't take particular offense to the 460 OC being included. It was a little bit confusing at first, but I didn't mind it too much. Please make sure you highlight its increased price versus the regular old card clearly. Not sure if this happened.
I can also see why nvidia really wants the OC results included. People have been having good OC results from the GTX460.
AMD/ATI shouldn't care the 6800 series is a hell of a value proposition. The 6850 cards were sold out on Newegg already today.
The vast majority of GTX 460s on the market come with hefty factory overclocks. Some products just lend themselves to that more than others, and it's been acknowledged by most I think that this particular GPU is an excellent candidate for large performance gains through overclocking.
You already went out of your way in the original article to downplay the role of the EVGA 460. That really ought to be enough, although from a real world standpoint I don't see how that is relevant at all, if what we're after is a price/performance comparison. Yes, it's not reference clocked, and so what? If it provides X performance for Y dollars, what difference does it make?
I have a little addition to the above comment. If it provides X performance for Y dollars, out of the box with warranty, what difference does it make?
I appreciate the effort of the reviewers on anandtech's to provide all the information required so i can best decide how to best spend my hard earned cash.
I have no problems with the way the article was presented with the EVGA overclocked card. nVidia should suck it up though and call it the GTX 461 however...
Agreed. If Nvidia wants an overclocked 460 to be taken seriously then they should set a standard for said overclocked cards. It's not as if other manufacturers couldn't still offer cards outside of that standard, those cards would just remain overclocked 460s instead of 461s (or even curious-er, overclocked 461s). Maybe Nvidia is just too lazy to guarantee 460s at a higher clock and wants card makers to bin their GPUs for them.
Why don't you just make an online survey and get feedback from the readers about their thoughts? If you ask any marketing student you will get the same answer: make a survey. Throw some thinking about what kind of data is useful for AT and ship the survey online. I am getting extremely curious how this issue will be resolved.
If you ask me i see no problem in including the EVGA card in the review. Why would i see a problem? Heck it's just a card. I don't care if it's named 460 OC or 470 or 6870. It'd a card. And i want to know what cards can do. I never vote for nVidia or AMD i always vote for the winner and i don't care who that is. If the 460 can beat the 470 so be it. Maybe some day the 470OC will beat the 480 and stuff. I don't care.
And please, keep your sanity and aim straight.....
When an OCd card is significantly faster than the standard card, has widespread availability at retail, and is highly relevant in terms of a price/performance to whatever is being reviewed, it'd by irresponsible not to include it in the review.
In this case just because Nvidia hasn't officially made a "461" or "460+", that doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes one doesn't exist - and that card should be included in the review.
I read AT because you print what's best for me. I really don't give a damn if that means AMD and Nvidia occasionally get screwed be "unfair" comparisons - they're chip companies, not my grandma.
review Intel graphics and didn't bother with either AMD or NVidia, I'm sure their fanboies would be equally happy! Just a thought, of course, but it might be worth seriously considering,,, }:-]
I see no point in not including it. Reviews purpose are to compare cards, overclocked is a card too. If AMD has an overclocked one add it if not tough luck for them. I like to see the max performance from the cards and it gives the readers the ability to know the max performance they can expect from overclocking cards themselves. I think the people upset are the ones who want to purchase the AMD cards and might be seeing lower performance compared to an overclocked competitor card.
I honestly only cared about the results in relation to my current card, a 5870 ref card. But I have seen other sites where they do a followup on all the overclock cards once they are out. If you expect to have to do that in the future of most releases, why not just keep them for a separate shootout and final price/perf data point.
You didn't include any other token OC cards of the other models so why inject the separate data point now?
Yes it's one data point, but if you open that avenue of comparison, you open a need to add all the rest which you surely didn't have time for in this review yet.
You are still the only site that I come to for the final most honest reviews.
When you buy OCed card why do you buy it and not the ref card? Um? Because you want something more than a ref card. So what is that "more"? Reviews like this. What is the point in having a separate shootouts other than comparing manufacturers? Simple as that
I don't understand the complaints unless its coming from people with obvious bias. I applaud you Anand and staff for going the route of being comprehensive with your information. I see no reason for people to be upset when the comparison is made between retail production cards. It's not like it was a custom tweaked card.
At the end of the day, people come here for research and if they find a card they hadn't considered (be it an overclocked Nvidia or Amd) in their price/performance range then you have accomplished your goal.
I welcome the extra information as a consumer. It would be nice if there was a way to filter the OCed cards out in the Bench section if we'd like. First and foremost the stock cards should be reviewed, but after that if you want review OCed also, great.
I know I have sat comparing cards and the OCed one's just confused me because I don't know where they stand in line in performance, power, and heat. I typically buy stock video cards because I know exactly where it stands.
* I think in the future you should always state the condition/requirements that any company requires for their particular product review. * If you are ever requested to use an OC'd part, than OC all parts and compare. Also compare all parts at the STOCK settings. Between the 2 tests, one can make their own informed decision with the data. This will totally remove any doubts (or at least minimize) and the fanboys will see the differences and make their own decisions too.
Concerning the review: Another website noted what nVidia was asking for, but instead took a higher road and adjusted the GPU settings close to stock settings (actually they averaged the ones that were available). I think this was a better way to address using an OC'd GPU against a stock GPU for comparison reasons.
I think that if you put an OCed card in the charts, you should compare it with other OCed cards, not just reference cards, and in a separate page, otherwise is just bias...
Also i'm still wondering why you didn't overclock the 6800 cards. I hope we'll see the results in the roundup next week.
It's not bias at all. The EVGA costs the same price as the 6870 but offers atleast as good performance. This is what matters. This is what people look for when buying a card... you know... other cards that cost the same. There are also no OC'ed 68xx available yet to buy, i'm sure they would have been included otherwise.
I really appreciated having the OC'd card in there. These articles are around to help us decide what to buy. I keep my options open to the best performer at the price point I want to pay. The more information the better. Thanks for the article Anand and thanks for informing us even of all this behind the scenes stuff.
keep the main review pages at stock clocks for both competitors. Then on a single page overclock the new card and compare with the factory overclocked competitor. At least that way it is a lemon to lime comparison, instead of apple to orange.
I'm a little surprised that anyone got so bent out of shape about that, you went above and beyond mentioning how unfair having an overclocked card is, nobody could have missed that. I'd say just ignore them, probably fanboys making noise, keep up the good work because thats why we show up here, and I had no problem with it. You saw a potential need and tried to address it before it could be asked for, what more could we want?
I see a lot of people putting respect down here, not sure if thats the norm, but..
The only issue I have is if one overclocked card is included, every card included should be compared overclocked and at standard speeds. And they should be the standard clock cards, not hand picked ones sold over msrp because of binning. I would be ok to mention there are binned versions with simlar performance, but these should not be the primary cards in the comparison, it can mislead someone into expecting to buy any 460, overclocking, and getting same perfrmance. (not saying they couldm't, but not a guarentee) Now if you had binned cards fom both manufactures, different story.
As you say, overclocked versions come and go, and there is often no guarantee that the overclock will be the same. And as you pointed out, the charts will end up being a mess, one version is 10mhz one way or another. So my question is, if you have a policy, why not stick with it? So is this policy still in place or not? It makes your site seem wishy washy and disingenuous to tell the reader why you don't do something, they go right ahead and do it. Especially given that the reason seems to be Nvidia was pushing the overclocked versions "hard".
My problem is, how do we know that the overclocked cards are not limited time units? Are these speed binned chips and in the future they won't be available? Is there long term reliability issues with these versions? At the very least, I feel these things should be addressed in the reviews.
So given you had a policy in place not to allow overclocked versions in reviews, my basic question would be, what has changed to make you change your mind? And in fairness, seeing you did allow the higher clocked cards in this review, in the future, you must also allow any overclocked versions. I think you just invited problems for yourself. AMD or Nvidia might ship you an uber clocked, hand picked, limited run card. You won't have any way of knowing if the card will be available for as long as the regular models.
While I have nothing in principle against overclocked cards, there are a few things that don't sit well with me in this case.
1. "As a matter of editorial policy we do not include overclocked cards on general reviews". In this case it seems like you went against your own policy because Nvidia was prodding you and sent you a card. If Nvidia hadn't contacted you, and they hadn't sent you the card, would you have decided to include it on your own? I get the impression the answer is no, but I may be wrong.
2. Is it realistic for ~25% OC parts to be able to compete in volume against the stock HD68xx cards? I have no idea, but if not then this is just a shitty way to steal AMD's thunder. I guess the coming months will show to what extent the high overclocked cards can keep competing.
All in all I don't really like the way this case looks, but at least you are upfront about what you are doing.
I think it was a very bad move and OC'd 460 had no place there. If you want to include OC'd cards, be it factory or not, you should do so in a separate article. In no time, there will be factory OC'd 6800 cards. That will be a good time to compare.
There were factory OC'd card before, yet this is the first review you chose to include one. By that logic, you could've included all sorts of factory OC'd 4xx and 5xxx cards.
"Don't make it a habit, but for one off occasions such as this. I'm ok with it."
That's not a fair way to do reviews. You either always allow them, or never. And seeing it was done once, it has to be allowed from here on in. Either that, or go back and change the review. Although that doesn't really help, the cat is out of the bag.
What if next time vendor X has a version with a very high overclock. Don't include that because this was a "one off occasion"? That's not a respectable way to do product reviews.
I dont really understand why people complain about it. If it is out on the market why not include it just to show what to expect of it/similar products. Not everyone is an ocer so if they can buy a preclocked card so why not... thanx for the best hardware site ever, been reading here scince 1999 or somehing :)
Were it some other video card, including a factory-overclock might be an issue.
However, with the 460 GTX, factory overclocks are extremely common, and extreme overclockability is an explicit selling point of the card. IN THIS CASE, including a good factory-overclocker was entirely appropriate.
It was pointed out in the article in question. I don't see a problem.
Continue to use your good judgment. Philosophical purity (and judgments thereof) isn't what we're here for.
The AIBs of course. Even at the date of release, the GTX460 OC versions outnumbers the versions that is on stock clock. Nowadays, finding a stock GTX460 is harder than finding an overclocked one.
It is rare to see a 850Mhz of course, but the point is clear, even at launch, the OCed card SKUs outnumbers stock version SKUs easily. GTX460 release is the rare situation where overclocking is touted as a major feature for it (kinda like GT430 with its new role as HTPC card).
If the price is similar, why OCed GPUs cannot be included. In the GTX460 official review, numbers from OCed GTX460 GPU also appeared in it, whihc may cause nVidia GPUs looks good and ATI GPUs looks bad. Why is that no controversy arisen from that then?
There are so few sites that can be trusted to give unbiased reviews these days. So many are on the take to favour one competitor over another. The $ talks and the consumer gets shafted. This is not how it should be. Of course, this ain't a perfect world.
Factory overclocked cards should never be used in reviews of standard cards in my opinion. It's sets a dangerous precendent that's open to abuse.
If you think the EVGA card deserves a mention, then by all means, give it it's own review and pit it against a 6870 there. Simple. Would've been far better than releasing the 6800 series reviews with NV's stench all over them.
I just don't understand why people are so upset about including this card. It would be one thing if a stock 460 wasn't included in the review, but it is, so you can easily compare both cards to a stock 460 if that's what you want. But the OC 460 is a card that is available on shelves right now, with a warranty. If you were looking to buy a card right now, the EVGA 460 would be one of your options, so why wouldn't anyone want to see how it stacks up against the competition (or more to the point, how the competition stacks up against it). It's not like the card isn't clearly labeled in every graph, and it's not like the review doesn't take other things like its power draw and price into consideration. Basically, it seems like people are getting upset for including another valid data point in the graphs, which doesn't make any sense at all.
Exactly what I was thinking. Reading through the comments and seeing people say what they said of the EVGA 460 FTW being in the article, I couldn't help but keep thinking "Goodness! As long as a reference/stock clocked 460 card was in the graphs and visibly labeled to allow for easy comparisons, then whats the big deal?"
Anyone who can read can easily look at the graphs and see where the chips fall. For example, I have a GTX 260 core 216, Its not in the graphs or any of the test for this particular review but by reading other card reviews (and using Anandtech's GPU Bench) i can see that it generally performs a bit better than a 5770. And since the 5770 is included in this review i can draw a very rough comparison between my old gtx260 core 216 and any other card that is in this review. Well, now that i think about it, i can just use anandtechs GPU bench to make the comparisons that matter to me. So long story short, having the extra data set that is the EVGA 460 FTW, is a non issue to me because at the end of the day, what matters is that i've been given relevant data for products that are available in the market with manufacturer warranty (none of that DIY-void-ur-warranty overclocking stuff)
On a somewhat related note, I reallly want a 6850... but i can't justify a new card because i'm still able to push decent frame rates with maxed out quailty in the games im currently playing @1920x1080 (TF2, MoH 2010, Bad Company 2, Mass Effect 2, L4D 1&2)
I wasn't put off or anything by the inclusion, and it was an excellent, excellent article. I can't believe you did all this in one week.
However, I think you should have left the mention as an aside, especially in a launch article.
I place the real blame on nVidia.
If the performance difference between stock and potential OC is so huge that it can cross major price points (20% price difference!), then nVidia should have given an official designation and speed requirement for 460 cards clocked at the 800MHz/1600MHz level.
Without official direction from nVidia, you get this messy list below, and it takes forever to calculate exactly which 460 has the best price/performance:
Which is more worth it? The EVGA 763 for $207.55, or the ASUS 775 for $212? Maybe the MSI 780 at $205 is the best deal, but perhaps does it run hotter/noisier? Who knows.
p.s. I bought a 6850 this morning :) First new card since my $215 8800 GT from March 2008!
As long as the card REFERENCE CARD IS IN the reveiw as well. The OVERCLOCK CARD must also be label as an OVERCLOCK card. Don't label it EVGA FTW, or any funky name other company uses.
No, because there is not a factory OC'ed 6870 available to buy yet. The EVGA FTW is. If you're going to buy right NOW you'll be looking at these two cards because of the near exact same price points and performance. So having the EVGA card is completely relevant and useful to buyers, which is the whole point of a review.
"stock frequency" was determined by some engineer who graphed capability versus yield. "overclocked" is the right side of the graph from better performing parts. If a card costs $x and performs y, why do you care, fausto412, if it has "overclock" in the name? Would you stop caring if they named it "461"?
I frequent 5 review sites daily, and AnandTech is one of them. As a consumer, it'd be a poor decision to buy something based off of one review. The same can be said as a reviewer, that it'd be a poor decision to test something based on one demographic audience.
Every review site WILL test the reviewed product at stock settings. They will ALSO test similar performance level or cost equivalent item for comparison.
For me, I find that if you're going to start buying ANY product over $100, you want to get the best bang for your buck. We're talking about $180+ graphics cards here. When you start hashing out that much money, you're getting into the enthusiast and budget demographic. Sure, people are happy with stock settings, but there's an entire INDUSTRY geared toward the overclocking demographic. After-market heatsinks, water-cooling, companies with non-reference designs, RAM with heatsinks, etc.
When you see the price of a HD 6870, you see the price of a GTX 470. When you see the price of a GTX 460 1GB, you start looking at the HD 6850 and maybe the GTX 460 768MB. It makes sense to compare THOSE items at stock, for sure.
There's a totally different picture involved when you get one of the best bang for the buck video cards with the GTX 460 1GB and can overclock it from 726/1900 to 895/2040 (personal) compared to a HD 6870 from 900/1050 to a 950/1050 (see Tom's Hardware).
When you start overclocking, putting cards in crossfire and SLI at stock and overclocked speeds, a broader picture emerges. Not only do you get people who don't overclock happy, but you get the people who do overclock happy. Plus, you get more people who don't normally overclock to start getting interested because they see the benefits of overclocking.
Either way, it doesn't stop me coming here, even if I don't post much.
Not only was it the right decision to include a competitive retail product in the review, but I would say it is actually required to provide a comprehensive review.
As you mention, to not include it would have been unfair also.
For the record I am an ATI fan. (If there is still such as thing!)
Thanks Anandtech for the excellent and unbiased articles. Your integrity is appreciated, and I for one consider your reviews the "gold standard".
I doubt any AMD fan here was too happy about seeing the OC card in the comparison. If the standard card is used as well with the OC card clearly labeled then I guess its tolerable but not preferred. In the interest of fair play I suggest the next NVDA launch (GTX580?) is put up against an overclocked version of Cayman XT which will have preceded it to market. Naturally NVDA fans will understand,even if it does make their new product look weaker than it would otherwise.
Fans? I never understood it. Why can't someone just be a fan of performance/cost, or performance/power. Why does it have to be Nvidia or AMD? Fans of either Nvidia or AMD, regardless of benchmarks or reviews, will stick to their guns. It's not rational.
I've had and have right now, both Nvidia and AMD products, and decide on the card right for me at that time. I'm a fan of choice.
By the very nature of us humans when we're annoyed by something, those who didn't like the inclusion of the EVGA are more likely to complain, as opposed to those who approved of its inclusion (like me) who mostly will not say anything.
Thus, I believe it's very possible the responses we see here are biased because people who don't think the card should have been included are more likely to say so, because they were annoyed. Contented people don't moan about things.
So Ryan, _please_ don't make a decision on whether or not to include such cards again based purely on the replies you read here - that would be a statistical mistake of the highest order. If you want to go down that route then do it properly, send out an email shot to all members in a proper poll or something, ie. to get the opinions of everyone evenly, not just those with negative feelings who are by definition going to be more vocal..
I understand why those who don't think the card should have been included hold that opinion. Principles are principles, at least in theory. The reality is though that the EVGA is real product, it's out there (or will be) and I for one would have been most annoyed to discover the EVGA was a purchase option only after having bought the lesser Palit Sonic Platinum (PSP for short), purely because it was never mentioned in reviews.
As always, I read the 68xx reviews on both toms and Anand. Toms didn't include the EVGA in their tables, except for the oc table, but reading their results pages I immediately found myself wanting to know how the EVGA would compare, especially in SLI, ie. IMO I was being denied information which would have been useful.
Helping readers make better purchasing decisions is surely the ultimate goal of these articles. To that end, more information is always good. When I read your intro and saw the EVGA specs, my initial assumption was that it would be too expensive (200 UKP or more) and thus not worth it compared to a 6870 or existing oc' 460. Searching on Google, I was amazed to see it on Scan for only 174 UKP (though not yet in stock), that's not much more than the PSP (which itself has dropped down from 183 last week to ~160).
My budget is 185 UKP per card (buying 2 for SLI), so the EVGA info was incredibly useful. Without it, I might have bought the Palit cards, never knowing there was a faster option available, or that others might follow.
So, thankyou Ryan/Anand for including the card. IMO it was a good decision. For all those who moaned about it, take a good, long, hard look at the power/temp/noise tables:
Given that two EVGA SLI are highly likely to be a match for 470 SLI and 6870 CF, are you really suggesting that readers did not deserve to know that the EVGA was a viable alternative? (especially given toms showed 6870 oc CF wasn't that much better than 6870 CF). With the 470 price drop, I was sorely tempted by the idea of 470 SLI, but for me the temp/noise/power numbers are the clincher: if I can get them, two EVGAs look perfect. Perhaps toms is right and these better 460 prices will only last a few weeks, but if so then I'm sure the 6950/70/90 launch will cause yet another downshift in pricing, and in the meantime I wouldn't be surprised if other highly oc'd 460s become available.
Talking only about reference cards is a great intellectual exercise, but how does that help one make a real decision when hardly any of the cards available actually run at reference clocks? This is the situation atm with 460s; toms dealt with it by using an artificial 'average' oc, which to me is worse than choosing to exclude all oc'd parts. Better to show just how good a genuine top-oc'd product can be and thus allow readers to extrapolate from that best case down to whatever lesser version they might wish to consider. It's simple math afterall. If one judged by reference results alone, one could be forgiven for ignoring the 460 completely, whereas in reality there are some excellent 460 products available like the PSP (800MHz GPU for 160UKP?!). Should they be called something different though like a 461? Probably yes, given how much faster they are.
I appreciate the rationale of not normally covering oc'd cards, but in this case, with all the crazy price movements, I have no doubt that including it was the best choice. Real data helps one to make decisions in the real world. As a result, between the two reviews, I find the Anand article to be far more useful as a basis for decision making. The only thing you could have done to make it even better is add EVGA SLI results; is that possible? Please do if so!! 8)
If there are other readers who also think including the EVGA was a good idea, please speak up! Ryan/Anand deserve to hear a balanced share of opinion.
Ian.
PS. I skipped the last page of comments before posting; hehe, I see AstroGuardian has covered similar points. :D Kudos dude!
The card is a regularly available retail product so I don't see any issue with it. I think you should have mentioned what the actual GPU and Memory clocks are but otherwise I don't have a problem.
I personally find that factory overclocked cards quite often use quite conservative frequencies. It's normaly quite easy to get to similar or better speeds with bog standard cards. I have the bottom of the line Palit GTX 640 card and it easily matches the 850Mhz core and 4000Mhz memory clocks of the EVGA FTW card. Factory overclocked cards quite often just give you a good idea of what you can do on your own..
If it is your editorial policy to not include overclocked cards in your initial review, DON'T INCLUDE THEM. PERIOD.
In addition the time used including the FTW card contributed to the review's incompleteness and dis-jointedness.
Lame, lame lame.
Why didn't you just include the FTW card in your 'round-up' next week and include the highest stable overclocked 6870 in the bunch too? Are we going to make a terrible 'mistake' buying AMD based on the review because by following your own policy you 'unfairly' tilted the field against Nvidia? Are we too stupid to grasp the nuances involved and if on the fence on what to buy unable to wait a week until you can do a full fledged 'round-up' including overclocked boards from both sides?
Your audience IS (mostly) savvy and capable of overclocking their graphics boards.
What is your uncompromised integrity worth?
Listen to the sychophants on this thread clamoring to cover your @$$ for you at your peril.
If the 26% factory overclocked cards remain on the market for the reasonable future, then it was the right decision to include them. If they quickly disappear from the market due to insufficient chips, then it was the wrong decision. The problem with this is none of us can read the future.
I would not have included the overclocked card in this review. While ALL companies have cheated and deceived customers, NV seems to be doing it a lot lately. For that reason I would not trust them. However, you were open about your decision and made clear your concerns so I have no grounds to complain.
I think that factory overclocked cards should be benchmarked against other factory overclocked cards. EVGA GTX 460 FTW is a good card, true, but the whole review gets skewed when you mix it all up. Furthermore, even making a review with any card that would be overclocked by factory or by end user distorts the comparison given the fact that not all GPUs overclock the same. Expecting to overclock a card is a risky business. I couldn't get past the 725MHz on my Gigabyte GTX 460 without artifacts showing in games (and that's only 10MHz overclock over the stock card!!!) and so I've changed it to Gainward which reached 835Mhz with no problems.
Keep the OC cards in comparison to other factory OC cards, or the whole review gets misleading to the users that are not very much tech savvy.
Also, you might also post a poll on this issue for us to vote.
Unfortunately I was banned from the AT forums about an hour before the launch of the review here at TR by moderator "I don't care"(irony) so I missed the opportunity to comment on this aspect of the AT review. It appears NVDA have done their homework for this launch,get an overclocked card in the review and make sure the forum opposition is effectively muzzled. Good game NVDA.
Can you, NVIDIA or EVGA guarantee that if every person that would buy a stock 6870 see this review instead decides to buy a eVGA GTX460 FTW will be able to?
How many of these cards are out there compared to stock GTX 460 and stock 6870 and factory OC 6870/6850?
Additionally if MSRP happens, for both or either, GTX460 and 6870/6850 will these factory OCed cards drop in price by the same amount and the same day?
- First of all you also included an OCed GTX 460 in your GTX 460 review. Yet no OCed HD 5850 whatsoever in that review even if they were largely available. No OCed HD 5850/5870 in their own reviews.
It seems that only Nvidia gets OC cards included around here.
- Secondly in your GTX 460 review you overclocked the REFERENCE CARDS and showed the results, you didn't overclock anything in the 6850/6870 review. Probably those cards you had would have gone up in flames if you did that.
- The current prices are our business not yours and the prices won't be the same a few weeks for now like they weren't the same a while ago so you can't justify the inclusion of a card because of its price, competitiveness. blah blah blah. Otherwise AMD can cut in half the HD 5970 price for a week at the GTX 580 launch - what will you do? Write that the 5970 DESTROYS the GTX 590 in terms of price/performance?
Wanna make a comparison with the GTX 460 OC editions? Sure. Get the overclocked 6850/70 first or at least overclock the reference ones and go for it in a separate article.
WTF? So you're saying that if a card performance/cost wise is much better than the item(s) being reviewed, that they should just lie that it's the best card out there right now regardless of the price?
So, a if a GTX 480 is selling at $200, and a HD 5970 still selling at $650, you're going to want them to recommend the HD 5970 because it's faster than the GTX 480? Go find crazy somewhere else, please.
The prices are all over the place, how much was a GTX 460 two days ago? How much will they be in December? What about the Barts price? If you don't know don't talk about that - the review is here to stay even if the HD 6870 will be $99.99 next week.
What are they gonna do, update the review every time there's a price change or do the sensible thing and not talk about the pricing but about performance?
And talk about performance - since when it's OK to compare OCed parts with stock parts? You compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges - say comparing a Phenom II X4 @4.2GHz with a stock Intel i-3 (about the same price) sounds good to you?
- For the reviews - only stock cards whatsoever.
- Then take the OCed versions of both AMD and Nvidia and do a benchmark in a new article. Or at least TRY to OC the darn stock cards you were provided by AMD - they won't bite you.
Because no OC'ed 6870's are available to buy. It was right to include the EVGA card as it's the same price as a 6870, and atleast the same performance. The OC'ed 5870's cost more, even the OC'ed 5850's do.
No method exists yet to control the voltage of the 6870 cards. Give ita few weeks, and we'll see how well these cards OC. I'd bet money that they won't OC as well as the 460, but it's one more reason that this inclusion was inappropriate in a launch article. Compare architecture to architecture. This amounts to a one-weekend only sale from NVidia for the sole purpose of skewing the results on tech review sites. It's shameful that my favorite review site fell for it, while other lesser sites did not.
Untrue. First, the OC'ed GTX 460 did not have "at least the same performance." Read the review. Overall, it lost on pure performance against the 6870. Second, Asus released an OC'ed 6870. It's a mild OC, to be sure, but it exists and is available at the same price at the stock clocked cards.
Not sure if this was mentioned in the review but, I can't believe so many people missed out on this important piece of info:
First, they want to announce massive (and what they claim are permanent) price drops on the GeForce GTX 460 and 470. We track this as closely as possible; the GeForce GTX 460 1 GB is indeed selling for $199 on Newegg, and the GeForce GTX 470 is now going for $260. Naturally, that makes it much more difficult for AMD to compete at $180 and $240. Suddenly, its own 6800-series cards are in another league entirely. Of course, such a dramatic move wouldn't be as juicy if it weren't accompanied by some scandalous drama. Immediately after receiving Nvidia's update, AMD forwarded a memo received by a French distributor, purportedly from Nvidia, which made it clear that the sale on both models is only going to last THREE WEEKS, after which time prices will presumably rise again. Ugh.
I was not even aware that overclocked 460s where so fast. Its not like I'm must going to ignore the other cars cause they weren't overclocked. I'm discerning, I need to wait for an overclocked AMD to compare, or look for one. I like to see all my options on the table, neither anandtech nor other sites will do that (I use the Bench btw). I still come away with good info. Thank You anandtech.
I wasn't bothered by seeing the results there and I even found it helpful to know that an OC'd GTX460 1GB could match the 6870.
I would also have liked to see some data for the OC'd 6870 for a good comparison; one page would suffice. Maybe it would have made more sense to just compare the GTX460 FTW on one page also to keep things concise.
It really is a grey area since there aren't any factory OC'd 6870's at this point to compare to, so you could even make the arguement that you couldn't compare a factory OC'd 460 to the manually OC'd cards either...
Anyway, I wasn't really bothered by it being there... I do think that more data points are better (assuming readability of graphs).
I'm generally against comparing overclocked results in a review since results can vary wildy from card to card, reviewer to reviewer.
As the card in question, EVGA's GeForce GTX 460 FTW, is factory-overclocked, available and has the same warranties as the baseline 460 it's a different thing entirely though and the inclusion made a lot of sense.
That may not hold true for all kinds of cards but as the GeForce GTX 460 in particular enjoy a good and consistent overclocking headroom it makes for an interesting comparison as many users surely run their cards at similar clocks even if they don't own the EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW in particular.
I see no need to do this on a general basis though. Not many cards have the same high and consistent overclocking headroom as the GeForce GTX 460, nor are many widely available in factory-overclocked versions to the same extent.
For this particular review, and card, it was a good decision though.
As many others have said, since there seems to be more factory overclocked gtx460 cards available for purchase than stock reference gtx460 cards, I think it was a good decision to include it.
I think the way you handled things in the HD6x00 review was perfectly fine. You made it very clear that the card was overclocked and never attempted to pass the GTX 460 FTW off as anything else.
Plain and simple Anand, you lowered your own standards and caved in to nvidia. You can SAY otherwise but you DID give in to nvidia. There are PLENTY of other OC cards like 5850's, ect.. that are factory oced that i'm sure would have been pretty easy for you to find (To try and at least balance your compromising) and yet you had no desire to include any of them for 'reference' as you claimed. It would have been very simple (and even lesser stress) to wait till you did your review of the new ATI cards since that was obviously the title and overtone of your article and do a video card round up later on.
Your simply downplaying the whole ordeal trying to make it look like you did it for your "readers."
I've been on this site near to since you started and this is one of the most dissapointing things you have done. And it has NOTHING to do with nvidia/amd per say. It has much more to do with why/what you did.
And yes its only a stupid video card review but I highly value integrity.
It looks like most of the people commenting here are doing it for stupid fanboy reasons or to make you feel better. To me personally it has to do with you/your reviewers ethics.
The least you could do is remove all oced results and references in the article. All I can say is dissapointing.... And of course I expect you to just ignore my comment and move on like nothing happened.
Of course this is nothing more than my 1 penny opinion. It may not even be worth that to you or anyone else. :(
I would add it's inherently DISHONEST as Nvidia AND Anand knows there is a segment of buyers who just skim the performance graphs of the few top of page googled review sites to make their choice and those buyers see '460' graphing better than '6870' ...
It's allowing your integrity to be COMPROMISED into being a TOOL for Nvidia's marketing department.
When even Tom's Hardware puts Anandtech to shame on the use of the FTW 460 in their review, Anandtech FAILED.
You made the right choice and gave us more information as opposed to artificially limiting the competition. Anyone upset with the choice to include that card's being a silly little fanboy.
These 460's clock significantly higher. Running stock? Return the card and go buy a Dell.
That said, I think its time to start listing cards twice. Stock and overclocked. Note it with an "OC" and put the clocks in the test setup. While ur at it how bout kicking singleplayer benchmarking to the curb and doing proper multiplayer craps runs in games like BC2. I've never played a time demo or spent the majority of my time with an MP centric game by myself. Your video card reviews do not reflect what I see when gaming and that needs to change.
why not simply overclock a reference card? Why include a factory overclocked card that was most likely assembled using a binned GPU and costs more than the stock card? Or is possibly even a handpicked card? Overclock a reference model instead. That way we can get an idea of what the standard models are capable of, both at stock clocks and highest stable OC. Most likely, the clocks will end up nearly as high as the factory models anyhow and we'll know what the factory overclocked models are capable of. I would say leave the factory OC'ed models for their own shootout.
So Nvidia sent you (AFAIK) the most highly overclocked 460 available on the market and attempted to pressure you into including it in a review dedicated to their competitors latest lineup? Seems like a rather sleazy thing to do. I realize that business is business, but does AMD try to pull things like this?
You mentioned that, "Both sides (correction, all companies) have done nasty things in the past but you come here to read about products, not behind the scenes politics so we've mostly left it out of our reviews." I disagree. I WANT to know when companies try to pull stunts like this. One of the reasons that I've stopped purchasing Nvidia cards is because of their corporate tactics. It seems that their motto has become, "If it will make us money, DO IT!". I like Nvidia hardware. However, I simply cannot bring myself to support a company that will pull stunt after stunt like this. PhysX lockout, Batman:AA, bumpgate, AEG, etc...
So please, DO inform us when companies attempt things that you consider questionable. The more their dirty laundry is aired in public, the less likely they will be to try similar things in the future. There are those of us who care about such things and we tend to vote with our wallets.
"why not simply overclock a reference card? Why include a factory overclocked card that was most likely assembled using a binned GPU and costs more than the stock card?"
Get your facts straight. From most sellers, the cheapest GTX 460 1GB _is_ an overclocked card. Focusing now on stock cards is a complete waste of time. Nobody in their right mind, knowing all the facts, would buy one. For example, the Palit Sonic is cheaper than a couple of the 768MB versions, and also cheaper than some 1GB cards with lower clocked GPUs.
This obsession with reference clocked cards is ridiculous. It doesn't match the reality of what is available to buy. And of course factory-oc'd cards are selected parts, that's the whole point of such products, ie. they're guaranteed and warrantied to work at the higher speed.
As for overclocking a reference card, by definition that won't convey what is genuinely available to buyers. How is one supposed to make a sensible decision based on performance data that inherantly underestimates what one can obtain? NVIDIA boasted when the 460 launched that it could often be oc'd to 900 or so, but back then there were no such products one could buy so any possible oc at that level was entirely up to the buyer to risk. Now we see cards running at close to 900, so surely we have a right to know how well they perform, especially since such cards also have the memory & shaders running at faster speeds.
Having said that, it does make perfect sense to list both normal and oc versions, but toms' review showed the oc'd 6870s weren't that much better anyway.
The real point about 460s now is that buying a stock clocked 460 is just plain dumb because oc'd editions are so widely available and cheaper.
As a longtime reader of AT and purchaser of AMD and Nvidia products, I like knowing who offers the best product in a given price range. I think it made sense to include a representative for OCed 460s since they really change the landscape for the consumer. Even reference cards have problems with availability sometimes, and I feel like AT does a good job on calling companies out on availability issues. There was a pretty large caveat slapped on the 460 FTW's inclusion in this review, and I am better informed for it.
The greatest problem with using an overclocked card is that it produces an unrealistic expectation of what an end user is going to expect. Factory overclocked cards are all binned chips, but a typical consumer will see that card as 'just another 460' that had the frequency turned up. This leads to the problem that people will purchase the cheaper version and expect it to perform like the binned chip by just turning up some sliders.
A reference design and a factory overclocked card are really two separate products that unfortunately share the same name. If the chip is capable of performing that much better, and there are enough of them to bin, then the parent corporation can produce a new SKU and release it.
Using an OC card in a review is dishonest for the simple reason that it builds false expectations since the end user cannot bin their own chips, and therefore should not be done.
OCing should stand alone in a separate article as it represents a different focus and value proposition. People that are savvy enough to differentiate between a factory OC part vs the DIY route don't need to see the OC version in the review to know of its potential and those who aren't need to be protected from the risk.
Leave OCed parts out of reviews, but not out of the whole analysis process.
" People that are savvy enough to differentiate between a factory OC part vs the DIY route don't need to see the OC version in the review to know of its potential and those who aren't need to be protected from the risk"
As stated in the title there is no reason to include a overclocked card like the EVGA one. Some else pointed out well if AMD didn't have a OC card then tough for them. Well the same thing could be said for Nvidia if they did not have a refreshed product to compete with the new AMD cards in the same price point then tough cookies for them grin & bear it. For Nvidia to actually call rview sites & ask them to include a overclocked card in a newly released product like the 6800 cards only shows that Nvidia was unprepared & had to act in desparation to make themselves look good. Just because you can buy a OC'd card online or in a store does not make it a full channel product it is what it is a overclocked card plain & simple it is running out of spec from what it was released as. I dont care if Nvidia or EVGA say oh well you got full warranty the cards are out of spec & they will fail & most likely just after the warranty runs out. Like I said if Nvidia wanted to have something to put up against AMD in these reviews then maybe they should have released a higher clocked 460 & called it a 460+ or 461.
As always good review from Anandtech when I am about to buy new gear I use this site as my starting point. You guys seem to be on the level & makes people like me trust your reviews.
I don't believe they have any place in a review like was presented last night. Adding an overclocked version of a card versus a stock clocked just released product and then not even exploring overclocking that newly released card in the article is misleading. I have no problems comparing stock to stock or oc to oc in seperate articles. I'm disappointed however that you went against your own policy and included it anyhow, regardless of this request for feedback, you still went and did this in the review.
I didn't think much of it when reading the 6800 article. It seemed like you were pretty upfront about the OC 460 and what it meant. As a test, I looked through the 460s on Newegg and most of them are overclocked (pretty significant overclocks too). To compare some AMD cards, I looked at 5770 and 5870 cards and most are not overclocked (those that were were rather mild overclocks). If you were in the market for a 460 you'd have to out of your way to get a non-overclocked card so including the OC 460 in the review was a logical choice. If you had include an OCed card that was in general not OCed then it would have been a bad comparison.
In my humble opinion, the original article more than sufficiently highlighted the fact that it was using an overclocked but warrantied card and elaborated on both your reasons and your concerns in doing so. Ultimately, if I am using the article to guide my purchases, then I want a comparison and explanation of the widely available products on the market, and the original article gives just that. If you encounter a similar situation again in the future then I encourage you to do exactly the same thing that you did there, including continuing to give heed to and notice of your reservations.
my believe is that it shouldnt have been there at should wait until amd partners get theirs oc out and then do a different comparison on all oc cards and see the result there wasnt any oc amd cards so how r u comparing oc against stock just doesnt make any sence i think nvidia has to do something with this review because the 6800 was just too good for the 460 and nvidia doesnt have anything to match so they went to evga and cook up something for launch day why wasnt this card available from 2weeks ago why is it just showing up now
I commend the standpoint of you and the other contributors of this site for not giving in to the companies that want to you review specific products, or shows them in a better light.
On that note, the fact that there are so many variables in the over clocked cards, I do not agree with them being used to compare to factory cards. I can see why nVidia would want reviewers to do this, but I feel its almost false advertising. As people see "GT460" and think "Oh, that beat this and this card". When in fact, a factory GT460 doesn't. Only the over clocked model does. And even then, only some over clocked cards may in fact perform better. As there is know standards for the various card companies to follow.
As for keeping the politics out of the reviews, I agree with that. I have worked directly with some companies on reviews and testing, and the behind the scenes stuff should stay behind the scenes. People who visit this site regularly should know that you don't bend to every whim from the various companies you deal with.
I enjoy this site so much partly because I know the reviews are typically the least bias'ed reviews around.
The review gave data and a conlsuion. The conclusion was clear from the data. What's the beef? I think the only other thing you could/should have done would have been to attempt to OC the 6850 to the same degree.
Every 460 on the market has a different clock rate lol; they seem easy to OC. Maybe the 6850/70 will too. OTOH, maybe those two cards don't OC as well as a 460. Shouldn't people know that?
Besides technical competence, the most important thing is for this site to maintain the perception of honesty, and have that perception match reality. You know that. I think your rapid reaction and explanation is once again testimony to both.
Now, I'm sure you'll give us more data - push the 6850 and 460 from stock and lets see how they fare/compare.
I will say having the OC card confused me because at first I didn't realize it was overclocked. But that's probably because I jump to the benchmarks before reading anything.
How about this solution: you can include as many oc'd cards as you want, but you must also include the price of the card in parentheses for every card tested, **on ALL of the performance charts themselves**. Either that or a mandatory price/performance chart at the end of the review.
I think it is great that AT includes the OC'd EVGA 460 in the comparison because the card is readily available with full warranty. Give us the info and let us make the decision as long as it does not cause confusions.
However, I read a recent article by Anand, in which you distinguished AMD and NVidia cards with two colors of different shades. In fact, you did this after several user feedback. As a result, the comparison charts were very easy to read. Could you apply that same color scheme in future comparison? (blue and red would be my color of choice...).
I understand your point of view and I like it. I first was feeling outrageous but the disclaimer cooled me down.
I first take a quick tour around the article pages and then do a full reading. I didn't notice the disclaimer first and didn't know why was this article talking about nVidia's card.
I suggest making disclaimers more noticeable (bold, color, ...etc.). after all, I wouldn't mind seeing the same thing done to a brand new nVidia products.
The original article was up to your usual excellent standards, and the inclusion of the OCed 460 is an intriguing option worthy of serious consideration. Great writing as always, don't let the turkeys get you down.
The original review was so rushed and incomplete the reviewer felt compelled to APOLOGIZE for the poor quality of the review and promised to get it in order as soon as possible.
But I guess for some oiling the waters takes precedence over factual reality.
not gonna read through other comments, hoping i've said something that plenty of others have said - who in the catshit has the balls to cry omfgwtfbbq ? o noes they included settings for an overclocked card as a benchmark i want my money back! (yeah exactly)
it's a benchmark, a yardstick, and was no way highlighted to show favourtism..tbh the only people i can think who would possibly bring this up are AMD employees and trolls
To me is nice if you decide to include an overcloked Nvidia 460 card that is close on performance and price, in fact it was great for me to see this on the same graphic and a logical or pertinent inclusion. I think, and pardon me, this should not be a sport team competition for consumers and those complaining just wanted: A winner and a looser. I will buy from every brand my budget allows me when I feel a specific feature is better for me alone and for what I do and not necessarily for what others think is obvious or best. As a matter of fact I need to buy a Nvidia card for a specific 3D rendering software - Octane, not for gaming, so my only hope is to find a 460 card with 2 gigs of memory at a lower price. But I think the new offerings from AMD are even better performers in general now.
Keep the good work! Competition will keep the market improving and with better choices for us.
For the majority of people I think Anandtech probably just gained credibility, just because they're decent enough to be open and honest when a bunch of fanboys start throwing their dolls out of the pram.
I have no issue with the approach taken by Anandtech. This site is considered a premier site by most people who follow electronic hardware. Most companies will go out of their way to try and get a favorable review. There is nothing wrong with that. Anandtech takes a balanced approach to reviews. AMD has a lot to be proud of with these new cards.
You clearly labeled the part as an overclock and stated that you would be reviewing AMD cards from several vendors next week. I look forward to that review since it is obvious that the AMD parts are going to be able to overclock as well with more elaborate cooling. You also list the non-factory overclock nVidia parts in your graphs. Your smarter readers will be able to deduce what they can probably expect from overclocked AMD parts. Other readers are going to respond the way they did. Both AMD and nVidia have competitive parts. I have not yet decided what I will buy.
So there's now a 'principle' that certain products should be ignored when reviewing others? Why's that then?
It's like you genuinely think this is some kind of moral outrage, I mean seriously, how sad could you be?
I think the main principle to any review site like this is to help customers find the best value for money, or best performance, etc, basically the FULL picture.
How can you provide the consumers with a full picture if you don't include a better value proposition from a competitor?
How is it BETTER to hide information from consumers? It isn't.
The fact that you've put a disclaimer in the original article is worthless. You shouldn't have done it, period.
And you completely disregarded one important fact: reference cards are available all over the world. EVGA cards are not to be found in my country at all! Let alone these special overclocked ones. And the one you included is the highest OC'd 460 there is, not even close to being a representative of a majority of factory OC'd 460's.
The inclusion is not beneficial to all your readers worldwide, and is least beneficial to the integrity of your site. Bowing to demands of a company in reviews, taking any hints at all even, is below all standards. Anandtech is one of my most frequented sites, and generally highly regarded, but this put a big stain on that.
why ? are the readers so devoid of comprehension that anything outside the norm would send them into the abyss ?
i can't understand this at all, from what i can tell not 1 reader has assumed the OC'ed card to be anything but so..in fact most see it was a good yard stick as an alternative not as a higher model but as a different path; if there's so many OC cards out there than maybe my factory clock can perform just as well..
..to be honest you all seem pissed about information to the masses..let's be overdramatic here and say 1984..but i'm drunk as a skunk so i can be
Who cares if a card is niche? The fact is I could buy one right now, and the majority of the readers on this site could buy one right now. Just because a tiny percentage don't have the ability to buy it, so what?
If you can't buy it, ignore the provided data and move on. Why is it so challenging to NOT buy a card if you know it isn't available to you?
1- nVidia may be trying to use EVGA's specific factory overclocked product to have AT, and us, validate the whole factory overclocked category. As far as I know, specs of individual factory overclocked products may vary even more widely than specs of standards products, and we already know those can vary...
2- nVidia is artificially adding products, and padding their lineup, to drown ATI's. And hijacking review space, again to drown out ATI, by getting reviewers to describe their oddball offering at length.
In the end, I think the proper place for this non-standard product, in this specific review, would have been a sidebar. A specific product from a specific vendor has no place in a reference design shootout, especially when there's a strong risk that other overclocked cards will NOT be the same specs.
1 - Are you saying you lack the intelligence to realise that the EVGA own brand factory overclocked card isn't necessarily the same as other manufacturers? It seems the problem is not with Anand, but with yourself.
2 - You mistake the fact that NVidia made a suggestion with that being the reason it was included. Anandtech clearly eluded to the reasons why they chose to include the card, perfectly logical and rational. You describe it as an 'oddball' offering, but it's available, to buy, right now, with a warranty at reviewed speeds. So what's 'odd' about it?
Why do you think that separating the 'non-standard' products would make any difference? The conclusion would still be the same, it would just be spread over 2 reviews, instead of one. Again, we seem to arrive at a point where I simply have to question your intelligence. Are you saying that 1 review is too confusing for you, so you need to have it broken down? Bless.
And we all know that overclocked cards are not the same specs, even a monkey knows that, but they didn't add 'overclocked cards' - they added the EVGA card. There's a difference, and they couldn't have been more clear about it.
I have no problem with the inclusion of overclocked cards as long as they are clearly labelled as such. I agree completely that nVidia SHOULD simply create a new product line with higher specs (they've done it before after all) but in the meantime I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to push OCed cards and for you to review them.
HOWEVER, I would say that you should cease posting OCed cards if they persist in not creating a new product line for some time, give it a month or so, if they haven't responded by then then they probably won't and there's no reason to do their work for them in the long run.
thats the thing OC'ed cards are always labelled as such one way or another; anand is hardly a site for the laymen, we come here for in depth reviews that aren't watered down for the everyman
when i look over a chart i realise if there's a card with the same name but with a few extra letters, its gonna be an OC'ed model
if you think otherwise then i dunno what the hell you're doing here
I have a 4850 in my rig. I will be upgrading this Christmas to a new card. When I come back to AT around that time and look at reviews (and specifically bench), I dont want to have to wonder if the cards I see there are actually available, if they are the same card, same freq, same memory etc....
The indisputable fact is that reference cards will last throughout the life cycle of the product, overclocked cards come and go for many reasons that you know, making performance, price and availability somewhat questionable. In six months we will know if the EVGA 460 FTW is available at the current price, but we dont really know.
So my vote would be stock v stock in your baseline reviews of new products, and then OC reviews separately against other OC'd cards.
I like that you told us that Nvidia asked you to use the 460 FTW card, and that they lowered prices (although other sites say its possible that the price drops will not last) but then it feels like you sold out to appease them (even though I know you didnt, this is Anandtech, it feels and reads that way, and I dont like it one bit).
So in the end, stock v. stock, separate OC article is what I would like to see.
So you're suggesting splitting up a coherent, logical review into 2 parts.
For what? How is that a benefit? It changes nothing.
They included a Stock vs Stock comparison in the article, which is what you're asking for, so what's the problem?
They didn't manually overclock, they compared STOCK FACTORY overclocked cards to STOCK reference cards. Since there WASN'T an available Factory overclocked 6870 at the time, they didn't have the option to compare Factory overclock to Factory overclock. Is that fair, I hear you cry? Well of course it is, because right NOW, that is an accurate reflection of what CONSUMERS CAN BUY. You can't ignore factory overclocked product A because company B hasn't pulled their finger out yet and got their own factory overclocked product out. You include everything you know at the time.
I don't mind that you test overclocked cards, but I think you should keep them separated from the normal, reference data in a review. So either dedicate a few pages in the review discussing overclocked options and their performance, or make an entirely separate review like you did with the Gigabyte GTX 260 Super Overclock (which was an awesome article):
I think you should definitely choose a card to represent overclocking for each GPU. AMD and Nvidia. Especially if there's a card that's factory overclocked that's really spectacular, and actually offers a tangible performance adavantage; whatever companies GPU is powering it. Though I think you could probably keep the factory overclocks on their own page or 2 and then your own custom overclocks on their own page or 2. Now, if a certain companies GPU, 400 series or 6800 series for instance, overclock really really well, better than the competition that's DEFINITELY something I want to know.
Personally I buy the cheapest version of whatever GPU I'm buying that I can find. I don't care if it's pre-overclocked or not; if I want it overclocked I'll do it myself. So personally I mostly just want to know the limits of the card without increasing core voltage and with increasing it, and I want to know if AMD overclocks better than Nvidia or visversa. As far as factory overclocks it's not something that I'll pay extra for; but I'm sure some people will so it should surely have its own little section.
Are you both seriously saying that you lack the mental capacity to distinguish a factory overclocked model from a reference model in a series of graphs?
Really? Poor little monkeys need it broken down?
It's like an insanity defence, but with stupidity instead.
We all have our opinions on this, but if you can't treat others with respect, nobody is going to be interested in what you have to say. Seriously, if you aren't capable of having a debate without resorting to insulting other people, you aren't worth talking to.
I spoke up on the other article, but since you've asked, I'll say it again. This move has caused Anandtech to lose credibility in my eyes. I've used your articles to assist in making purchasing decisions many times, and have often recommended it to colleagues to do the same, but I won't feel comfortable doing that any longer.
Since Derek stopped writing the video card reviews, they have slowly become more and more biased. The HD 5870 review was "damning with faint praise" at best when the rest of the world considered it the most significant launch of the year, and your GTX 480 review was by far the most positive spin of anything I read.
If you truly felt that including OC'ed cards was proper for a comparison, you would have done it before today. You would at least have OC'ed the 5970 in your review of the GTX 480, as that card was built to be sold to enthusiasts and OC'ed. Or, you would have compared a Toxic model 5850 to the GTX 470. But instead, every AMD card you have ever used for comparison in an NVidia launch was stock.
OC'ed cards will come for 6000 series, prices will drop, alternate cooling and memory configs will appear etc., etc. But people will look to this review for months to come, and come away with the wrong impression from your charts. It's a disservice to your readers, and has lowered my opinion of the site.
Any review of any graphics card would be a FAIL if they didn't look at the prices of the cards.
And those prices will NEVER stay the same for 'months to come'.
Reality check please? It simply isn't possible to write a review, particularly in this industry, which will still contain the accurate prices in months to come (unless they tied it to some kind of API to update them automatically - which BTW Anandtech, if you need, contact me).
It's obvious that reviews and the prices they quote can become outdated, but everybody knows that, and would obviously notice by simply looking at the latest prices on newegg.
The second part of your criticism is that people will come away with the wrong impression. Did you? Because I know of 10 monkeys that would be capable of reading those graphs. Unless you question the accuracy of the data, there is nothing to suggest anybody would come away with the wrong impression. If they come away thinking that the EVGA card is better value for money, then they are CORRECT, not 'wrong'.
I've seen all the disclaimers, including comments on the temporary state of the EVGA offer and your doubts of how long it is going to last. I perceive your site as credible one. Way to go!
I do think that it was a correct choice to bring up the 460 OC cause its a real competitor of the 6870 price performance wise. I also want to congratulate Anand for being so good at making reviews over the years.
"From my standpoint, having more information never hurts."
Here, I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with including an extra datapoint for a factory-overclocked card when the overclock is large enough to make a tangible difference in performance. However, treating the overclocked card as the "official" competitor of the reference 6850/6870 does not fall under the category of "having more information". I get that nVidia wants the story spun that way, but that doesn't mean that you should go along with it.
At the very least, treating an overclocked nVidia card as the official competitor of the reference 6850/6870 completely discounts the possibility of overclocked 6850/6870 cards. That's not really fair to AMD, and comes across as a fairly serious omission in my opinion. If an overclocked card is going to be treated as the primary competitor then I think the fair and balanced thing to do is to also overclock the card(s) under test as much as possible, and include the overclocked numbers in the results (or maybe generate two sets of results, one for cards running at stock settings, and one for overclocked, and then the comparisons are always fair). Then people truly do get more, because they can see the complete picture. To do otherwise just writes off the possibility that vendors will be releasing 6800 series cards that also sport a 26% overclock in the coming weeks and months, and which blow right past the overclocked GTX 460.
Really though, I think the place for benchmarks of an overclocked GTX 460 card is in the GTX 460 article itself. Would it be so terrible if people interested in seeing how an overclocked GTX 460 compares to a stock 6800 had to click a link to the GTX 460 article and browse through to get a feel for approximately how much faster the overclocked card was? In general an overclocked card is not going to outperform its reference model by more than 10-15%, so including only reference models when comparing between product lines is not unreasonable. Anyone wondering how an overclocked card of a given series would perform can just add ~15% to the reference score and come away with a reasonable upper-bound.
So I don't fault you for including an overclocked card, but I do fault you for branding the overclocked card as the official competition for the 6800 series, and for not including benchmarks of overclocked 6800 series cards in all the comparisons. Even if you had to overclock the reference cards yourself, having the numbers there for comparison is more fair than having no overclocked 6800 representative at all.
Sorry, how exactly did Anandtech treat this as the 'official' competitor, and why are you so desperate to distinguish 'official' from 'unofficial'. You can 'officially' buy the EVGA card, who cares who manufacturers it? It's a card, it works, what's the problem?
You make out like this HAS to be some kind of battle between NVidia and AMD, but that's ridiculous. It's a comparison of ALL GRAPHICS CARDS, to find which offers the best value for money.
You then claim that they have discounted the possibility of overclocked 6850/6870 cards. How exactly? Where in the article did they state that there wouldn't be overclocked 6850/6870 cards? Of course they didn't, so of course they aren't discounting anything. The critical point here is that there aren't overclocked cards YET, so as of right now, they didn't have the option to include a factory overclocked 6850/6870. But wait, are you saying that means they are not allowed to review the EVGA card until some random competitor makes a new card? How is that reasonable? The EVGA card is available right now, so why not include it? If you release a product first, and it's available to buy RIGHT NOW, when a competitor has not managed that, that is NOT reason to refuse to review it. By that logic, before reviewing any new card from any manufacturer, we have to wait until an other manufacturer releases a new card, whenever that may be. That's ridiculous. When you do a review, you review what is AVAILABLE at the time.
IF 6850 and 6870 overclocked cards come along in the future and are then ignored, THEN you can cry about it. Until then, wake up and realise that all Anandtech did was show the competition.
And manual overclocks of the 6850 and 6870, couldn't be more irrelevant. This is FACTORY warranted overclocks, there's a big difference.
Including the EVGA GTX 460 FTW was a huge mistake, but for reasons that no one has yet touched on. (And yes, I did read all of the previous comments.)
You've really got two different audiences here. One is the people who follow tech and know when parts launch and read reviews right after they are posted. That's the people who are replying to this thread. For people who might buy such a card today, including factory overclocks is fine, though it would probably be better to either include a lot of factory overclocked cards or none at all.
But the other is people who want to buy a new computer, haven't been following tech, and want to know what to get. They'll come along and check reviews months later. They probably won't read the whole thing; they just want to know enough to have some idea of what to get, so that they don't pay $100 for a low end card like a GeForce G 210 or a Radeon HD 5450 thinking it's going to be a great gaming card.
That's the conclusion to your Radeon HD 5850 review. Basically, great value for $260. And it was. But it didn't stay at $260 for long. In that case, at launch, it would have been a pretty good value for $300, too. But you (meaning, AnandTech writers collectively) probably wouldn't have been quite as positive about it had it launched at $300. The original article doesn't mention the price hike.
Now, I don't believe that was intentional shenanigans on AMD's part. They probably intended to get twice as many Cypress wafers in 2009 and keep the cards in stock at $260. They didn't expect TSMC to be unable to deliver. But price hikes on all models of a major card like the 5850 are rare.
Price hikes on individual SKUs like the EVGA GTX 460 FTW are not so rare. Nor are such cards disappearing entirely. For that matter, have a look at it right now on New Egg:
Oops, it's out of stock. That was fast. There is a second SKU of it for $10 more still in stock, for now. No idea how long that will last.
Now go back and read the conclusion of the Radeon HD 6870 review. It surely would have been more positive about the 6870 if one had completely ignored the heavily overclocked GTX 460.
How long do you think the EVGA GTX 460 1 GB FTW will be around? Out of 48 GeForce GTX 460s on New Egg, it's not just the largest overclock. It's the largest by a whopping 35 MHz. There are eight others in the 800-815 MHz range, so plenty of other companies are trying for big overclocks, too. If a lot of GPUs were suitable for a factory overclock to 850 MHz, don't you think someone other than EVGA would have managed to release a factory overclock to at least 820 MHz?
What stops Nvidia from providing a few hundred cherry-picked GPUs to EVGA for a PR stunt to coincide with the launch of an AMD card? Maybe they sell the GPUs for one particular SKU significantly cheaper than they would have otherwise, and simply absorb a cost of several thousand dollars as a marketing expense. That's well worth for them it if it gets reviewers to tone down praise of the Radeon HD 6870 enough that hundreds of people who check sites like this months down the road decide to buy an Nvidia card rather than a Radeon HD 6870.
I'll tell you what stops it. If reviewers ignore the factory overclocked GTX 460 in the Radeon HD 6850 and 6870 review, that stops it. But you didn't do that. And you'd better believe that Nvidia will try it again in the future. After seeing how well it worked, AMD might well try it, too, as they'll now be able to say, you did it for Nvidia, so you have to do it for us or else they'll have a legitimate claim of bias.
So how does only reviewing reference cards stop this? Surely we can all agree that a GeForce GTX 460 1 GB for $100 would be a great deal, at least for the end consumer. If Nvidia wanted to slash prices to that level, and the review conclusion said, go get the cheap GTX 460 instead, there would be nothing wrong with the review saying that.
But Nvidia can't do that without losing their shirt. They can offer an artificially good deal on one particular SKU of one card from one board partner for one short period of time as a PR stunt. They can't do that with all of the GTX 460s at once or else they lose money on the card. Try to do that to counter every review and you lose money on all of your cards, and then go out of business. They can eat several thousand dollars to spike some reviews as a marketing expense. They can't so well eat a loss of millions of dollars to dampen enthusiasm over the launch of a competitor's cards.
Good point well made. If a 800-815MHz gtx460 had been chosen instead, it would make far less difference if it had sold out so quickly as there were other similar parts for similar prices around.
The issue boils down to the evga gtx460 being so different from the rest - that picking it and not mentioning the other issues was a mistake.
Issues being: price changes? availability (both of GPUs from those top bins, and to market)? engineered stunt? other companies with similar clocked parts coming soon, or not?
So good is gtx 460, any other card you buy can easily overclocked to at least 850 mhz- i'm going to push my gtx 460 hawk to 1 ghz. so the evga gtx 460 ftw is just an ordinary overclocked cards and compare it to stock 6870 is fair.
If you want to compare overclocked 6870 with overclocked gtx 460, please pick up any 6870 cards you like and overclocking it as highest as possible then compare it with my gtx 460 hawk in its highest.
This is definitely one of the most reasoned comments on this debate.
My personal point of view is that Anand was within his rights to include an OC card, as it seems that is going to be the strategy of NVIDIA to fight the 68xx onslaught. But the problem I feel here is I dont think Anand bought it from the market like rest of the readers do. We dont get the card delivered to our doorstep by EVGA. In fact I dont even get to buy the EVGA card in my country. My strong feeling is when the readers attempt to buy this card, either the price will be up or power and/or performance will be worse
Anand's explanation seems reasonable, but bottomline is, it is not in good taste going against their own policy. so time to redefine/crystallize thier policies and have separate section/article for OC cards, where needed.
Exactly, review all the OC models or none at all. The manufacturers know most users just skim the bar graphs when making a purchase decision. Shenanigans.
Except that that wasn't my point at all. That was just a side comment in the second paragraph.
The bigger issue is that comparing a card that is going to be produced by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to a limited edition card only briefly available at the claimed price on the day of the review muddles things for people who want to find out about cards months later, therefore making the review less useful to that audience. In particular, it encourages more marketing shenanigans and PR stunts, making it harder for less tech-savvy users to decipher which cards are better than which others.
The card is a PR stunt, and not representative of the factory overclocked GTX 460s that are widely available. If it's such a real card for $240, why did New Egg sell out the day after the reviews went live? Tiger Direct is sold out, too:
There are a couple other places that have it in stock, but what I could find charged over $260. Matching the performance of a $240 Radeon HD 6870 with a $260+ card that is hard to find and much higher power consumption isn't so impressive.
Now, there's a place for saying "here's a great deal on a card for much less than the usual price". But in a review of a competitor's card is not it.
Excellent post. And your reward for such an excellent post is a GTX460 1gb FTW from EVGA! They will ship one out to you when they are in stock... i.e. when Ryan sends the review card back.
My guess is there were 25 cards like this made. The next version of the 460 FTW (different SKU) will likely be at 825mhz...
I can recall AMD messing up numbers and us readers calling the numbers into question sparked AMD to give Anand full disclosure about the testing - I believe it was the article about Zacate - and they redeemed themselves. I doubt EVGA or Nvidia will do something similar as I agree with everyone else that this card was merely a PR stunt.
Why can they not say 'here's a great deal on a card for much less than the usual price' in a review of a product?
It would be IRRESPONSIBLE of them not to! If I read this review, and decided to buy a 6870 based on it, and then I later read a separate post saying 'Oh by the way, the EVGA 460 FTW is actually a better card, get that instead' I would be EXTREMELY annoyed.
Who cares if it doesn't have the same availability? If people can't buy it, they wont see it as competition. Simple. If at some point in the future, the price is higher, or people can't buy it, then of course they wont buy it. So what harm is done? On the other hand, if it IS available, then they CAN buy it, and it gets them a better deal. The fact is, it IS available still, despite your nonsense, and people CAN buy it if they want, and if they do, they will have gotten better value for their money.
You managed to deduce that electrical components in the PC industry can change in price.
Shocker.
There are two GTX 460 FTW's available (and in stock) on Newegg right now, and it certainly doesn't look like a short term product, blowing your whole nonsense conspiracy theory out of the window.
Big surprise that after such a positive review on a popular review website, lots of them got sold. How could we possibly explain that within the normal dynamics of supply and demand? Oh wait, it must be a big conspiracy to trick Anandtech and the world.
Seriously, give yourself a kick. Of course a manufacturer could lower prices for a specific product for a really short period of time to coincide with a competitor launch and make that competitor look bad. But so what? That means that they have to give customers a card which is better, for less money. Those b******s.
Even if this is for a short time only, and if they do later increase the price, given that the review will have stated something like 'great value for X', do you not think consumers will notice before buying that the card costs X+15%? If the cost increases significantly, Anandtech could of course update the article, or they could simply do a more recent round up.
No tech site will ever be able to 'future proof' the prices mentioned in their articles. An article HAS to consider price, and those prices HAVE to be the current ones. What you're claiming assumes that a) People don't look at the prices when they buy. and b) Anandtech wont add any updates if EVGA hike up the prices at some point. Both of which aren't necessarily true.
The bottom line is that the EVGA card IS AVAILABLE right now, and it IS better value for money. So why shouldn't Anandtech tell people that?
The complains on here about a 'predicted' (and totally unfounded) lack of availability in future, or price increases, are total nonsense. Not only are they 100% speculation, it would be irrelevant even if true. Any review is aimed at letting the customers know the best deal NOW, not in 2 months time.
1) I don't mind you testing OC cards, I am all for it, more data is not a bad thing. 2) I don't believed you caved to nvidia pressure or think you are trying to be biased in any way.
That said
3) I am very much AGAINST having OC cards in the first review in the card. For a couple of reasons A) The first review of a card should give you information on how this card generation compares to the previous generation and two generations ago. The first review should help give you a general idea of how card A performs against its father and grandfather card. It is more important to add older cards such as the 9800GT, HD3870, or HD4890 cards which many owners own but weren't listed on your review. (You did included the HD4870 and GTS250 which is somewhat of a measuring stick.) Having two many info points about this generation doesn't clarify this generation vs the last generation either there are two many datapoints on the graph that boggles the mind or you have to not test some older cards due to time constraints. B) You sacrificed time adding this datapoint to your review, you already had to rush to get the review done in time, it showed in the HD6800 series review (still a good review but rushed). Some of this time from testing could have been saved if you did this superfluous datapoint.
Thus in my mind the OC GTX460 should have waited for a future review (which you customary do when many vendors send their own tweaked versions of the card.) It would have been useful then, adding it to this review detracted from it.
I have to admit, I did feel weird reading the review and found a specific brand card 'EVGA GTX 460 1GB FTW (OC)' in the otherwise generic reference card benchmark. I didn't flip out or anything like the others, but to me I feel like you're treating it like it was a different model/chipset, which I believe is what gets the others.
I read your website daily, with that said, I love coming to you guys, as you seem to be one of the more upfront and honest websites out there. You are untouchable when it comes to the quality of SSD reviews. I wasn't bothered by the review, you stated in the beginning why you included it and I thought it was a good point, to me, it seemed like most 460s that are sold are OC versions, so it would make more sense to include one in that scenario. Including a stock and OC version of every card would be nice if possible. I still came away from the article thinking that AMD has served Nvidia a solid blow here, not that Anandtech was catering to Nvidia.
I believe you did the right thing by including the EVGA 460 FTW card since it's a retail offering with a retail warranty competing with the launch products.
Since you're soliciting for what we'd like to see in reviews, I would like to see one review with the retail offers, and a separate review with attainable overclocks. By attainable overclocks, I mean overclocks which most users can realistically expect to achieve. And of course, I would like to see this for both CPUs and GPUs.
But I would strongly prefer that you keep any overclocked cards to their own segregated comparison page in the articles, and include the warning. It just gives too many opportunities for companies to play games to do otherwise.
Otherwise, if a GPU vendor wants to stand up, call it a "product", and stand behind the chip at that clockspeed, they should. If they don't, then that's on them.
Still, when you have a chip like the GTX 460 available and easily overclocked like it is, and OCed variants widely available, you can't really ignore it. That's why I think the separate page is the best way. It makes it separate, and special, like it should be, because those cards are "special" and may come and go.
I liked that the GTX460 OC was in there; however, the only 'but' I have is that the card should have had it's own mini-article first and then be included. After all a 26% overclock (like you guys stated) lends itself to treat it as a new card; GTX461 or whatever nVidia wished to call it. Which is why, I think it should have been reviewed separately. Compare the GTX 460 OC with the stock GTX 460, and then draw out conclusions. I was thinking that adding the GTX460 OC in there with benchies was sorta throwing a help bone at nVidia by making them not look that bad; seeing as their precious GTX460 was, well, crushed.
I would have not minded at all, if and only if I would have seen a article of it first, and then the HD6870 and HD6850 review came out. But a surprise card just like that was in my view, a huge 'but'. However, I don't make a huge fuzz since the article had clear warnings and clear explanations of why the GTX460 OC was there. Like I said, it was just too 'out of the blue'.
Anyways, I enjoyed the article and quite frankly, neither card interests me; however, it's good to know what these cards can do to the older gen HD5800 series and vs nVidias offerings, I was really surprised how well they fared. What really interests me is the HD6900 series.
Honestly I did not care about the OCed card, it was just one more data point to consider.
What I'd like to see would be a dedicated page detailing the overclock range that's being sold and if the EVGA is the top end of the overclocks or the mid range ... that's the info I was missing.
personally, i think you did the right thing by including the disclaimer in the article, the stock clocked 460 and FTW versions. if there should be any public backlash towards anyone, it should be towards nvidia for throwing together such a half @ssed, last minute attempt to respond to a competing product that they were totally unprepared for.
1. Factory overclocked cards are, in fact, available on the market and they come backed by full warranties and it is good to know what performance they offer.
2. Seeing the fact that you can get the performance of a 6870 out of a GTX 460 is, in fact, useful information - we all now know that you need about 800 to 850 MHz on a GTX 460 to get in the same range as a 6870.
3. You still tested the reference model GTX 460, which is very, very important to include - very few GTX 460s are actually clocked to 800+ MHz, so the reference provides the lower range of performance.
4. You made very clear in the article that you published that the GTX 460 that you used was a factory overclocked model and you explained some of the issues of that to your readers.
5. Some readers are irrational. Some readers desire that one side wins weather victory is deserved or undeserved. Dear Anandtech: these readers make lots of noise, but it is these readers that can take you down the wrong path.
I always go around saying: I h-a-t-e Nvidia due to the fact that the company will engage in what I consider are unsavory tactics to get consumers to buy their products. So I hate the company, but at the end of the day I'll still buy their product on the merits. If I was shopping right now, I'd probably buy a factory overclocked GTX 460 on the merits: it is cheaper than a 6870 while providing the same performance right out of the box - I don't have to fiddle with it, mod it, install any special software, or drivers, or BIOS, or mess with any sliders and try to overclock it myself; it's ready to use right out of the box and with the full warranty intact.
Thanks for including the factory overclocked GTX 460 Anand - it provided valuable information and it presented your readers with a chance to save money while still getting the same level of performance.
"Scan has _ten_ different cards at 800MHz or more. That's 44% of all the 460s listed."
Not sure what "scan" is, but at Newegg only 4 of the 22 in stock SKUs are clocked at 800Mhz and above. That's about 18%. The next highest under the FTW edition is only clocked at 815Mhz, a full 35Mhz less.
Newegg has only 25 of the FTW cards in stock, using the "add 99 to your cart" method. No other online retailer has any. Anecdotal evidence suggests this card is US only as well. If I had to guess, I'd say around 100 of these cards were produced.
Never hurt anyone. However, if people have complaints about the use of factory overclocked cards, perhaps include them only in the section on overclocking, and then compare them to your overclocked reference cards.
1. You have every right to include any available card in the article. 2. You included the REFERENCE clock version as to show the base comparison. 3. The 460 has been out for awhile and Nvidia and it's board partners have had time to cherry pick cores for certain cards and make custom cooling systems and validate test them. 4. ATI has not had time to do 3 yet. This is a brand new core on launch day. Full factory overclocks are not a typical option on launch day. So you all want Anand to randomly overclock reference boards and compair that to a custom built factory overclocked cherry picked core? 5. I think the community has to allow Anand the time to work with these cards abit and the manufactuers to work with them too. I have seen some overclock reviews so far on this card. The 6850 overclocking very well with the GPU only and the 6870 not overclocking hardly at all. However only referance editions of the 6870 are available at this time. Not custom boards or cooling or power solutions like the FTW EVGA. Anand and his team had NOTHING to properly compair it too. But give these guys time. They are professionals they will do 6000 series roundups and even the supposed new card nvidia is about to launch to up the anti slightly. If they do hold back something it's due to signing NDA agreements and keeping us out of politics. Every company is full of politics and it causes confusion and does not increase our capabilities as the reader base. I don't want the he said she said circus at Anand. This is a PRO's site. I remember the scandel with Toms hardware taking money from Intel for advertising right before what seemed to be a heavily biased and terrible review of a Intel vs AMD product line. This caused that site to loose much of its readers for along time and it hurt them alot. However none of it may have even been true. They may have had a 3rd party to the advertising, but it got spun by fanboys and cost a honest man alot of shame and pain. This is the kind of crap we want to avoid here.
6. Anand and his staff work their asses off to give us unbiased and very clear reviews. If any of you think he was wrong for putting in a retail oc card then you are telling me that you are not inteligent enough to handle information. Thus you may need to pick a new website to read. www.disney.com is a good place to start or possibly www.apple.com
7. Think clearly about the situation from all angles. Before attacking Anand.
I don't mind the inclusion of factory OC'd cards ***AS LONG AS*** the reference card is included too. If you didn't have time to test a reference card, I think you should have downclocked the FTW to reference clocks and put it in the review. Then, a few days later, write up a quick part 2 with the OC'd data
I feel that including overclocked cards in comparison to new cards is fair if it's done in the manner of the 6870 review. Do it on a case-by-case basis and only if, as with the 460, the overclocked card is significantly faster than its reference clocks.
Posting everything the vendors suggest as far as benchmarks and settings would run the risk of violating an NDA, or just more likely rub the vendor the wrong way and harm your relationship with them in the future for review samples. That would hurt us in the end.
I would say the only spot you screwed up with the OC GTX 460 was not giving us the specs or cost of the EVGA card. I had to hit Newegg to get the specs (and that is one hell of an OC), that information should have been in the test setup page and conclusion. When I think factory OC'd cards I think nice aftermarket cooling and a 7-15% OC, the 26% OC surprised me there.
Just make sure you don't use the FTW card NVidia sent you when you do an article on the relative OC ability of Barts and GF104. I don't trust either company to not cherry pick review samples.
I would love to see an HD 6870 and GTX 460 1GB when both are OC'd to their maximum. That's information that the consumer could really use instead of trying to cobble an idea together from several review sites or current and past reviews. Have a highly OC'd card from both camps would level the field and deflect criticism of perceived favoritism.
First of all, i am no fanboy of either company. I am a professional developer, and on my home machines i use only one Ati gpu card, one nvidia gpu card, and intel cpus(+ gpu). I am not in love with a company. But I AM IN LOVE with technology and superior products. What i hate most, is when an inferior product outsells the competition based on marketing and sleazy "journalists". I just hate it.
Once upon a time, before discovering your site, i used to read Tom's Hardware. I abandoned it when i found out that it clearly favoured intel and nvidia. They didn't have the superior products, yet their reviews were biased. I never visit this site anymore and warn all people professional and not not to go there.
I really want to believe you never did anything to hurt ati in favour of nvidia conciously. The problem is, you are years in this business. You are no amateur, so i believe this was no accident, especially when you admit Nvidia's pressure.
So, instead of sticking to your policy, you included an OC card in the review. This is a lame attempt to save Nvidia and nothing more. And i bet all those people in favour of this desicion in the comment section belong to Nvidia's PR(professional and volunteer). But all us professionals with half a brain, know what you just did...
You want to know why? Because this was no simple review of a new card. This was the unveiling of AMD's new gpu architecture. So this will create a lasting impression, far more important than comparing simple retail cards.
AMD is in the process of releasing a more mature architecture, with a much reduced die size, temperatures, noise, power usage, with added features, faster when compared the older series(6800 is replacing 5700 not 5800), faster with DX11 games, and competitive in price.
Now you, instead of presenting AMD's improvements, after pressure from Nvidia you include a factory OCd card in order to make NVIDIA's offerings look much better than what they reallly are, and spoil AMD's release by making it look like AMD's new architecture is on par with Nvidia's Fermi...
If you really wanted to include OC cards, you should:
a) Include OCd cards from AMD, or OC yourself reference cards.
b) Include factory GTX 460
c) Add the OC in the name of GTX 460 in the graphs... THIS IS SLEAZY ANAND! The graphs matter, and they write "NVIDIA GTX460 1GB", they do not define it as and OCed card...
You did nothing of those, and i believe these ARE VALID COMPLAINS.
This was no accident, you did it on purpose, and this is sad. One question only: What did NVIDIA offer to you?
I appologize if someone else already posted this, but at this point there's already 147 posts sooooo I'm not going to go through them all.
I understand why you used a factory OCed GTX460 to demonstrate what other options are available. More options are good. However the big question then becomes "How well would an OCed 6870 stack up?"
My recommendation would be to take a stock GTX 460 and AMD 6870 and OC each of them to their maximum, present the clock speeds, the voltages, the new power draws, and new noise levels. This way not only can we see how the cards truely stack up against each other, but we can see headroom in each card. Let's face it many of your readers are going to OC them themselves if they get them. I'd also recommend letting us know what tools you used to perform the overclocks (took me forever to find the right MSI afterburner when the GTX470 launched.)
If the review was done just between reference cards the nVidia cards would have looked pretty bad. With the 460 getting beat soundly and the 470 being overpriced by comparison. Many people don't read every part of a review. So, the "disclaimer" by Anandtech doesn't make sure everyone gets the information. It also doesn't stop people from quoting the review out of context. 11th hour price cuts and "ringer" products delivered by the competition aren't done without prejudice.
I would prefer to see FOC (Factory Over Clocked) cards mainly in the bench thing but not in primary reviews. Include a single page on the main reviews then do an extensive over clock review the following week or so. Would be cool to include the disclaimers and to have the FOC cards have FOC preceding the names on the bench. This way I know what it is and I can look at the price too. It would also tell me if I wanted to overclock it myself, what results (pros/cons) I could anticipate. Maybe some of use would rather get a cheaper product then void my warenty for performance. Some may only have their machines on a few hours a day so the noise, stress and heat are not issues. Others leave their rigs on longer than the stockmarket is open and thus leaving. 200w idle machine isn't a good idea while knowing everything they have is warenteed for the year. So yes I would like to see FOC cards included. I would rather know what the card is capible of. Just like how some CPUs have increadible headroom and thus are great buys while others are best left alone.
All in all the openess for a meeting of the minds and the forum avaliable for Anandtech staff and their readers is what makes it possible to keep the site fresh n' tasty while the trolls are left in the past along with the water over their bridge.
I can't say that including the EVGA card was a mistake. But it would seem fair to have an overclocked 6870 in that case. And even 6850, the low clock speed is quite promising for overclocking. Ok, they're not available right now, but neither was the FTW when 460 launched. So you could have overclocked the card to a safe level and give us that as a comparison. From what I remember the FTW cards don't have much headroom left for overclocking. Instead, we didn't even get an overclocking section in the review, it's mysteriously missing, while the 460 review had extensive overclocking results. So, while I believe that Anandtech is a trusted sources of reviews, my opinion is that this time it was an unfair game.
About the inclusion of the GTX460 FTW, I'm not debating if this is correct or not, but this is what you achieved.
When you included this one OCed card you may have mislead people into thinking that all factory overclocked GTX 460 cards are as good as that - you created the GTX 462. Not all retail GTX 462 are as good as this, this is a best case scenario - you failed to point this out. You also failed to clearly show the price range a GTX 462 may have - the possibility may arise one thinks he's getting a cheaper OCed GTX460 with the performance in your review, but not so, he's actually getting a slower clocked card with lower performance. OCed GTX 460 speeds aren't pegged at the level of the card you've been using (at least you should have been using an average - overclocked card).
Buying an overclocked cards implies knowledge of what clock speed is and how more is better - this is (semi)enthusiast territory. We know to OC our cards and that any vanilla GTX 460 1GB can achieve the performance you posted for the EVGA FTW. Since you showed "the best" a GTX 460 can stable 24/7 do, why not pushing also a 6850/6870/GTX 470?
The EVGA FTW review should have been part of another article on "OCing midrange cards", or "Factory OC roundup" - these cards would have in common volatile clocks and prices.
For me it was somewhat easy to ignore the OCed card scores in the graphs, and the fact you mixed SLI/Xfire cards in the same graph with single cards. Mix'n matching is a bad point to this review from my pow. My 2 cents: do more focused articles, don't try to respond all readers with one product.
I beg your pardon, but GTX 460 FTW is not the best scenario, it's a good scenario. the best scenario is, any other gtx 460 out there can be overclocked to 900.
Touring cars, you know the ones that race. Comparing those to the cars you or I drive is not the same. The same applies to gpu's. Got to be like for like or its just not a fair comparison.
I thought you stated your position clearly in the article, and the matter was settled. The way you did things up to this article were fine. No need to change.
If you act as you have done, including normal cards in addition to overclocked cards I think no change is needed. The only problem I have is when sites put overclocked cards and no reference cards in new card reviews citing price reasons (techreport I'm looking at you).
I have been a reader of this side for many years and was very disappointed buy the inclusionof the 460 OC. You should of followed your own editorial advice and left if out of the review. What a horrible precedent is being set. "When launching a new video card, make sure you have a OC version to look good". If I was AMD or Nvidia I would have a highly overclocked version of the card included in any new launch to make sure I look as good as possible. I hope when they 580 launches, you include a highly overclocked 6970 (or make sure you bench the 6970 against an OC 480) Do you see where this leads?
Have a few thousand of these cherry picked cards at launch, and a week later show that they are "back ordered' and then a month later discontinue them. Which gpu maker could resist?
Which overclocked card are you going to include? How much volume do you need to have to include it? 1000 cards, 50? Where do you draw the line?
Nothing is wrong with OC cards, but the should be included in a separate, follow up article, not in the lauch article. Shame on you Anandtech readers for giving approval for such practices. While we are at it, we might as well let Intel OC a cpu when AMD lauches their next architecture.
When amd launched their six cores cpu, I choose to buy i5 760 instead of 1055T because I know the former can be overclocked to 4,4 ghz on air and outperform the latter at its best overclocked clock. That exactly what Ryan tried to tell in his article.
As a stock clocked card was tested as well, I honestly don't see the problem.
Of course you could overclock the stock clocked cards (both nVidia and ATI), but that is at your own risk, and overclocking is at the end of the day not the product as sold.
What is missing though is a max overclock result for the stock clocked cards (with the obvious milage-may-vary disclaimer) to understand just how much potential headroom there is in each chip.
Here is my take on it, also posted in the forum: ......
We can argue back and forth. And there is advantages and disadvantages for this single review.
What stands as a fact is the wider consequences if this becomes new practice:
1. Nvidia and AMD will make further pressure to the review sites on launch day to use: A. special oc cards B. Specific games C. Specific methology
2. If they succed, it will blur the decisions for the consumers - its the purpose of the actions of the marketing department. They will select the wrong cards for their needs.
3. NV and AMD will dedicate more ressources at marketing instead of engineering, to make all this happen.
4. The end results will be slower cards for all.
5. A second effect will be an eroding of the PC platform for gaming.
What Anand have to do in my oppinion is:
1. Have separate articles for oc vs non oc cards. Prefareble keep apples to apple comparisons here.
2. Publicly state the testing methology for the cards separate from the testing, keep to it as long as possible, and never ever change methology at launch times. Do it before, so testing history is intact.
3. Change to a more modern methology showing real framerates in the game, min. max. average, over a time period that stresses the card. Giving advice like Hardocp, how the card supports different settings.
4. Validity of the site is vital. Anandtech should publish information from AMD, Nvidia and Intel publicly, and the answer to it. Then the readers can decide from themselves. Its naive to think anandtech can separate politics from benchmark methology. If someone have something to hide, it should be know publicly. I have no doubt Anand have the power to introduce such politics.
Anand should take the lead. Tell the companies who is in charge, and let us know.
As a sidenote: what would have happened if years back, anand had told NV to take all their agressive marketing a put it up their xxx? - instead what happens is this mess. What anand does have big effect on the companies, their strategy, and the future development. Its a responsibility Anand should take more care about today. Anand is not a small reviewer anymore, its a significant player.
--------
Its not easy to be a reviewer and all can make mistakes. And this is one of them. Just say it probably was the wrong decision, and bet back in the game with an even better review ! :)
"NVIDIA called asking for us to include overclocked GTX 460s "
Okey. They call. You want NV to call in the future?, or do you want them to write?
Did AMD call? - what did they say?
Do we want a future where there is a lot of calling?
This is not good. Defend your integrity. Defend your position and independency Attack NV when they do so, make a transcrip and put it on the frontpage.
What? Completely wrong, all of you. There was absolutely NO review of the EVGA GTX 460 FTW in the 68xx review. The card was simply included and mentioned on a single page because it's a close contender, and something you can buy for the same sort of price. Infact i can often find it cheaper than the 6870 even though the EVGA is overall atleast as fast, so having them both in the review was completely relevant and should have been done. It was clearly pointed out multiple times that it was an OC'ed card and was even downplayed because of that fact.
When most people are in the market for buying a card, it does not matter if it's OC'ed or not, it's about performance vs money, and for that fact alone it was right to include the EVGA card. Basic logic.
+1 I can only understand all this whining to a very small extent. It seems there ARE issues about availability and pricing, even heat and power consumption. The EVGA card is also significantly OC'ed compared to many, but there will only be better silicon as it matures in the fabs, so availiability and pricing may get ok. Even this review might have sold a bunch, who knows - I still belive in AT's independence as a review site.
Because most all these issues where already mentioned in the review for crying out loud !!
Most (...most) writers @AT write very well. Honest and sincere and outspoken in a way - even fun sometimes without falling off on the bad side of humour - I love reading your articles, yess i'm an AT fanboi (not gay though - I'll leave that to the whiners:))
I actually created an account just to be able to say this;
I've read anandtech regularily (essentially checking for news every weekday) for a long time, coming up on ten years soon. I've been lurking around here all that time.
I'm joining the disgruntled readers who cry foul over this since you've previously made a point of not including these types of products. A disclaimer isn't good enough; seriously, you can't disclaim your integrity. No can do. In particular when your staff has spent paragraphs advocating these guidelines! If you wan't to change them, go ahead, but tell us beforehand and in a separate post that your standards have changed.
A separate article, or even including the vendor specific EVGA card in the vendor round-up would have been the right thing to do. IF you really had come to the conclusion that this very specific EVGA FTW card was relevant to include. Considering everything that's been said, you didn't chose that specific card from your own volition. That is unjustifiable, whatever disclaimer you put up. Again, you can't disclaim your integrity,
I'm not saying you are biased towards a specific manufacturer, that's going much too far imo, but this was some amazingly poor judgment. There are already OC'ed 6850's selling retail too (albeit a measly 2% core in the ASUS case) and in many places they have the exact same availability as the EVGA card (ie, none). Neither have any place in a launch article. Since the writers on AT were the ones who convinced me that this is so, with strong arguments to the point, it's all the more reason for me to react.
I don't resent the idea of comparing OC'ed cards (be it factory or self OC'ed), but what I did notice is that the Core / Shader / Memoryclocks were not clearly stated anywhere. Fix that, and comparing OC'ed cards is just fine.
Personally I'd rather write like EVGA 460@850/1512/1025 whatever the clocks are into the performance graphs instead of the modelname. Also add the clocks to default-clocked cards if you are including OC'ed cards.
For the noise and powerdraw both the clocks and exact model are important as the modelspecific fan designs and current regulation circuitry etc. makes a real difference there.
If all the graphs that had a 460 OC had a regular 460, then it would have been more information. However, the 2560x1600 Ultra High quality graphs only had the 460 OC. If they had a regular 460, then I would have no problem with including the 460 OC. It just looks like you are pandering to Nvidia here. It was probably unintentional, but thats what we see.
This is all a matter of trust. Do we the readers trust the site to review the products in a fair and clear manner? I think Anandtech's long history and previous reviews shows that they do their best to be impartial and present all the information even if damning to the product being reviewed.
I think the article was a good balance, we'd get bored if every review contained paragraphs of what pressure every company made to the site, or every concession that Anandtech had to make. If its important then it gets mentioned, and/or justified. If you question the review, there are other sites to read, with other opinions, test suites and test rigs...if these other sites all disagree then post a comment, the staff are active and respond professionally.
In specific to that article it was a review of the Radeon's not the Evga, it was just a card at a similar price point, that you can buy, so it seems a reasonable inclusion.
So I don't think Anandtech need to change a thing about their review process, just keep up the good work!
I think you have handled things the right way. An OCed 460 is honestly something we wou'd be very likely to see on say Newegg (Tomshardware actually reported that the majority of 460s on the site yesterday were OC versions) so not not include it would be a large omission for those of us interested in buying cards.
I also applaud the way you called attention to the fact that this is an OC, not an officially sanctioned spec, and that it's a bit... grey for nVidia to be pulling this. You did say this, you let your feeling on the issue be known, but you put the needs of customers first and I applaud that.
If Anandtech was written solely on a theoretical level, then the OC card shouldn't have been included, but since you write to cover both the theory and architecture of cards as well as write to cover consumer usage, it's inclusion was valid. Don't sweat it.
I can't speak for all viewers of AnandTech, but I come here to get information on products, to check real world value of products and to get some insight on the technology behind them. When I go shopping for a gfx card (not that many along the years: GF2MX, GF5200, Radeon 9600 Pro (2nd hand), Radeon X700 (2nd hand), Radeon 3850, Radeon 4850 (2nd hand)) I try to buy value for money. I.e. I try to stick to a certain price point and see what I can get in that range (usually up to the €100 range). For this reason I prefer to have all options on table, be it factory overclocked cards or reference cards. If I can buy it I want to know about it. That is why I prefer launch cards reviews to reference designs reviews, because people don't buy the reference designs, they buy card from X or Y, which not always are as good as the reference. AnadTech is a very impartial site (well, it sides with better technology, I prefer to side with what is the best I can buy for a given amount of money), the use of reference cards for reviews is a good example of this policy.
Bottom-line, I would like to continue to read reviews that state all available options and serve my need for buying information.
PS: You can always direct people to the gpu bench in case of more esoteric comparisons.
It's my own opinion, but I do find much of the intrigue and stories to be extremely informative in their own rights, and interesting to know even if not. Often they can change my opinion of a company or a product from worse to better, or better to worse.
In this specific instance Anandtech presented us with more information, not less. I fail to see how more information from a (very) valid alternative option negatively harmed the review. I was specifically interested in comparing 460 to 6870 performance given just how dirt cheap some 460 cards are, and an overclocked 460 is a natural extension of that.
Interesting to note the singular "FTW edition" already has two very different cooler designs at different prices on Newegg...
This website has always been fair and has a high standard of editorial integrity.
The inclusion of an OC card as well as standard card for comparison is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. There is currently no 68xx OC part for comparison (but will probably in the future) so there really is no bias here. The review of the 68xx series was (justifiably) favorable and I don't see even the slightest hint of bias here and any accusations to the contrary are just conspiracy theories.
If you insist on using factory overclocked cards why not do two reviews? Stock cards, both single and Crossfire/SLI and then a whole different review for factory overclocked(both single and multiple). Obviously you'd have to wait a while till their are fac. OC'd cards on both sides but the whole point to these cards is that they are responses to the competitor's cards and its unfair to give extra firepower to either side and then just say "well there wasnt any fac OC'd cards at the time of testing for this one side"
...it did not bother me. Like others, it would have been nice to have the specs listed. I had to go to the egg to get the specs. People need to take all the information given and make their own decision on what to buy. You have done a great job of providing the information for us. I think you made enough of a disclaimer in the article. I understood it was a unique card, so I focused on the results of the factory clocked 460 as well. Thanks for letting us provide the feedback.
I don't have any problem with including factory overclocked cards in a review article. The main thing for me is that there is a roundup of readily available cards in a given price range; so, the reader can draw some conclusion about how best to spend their money. Choices include older cards that are still available (often selling for less than they were originally sold for), new cards at stock settings, and readily available factory overclocked cards (especially if more than one manufacturer is selling these models). This information , along with some idea of what sort of overclocks the stock cards are capable of (I know this will vary from card to card, even with the same model, so I take these with a grain of salt) puts me, as a potential buyer, in the best position to determine where I'm going to get the most for my money.
This assumes that other factors, such as noise and power consumption, aren't going to rule a card out for a particular setting.
(Hard to know who is putting more pressure on this site, manufacturers or fanboys. ;-) I trust this site and its writers as professionals; so, in the end, continue to use your best judgement, as you always have.)
For the single reason that Nvidia was the one to suggest this card added to the review, it should not have been done. It is irrelevant what reasoning you give for adding the card, Nvidia got its way in the end.
Also I see while you did have a disclaimer about the OC card, you did not use the Reference model in the Unigine tessellation test, but rather only the OC model. I also was dissappointed that you did not even touch HD 6800 overclocking, even when you added the Nvidia OC model.
Personally I like the Anandtech architecture talk, but unfortunately after plowing through several other reviews, I have to say this is one of the most pro Nvidia articles I saw. I'd also advise against saying [H]ardOCP is the only "go to", since a lot of their tests end up being run at 2560x1600, which is somewhat favourable to AMD. Of course if you own a 30" display it's simply grand, but that user base is marginal at best.
In the future, please do tell if Nvidia or AMD are trying to pull shenanigans like sending OC cards and optimized benchmarks for you to use in reviewing competition products.
I have no problem with reviews of OC cards but putting an OC card up against a brand new GPU just made the whole article really messy IMO. Launch articles should be where the tech falls in the various family trees. When you add in the OC variants of those famlies as well the analysis and comparisons just get way too noisy and muddied for my liking.
Keeping it stock for launch and breaking out the OC stuff into a separate article would be mush easier for me to digest. I'm sure the 68X0 family will also see it's own OC variants in due time.
I agree the clocks of the EVGA should be made clear, but overall I would like to have seen _more_ info about the card, namely how it fares in SLI. Looking at the game I care about (Stalker COP), the EVGA sits right inbetween the 470 and 6870. Thus, two of the EVGAs SLI would be a very interesting metric indeed. Can you get hold of a 2nd one, Ryan/Anand? Given the better temp/power/noise aspects of the EVGA, if 2 of them can match two 470s then we deserve to know. Not everyone has a case/etc. which can cope with two 93C GPUs inside.
You were absolutely correct in providing info in the review. You were very explicit in your comments. To those objecting..GET OVER IT! The more info I can have, the better buying decisions I can make. Keep up the good work!
i feel when the majority of cards for sale are OC'd, i have no problem with you using them, as long as you clearly state at the beginning of the article that it is not a stock clocked card. i thought you did that, and was very happy you included the gtx 460 ftw. and i'm an ati user.
Disregarding other reasons not to include it, how many of those cards you saw for sale have 850 MHz clock? Most of them? Half of them? Some of them? No, it is only ONE of them! Yes, really informative inclusion. I'll just go out and grab myself a factory OC'd 460 and have almost 6870 performance, as it's clearly stated in Anand's review...oh, wait, I probably won't.
Except only a completely illiterate fool would walk away from the review with that conclusion.
Anyone with the great gift of being able to read would realise that it was specifically the EVGA 460 FTW card which offers that performance and value for money, and would purchase that rather than the 6870.
Cheers for taking the time to clear this up Anand - I for one appreciate it. More information is always good, I certainly wouldn't want you to avoid reviewing/comparing overclocked models in general. It should just have been in a separate article in this case.
Personally, I think you should avoid this kind of comparison in articles about brand new architectures/models as it muddies the water and detracts from a clear cut conclusion. Both companies only release new ranges maybe once a year, and I don't think it's bias as long as both sides get equal treatment when it's their turn. Their competitor's reply in terms of OC'd models, price cuts etc can be covered separately.
I don't try to overclock video cards. It's one bit of tech I haven't had time to explore. OTOH, a factory OC'd gpu where the manufacturer has worked out the kinks, that I find attractive.
Thank you for including the eVGA board. Please continue to include such things. More data is better than less (until, of course, too much data reduces the information, but that is not at issue here).
So whenever somebody complains it mean they are fan-boys. So we just have to accept things that are presented to us without any suggestions, objections or complaints.
I think inclusion of the card as it was done does not do justice to the article, if for no other reason because it creates unnecessary arguments. If this were any one of the other sites out there I really would not be surprised, but the need for the disclaimer itself should have constituted indication enough except that you did it anyways.
I do agree with having as much information as possible and definitely think it should have been mentioned but I also value consistency between articles. This card belongs in a roundup not a platform review.
If you are going to include overclocked cards on all platform reviews from now on then fine, otherwise the justification for doing it this one time is moot as it is one that can always be made.
But then again I suppose the argument is more one of principle than technical basis, and I would hope most readers will make the distinction necessary, besides it is a good way of creating conversation, albeit not the kind that I personally look for ;)
The issue of using an overclocked card is moot. The REAL issue here is that,\ by YOUR OWN ADMISSION you took the advice of NVIDIA on how to conduct a review of a new AMD product.
Never. They have an editorial policy they stick to. Except when they don't, which they do, but they have it, but don't stick to it, except it's their policy...
I'm glad you made this post, but in all honesty, I think it is much ado about nothing. The only thing that ultimately matters is what you can buy with your money. Including a product at a comparable price point is only common sense. After all, there could be someone out there who requires the GPU of an NVIDIA card and wants to know what compares to the new AMD ones.
In future situation, I hope you look at what's available on the market - just like you did here - and use that as a guide. To all the people who complained about including an overclocked card, would you rather not know how much performance the same amount of cash can get you on an NVIDIA card?
I think if you are supposed to appeal to a vast majority and not just above average tech readers, you would include all stock cards and also overclocking for all cards in comparison. The only problem with your review in my opinion is that the 460 name is linked with a very high performing model while the others are stock. If somebody just skims a review and goes right to the graphs about performance they are gonna be pretty mislead when they hop over to newegg and type gtx460 in the search column and add the lowest priced one to their cart.
You have a point. That could possibly be prevented with better-designed charts and labels. I agree that the cards should be included; if the price is comparable, I think Anand is duty-bound to include it even if it ruffles feathers since it is a viable option for the consumer.
Being another long time AT reader, I just had to register to put in my 2 cents... seriously this issue is being blown out of proportion.. I am pretty sure at least 90% of the readers are sufficiently tech savvy to make their own informed decision. There is a friggin disclaimer.. there IS a reference GTX 460... the OC'd one has a 26% warrantied, overclock. The only thing missing is perhaps some OC results of the AMD cards. Just look at the graphs and decide what u want instead of god damn bickering about it..
I don't get why people would be upset about including factory OCd cards. The "OC" is enough of a disclaimer to anyone familiar with computer electronic (aka people reading this site). As long as power, temp, and noise charts are included, including factory OCd cards seems fair to me.
As was said already, these are cards that are available for purchase with a warranty. It's not lock anand is OCing just one company's cards and including those in the review.
In the review business all you have is integrity, that is all that separates you from nvidias home page. you should have left the FTW card out simply because Nvida wanted you to include it. you know all the reasons why you should not have used it, you told us all the reasons in the review. if AMD wanted you to us a particular game as a benchmark, and it is not one of you standard titles, screw them somethings up.
so what happed, did they threaten you? promise you something other than a hand picked card with a cherry picked GUP. Product for you next giveaway? whatever they used it must have been strong because most of the other sites crumbled as well.
show us the emails and the request to include the card, restore the trust, disclose the correspondence. let us decide.
What kind of discussion "about a minor problem". German review sites received HD6850s with the right clockspeeds but the shadercounts of the HD6870 ... and published with this settings!!!
Personally I would not have used the highest availeble factory overclocked GTX460 as a second data point (~850 MHz). All reviews I have seen indicate that the GTX460 is able to reach ~ 800 MHz without raising voltages, but 850 MHz seem to optimistic. And this will confuse people, whith lesser background knowledge visiting this site in a few months and just skiming the diagramms.
Is it right to include a factory overclocked card in a review dealing with a new series? In most cases I would say NO, but the the GTX 460 is a little bit unique when it comes to overclocking, reaching speeds that would justify a complete new card (GTX 46X what ever). And that is a point you have to consider when buying GPUs with a tight budget.
In Germany I get a Gigabyte GTX460 OC with aftermarkt cooler for 155€, able to reach speeds around 830 MHz. This little beast is as fast as a GTX470 or HD6870 selling at the moment between 200 - 220€. It would be wrong not ot include information like this in a review and of course you 've got to prove in the diagramms.
You 've looked at different samples of GTX460 in the past, why didn't you use knowledge gained from this tests to indicate the average OC-Performance of this cards and put it into this review?
And I'd realy like to know if and how a company tries to influence reviews (special sample, benchmarks - hawx 2, whatever). People have a right to know who tries to screw them and how, that's what journalism is for.
It's just fine to include some specials cards in a review, if the basic cards are at least also listed. As you stated, in this case it provides a substantial boost to performance of the basic/reference card, so perfectly justified. Also because of the same price range.
Please who don't read and compare the wrong stuff.... won't change by including or excluding factory overclocked cards.
In the future, perhaps a better way to do this would be to acknowledge the OC'ed card and simply publish a followup to include the overclocked cards in the comparison as well as compare the over clockability of AMD cards in the same review.
The reality is OC'ed cards availability is a lot more sparse. Especially in regions like Canada where prices already become distorted as it is.
Stop whining and bitching, there was enough pointers in the article that Anandtech is largely against reviewing overclocked cards, but due to the nature of the GTX 460 overclock they felt it was necessary to include an overclocked one as well as the reference card.
I don't see anything wrong in including overclocked cards here and there, if the overclock and performance is huge enough to warrant it.
Companies would be less likely to deal with Anandtech at all if Anand started posting email logs, and chat logs, and phone logs of what each company was trying to do in order to make it's product look more favorable.
At the least, they know they try, and most in the industry probably know by now that Anand is a straigh shooter, he will do stuff at your request, ie use updated drivers that fix a bug, or correct an issue, but he always is forthcoming about everything done to get said results.
In the case of this article, I don't see any issue with posting the results, as Anand layed out why it was there, etc. It wasn't like he just through it in, and as stated you could buy it.
I think one major problem of using the highest overclocked special edition card of the 460, is that you can't really buy it everywhere.
Sure it's available in the US and very large internet resellers, but how about other places? I checked the listing of the 2 largest resellers in finland, and neither carry it. Neither does overlcockers.co.uk it seems?
If you had used a more moderatly overclocked card, then you'd have a bunch of them available from many manufacturers. Now you're basicly saying that all the OC cards will be close to the performance of the FTW.. which they aren't by a longshot..
Don't cave in to the corporates nor the vocal minorities. We all know if you let the companies dictate how tests are done we'd see one sided biased reviews that are pretty much just marketing. However, if you start catering to the dozen or two who scream and shout the most, then the site becomes catered to just those people.
Just do what you think is right. You have the most experience and knowledge, I trust in your ability to decide better than then commenters.
I don't have any issues with the way you presented the information in the review. The addition of the factory overclocked card makes sense based on its price point. The normal GTX 460 doesn't line up with the 6850 or 6870. The overclocked GTX 460 is a direct competitor for the 6870, and would definitely be the card I compare to the 6870 when making a decision. I appreciate the extra information from the inclusion of the EVGA card.
I think it is to right thing to include as much information as possible in your review. Personally, I would like this kind of comparison in all the reviews. More information is always better. If there are factory overclocked ATI cards, I would like to see those in reviews as well. To me it is all about having the most information that is available. A warranted overclock, is a reasonable thing to include in comparisons.
If you chose to include non-warranty overclocks, as well, that would be a little different. I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as you make it very clear that overclocking your part would void your warranty and that not everyone should expect to be able to get that level of performance.
I thought inclusion of the overclocked 460 was fine.
When making purchasing decisions its nice to know what all is available at a given price and with staggered pricing like amd and nvidia have now that likely means comparing an oc version of one to a stock version of the other.
I like to see as much data as possible, now this is getting ridicules. If its gonna be this way and ask ppl what you should do because fanboyz go crazy at a review that list the OC card as well as the original card then we the average reader are definitely are loosing out in the end. The average reader doesnt post often, dont complain much and is here for the info. The average fanboy post endless times repeatedly complaining about one company or the other looking to cause drama with rude comments in an attempt to polish their loved brand and bury the other. They are relentless and we see them all over and one would think its the majority view but in actuality its the product of the high energy these fanboys put into their missions.
From this article it seems there is a drive for bending in a way that would only hurt the neutral ppl who actually are interested in buying a card. Lets not reduce things any further, we need as much data and info from as much cards as possible. what are we gonna do take a survey at what cards can be printed next to ati cards as to not offend their fans. We can only include these cards cause they said its fair. What a shame. We are gonna have some skimpy reviews with this logic.
I think the more data the merrier, Why not? If the card is a good deal then it will sell. Put as much data, as many cards on the market as possible as they are all competing and its important to know what a person can buy and where it performs and where it stands compared to other cards out there. Isnt that what reviewing is about? Start trimming down the data anymore and its ruining the whole purpose. Please dont listen to idiots, you know that the more cards the better. How can anyone have a clear idea with limiting data. How in the heck did that evga card hurt the ppl out there who want to know where these cards sit compared to one another.
Clearly the evga card was stated as an OCed version, there was no trickery. We dont see many reviews comparing different brand and models anymore and this card was in a league of its own and its available and now we see how it compares to the hd6870. This is useful data to ppl who already may own this card or to ppl who may want to know just how it does against AMDs 460 killer. How is this not useful information to ppl who want to know?
There are crazed fanboys who are always looking for a fuss that are just so ready to jump on ppl at a moments notices. They are never satisfied even when amd releases a card that performs extremely well at a great price. Cards that are over 100$ cheaper then the 5870 and almost performs as well. A card that has greatly improved tessellation and is all around bad as. If they arent satisfied with this what can you say. They instead focus on drama and link sites where the cards are reviewed with games that give AMD a huge margin advantage then claim this one to be not fair.
There are huge variances in the games and a person could cherry pick a review to give nvidia or AMD a great amount of advantage. One could make nvidia destroy AMD in cherry picked situations and with those same cards completely reverse the advantage with AMD demolishing nvidia. This is why we need to stop reducing out reviews. Alot of sites do like 5 games or so and with such a limit one could paint all kindsa scenarios. Its impossible to be 100% fair with such limits. Its no wonder amd/nvidia want certain games to be included with the vastly varying outcomes and the small sample of data we are getting used to seeing. Remember back a few yrs we would see tons of games, tons of cards, tons of data. Its a big loss and now we have these databases where we can look at generic charts if we want to compare as its just not the same as it used to be. Like i want to know how the HD4890 is keeping up, how does it do against the 6850. Is my performance still in the ballpark of these new cards. Am i too far behind them. Its all about the data and the more the better. How the heck can it hurt. it makes no sense. Quit thinking in those lines, data is useful and the majority of readers want as much as possible. Fanboys want only to see their loved company demolish the other. We cant start bending and triming down for these cases. Reviews are skimpy enough.
To me a fair comparison is apples to apples, but the 460 OC FTW was an apples to oranges comparison.
There are two really good approaches to take in these cases:
1) Stick to just reference card vs reference card and do a follow-up review of OC vs OC (although I have no problem with you mentioning the OC cards in your conclusions - its just not fair to compare them this way)
2) Include the 460 FTW but also include an OC 6870 in your comparison - even if you do it yourself. Other review sites actually overclocked their 6870's and included that information in the review providing up to a 10-15% performance boost.
Also be careful about the samples you get - your 460 FTW data looks better than the review data on that card published by other sites in terms of slightly higher performance and significantly lower power draw. Could be the test bed is different but could be you got handed a "ringer" card not typical of what I would get off Newegg.
Why isn't it fair to compare one card with another? If both apples and oranges could be plugged into a computer, and used to play games (or display graphics for other purposes), why shouldn't you compare them?
1) They did include both stock models in their comparisons. Did you have difficulty getting that information from the graph?
2) There wasn't a factory OC 6870 available at the time of the review. Doing a manual overclock is not the same thing, at all, and is of no relevance. The factory overclocked card requires no modifications, and is under warranty at reviewed speed.
Your comments about being handed a 'ringer' apply to every sample received from every company, ever. I don't know if Anandtech bought the 6850 and 6870? Or were they provided with them? If so, this is a moo point.
I don't see what the big deal is. Who care's if there was an OC card in the benches. People are getting so offended by nothing. It's not like the fact that it was OC was hidden. Knowing how the new cards perform against an OC 460 is just more information if anything. It doesn't do any harm to the readers.
Like most users, I see anandtech.com as the few unbaised sites that have not caved in to corporate pressure. Integrity was what made anandtech unique and the reviews given here, for the most part, were impartial. I don't know, maybe character and principle are overrated these days...
Your review was fine, nothing wrong with it. So long as the test conditions, drivers, HW used are clearly stated there is no reason to change your methodology.
You are in a catch-22 in your business as the fanboy factor runs strong, especially with graphics cards. Much of your readership consist of enthusiast gamers, mail, with little or now social life or skills. It should be apparent that demographic behaves in juvenile fashion. The response to the recent review is just a typical case in point, no matter what you do, your conclusion is always going to offend some subset of audience. There will always be 'excuses' from one set of fanboys over the other if one product does not win over the other. The whole 'Turbo mode' is cheating is another fine example.
Keeping doing what you are doing and let the fanatical unwarranted criticisms roll off your back like water off a duck.
No edit button for brain farts... "Much of your readership consist of enthusiast gamers, MALE, with little or now social life or skills. It should be apparent that demographic behaves in juvenile fashion."
Are you one of these males with little to "now" social life? Just trying to figure out if you're one of these enthusiast gamers, because you certainly lack the social tact you claim gamers lack. Come on, keep it civil, don't let the barrier of the internet make you forget your manners.
I believe the reason many of these "enthusiasts" are upset is because the article is potentially misleading to the non-enthusiasts. People with a long history with graphics card know the various caveats surrounding factory OC'ed cards, while others may not even know what overclocking is. In the article however, failing to present the overclocked values of the 68xx series while including an overclocked card of another vendor may lead uninformed others (no fault of their own) to purchasing an overclocked card with little or no overclocking headroom and a larger power-draw, when the 68xx series may have had more potential or met the need better under the same circumstances.
There was nothing wrong in including the Evga FTW, in my opinion; there's a market for factory OC'ed cards after all, especially with full warranty. The lack of the 68xx's overclock values makes this act questionable.
The GTX 460 is somewhat of a special case, considering that most designs can overclock by a considerable margin. Because overclocked GTX 460 cards are valid competitors, the inclusion of EVGA's card in last night's review was a good move to show what NVIDIA currently has on the table to compete with AMD's newest.
At the end of the day the only thing most consumers care about is getting the best gfx card for their money, The GTX 460 FTW is closer in price to a 6870 compared to a standard GTX 460 1GB, which can now be bought for £120, so I don't see what the problem is. Thanks to its inclusion in the review and if I were buying a new graphics card, then I would buy the GTX 460 FTW, as the review has shown it to be a better all round card (CUDA, PhysX & better drivers) with more features than the 6850 or 6870 and for the most part, it's equal in performance compared to the 6870.
I looked at all the reviews of the 6850 & 6870 on every other website I could find and I definitelty found AnandTech's review to be the most informative. Great review! :)
It's fine to include a factory overclocked card in the review but it would have been more responsible to wait until factory overclocked (like the Sapphire Toxic series) 6850s and 70s were widely available for a fairer draw.
Basically putting an overclocked card on a Launch is just plain disrespectful to the card you are reviewing. Save overclocked Vendor versions(IE EVGA, XFX, Palit) for comparing to other Vendor cards (IE Gigabyte, ASUS, Powercolor, Sapphire), keep in mind the vendor cards don't have to be overclocked. But comparing an Overclocked Vendor Card to a Stock Clocked Demo Card Provided by AMD is just unfair. It didn't bug me as an Overclocked GTX460 runs about the Same as a GTX470 and the 6870 battled well on both fronts. It was unfair to the 6850, as it makes it look like less of a deal...and a deal it is! I could see overclocked versions of the 6850 down the road offering GTX460-oc, GTX470,6870 performace for $200 or less...I'm a videocard athiest...I don't care as long as it's good....Imagine if Diamond Released a 6870 ULTRA with 1100Mhz on the Core and 6Ghz on the memory for $270 and it competes right with a STOCK GTX580 (for $500)that nVidia Paper launches.....That wouldn't be fair!!! The GTX580 would look like a RIPOFF!!! Now the 6850 vs GTX460-OC isn't that huge of a disparity, but it isn't the crushing blow to nvidia it should be....
Why is it unfair to show that there are faster cards which don't cost any more money?
Who cares if it's factory overclocked or not? That doesn't change the price, or the performance differential. At the time of the review, there weren't 6870 factory overclocked cards, so Anandtech gave us the most information possible.
'Disrespectful' LOL. So next time we want to review a card, to show it the up-most 'respect' we should ensure we ignore any available card which offers better value for money?
What's the alternative, tell consumers that the 6850 and 6870 are the cards to buy, despite there being a better value proposition available? Now THAT would be disrespectful, to the CONSUMERS. I care more about being disrespectful to consumers than to products, and so should you.
No problem here; more info is always welcome. The decision to include was carefully explained, and if anyone was not interested, they could just skip that portion. Since the card was available at a similar price point, and factory warranted, it's inclusion seems like a completely legitimate choice.
Calling it a 465 would have been better, but that's Nvidia's problem, not Anandtech's, and besides, in this context, it's irrelevant.
On a related note, a bit more of the politicking/maneuvering/slippin'n'slidin' would be welcome; it's always entertaining, and Anandtech discusses such judiciously.
For the record the only bias I have for or against either company is I don't like nvidia's proprietary technology that they then pay game developers to use whilst ignoring open source tech that every gamer could make use of. As far as the cards and reviews go I don't care at all. I just want to see the cards thoroughly reviewed and tested. If the 460 super OC would be within the price range of the other cards then add it to the benchmarks for sure. At the end of the day I want to know which card will give me the best bang for my buck. If I was in a position to buy a budget gaming card right now I don't think I could go past a 6850 with some unlocked shaders and free morphological AA. *grin*
I don't have any strong feelings either way, although it may be illuminating to others to know that I skimmed the article and I didn't pick up on the fact that the 460 card was overclocked....so I erroneously concluded that the 460 was equivalent to the 6850, then I headed over to Newegg and saw that the 460 was cheaper than the 6850....
I would prefer to keep overclocked cards out of it unless special note is taken to point out that the pricepoint is the same, that most of the (cards being reviewed, in this case 460) are factory overclocked...or something....just so that I don't run out and think that any old 460 is as fast as the FTW 460.
IMHO the problems are 1. if you can OC 6870 X% and EVGA 460 FTW around X% it would be a decent comparison. but there is no mention of the 6870 OC in the article so please add it. I mean it is stupid to pretend that if the card is factory OC is important. We all know that GPUs aren't clocked according to some magical engineering formula. They are clocked based on how high they can go, but also companies make sure that product fits nice in their lineup and so on... So maybe 6870 is stretched to the max - just like 460 FTW. I don't know. I want to know. :D 2. cherry picking 460s for EVGA FTW means that price of the EVGA FTW will be something_competitive $(good for nV PR), but most of the time you won't be able to buy it.
The following are options that I find acceptable: 1. Write one review article, but put the name of all the new cards, OC'ed, over-volt, etc in the title of article. 2. Write one article about the 6800s without FTW. 3. Write two review articles, FTW first and the 6800s with FTW next.
----- I read the article to know more about these 6800s. Was the article about the 6800s? Yes, but it is also about this new 460 FTW, OC'ed and what not... Wait, isn't this an advertisement? An inline ad, no less! No! This is Anand's objective and balanced review! Oh great! An endorsement from Anand to the 460 OC'ed for the win! It is the editor's choice.. eh, prerogative.
As an enthusiast, I come to the site expecting fair comparisons on all fronts. If you're going to bring in overclocked cards from one camp, bring them in from all camps. If you're going to compare a stock card to an overclocked card for one card, do it for every card.
On another note, I overclock my own cards. Maybe enthusiasts consist of an irrelevant percentage at this point of time, but articles like this will encourage just that. Maybe you don't care anymore -- there are most definitely larger numbers elsewhere.
If you do in fact intend to continue to be meaningful to the enthusiast community, you need to include card overclockability in your reviews. In that case, I wouldn't have any issue with you putting factory OCed items up as comparison against an in-house OCed item. But stock versus overclock? To a standard buyer, I can understand that. But to an enthusiast, that is certainly not a fair fight; we overclock our cards, and the real measure of the merit of one card versus another is not the label on the front. We want to know what the card is truly capable of, not what it is being designated as.
The real question then is, who exactly are you tending your articles to these days?
I'm against factory overclocked cards on this review because is unfair to the just now released 6850 and 6870 cards.
There is nothing wrong about creating another review with the EVGA GTX 460 1GB FTW version x the 6850 and 6870 but it should have been kept it separately from the just now released 6850 and 6870 article.
Anand,
I do not agree with your statement "We were honestly afraid that if we didn't include at least a representative of the factory overclocked GTX 460s that we would get accused of being too favorable to AMD", since when we would think such a thing?
The point is, most users wanted a fair article and for that only reference cards should have been tested.
I can understand that they want to be fair to the underdog here. My impression of the review was that it was favourable to AMD. and that direct competition was totally absent for 6850, but one can be found for 6870 by cherry picking a special edition OC from EVGA.
so bottom-line AMD wins hands-down here, but be on the look-out for some good deals on custom editions of GTX460. It is basically the editor's prerogative, but I think they were too rushed in appearing to be even handed. probably a separate story on OC GTX460s and a link to them in the conclusions page could have been a better option in this case.
How would creating a separate review be ANY different?
The conclusions would be the same, but users would have to trawl through 2 reviews to reach that conclusion.
How is that a benefit? If you split the articles up then you can potentially end up misleading people into thinking that the 6850 and 6870 make sense, when the reality is that the 460 FTW is the better option.
Imagine if you read the review, bought a 6870 and then later found out about the 460 FTW?
I just don't get all these requests for the review to be split up into 2. It's like the combined information gives the users some kind of stack overflow.
There are a number of issues but the telling point is that a company like NVIDIA, who has demonstrated deceptive practices in the past, went out of their way to ask for this card to be included. That should have told you right away that they were expecting it not to be included unless they used some pressure and that should have convinced you it was the wrong thing to do.
The other problem is that this is a zero volume card. It probably doesn't register even close to 1% of 460 sales and is currently not available. It is unreasonable to expect a 26% factory over clock to reach any significant volume so why was this card even released? My guess is a deal between EVGA and NVIDIA for the sole purpose of comparison with AMD's new cards. The card is predictably out of stock and you guys bought in like an old lady at the week old bread bin in the bakery.
It is currently available (and in stock), you don't know what percentage of sales it'll be, and even if it was a small percentage that doesn't change the fact it's better value for money.
If a man told you to breathe, would you stop? No. Because you make your own decisions. So does Anandtech,
You purport to explain why you included the OC 460 by explaining, in the fourth paragraph:
"NVIDIA called asking for us to include overclocked GTX 460s in the 6800 series article. .....(blah blah blah) ........ We gave NVIDIA no impression that we would include the card despite their insistence. The decision to include the EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW was made on our own entirely."
Now, please can you explain how we are supposed to believe this? Honestly, the outcome was EXACTLY what nvidia insisted on!
It really looks like you sold out. The outcome speaks for itself.
I had thought Anandtech was one of the last few impartial reviewer websites. Guess not.
I think most of these comments that are negative arent getting it. They keep saying stuff like, "you shouldve oc the 6870, its not fair, OCs are misleading"
The evga card is factory overclocked, everyone who buys it will get the same results unless they further OC it. If he OC the 6870 to be fair then it would be misleading as there isnt a pre overclocked model out and results vary.
Honestly i think anand, to satisfy these tarts you are gonna have to include a factory OC version when one comes out or put it in a new revenge article or what not. They keep claiming its not fair to the 6870 but i cant really get that at all. Its not a living creature, its not getting screwed. Its about reviewing cards and where they stand against one another. Most of these ppl complaining arent in the market of buying a card and trying to decide where to put their money. They already are one sided.
For the holiday season the 6870 is out at this price range, you also have these other cards to consider at a cost and that perform accordingly. This is why it is good to see where all of them stand when they are all available to buy and we need to consider all of them.
This is what unbiased is about. Its not to be fair to a card or a fandboy. Not to be fair to nvidia or ati. But to be fair to the person who wants to know what they can get with their money and where it performs against other cards being sold. This data doesnt hurt anything, its truth in numbers, anything else would be misleading. You could say nvidia asked us to review the evga card but we didnt cause it isnt fair to AMDs 6870 if the public knew what they could currently get from nvidias lineup for the same money.
To give a new card all its glory then from now on just do the review with only the card being released. they can have their own special day where they arent put up against competing models on the market. Just do a special release article so the card can shine without the real world market influence. It will top the charts every one and it will be so nice to see these cards in all their glory. Ignore what is out there, be fair to the new card, bla bla, what a load. We need to know where these cards land when they come into an already evolving market. This is the market to which is important, competitive cards in the market are what you normally put up against one another. When was we supposed to get articles that just let our new cards shine, its not praise and glory. Throw them in the field and let them all get down and dirty. If its a great card it will shine through the dirt and mud. Put all new cards up against whats in the competing market. Thats where the reality is, thats what we need to know, thats where we need to see them compete.
This evga card wasnt available at the 460 launch. Its new to me and so fair to print it, it was a surprise to see how much this card performs over the stock 460. I couldnt believe how well it does against the 470. Its sooo much a better card then the stock 470. I wouldnt know that if i hadnt seen this. Its useful data. i dont think any less of the 6870, its a nice card that is nearly perfect. who could ask for anything more than this beauty.
This is the current market, a little different then a few months ago but entirely relevant and absolutely the data that we need to see.
Techpowerup took a HD6850 and OC'ed it. Performance goes up ~16% as it turns out... [I can't post a link, please check their ASUS review via google]
So where is your page concerning the OC'ing potential of these new cards? Did you just plain "forget" about that? Or would it've ruined team green's impression?
...you listed the prices of the cards in order to show how they relate to each other. Good. But you didn't list the price for your fabled GTX460 OC. When you drew your "conclusion" that EVGA is much better from a price/performance standpoint you simply rolled with the price for a standard card - just as if they cost the same!
After this fishy thing went down you did not even _try_ to show the overclocking potential of the new Barts GPUs, gladly hammering the final nail into your cred coffin.
BTW, did you arrange that nice box (money-)shot of that EVGA carton + GPU (>> see review page 7) yourselves or did Nvidia supply that as well and gave you orders to use it for free advertisement space? It looks really good - only thing missing is a big flashy price tag and a direct link to an online hardware shop...
You tend to do that on AMD CPU launch articles as well. All of a sudden there is a full page dedicated to Intel's latest and greatest - which always makes me rub my eyes and quick-tap the backwards button in my browser just to check I'm still in the right review...
'At $260 the GTX 470 is several percent faster than the 6870, and at only $20 more NVIDIA has done a good job pricing the card. If performance is your sole concern, than the GTX 470 is hard to beat at those prices'
A major part of any review is to compare whatever is being reviewed to competing products. Any review that does not do that is a pretty piss poor review and worthless to me.
Not to have included the evga oc card would have distorted the picture of the current market. It is a retail product from a reputable vendor with full warranty, so there is absolutely no reason not to include it in any comparison.
I look to reviews to see what the PRICE vs PERFORMANCE ratios are and if competing retail warranted products aren't going to be included because the have OC or Super Overclock or AMP! or ACDCMAXIMUMOVERDRIVE in the name or whatever, well that will just mean I'll have much less information to base any purchasing decisions on and Anandtech will be doing me a dis-service.
Would you be arguing about a car review that compares an LS model Echo from Toyota to an LX model Civic from Honda maker even though they cost roughly the same and are the same class of vehicle because one is an LS and the other is an LX and only LS models should be compared? Thought not.
In other words - if a company ships a board, with overclocked features, and gives full warranty, I consider it as if the original chip maker issued a new reference board, gave it a new name and just bumped up the frequency/speed. It has been done before by the chip makers.
The EVGA board could have been labeled a 465 by Nvidia for that matter with good performance/price and mediocre performance/watt. In other words it could have been branded a whole new chip, and no matter how you look at it it is very relevant to the 68xx article. Give these kind of boards as much attention as you give any other board.
As a review site the main way to look at it, as far as I see it, is like this: As consumers most readers consider these boards in terms of performance and price, like any other board, so theory lovers and brand-fans take a back seat, even though they can make their voices sound loud.
It's that you didn't bother to pick a more available Factory OC'd 460, nor did you bench with any OC'd AMD / ATI cards. This is simply unfair. We have no idea from reading your article how aggressively the AMD cores are clocked. Most of us reading this site know how chips are fabbed to one extent or another, understand speed binning, etc. We get that nVidia's factory stock speeds on the 460 die are far to conservative vs average yields, and this is giving us chips that can go like stink over spec. Great! But the disservice, is that we don't know where a Barts core is sitting on stock click vs potential clock. Nothing, no Info. You didn't even try.
Do you think it would have made a fundamental difference to a lot of the readers out there if Barts in either incantation also OC'd like a champ? Even this early in? Or if it simply could not, and that even the 6850 part was very close to max clocks of the samples you have...
Bottom line, you're outing and reviewing a new piece of silicon flesh for your readers. That is / those are the sample(s) that SHOULD HAVE BEEN OC'd in it's launch review... regardless if you drop OC'd competitors in or not.
This site used to be trustworthy. Out of bias. But there is NO excuse to use overclocked nvidia cards to compare AMDs new reference cards. Fight should always go reference vs. reference. No exceptions. If you start doing exceptions for nvidia, then you'd better do them for AMD as well. I'm expecting overclocked Cayman (HD6970) to be included when GTX580 will be reviewed.
And am I to infer from your comment that you're assuming it wont be included?
Bit illogical to get annoyed about something which hasn't happened yet, don't you think?
'Fight' NEVER has to go reference vs reference. The 'Fight' (competition) is between any available cards which you can purchase today. Nothing more, nothing less.
I would not mind including it, _if_ the card and it‘s stats would have been told in HUGE, bold and clear wording. Of course, you would at all times refer to both 460 cards, _which ist not the case_. In the StarCraft 2 sheets for example, the overclocked card is completely missing. As the EVGA card was the only 460 card in the top-of-the-page graphs on every earlier page, one might not notice and think about the ultimate power of ATIs cards in StarCraft 2, as it even outclass the highly overclocked card. Which is not true – at least not by that particular margin.
Please stay consistent. If you do not have the time to include the extra OC card everywhere and show the same participating hardware in every single graph, then please do it only on a separate page. Yes, I think it is good to know about it. Yes, I would like to see it. No, I don’t want it to mix up and no, I don’t want 200 cards in a single graph. And no, I don’t want it to have the same graph color as the stock cards. These overclocked cards are something special – you even told that, so handle it like it is.
You managed to tell us about the bad overclocking experience you got with these new AMD cards. Why not include a second page with how good the nvidia card clocks and a third page that factory OCed cards might even change the whole picture (at least a bit).
After all the 460 stock has no chance against a 6850 in most typical gaming situations. If you agree with this statement, reading your analysis I believe you do, then please make it clear, show it in the graphs. Now you have a 160Euro 460 GTX that beats the 150Euro 6850 everywhere in your graphs, which is not correct. You might overclock it better and you might buy a highly overclocked card from scratch, but it comes with quiete a premium and might not even be what most users want. Reading you final analysis is not fitting the graphs anymore, and this is disturbing.
If you think that the 460 GTX is not as bad as the graphs show, tell the people what you think about it. Tell them about better OC, better drivers, better filtering and a 3D option or whatever you think is better, whatever your experience is. I would not care and buy AMD non the less, but some might do. Just don't mix it the way you did it. I strongly believe that the subjective opinion of an editor is of value. Some bashed you for your iPhone review, but I highly appreciated it. The review was a bit biased, because you just liked the design, the phone, the style and you told it. I don't own one, but hell - of course I know what you meant. If you have the feeling that the highly OCed nvidia cards are a good alternative, tell us. Just stay consistent and don't mix it.
In this review was much more information about the card, the chip and the why and all about as anywhere else. As always, you did a damn good job. I like most reviews here, and I like including the EVGA card - but please do it only on a separate page. Else you would force me to stop reading when the benchmarks start...
It was a good review, and I found it very useful in my pursuit to find a new graphics card. The OC'd 460's are now on my radar.
You can't please everyone. In pleasing those who whine loudest, you may upset an even larger, silent majority. Most people don't take the time to comment when they're happy.
The only thing better would have been to include a more readily available OC'd 460 (800/815MHz). I'm still trying to find numbers on these cards after reading the review here.
It would also be fantastic if the conclusion could include a table of important things, like average fps, price, temperature, noise, and power for a select (say 3-5) group of cards within say $150 of the card being reviewed.
It is always difficult to compare cards with each other, stock - oc prices etc, so many differences that have different influences. not to mention drivers, seetings etc....
I think anandtech always has had a good definition in the past.
Most reviews in the past have shown stock compares, I think it should stay that way and just add this as add-on. All the time you will get people complaining or accusing of misleading info.
My advice would be to add adendum to review afterwards, there are always bunch of cards that are different and there are always many different oc cards, many just by few mhz that have almost no influence and there will be 1000s of people that will never buy an oc'ed card like me, i would rather look at a cooler design then a card that runs few % faster..
additional to first info, the FTW is rather high oc'ed and not so wide available. General asus, msi, gigabyte cards are way less high oc'ed and more a reference to my opinion.
I think one of the problems in using an OC-d card throughout a whole review comes from the fact that there are many times more people who are not "home" in the matter of video cards, their performance etc. And when the smarter-than-average-average-joe goes to look what the 6870 does, he might conclude automatically that all gtx 460-s perform like the evga card.
It is just one card, and the highest clocked card at that.
If you ever want to use a card like that, I suggest putting the card under review in OC-d form into every chart as well, to make it fair.
Also, especially after nvidia "asked" you to include it in the review, you should not have included it. I recommend reading how Toms hardware handled the matter of nvidia pressing them to use the evga card. It's absolute bollocks by nvidia, and yet they are getting away with it most of the time.
Since you feel it is fair to include a factory overclocked NVIDIA card in a review about AMD products, from now on, it should be fair to include factory overclocked AMD Radeon based cards that are reasonably available. How about the Sapphire cards with Vapor-X technology since these are all over and are VERY quiet, compared to the loud XFX cards that are out there? The Radeon 5870 from Sapphire with Vapor-X cooling is clocked to 870MHz rather than the 850 stock, and there are many more cards that are overclocked from various companies.
Now, it would also be good to see reviews of games that NVIDIA does NOT want to see mentioned due to performance if they are popular enough to be known. You can also use games like Dungeons and Dragons Online for benchmarking, which isn't the most popular game out there, but it DOES have a framerate display built in and has the free to play model so costs nothing to check out. The Marketplace in particular can put some stress on a video card at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 with all graphics options set to maximum.
Although I don't like the way you handled this, it's still a bit of a storm in a teacup.
What you should have done was to only include stock clocked cards in the comparison, after all the article is about new GPU:s, reference designs and how they perform against other GPU:s and reference designs.
You still have the chance to write the follow up where you compare how well OC:ed and in other ways tweaked cards from several manufacturers perform against each other.
I would also very much like to read about how nVidia, AMD and others put pressure on you. Those details could reveal a lot of information that matters for me as a consumer.
Why don't you use World of Warcraft as one of the test platforms? It's the most widespread game out there and it has got a frame rate calculator built in. There's a 10-day free trial so everyone can check out the figures without spending any money.
The GTX 460 is a special card because: 1: There is 200MHz headroom for overclock, there are two version already one with 768mb and 192bit memory interface and 1gb with256bit memory interface. 2: The fact that you can buy 200MHz higher clocked GTX 460 at a similar price range warrants inclusion in the review by itself, not to mention that with such headroom for overclock there can almost be a new card called GTX 461 for example, the thing is that if there was such a card it would sell for 250 euros, while the overclocked cards actually sell for 220 euros which is amazing and great for consumers.
Other websites include overcloked cards even without the reference cards all the time and there is no fuss at all, why would this "special" review be different?
I'm not one that shies away from calling favoritism if its really there, but in this case there is absolutely not true and it was a good decision.
Hey Anand and Ryan, we're all looking towards the HD6970 now. EVGA Here's some great tips on how to assassinate that pesky ATI card: EVGA Compare it to an overclocked GTX 480 from EVGA! EVGA Don't forget the liquid nitrogen cooling for the EVGA card. Everybody deserves to know how cool temperature those awesome EVGA cards operate in. And you can overclock that EVGA card even further! EVGA Don't forget the stone giant benchmark, and that brand new HAWK 2 benchmark. EVGA Show everybody how your favourite EVGA brand owns anything ATI can create. ATI happens to be ahead for once? HOW DARE THEY! Let's show them the mighty and AWESOME power of EVGA FOR THE WIN! EVGA Did I forget to mention EVGA? EVGA
My thinking is that to maintain a static baseline for comparison only officially specced models should be compared. If Nvidia doesn't think enough of their chip to officially spec it , assign it a model number, and market it under that model then it is unfair and misleading to compare it to other official factory specced models. For Nvidia to make the request is disingenuous at the least and for you to do it was a mistake. There is no place for an overclocked card in the context of an unbiased and fair review even with disclaimers. Any review of off spec overclocked and unofficial model cards should be restricted to only those types of cards for the sake of a fair comparison. While I do understand the reasoning behind the decision to include the card in the review I think it was an error to do so.
It's not misleading to compare one product with another product, at all.
Whether they are factory overclocked or not is irrelevant, how they perform is how they perform, and what they cost is what they cost.
The 6850 and 6870 do not have factory overclocked cards yet, they are behind, they are late, and as a result there is not one available to compare. Therefore, the 460 FTW is the best proposition now. It would be 'misleading' to ignore a better card just because a competitor hasn't managed to get a corresponding card out yet.
since 6800 card just launched, and there will be more oced 6800 card coming up later. i suggest you can gather those card and make a comparison later, to close this gap up. anyway, it is another great review and i've read all the pages. it is lucky (or you have already knew this would happened) that you only add one OCed card into the mix.
I really can't believe people are in such an uproar. Nvidia asked for the evga card to be included because its such a significantly high factory overclock that such a card is truly in a different class.
The only thing I didn't like is that Anandtech didn't make enough of a point that most gtx 460s aren't overclocked to that level.
All the people complaining about some need to oc the 6000 series cards are wrong. There is no need because the gtx 460 is factory overclocked (and again is in a class of its own). Its not like anandtech won't eventually do a roundup of factory overclocked 6000 series cards right?
What is the basic question this review is supposed to answer? How can the consumer best spend his 180-220 dollars? It answers that question very very well imo.
Precisely.....And why would AT all of sudden choose to present a review that features heavily OC' cards? It makes no sense in context of past reviews. If they want to use "it's in the best interest of reader" line, then they'd better do it in every review. I don't recall seeing Toxic 5850' in the 470 or 480 review.
I think that my displeasure with the review is that in the main test (at max resolution) there was no mention at all of the standard GTX460. In my mind that is misrepresentation of the facts. There should have been included the standard card from the 460 lineup.
I have both ATI and Nvidia cards and feel that both have their merits. But the test is misleading to readers, as it doesnt show the card that should be the main competition for the 6870. It does show it in the jumbled mess of all the cards but the user is left digging for it. I dislike the fact that Nvidia is always attempting to strongarm everyone into doing things the way they want them.
I understand that as a review site you have to do what you have to do. I also appreciate that you have made such a truthful statement, to the fact that Nvidia did try to sway your comparison. I also commend that there were statements made as to the validity of the review sample being one that may well not be able to be produced in large quantities.
I think you shot yourself in the foot the way you brought it up in the review. It was setting you up for scandalous accusation and sadly your whole intentions was to be upfront and honest. Notice ho many ppl here post saying stuff like," we need to know all the dirt on these companies". Its a shame but it appears these peeps are all about some drama.
So instead of the way you brought it up in the article you shouldve just said it as you felt it and left out on the stuff that the fanboyz focused on. Something to the effect, The 6870/6850 is out and this is a round up of the cards in the market today that IN DIRECT COMPETITION, the 460 ranges largely and you represented the far worse and far best for that card. nvidia dropped its prices and so no the 470 is a contender.
This is the market these cards came to, tis is the market you need to represent in the review. Its not about being fair to the card or amd, its about giving the viewers a true picture of where it stands in the market and whats available and how they perform. All this talk about not OCing the 6800s or having an OC card to be fair to AMD is retarded. When they are on the market then they are relevant. We need to be fair to what the market has to offer, not amd or nvidia.
I strongly believe you did what you had to do and it was the right thing! Nvidia released the GTX 460 at such a low default clock to drum up the enthusiast's dollars bragging about how great it is at overclocking and to not cannibalize their more expensive cards. AMD clocked the 6800 series as high as they could with the quality of TSMC wafers being what they are and the power envelope they considered optimal. Speaking of how many factory overclocked cards there are on the market, they are all different speeds!! How can you review factory overclocks unless they are uniformly the same for consistency? My Palit GTX 460 comes clocked at 800 MHz which is considerably higher than 675 MHz.
I've been using Nvidia cards since Riva 128 and want to love the company for changing the world for the better but anymore they just piss me off and I can't help but root for AMD. On a personal note, I'd like you to include crossfired HD 5770's in future reviews because of the great value of these cards. I have one in my game box and may just buy another as a potential upgrade path when prices come down some as an alternative to getting a 6800 series card. Thanks!
I think that your decision to include Nvidia factory overclocked card was right, but I also think you should have overclocked its rival the 6870 just to see how well it fares against the overclocked evga! As a 17" monitor user I don't overclock my video cards as Im getting enough fps, but I have friends which have larger monitors and overclock their video hardware everytime they are going to play something in order to get better fps. So including a barts pro/xt oc results isnt a bad idea at all. All in all when bring an overclocked card in a review I think you should bring the equivalent card from the competition. Thats my advice as a reader to you. I hope you continue writing such a great reviews!
Anandtech articles are the only ones I read where I do not have to take with a grain of salt. including an overclocked card has no big impact on my reading a review or not. I look at both this website's articles and the forums to make my own judgments. I see your site as a great tool in the ever growing world of technology. Please keep up the good work.
one could argue that its factory OC'd at reference - AMD just isn't advertising the fact. Both it and the FTW can't be pushed very much farther than what they are out of the factory.
If you guys are truly unbiased, and have the best interest of the reader in mind, I expect to see factory OC'd models (for both Nvidia/AMD) presented in every review hence forth. No exceptions. Shouldn't be hard, right?
I was initially upset at the inclusion of the factory oc'd card, but as usual you guys have excellent communication with your readers. In most cases I would not recommend using a factory oc'd card from any company, but I don't question your integrity in doing so.
Stop using any overclocked products unless that is the focus of the article.
That includes overclocked CPUs. It doesn't matter if most enthusiasts overclock, it still skews the comparison. Overclocked CPUs allow graphics cards and other components to stretch their legs more than may be possible for the average user.
Using overclocked products is like testing car parts on heavily modified engines. If I wanted to purchase a set of headers for my corvette, I might read Popular Hot Rodding or any of the LS1 mags. If one of the mags reviewed 10 sets of headers on an engine with 10 lbs of boost being pushed into it then said "OH WELL BUY HEADER A YOU CAN EXPECT 70 HP" - I would immediately throw that review out.
I had no problem with the inclusion. I wouldn't have expected you to OC either 68xx's because the comparison is to a factory OCed card, manual OCs are always YMMV whereas with the EVGA GTX all purchasers would be receiving the same card.
I do think when including an OCed card it needs to be extremely clear within the article what the rational was and what the pros and cons of such cards are. I felt like you did this appropriately, as always. The numerous caveats and explanations were sufficient.
That being said, I think you could have taken it one step further and each mentioning of the "EVGA GTX 460" within the article could have said "EVGA GTX 460 (OC)" so as to not forget that point, and so it would be obvious for readers who page flip/skip.
Your articles have a strong history of looking out for the consumer, and of being open and honest with every detail. Mistakes are quickly owned up to and explained; and readers' opinions and feedback are closely considered - almost to a fault. Because of this I continue to look forward to your articles, even if I don't always agree with an approach or conclusion, I appreciate the transparency (and of course the in depth analysis).
I understand that reviewers do depend on getting the review subject / juicy details in time from nVidia and the likes, but this whole story makes me think that I cannot trust any review out there. :(
Like it or not, the card exists widely in the market and is in the same price range so it is a fair comparison, because you didn't have to go out of your way overclocking it in a way that wouldn't be guaranteed, because as we know when o/cing at home "your mileage may vary".
In any case after the price drops of that very same day, the 460 1GB "vanilla" actually got down to the price of most 6850's and in some cases even under, making that another fair fight.
Actually no these are not as wideley availale from a compatition standpoint, making its inclusion intresting, but ultimately useless since there are two major issues.
first the FTW card represents the cream of the crop for overclocking, since a scan of newegg shows it as the ONLY card at that speed.
Second is the rational of using overclocked cards based on there availablity is only valid in my eyes when using the average overclock of all manufactuers for comparison.
Seeing as this is the only card ive seen at this speed with this chip, and the supply of these chips are probably sevearly limited there is no way of telling if this card will even have the parts to be here this week... or next.
I personaly read reviews, and buy the product a month later when i get the cash. I have baught OC cards but in all do fairness if Anand wants to do this again the next Nvidia option should be shot against a saphire toxic edition card, since its availability is near garanteed for every major ATi releas.
"Like it or not, the card exists widely in the market and is in the same price range so it is a fair comparison, because you didn't have to go out of your way overclocking it in a way that wouldn't be guaranteed, because as we know when o/cing at home "your mileage may vary"."
Except it doesn't exist widely in the market. It's a special edition that was released a few weeks ago. Only a handful were produced, and the best of those handful were sent to review sites. The FTW edition has already all but disappeared, and if you were to have purchased one yourself, it would more likely than not use more power and run at higher temps than this "golden sample" that arrived on Anandtech's doorstep.
It hasn't disappeared, it is available, there weren't only a handful produced.
Please get your facts right, instead of clinging to some desperate conspiracy theory.
And even if it did go out of stock and wasn't available, so what? Do you think you'll be able to figure out that you can't buy it if you realise it isn't available, and therefore look for alternatives?
I fail to see a reason why AT should not include a factory OC card in the comparison: if a product is on the market, then this product is a fair fight for marketing comparison and buying decisions.
HardOCP used the very same EVGA OC card, reached a different conclusion and NOBODY ever questioned Kyle's decision to included the OC 460 on the review.
so the problem is not that AT used an OC card for value comparison, since [H] did the same without any complains, the problem was that the 460 OC showed more value in AT tests than ond [H]...sp the crime in not use an OC card, but to conlcude that in given games and setups, this OC may offer a better value than the fanboy card.
It sadly reminds me of the troll on TH that spamms the forums claim thta the hexacore Thubans are greta gaming processors, and implies that the "only" site that has bad gaming results with Thubans is AT. That would be actually possible, were it not for the OCing Thubans article on AT, still the best search result on the subject...
AT has gained the trust of readers by YEARS of hard work and compreensive understanding of the market forces and users needs.
It was AT reviews that killed Jmicron SSDs, and that forced Indilix to offer a good SSD controller. it was AT that denounced the firmware "scam" on initial Sandforce SSDs.
So stop flaming and go buy new VGAs: a 470, a 6850. Or wait for the Geforce 580/ Radeon 69xx. Not everything is red/green flamebait...
"HardOCP used the very same EVGA OC card, reached a different conclusion and NOBODY ever questioned Kyle's decision to included the OC 460 on the review.
so the problem is not that AT used an OC card for value comparison, since [H] did the same without any complains, the problem was that the 460 OC showed more value in AT tests than ond [H]...sp the crime in not use an OC card, but to conlcude that in given games and setups, this OC may offer a better value than the fanboy card."
Wait, what?! I would like a link to that [H] review, please.
"HardOCP used the very same EVGA OC card, reached a different conclusion and NOBODY ever questioned Kyle's decision to included the OC 460 on the review."
This is a lie. HardOCP used a reference 460 as stated on page 2 of the article.
The EVGA GTX 460 FTW is CLEARLY a cherry picked card, not only does it run at 850/1700MHz, but it does it at 0.975V!!!
That is not the normal voltage for EVGA GTX 460 FTW cards!!!
My estimate is that around 20% of the GTX 460 1GB can run at 850MHz/1700MHz, but the percentage of cards that can do it at 0,975V is less than 1%, and I simply cannot figure why you would include a card that represent less than 1% of the GTX 460 being sold in a launch article.
Most of the EVGA GTX 460 FTW uses more than 1.0V, e.g. 1.050V, and will therefore use significantly more power, which results in higher temperatures and more noise. These very high OC like this one are often not 100% stable when used in SLI, as the second card has to endure a higher temperature, although this cherry picked one will probably work fine.
EVGA are not sold in every country, and as there no alternative for a 850/1700MHz card.
Note that this is coming from a big Nvidia fan, that have been running GTX 280 in SLI since mid 2008.
I am still looking forward to reading the review of the Radeon 6950 and 6970 here, but please do not repeat this.
350+ messages, how many "payrolled" posters from each side?!? Viral marketing in all its glory.... EVGA FTW OC card should not have been included by this site standards and by any legit apples to apples comparison article methodology. The only loser, the reader, who can not establish a real base of price/performace comparison. A future round up could have included all OCed options whether in limited or high availiability.
PS Nvidia your tactics are bordering REAL annoyance, compete with PRODUCTS not with SPIN... Money could be much better spent in enginneeing and R&D than this kind of lowly strong arming reviewer tactics and comment section SPAMING....
Count me as another that doens't mind the eVga OC card being included. I believe you put enough disclaimers in the article. Though the comments regarding the card being nVidia's cherry picked OC card does raise an interesting point that perhaps that additional disclaimer should have been added to the article.
I didn't have a problem with the addition of a single OC card. In previous reviews, you have reset OC products down to factory default for a more proper comparison of products.
Typical GF460-1GB are $200 and the slower 768 are $160. With the faster 6850 costing less than the GF460, OC the 460 to $240 doesn't make much sense.
Okay... lets OC the 6870 and compare it to the 460-OC... I think we'll know who'll win that race.
Anand and Ryan -- The review was fine. Price, performance and availability are relevant. Vendor, model number, and clock speed are irrelevant. (Although you make a good case for why model names/numbers matter for mainstream consumer products, that's not a primary criteria IMHO.)
The only significant point of debate seems to be: Is the EVGA FTW relevant to this review? By all objective criteria, yes. By other criteria, maybe not. You included sufficient and clearly-stated caveats and concerns as to those other criteria. Nothing to find fault with there.
Would reviewing it in a different article or a "mini-article" be better? Doubtful. The questions would be the same: What is its price/performance? Is it an option I should consider (and why or why not)? Those questions can only be answered relative to other products, which is exactly what you did. Nothing to find fault with there.
You answered those questions, voiced your concerns, and did so in a clear, thoughtful, and forthright manner. Good work by any measure, and very much appreciated.
Personally I don't want to know about the standard political volleyball games from these so called companies in every review. I get enough BS and politics at work. I come here to read primarily about the in and outs of the products that I intend to buy. Anandtech has always done a great job and churns out reviews three steps above their competitors. If Anandtech determines that something is out of character or breaks the mold I believe they have and will continue to keep us informed as needed. I suspect that the staff here at Anandtech are deeply in touch with the tech community and I am confident they will make the right call 90% of the time. I am not willing to criticize them for the remaining 10% because there will always be something that can be improved upon. The one thing I see missing all too frequently from all review sites is older video cards equally and fairly included in the latest video card reviews. I would like to see at least three full generations of cards in every video card review. I would guess that is a bone of contention for AMD and nVidia with every new generation. They probably want to minimize the the generational comparisons especially when comparing DX9, DX10 and DX11 parts. As well I am sure Anandtech has to get the review done in a timely manner with limited resources. Considering the information provided by Anandtech based on their experience, expertise and diligence I am very satisfied with the review and have no real bone of contention.
I would recommend that AT perform a test to overclock the Radeon 6800 series from AMD and also, for EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW from NVIDIA. It's suffice to mention that this simple action which is missing from the "AMD’s Radeon HD 6870 & 6850: Renewing Competition in the Mid-Range Market" review should have been done to avoid unsavory accusations from your readers.
EVGA's GeForce GTX 460 FTW should NOT have been included in the review for one simple reason. It is NOT available everywhere around the world. See Europe. It is available for example in Germany or Holland, but NOT available in Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Croatia, Finland or Serbia, just to name a few. I think your site addresses interested readers all over the world. In all of the above mentioned countries, you can find stock clocked GTX 460 from multiple vendors. Hence, my problem: why was there in your review a overclocked version of a card only available in specific countries?
It's still misleading as heck, since it doesn't represent the majority of overclocked 460.
He chose the maximum overclock to make nvidia look as good as possible. Look at toms Hardware, they took the average overclocked 460 to represent most 460 cards. Notice the difference in intentions.
Just like the gts 450 review, Anand wants Nvidia to look a good as possible, so he avoids factory overclocked ATI card.
QUOTE: Just what are the green fumblers doing this time? Two things: one bad, the other downright deceptive. The bad one is simple, if you don't review Nvidia cards and say that PhysX is the greatest thing since sliced bread and CUDA makes sex better, you aren't doing a good enough job. They will gently nudge you to change your tune, basically praise PhysX and CUDA until you wear the letters off your keyboard. ... And if you didn't drool over PhysX and CUDA enough, you are cut out. This is exactly what Apple does to keep the press in line, but Apple has something Nvidia doesn't: competence.... END OF QUOTE
PS Now I also see why Jopple's products are missing on some comparison photos, that would show them in an unfavorable light. It's very sad. :(
Once you include an overclocked card from Nvidia in the main performance graphs, it is unethical not to include an overclocked card from AMD, and ASUS had one available at 915/1050 for MSRP, $240: http://usa.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=HtuZg3hlM5iz... Either include both, or include neither.
Further, you dedicate an entire page to the overclocked Nvidia card without directly mentioning the price, other than that it competes with the 6870.
With these facts in mind, it is hard to argue at least the appearance of anandtech losing some objectivity.
Look at the gts 450 review. The Calibre X450G is also "barely overclocked at all". Core clock only +8.6%. But apparently Anand allows it, because he loves nvidia so much.
I think everything about the issue has been said already, so we can sum up:
1. Nvidia pressured AT into including the EVGA card
2. The EVGA card is a cherry picked card which is widely available
3. The specifications of the EVGA card were not included in the review (unbelievable!)
4. Some graphs didn't even include the stock GTX 460 but just the EVGA card
5. No overclocked card from AMD were used in the review and no attempts were made to overclock the reference cards
Anandtech has been my primary source for information on new products for years and I will still visit the site because I can feel the passion about technology and the articles are very interesting. However, I feel that the site is biased towards NVidia because AMD generally gets less praise and more criticism compared to other sites. The review also seems rushed and the title is very unenthusiastic ("renewing competition in the midrange market") even though AMD has in fact regained the pole position in the midrange market...so yes I'm disappointed as well.
eh what? (quote) "2. The EVGA card is a cherry picked card which is widely available"
Wrong. The EVGA card is a cherry picked card which is NOT widely available. The EVGA card is in short, or non-existant supply at major retailers. In some countries, it is not available at all. Fixed.
I'd also like to add point 6:
6. Despite their claims to the contrary, the evidence points to AT having sold out to Nvidia's demands.
Only Newegg has the FTW edition in stock and they only have 27 left. If you try adding 99 to your cart, you will see the quantity on hand. Go see for yourself. This was a total PR stunt that everyone knew about before the reviews even came out, and which Anand could easily have checked out before publishing. I'm not believing the excuses.
A PR stunt which allows people to buy a card for better value for money.
Damn, Satan's minions at work again.
If the card becomes unavailable, I think people will be able to work out that it isn't an option anymore, and will end up going with the not-quite-as-good 6870.
Not quite as good unless you consider, the significantly lower power consumption, the better performance at 2560x1600 and of course the fact that it is not a marketing "ghost". Oh, and an honorary mention of all the HTPC features, none of which Nvidia has. Yea, clearly it isn't as good. Please tick highlight the correct answer:
Who is paying you? A. Anand B. Nvidia C. EVGA D All of the above.
I don’t mind you using overclocked cards. As you stated it is an option for my dollar, so why not? I also like how you warned everyone that his is overclocked; that part should stay as well.
Maybe overclocked cards, in the benchmarks, need to have a different color font; to identify it is not "quite normal". That way when glancing at the results a few extra neurons will fire off to tell you to really think about those bars on the screen.
I believe that this site is for people that actually read the article, and evaluate the results. And I also believe Anandtech has done a good job of remaining impartial over the years. Politics in any industry is brutal, and you guys to exceptionally well at mitigating it.
Keep up the good work, keep pushing back, keep thinking hard on how you review.
See the title?That's how I feel. I'm not going to read the 341 comments above me for fear of any trolls I might come across this Monday morning when I'm already at work. What I will say here is that I trust Anandtech more than any other site to gave me an in depth view of the facts (and the surrounding landscape) on EVERY article. If they were to fall from that standard, I'd be the first person up in arms. I respect the fact that others will have their opinion and I'm glad because what would life be without the checks and balances that come with differing views. But with regards to this issue, I'm glad Anandtech included the EVGA card. By doing so, it gives readers a more informed view of their available options. Now I think I'll resume trying to decide if I am going to expense myself building an HTPC specifically to run Boxee/Hulu Desktop/ XBMC /Netflix/Crunchyroll etc or wait for Anandtech to get the Boxee Box in for review and tell me if the latter is the better option.
Honestly, I think it comes down to people not understanding what they want. They wanted to see ATI/AMD's new cards be much better. Yes, NVidia is just prolonging the Fermi series of cards longer by doing the factory overclock, but so what? It's their business, they can do what they want.
Having a clear idea of how the cards perform will give any reader here a good idea of what to purchase. Whenever my friends ask me for advice, I check here first. Recently I had a friend ask me about buying a new video card, and steered him to the Radeon HD5850, simply because it was in his price range, and it's a good card for the money. He's been happy with it for the past 2 months now. And guess where I got the information to do that? Right here. I'd rather have a good, clear view of the 'playing field', than have a distorted reality where 1 manufacturer/vendor gets more play time.
or at least that was the case when I bought my 460 (the only cheaper card was stock speed but sold out).
I ended up with the 2GB Palit which has a mild factory overclock. I don't expect to see my card in charts, but I would say there is a case for having three 460 1MB cards: stock, mild and high overclock. That is simply the state of the market.
BTW, the choice of 2GB of video memory was partly down to benchmarks I had seen for 1GB vs 2GB ATI cards where although the average frame rate was identical the minimum frame rate was in some games much higher and that seemed worth a few Euros. Would be nice to see if that is really the case with the 460 though.
I agree with Chubrock. Somewhere in the intro for the article state "We received a request from NVidia/ATI to include their new GTX9999HD card and we told them yes/no."
I'm a tech-and-spec-junkie; the more cards in the comparo the better IMO. Obviously, NVidia threw this "95% of a GTX470" card in at the last minute to steal ATI's fire. And? So what they conveniently didn't say anything to world prior to ATs test? Sneaky? Sure. But that's life in the big city.
It's up to the reader to realize "Ah, the yellow line is this here overclocked 460 and not the stock 460." This is a techie-site; most of the readership is "in the know" and will look for these things. Bring on all the cards!
Even after reading all the comments on the other article, I fail to see what the big deal is.
Readers like to point out that it is unfair to compare a stock card to a card that has been factory oc'ed. But how? When I go to buy a graphics card, I shop against my budget. Not whether a card has been factory oc'ed or not. I shop for best bang for buck.
So I understand that to provide a complete picture of the market, Anandtech chose to include a card that is available on the market today. And will probably be pushed heavily from Nvidia to compete with the 6x00 series. So I fail to see what the issue is.
PS: Been a reader long enough to have been through 3 site redesigns (IIRC). Still remember reading Geforce 2 MX reviews on Anandtech! Keep up the good work. You guys have never let me down.
And on top of that, you post an apologetic letter and ask for feedback? Seriously? This letter looks more like an attempt at letting people blow some steam off and save some face. I bet nobody even reads the comments.
Let's analyse how retarded the 6800 series review was:
-No mention of new features. They have added a lot for HTPC users. Perhaps the green team asked you not to talk about it much? -No overclocking of the cards? Seriously? You call yourself an enthusiast? -The EVGA card is clearly a ghost. Most retailers and e-tailers in my area have no stock of it at all and the few that list it, have not ETA. It's not like you didn't know that this would be the case after so many years in the business. It is always the same scenario with every extremely overclocked card. My area you ask? Central London... -You did not include all the cards in every graph. -You conclude that the overclocked EVGA is the more powerful card but looking at your graphs it looks pretty damn equal. Or did you miss the first parts of your own benchmarks where the 6870 is on top? At 2560x1600 AMD only loses in 4 of the benches, yet you proceed to conclude that Nvidia is better. Furthermore, despite the lead at the higher resolution, it seems AMD does not to do so well at 1920x1200, yet there is no discussion of this irregularity anywhere. We just keep it hush-hush and declare Nvidia the winner based on the lower resolution. I have seen you do this before. I believe it was an SSD article where you announced the slower drive as the winner in the conclusion. I was going back and forth in the graphs for hours, questioning my own sanity.
Lately you are blatantly favouring a few brands and the whole site has taken a turn from scientific analysis to blogging mind-dumps. And can you please cut it out with the Apple preaching? Yeah, we get it, you like Apple but do you have to stick company slogans in every chance you get? Want an example? Check your own 3TB disk review. Yeah, you tried it in a Mac and you could have said that it worked. Did you have to say, "It just works"? As for the iPhone reviews, what can I say? You admitted you stayed outside a shop for hours to get each one of them. If that is not bias and extreme fanboism, I don't know what is and I don't know on what grounds I should trust your reviews on those phones. You very rarely address flaws on Apple products. I have yet to see you complain about how hot the MBP gets if you try to do any intensive work on it. Mine gets too hot to the touch (mid 2009 model). I have yet to see you complain about the sharp edges where your wrists rest as you type on it. I have marks on my skin as I am typing this, surely I can't be the only person with that problem, unless I am the only human with straight forearms and yours are bend upwards somehow. Anyway, I am getting off topic now but I am just trying to make a point. You are going downhill. You can be sure I will not be visiting for the 6900 series reviews. If things get better I will come back and carry on reading as I have been doing for years.
Good points. And yes, many new features were covered poorly or not at all.
I have been a regular reader of Anantech for more than 10 years. In fact, it's on top of my bookmarks on all of my computers. I have also noticed a steady decline in quality. Sometimes even things bordering bias, but for the most part the site was still on top of its game. This fiasco, however, left such a bad taste in my mouth that I lost much of the high respect I had for Anandtech.
-No mention of new features. They have added a lot for HTPC users. Perhaps the green team asked you not to talk about it much?
There's 4 pages discussing the improvements to the cards. Most people buying this card wont be doing so for an HTPC.
-No overclocking of the cards? Seriously? You call yourself an enthusiast?
I agree they should have overclocked all the cards. But they overclocked none. So whilst incomplete, it's not unfair. (Factory overclock <> Manual overclock). I'm sure they'll come back and try to overclock it
-The EVGA card is clearly a ghost. Most retailers and e-tailers in my area have no stock of it at all and the few that list it, have not ETA. It's not like you didn't know that this would be the case after so many years in the business. It is always the same scenario with every extremely overclocked card. My area you ask? Central London...
Your area is therefore 'UK' then, the 'London' part being irrelevant and just added to try and make it sound worse. And shock horror, second link on google shopping:
-You did not include all the cards in every graph.
I think this was just a genuine mistake.
-You conclude that the overclocked EVGA is the more powerful card but looking at your graphs it looks pretty damn equal. Or did you miss the first parts of your own benchmarks where the 6870 is on top? At 2560x1600 AMD only loses in 4 of the benches, yet you proceed to conclude that Nvidia is better. Furthermore, despite the lead at the higher resolution, it seems AMD does not to do so well at 1920x1200, yet there is no discussion of this irregularity anywhere. We just keep it hush-hush and declare Nvidia the winner based on the lower resolution.'
Yeah, cos pointing out a couple of graphs where the slower card edges it means that it's faster overall? If you're going to claim to have some kind of methodology which proves that they arrived at the wrong conclusion, I'm all ears. Otherwise you're just a crying fan-boy.
'I have seen you do this before. I believe it was an SSD article where you announced the slower drive as the winner in the conclusion. I was going back and forth in the graphs for hours, questioning my own sanity.'
Perhaps it's your inability to interpret graphs which is the issue here.
'As for the iPhone reviews, what can I say? You admitted you stayed outside a shop for hours to get each one of them. If that is not bias and extreme fanboism, I don't know what is and I don't know on what grounds I should trust your reviews on those phones'
Doesn't the fact that he is a fan of the product say a lot about it? All reviews will have their own personal opinions. And just like the customers, those opinions are based on experience with the products. Is it such an indictment that people who use the products like them? Damn companies who make products people like.
'I have yet to see you complain about how hot the MBP gets if you try to do any intensive work on it. Mine gets too hot to the touch (mid 2009 model). I have yet to see you complain about the sharp edges where your wrists rest as you type on it. I have marks on my skin as I am typing this, surely I can't be the only person with that problem, unless I am the only human with straight forearms and yours are bend upwards somehow'
My girlfriend has a MBP and it doesn't get hot at all, ever. In fact, she told me it stays much cooler than any laptop she's had. And what are you on about sharp edges? Maybe some relative out there took a sandblaster to it to try and put you out of your misery?
Such an angry little anti-Apple pro-Nvidia fan boy aren't you, boy. Grow up
Yea, because a games will never use HTPC functionality on his own entertainment PC. Just shove it under the rug there.
Oh yeah? only 10 in stock... just enough to push marketing a bit further huh? you fail.
My inability to interpret graphs eh? Go on, look at the article. The 6870 consistently beats the 460 FTW in all the nigh resolution benchmarks apart from 4. I would say that the 6870 has definitely the better hardware but there seems to be a problem at lower resolutions. Perhaps the driver gets bottlenecked by the CPU. Why else would the 6870 win at 2560X1600 and lost at 1920x1200? Again check the graphs, don't take my word for it.
You girlfriend watches porn and reads emails on her MBP. I need it for some serious work, hence my choice for the Pro model. Go on, try anything intensive on it and tell how huggable it feels after a minute or two. As for the sharp edges (definitely sharper than your brain), your comment is ridiculous and you shall receive no response. Still typing this on MBP and still have marks on my wrists from the edges.
I think you forgot your brain in your mother's vagina. I am anti-Apple, yet use an MBP and i am Pro-Nvidia, yet I am here arguing against them... Way to go chump, entertain us some more, will ya?
My area is Central London and I specified it because, if you learn to read, you will see that I said I looked at retailers as well as e-tailers.
Genuine mistake that some cards are missing from the benchmarks? Really? Let's analyse this a bit:
6850 missing from all but one of the high resolution benchmarks. Isn't this supposed to be a 6800 series review? Seems like priority was given to EVGA. The EVGA FTW is only missing from Starcraft 2 high resolution benchmark and in place we see the 6850. At the bottom of that page we see an apology that not all cards were included. We see no apology in previous pages for omitting the 6850. We only see it when the EVGA is missing.
If they had spent all the time they dedicated to EVGA, on the ATI cards, we would have CF results at higher resolution and we would have some OC results as well. As an additional bonus we may have some seen some HTPC software improvements like in other reviews.
From my point of view your were 100% right by including the overclocked EVGA card in that particular review. It was an exceptional situation, but definitely it shouldn't happen on the regular basis.
I think the the only thing you should care about is equalytty. Meaning by this that if you are going to review an OC NVIDIA CARD put the ATI OVERCLOKED too, its not well competend putting an overclockes card against stock-same range card.
other than that, dont get too hassle about fanboys they are everywhere, note that lots of this coment has some self love for whaever brand they support, I LOVE ANANDTECH BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT THEIR READERS, but dont let that drive you to the wrong side.
I didn't mind the card. You added enough disclaimers to let me know that this was uncommon practice yet gave your reasons as to why you thought it important.
The GTX460 is an overclocking beast and having the stock overclocked card not only allows you to see what performance you can get out of a product you can go purchase right now, but also hopefully attain (if not, then close to) that performance with an OC utility.
Like you said, the more information the better. I agree that standard practice should be as you've been doing... stock cards. But really, the purpose behind that is to review with the cards which will be most common on the market. No one likes a review that after 6 months half of the products are no longer available.
I've a feeling these factory OC cards will be available for a while... it seems like overclocking is a large part of the GTX 460 strategy and it's one of the reasons I chose the card.
Including the card as a reference point was much appreciated. Perhaps in the future do the review with a focus on a stock card and include the OC card as more of peripheral reference point than an actual contender... but either way it works for me provided the heavy disclaimers you provided and as long as this sort of thing doesn't become every-day practice.
I was always very happy with the way things were done around here: only stock cards in product reviews, followed by a round -up of all the overclocked parts a few days later. If we really want to compare individual cards for purchase we always have bench.
I think launch reviews should be more about the companies direction, and most importantly about architecture changes and improvements. Benchmarks are of course important but the launch article is really the only time we get and in depth look at what goes on behind the scenes and under the hood.
I don't think it's a big deal whether or not you include OC'ed cards in thebenchmarks as long as it is consistent, and the don't take up to much of the article its self. I just worry a bit that some of the graph will get a little long and might be hard to read for people viewing the site on a lower resolution display.
As with many others here, I saw absolutely no issue with including the FACTORY-OC'd EVGA card in the article. There are two key things here: One, it was made abundantly clear that this was NOT a reference-clocked board, so, as actually recommended IN THE ARTICLE, I evaluated the EVGA 460FTW performance "with a grain of salt"; and, two, "FACTORY" is a big word in this case. The card in question was not OC'd by AT. It comes this way, from the manufacturer, and is therefore the very definition of STOCK!! In the digital world, STOCK and REFERENCE are not interchangeable terms. I'm quite confident that AT, with or without the feedback, would have been planning a follow up review to include factory and non-factory overclocked variants of these boards.
I don't believe I've ever read any review on AT that was blatantly biased. That's why I come here for hardware info. Accusations that AT is bending or bowing to manufacturer pressure is simply irresponsible. Any manufacturer, doesn't matter what they make, will try to influence the reviews of their products to improve product perception. As a reviewer's reputation and market exposure increase, so too does the pressure from the manufacturers. AT has, in my humble opinion, done an exceptional job resisting that trend, staying neutral and unbiased in an industry inundated by fanboys and stringent brand loyalty. That's not easy to do.
Does the inclusion of a non-reference card in a launch review affect that opinion? Not in the least. I interpret it as a token data point of the new product's performance in relation to other available products. Again, this is a STOCK board that happens to be clocked higher than REFERENCE, and the article makes that very clear. As has been stated here, a graphics card is a graphics card is a graphics card. If they come out of the box that way, they're all apples. Same warranty, same hardware (though cooling solutions commonly differ between them), premium cost added to be taken into the cost/performance consideration...etc etc. There is no possible way that any reviewer can be expected to sample and benchmark every possible configuration for every product launch. Having said that, as only a minor nod to the validity of the argument, it may very well have been a good idea to include a factory-modified variant of competing products as well.
And one final thought, if someone comes to this article and jumps straight to the benchmark graphs, they might leave with a different impression than if they read the text that goes with those pretty pictures. As the old adage goes, you get what you pay for. If you're only willing to pay attention to the pictures, then you are not likely to get the same quality of information that you might get if you invest a little more time to READ the article. In this case, there is not much room for misinterpretation, even in the pictures. The OC'd board is clearly identified by name, even in the graphs, and one need only go shopping for it to find that either it is not in stock (high-demand or low-supply) or is priced at a point appropriate for its performance...or both. Is there any damage done here? Not in this reader's opinion... ;)
Comparing cherry picked overclocked device with next to no availability that on many slides looks pretty much as standard one, is "not a big deal" right.
If you did READ some of the comments, you will see most have said what you did with quite a bit fewer words. Take that as a REFERENCE with unlimited availability.
It is my understanding that this site reviews and compares hardware available on the market. If it is widely available (not a limited time super secret special offer) there is no reason that it should not be included in a product comparison especially amongst directly competing models.
I'm confused by why anyone would be upset by the overclocked 460's inclusion. You're free to ignore it, and Anandtech thoroughly described the situation. In this case I'm sure I would have included it too-it's an actual product out there, and it turns out a very competitive one. It may not be available later, but then we know that. For that matter, not all "official" products are really available in quantity.
I don't see what's wrong with including more data, especially with so much background info also included.
I think its fair if the comparison is based on price points, provided that a 460 FTW is at a comparable price point to the 6800s. In Canada, the 460FTW still costs more than some 6870s. That alone is enough to persuade me to not get one.
People are complaining about comparing an overclocked card versus a stock card. One could argue what if the 6870 was also factory overclocked. Wouldn't you also expect a price premium on those hand picked overclocked 6870s? In the end, a factory overclocked 6870 would probably cost about the same as a 460 FTW is to a vanilla 460. Sure you can go ahead and overclock your 6870 and do a "fair" comparison, but that's not the point is it? The 460 FTW is factory overclocked and the overclock is covered by warranty. You overclocking the 6870 yourself (and perhaps requiring an aftermarket cooler to do it) probably isn't.
According to gpureview.com, the highest overclock possible for a 6870 is below 9% (900->975MHz with voltage tweaks). The same site says that the highest overclock for a 460 is just shy of 37% (675->930MHz also with voltage tweaks).
So you see, having a top OC 460 in a duel with a top OC 6870 might not be a good idea, at least not for those unhappy about the FTW, "follow up" article or not. The 6870 is already clocked very close to it's ceiling, while the 460 is downclocked like crazy to keep it in a certain power envelope. Anyone in the market for an overclocked card is not going to have low power consumption very high on it's feature list (at least I don't). People interested in overclocked (and overclocking) cards only care about performance and price. Temperature and noise can be a problem if you buy your card while being blindfolded and having your face superglued to the floor.
And be sure, almost all 460's overclock like crazy with voltage tweaks, up to 37%, and very well without voltage tweaks, more then 20%. The 6870 don't. Plain and simple.
Anand should add all cards to ALL the test results in their max OC configuration and THEN we'll see some people REALLY cry. If you're going to void the warranty on a 6870 is only fair that you void it for the 460 as well, right?
The fact that the FTW is a ghost card might be true, but then again that means that people trying to buy it and failing will have to choose the second best, that would be an AMD 6870 card, right? I mean the other cards were like a reference 460 and a reference 6870 and a reference 6850 and some other expensive and now irrelevant cards.... and according to most of you the reference 460 is garbage (it's a french word).
I think what the fanbois are upset about is that 6870/6850 are not what they expected them to be and the fact that the 460 is so frickin' versatile and scalable with clockspeeds that it scares them. I mean Fermi was supposed to be such a FAIL... They just feel that the FTW spoiled their party and it's their party and they will cry if they want to...
The FTW is NOT a party crasher folks, it's an EYE OPENER. Wake up. What the FTW can do, ANY 460 can do. It should only matter if Anand would've tried to hide that fact from you. The products are what they are. You start the benchmarking mill and numbers come out. You arrange the numbers in nice graphs. What is left is user choice. And I prefer to be an informed user and not be kept in the dark just because AMD's 2nd DX11 generation cards overclock like crap.
Anyway, from 900MHz to 1000MHz it's still just 11%. And I must be blind, but apart from them mentioning the overclocks, I do not see any OC vs. OC card benchmark results.
So I don't see how "overclocked 6870s won in most benchmarks" since there were no benchmarks results for them.
They did "won" temperature tests by being more then 11 degrees hotter then the 460 FTW was (in idle), it was a "draw" for the load tests.
Also a stock 6870 requires more power then a factory overclocked 460 FTW. Another "win".
Then OCC concluded that the fan noise of the 6870 was a "Cons".
I won't blame you for trying, but let's keep disinformation to a minimum.
What applies? The EVGA FTW is a cherry picked card that runs on lower voltages and higher clocks than other 460s, reference or factory OCd.
Temperatures are irrelevant if they're not >90 C, power consumption is important. Stock 6870 consumes less than EVGA FTW. OCC's power measurements are not usable because they are different from all the other reviews out there, probably because they don't test it during gaming or even Furmark. So we don't have results for 6870 OC'd vs EVGA FTW OC'd, let alone all the others 460s OC'd.
Noise was not measured and even if it was, Radeon refference coolers are not made for most quiet operations. Custom AIB designs take care of that.
Anyway, your comment and my reply were about OC potential and performance, which you obviously got wrong.
Well, while a certain graphic card can only become unstable in temperatures of exceeding 100°C (that's boiling hot) however it's wiser to choose a product which does not surpass the optimum heat as can be experienced in the saunas most often set at 82°C.
The review did an excellent job of providing the consumer a single source for making an informed purchase. I came away knowing where the 6850 and 6870 fit in the market along with learning about a potential interesting factory overclocked competitor.
Factory overclocked products such as the EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW make purchasing the perfect card for your concerns (cost, noise, performance, and power) really difficult without all the information showing up in one source. When a noteworthy product is in the market, please do make us aware and informed.
For those of you demanding apologies from Anandtech, take a deep breath, and find something else to do with your day. It's a video card.
I would like to think that Anandtech readers are smart enough to find out which cards in comparisons are stock vs. O/C speeds, and to understand the price premiums and increased power/temp that comes with them. If a card comes factory overclocked, with warranty, from a reputable vendor, then IMO it is fair game. The only argument I could see against it is that specific cards are not available in certain countries, but Anandtech should not have to limit its reviews to hardware available in every country. The argument that it is a limited quantity card is also bunk. Look on NewEgg and you'll find the majority of 6850 and 6870s are now out of stock. Oh noez, no fair! It's a free market, and as long as nobody is lying or comparing hardware that is not publicly available, let them compete for your dollar/euro/currency of choice. I have alternated between ATI/AMD and nVidia many times, and yes, I did just go from a pair of Radeons to a GTX460 FTW.
I must say that the oc thing is very confusing for many people because many manufacturers strap some oc term to their product to make it more desirable. But you have oc card from 715MHz to 850Mhz or more. So if you say eVGA FTW and I find on the internet another eVGA, the 460 SuperClocked, what should I believe? Oh, this is the magic card. Sadly no, this is a "standard" 763Mhz. Another thing is that although called "factory overclocked" does not make it standard. The clock is the same on all FTW cards but they don't have a standard thermal envelope, so not all FTW cards will have the same thermals. The availability is another problem because while I can find the 6870 listed I cant say the same thing about the eVGA FTW. I live in Romania, but that did not stop AMD making the 6870 available from day one.
So I must say that including an overclocked card and picking the one with the highest clock could be, and in my opinion it is, misleading.
I think it shows you what a top of the line 460 can do. It's an off the shelf part. I think most would rather pick the 6870 anyway and have more room for O/C.
Okay, it's always good to do a self-check when someone suggests favoritism on your part, but it also is good to recognize the truth, and the truth is that many of the complainers are people who don't care to take in the facts about Anandtech or haven't taken the effort to review this site's history before making such claims.
The AMD Radeon fans are mad because their new toys are at the level of the Nvidia card 4th down from the top of the Nvidia line-up.
You were up-front and clear about what you were testing. Nvidia didn't send you some super-secret special 460, you got one from someone else entirely. It's no fault of yours that AMD released a product with a confusing name bound to disappoint all of us looking for something exciting.
In case anyone thinks I'm an Nvidia fanboy, I run a 2 Radeon 5770s in SLI in my primary machine and a GTX 280 in my second rig. My next purchase will depend on which card is better and the money I have in my pocket at the time.
"Nvidia didn't send you some super-secret special 460, you got one from someone else entirely."
Did you even read the review? Nvidia most certainly did send them a "super-secret special 460." Ryan flat out said so on page 7. Seriously, why even comment?
I dont think he did... and i dont think he read the article... or checked his sources. since the 850 is the highest overclocker off the shelf. there are over clocked cards available from amd but for some odd reason there not in the review. imagion that.
But then again if this is fair in the eyes of the people here, then it will only be fair to compare the nvidia cards to the Toxic editions from saphire, and take the saphire as a full market part.
it is after all the exact same argument. If the sight wants to include overclocked cards to compare referance cards they will loose credibility. This is a great example because it clearly showes favoritisim of one vender over the other since the NV card was not representative of the average overclock available out there, but is advertised as such.
another point of conflict is that they did not bother to over clock the cards, even though other sights have ganed as much as a 14% performance boost over stock 6870, which would kill the FTW comparison right of the bat.
In the end Anand can say what it wants but becaus of these errors, and the scewed way it was presented ( we would not be here if it was not) it showes a mark shift in anands policies from a nutral source of news.
In the end they lost alot of integreaty because the comparison did not represent what was easily available, and does not represent what is available on average in the market. making the NV ATI comparison a mute point, that only serves to anger readers and misslead those ignorant to technolagy.
If the card is offered in the retail segment, then it's competition. *I* want to know how what I might buy will perform in my system, given the way I will use it, particularly at a similar price point.
The choice was more than reasonable and Anandtech.com should do it again!
The following is in response to CrankUpThePowerIgor's post, who wondered about SLI performance of the 460, whether it helps minimum frame rates when the RAM is only 1GB...
Yesterday I was talking about Anand's 6870 article with a friend with respect to including the EVGA. My friend has two Palit Sonic Platinum GTX 460 1GB cards SLI which have 800MHz cores - not far off the EVGA. Thus, I went hunting for articles on overclocking the Palit (some cover oc'ing the Platinum, others show SLI results, some show both oc'ing and SLI numbers). I can't include the article URLs because posting here doesn't allow that, but just search the following sites for reviews of the Palit and you'll find them easily enough: techspot, vr-zone, techpowerup, overclockersclub, guru3d, bjorn3d. There are others, but this is plenty to be sure of reliable data.
Most sites managed an oc on the Platinum of around 850 to 860 using MSI Afterburner (a bit lower with RivaTuner), but one reached 890 and another hit 906 using a small voltage increase. It obviously varies, with more to gain if one ups the voltage a tiny bit.
As for the EVGA card, pcper.com has an article showing not only stock numbers but also oc'd aswell.
The point?...
The Palit card is _readily available_ and it's quite a bit cheaper than the EVGA, down to 163 UKP here (11 less than the EVGA). Thus, if you want the performance of a stock EVGA with 850 core, then availability of *a* card that will achieve that performance is NOT an issue. Just get a Palit and oc it with MSI Afterburner; should work fine. This also adds to the strength of the 460 option as a whole since the cost of the Palit is a heck of a lot less than the 6870 (28 less than the cheapest 6870 on the site I examined, and a whopping 41 less than the cheapest 6870 which is actually in stock).
So, for all those moaning, remember that Anand in theory could have also included results for an oc'd EVGA (or other 460 card with a similar default high core), but they didn't. If they had, then never mind the EVGA, the data would have given price/performance results even more favourable to the 460. Surely if Anand was being deliberately biased they would have done this, but no such oc data was included. Ergo, those claiming bias are wrong, period.
Prices at Scan: EVGA = 174 (waiting ETA; I asked - not long), Palit = 163, cheapest 6870 (awaiting ETA) = 191, cheapest available 6870 in stock = 204. Even ignoring the EVGA, the 460 wins IMO, especially the Palit (with or without an extra +50 oc to match the EVGA). Doubly so two 460s SLI.
Hence, the key argument against including the EVGA which people now keep using - that of availability - just doesn't hold up. If Anand was being biased, they could easily have pointed out that the Palit card with a mild oc will perform exactly the same, is easy to obtain and is cheaper than the EVGA (a lot cheaper than a 6870). QED.
Ian.
PS. CrankUpThePowerIgor, I hope the article refs help answer your query - PM me if you'd like the exact URLs.. Looks like it does help indeed for minimums, but as always with this sort of thing, it depends on the game.
Its a mess for the normal consumers. What about just buying a sapphire 6850 and clocking it to 900Mhz, as hardocp reald world test indicates to me, it will be about on par with a 460 1g at 800 Mhz? - its the cheapest solution.
Is that the purpose of a launch article to write oc sapphire all over? Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire
Maybe your research shouldn't be so one sided. If you are going to include manually OC'd cards, you should probably know that 6850 @ 972/1159 is faster than 460 @ 921/1022 (which is higher than all of your mentioned cards). You can check it at overclockersclub. That is a stock clocked 6850. Compare its price to those 460s you mentioned. Somewhat different picture now, ain't it?
Why not just include the factory OCed card and then run the tests again at stock clocks? You can even use the same card.
Knowing about what nvidia/amd/intel/any other company wants you to write about(certain games, tests, view) would be nice to know also. Let us know what they want, you report it, we make our decision to either give them the finger or support them or just take them with a grain of salt.
People get so hung up on "OC". And they wouldn't be complaining if it was instead called a GTX 461. WTF?
As long as the card has reasonable availability to buy, it is absolutely ok to review it and analyze it. It costs x, it performs y, it uses z power. Crybabies have no case, complaining that it's clocked faster than "reference". It's called speed binning; Intel has done it for decades. Again, is the model number so important??
Regarding availability, newegg says "In stock."
The AT review included the important Load Power test, which showed the 460-OC draws 34W more than the 6870. This tells us much of the story beyond price vs performance.
The card dont have reasonable availability. If it had, it would have its own model number. Small raindrops on newegg is just marketing bs. Go read the steam survey numbers for availability of dx11 highend cards.
NV have variability issues, but selling low bin cards with lots of marketing fog from the high bin cards, is bad for the consumers, and bad for pc gaming.
Maybe what you say has merit, but the fact is, the review happened 3 days ago, and right now the cards can still be purchased from newegg and are in stock. What more can you ask for? That sure seems like reasonable availability to me. 3 days and counting.
Putting fx. 100 cards on newegg each day for two weeks, and then 20 every secon day for 1 month, until the next revision is fx. no way near availability in my book.
See my previous post. Availability is a non issue; just get a Palit 800MHz Platinum & oc it withMSI Afterburner, it'll perform the same as the FTW, and cost less. The Palit Platinum is very easy to obtain.
This is the first place i look for a review....and this time, all the article (6850 & 6870) has done is confuse most people. using the GTX460 OC card was a "shoot your self in the foot" move...if ur gonna ruin the review, u could have also used the stock clock GTX460 data in the numbers..even though Nvidia dint want u to mess with the FTW..! anyway apology accepted :)
Secondly, they wanted us to know that the factory-overclocked EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW Edition card comes with an 850 MHz core clock, a 4000 MT/s GDDR5 data rate, and is available for $250 at EVGA.com. Furthermore, they have positioned this specific graphics card as the competitor to the Radeon HD 6870, and requested that we include it in our benchmarks. Now this card is impressive to say the least, and it’s certainly an alternative option for folks considering the Radeon HD 6870. But at the same time, it’s a single overclocked SKU from one vendor. If Nvidia had announced an official, updated product with this ambitious overclock—say, the GeForce GTX 460+—we’d be a little more open to the idea. As it is, we're leaving it out of the majority of benchmarks. A price reduction of the GeForce GTX 470 certainly minimizes the appeal of this product, anyway. If you remain interested in what an overclocked GeForce GTX 460 can do, we include it in the overclocking benchmarks section.
At least kudos to Tom and Anand for telling us that they are under pressure, and how they are under pressure.
This OC bs startet years ago, and have diluted many reviews for cpu/gpu. Lets keep it separate all together for the future. I migh be a hardliner on strict methology, but Toms solution was bad, Anands was a historic failure compared to the integrity and quality this site holds for many articles (especially kudus to Johan its simply an pleassure each time).
Let this be the last time. And let this be the milestone for a new and better real world methology for testing gfx at Anand all together.
Exactly. This is how you do a review. Hard OCP did the same thing. AT, you fail. What other reviews have you caved in on? Are your numbers even legit anymore? I'll be taking all AT "reviews" with a grain of salt from now on.
I think it was a good idea to include the 460 FTW edition. Getting a full grasp on all the offerings available to the consumer is the main reason why I read (and trust) in sites like anandtech. I want to have a unbiased report on the products available and comparable products.
In this case, the inclusion of the 460 FTW edition in the 6800 series review provided me w/ information I would not have considered in my buying choice. However, ultimately for me, the price, power consumption and thermal dissipation for the 460 FTW doesn't impress me. I couldn't have made this comparison if anandtech didn't point this out.
I like to be presented as much pertinent info as possible such that I can make the informed decision.
Thanks anandtech for all these years of unbiased reviews that empower the consumer.
Many of those comments came from long time readers (>10 years myself), not fanboys. I have owned equal number of Nvidia and ATI cards and this post is being written on my HTPC with Nvidia GPU and AMD CPU. My main computer has ATI/Intel combination. But that shouldn't matter anyway. If ones points are valid, it doesn't matter even if he(she) declares himself as a fanboy.
And it is not about how all of this is making the new AMD cards look, it's how it makes Anandtech look. That is my biggest disappointment.
I enjoyed the article for the most part but also thought it was kind of rotten to include a super overclocked card that is only available by one of nVidia's AIB partners and with limited availability in all the comparisons. You've basically set the expectation that you'll always choose the fastest card available by the competition to compare a new product to (and if you don't, you're playing favorites).
So if/when nVidia comes out with a 485 or 490 GTX, your review will need to match it up against something to the likes of XFX's 5970 Black Special Edition.
evga is already providing him money through advertisement. It makes sense that he want to make them look as good as possible by using their absolutely highest clocked card. evga and evga only.
I don't think it's relevant to know what each company try to do to unbalance. The best way to make it fair is not to mention anything. How can you make us sure we know everything each company does? How can we be sure you tell everything and no omissions? So it's better to keep it this way.
OC Cards are fine as long as stock cards are included and they are labeled in the charts as being overclocked limited availability products. If anyone is getting irate over showing what a card can do they are being iddiots. We overclock CPU's to see if a cheaper CPU will get you higher end performance and GPU's are no different. Showing as many possible combinations only helps to inform the reader. There is no PR stunt or cover up here. It's simply more information available to readers. Fanbois get worked up quick don't they.
Great job Anand & team. As an engineer, i would always prefer more data at every opportunity. If it represents the right distribution (ie: sampling) to what is available in the market, why not? People reading your reviews should know better, data doesnt lie.
Sorry to piss off any NVIDIA or ATI FAN BOYS, we can all make mature judgement.
1. They had it on hand. 2. The EVGA has a higher core clock than virtually all others. 3. Benchmarking additional cards takes more time, and there's little value in doing other cards with the same specs (or specs between 675MHz and 850MHz).
The GTS 450 roundup from last month only included ASUS, EVGA, Palit, and Calibre. Why are those the only ones??? They must be giving AT money under the table!
1. Not by pure coincidence. 2. All the more reason why is doesn't represent the vast majority of 460 cards. This is called misleading and deception. 3. All I can say is, The More data, The better.
evga already does give him a lot of money through advertisement. And they're features far more prominently and almost exclusively in the first 460 review. It sure looks greasy to me...
There are some other reviews that included many different clocked GTX460s, and as you'd expect, higher clock speed = more performance. If you know how fast it is at 675mhz and 850mhz then you can pretty much figure out where the performance will be in between that (and other reviews that included many different clocks confirm this).
Rage3d in particular had one clocked at 763mhz (right in between) and it was very competitive (especially since you can find that card for $200 with free shipping on newegg)
Ha-ha if you are an engineer you must qualify as the most stupid engi on this planet. Data doesnt lie. Do you even know the difference between reliability and validity?
I will not anwer to you unless you are an engineer...
But i can give you a hint, its not about the card or distribution, but the methology and context. I have to say most of it is say already on page 3-27 :)
Seriously, the 460 is begging to be overclocked, and for only a couple extra bucks, to have it be on factory warranty is the best of both worlds. Include the card, you would include a motherboard if it was substantially better than the others.
If you had also showed the overclocked performance of the HD6000 series cards then it would have been fine. Its very easy today to overclock your video card, driver software will even automatically overclock it for you. If you had shown how an overclocked HD6870 or HD6850 product compared to an overclocked gtx460 it wouldn't have bothered me. The way you did it seemed designed to mislead people who have less familiarity with overclocking.
These cards are sold and warranted for overclocked speeds though. If Nvidia re-branded the 850mhz as a GTX462 (or whatever) would that really make you feel better?
As for some OCed 6870/6850s, Hardware Canucks did an overclocking study where they also overclocked the 260FTW card further past it's "stock" speed of 850mhz. The results didn't really change much when you compare OCed vs OCed.
1) Thank you for disclosing the fact that Nvidia pushed for a specific card to be used. This is very impressive and honest.
2) I think that there is nothing wrong with including the overclocked card, as long as you make it very clear that this is NOT A TYPICAL OC card, and that this card is more of an exception than the rule (compared to other 460 OC cards).
Also, if you include an OCed card, you should OC the 6870 and include those results as well.
If you do the above, there is no problem whatsoever with including OCed cards, especially since one of the strengths of the 460 is how overclockable it is.
So, overall: you did a very good job, but just didn't go far enough (by not including an overclocked 6870).
I think that the companies should be free to choose any factory OCed model, but only the model. Anand would then buy the specific brand/model card from a store.
At this point the card itself is random, whereas the brand/model can be the "best" factory OC available. This way the "best" OC from one company is compared to the "best" OC from another.
Fair?
So, for example, Nvidia asks Anand to use an EVGA OC card (and then Anand buys it himself from Newegg to guarantee randomness), and ATI asks to use a Sapphire OC card (and Anand also buys it himself).
It's not working. Look at the 450 review. There were no factory overclocked 5770 cards. Look at the 460 review. There were no factory overclocked 5830 cards.
Absolutely NO ATI factory overclocked ATI cards. Because that would be sooo unfair to nvidia and evga.
And we all know how much Anand and Ryan loves nvidia and evga, or at least their money....
I'm glad you included the factory overclocked part. Its exactly as you said its performance gain makes it almost worthy of being branded as its own part (GTX 465?)
I really do not understand the "eyes wide shut" mentality and how people can come to consider these factory overclocked products to be somehow illegitimate. We all want to know which cards are good buys - and that is exactly what the inclusion of these cards in the review aims to tell us. I don't care if the box says "ATI" or "AMD" or "Nvidia" or "factory overclocked". I just want to know the price, the features, and the performance of the products on the shelf.
If the factory pre-overclocked cards are not available in your home market, then the results for a stock card are also included in the benchmarks. More information = everyone wins.
The bottom line is, whether NV released a GTX460 clocked at 850mhz or EVGA did it for me, it is completely irrelevant. The consumer just wants to know if Card A @ $239 is > Card B @ $239. Who cares who set the specs NV or the AIB?
Another chart could then compare the performance of both Card A and Card B fully overclocked in manual mode (i.e. MSI Afterburner). This way, we have information for what performance we can expect "out of the box" and what maximum performance each card offers with overclocking.
It's a shame really that AMD's AIBs are not as aggressive with factory overclocks though.
It's more of a shame that Anandtech has become biased.
There was lots of factory overclocked nvidia cards in the gtx 450 review. But Anand didn't bother to review the competitors factory overclocked cards. Same story for the 460 review. Apparently only nvidia is allowed this privilege.
Well thanks for putting up this blog to address it. I dont understand why you would've done something like that? its rather unprofessional to compare a stock card with a ridiculous 26% overclocked card!! people will think such an overclock is common. its an unfair comparison, you dont compare a souped up car w/ another bonestock car and call the comparison fair. To give an unbiased view on performance you need to stick with stock clocks, and hey if you're overclocking one card then u need to overclock the other one w/ similarly priced cooling (not stock cooling on one and a behemoth aftermarket cooler on the other) and to show overclocking potential based on stock designs. at the end of the day the focus should've been on the 6850 & 6870, not on a 26% overclocked 460 to steal some of AMD's thunder!
I'm just surprised you need people to come out and say this? and btw u can just remove the overclocked 460 from the review to make it more neutral. its not too late to do that.
Your view doesn't make any sense, and this viewpoint is what keeps polluting this 500-comment thread and obstructing common sense. You wouldn't have that viewpoint if they had called it "461" instead of "OC", now, would you. Is the model number so important???
"you dont compare a souped up car w/ another bonestock car and call the comparison fair." Oh really? So you shouldn't compare a base 350Z with the Shelby Edition Mustang? Why the hell not? If I have $30k to blow, don't you think I'd want those compared? But if the model number were different--if the Shelby Edition Mustang was called a base Zebra--then it'd be fine!
Model number is very important, everybody has criticized AMD this round, including Anandtech. Well deserved criticism I might add.
If it was 461 and official from nvidia, it would have been perfectly fine. But it isn't, it's masking as a "460", being a best case top of the creme cherry-pick made to mislead as many as possible into thinking that it represents all 460 samples out there. That's not cool.
Especially not cool when Nvidia are the only ones allowed to have factory overclocked cards. Have you seen the GTS 450 review? No trace of any factory overclocked ATI card at all.
Including the FTW card introduces a dangerous precedent into the review process. What's to stop either AMD or Nvidia now from releasing a limited edition "official" factory-overclocked card a few weeks or days before the competitor launches a new series and request for these cards to be included in the upcoming reviews? It would be hard to refuse their requests unless you want to be accused of bias. And then a few weeks after the review is published, when the supply of cherry-picked cards have run out, the reader is unable to buy the said cards. Yes, this seems like a worst case scenario, but it can happen.
There are virtually no 6870 and 6850 factory OC'd cards to review. For 5870 I see they come as high as 900MHz instead of 850MHz (5.9%). For 5850 I see they come as high as 765MHz instead of 725MHz (5.5%).
Nvidia's cards are sold with significant OC's, with many being 17-26%, so it's more significant to look at.
Significant OC? That never stopped Anand from his bias. Look at the GTS 450 review, the Calibre X450G is only overclocked with 8.6%...
Yet it was allowed in the main reference review of the 450, even with that tiny little difference. Don't even start to pretend you need significant OC to be allowed, you only need to be made by nvidia.
If you're made by nvidia and factory overclocked by their partners, you're allowed to be in Anandtech.
If you're made by ATI, you're not allowed to be in Anantech reviews. Look at the main 450 review, again, no ATI factory overclocked cards.
When testing new cards, I don't find anything valuable in having anything other than references to compare to. Any extra data is simply noise to me and frankly irritates me that it makes the diagrams harder to read as one has to search for the references.
Personally, I thought the inclusion of the overclocked GTX 460 was acceptable given all the caveats and warnings placed throughout the article whenever discussing the results of that card.
In the future, assuming there is availability like in this instance, I would continue to find acceptable the occasional inclusion of an outstanding factory-overclocked card (key words: occasional, and outstanding) in reviews as long as they are accompanied by the same caveats. I prefer, in general, the reviews of stock parts to get an idea of what to buy. But if an overclocked card is something special and not another run-of-the-mill, 5% overclocked card, netting 1fps better times and costing $30 more than a stock card, I wouldn't mind it being added to the review.
Furthermore, I appreciate the separate post to address the issues brought up by this first-time inclusion of an overclocked card.
This isn't the first time it happened. The 450 review had factory overclocked nvidia cards, and only nvidia cards. No ATI cards. The 460 review, only nvidia cards was factory overclocked as well. The 6800 review, only nvidia cards was factory overclocked as well. ...Do you see a pattern here?
"outstanding" Here's the problem, using that super super overclocked version is misleading since it doesn't represent the vast majority of 460 cards. It 1 specific card from 1 specific vendor, no one else has frequencies that high. People who don't know better will be mislead to believe that all 460s perform that much.
Its not like the fact that the EVGA was over clocked was obfuscated in the review. I don't think that most people are surprised that video cards can be overclocked. If the EVGA card was just referenced with a generic moniker, say "1024mb 460", that wouldn't be kosher. People doth protest too much about bias. While I wish they'd tone it down... but if no one was complaining, I'd be concerned.
You want kosher? How about the fact that the 6850 got pushed out of its own review? No 6850 on the graph for Crysis 2560x1600 No 6850 on the graph for BattleForge 2560x1600 No 6850 on the graph for Metro 2033 2560x1600 No 6850 on the graph for Hawx 2560x1600 No 6850 on the graph for Civ5 2560x1600 No 6850 on the graph for Battlefield BC2 2560x1600 No 6850 on the graph for Stalker 2560x1600 No 6850 on the graph for Dirt2 2560x1600 No 6850 on the graph for Mass effect2 2560x1600 No 6850 on the graph for Wolfenstein 2560x1600
In Starcraft 2 2560x1600, we finally see the 6850...
And I actually am a bit worried that no one has mentioned this yet... The 6850 review was hijacked by evga, can you still look at me in honesty and say that Anand isn't biased?
"Do note that due to the amount of time it takes to run this benchmark we had to cut our testing short. We’ll have our full results in Bench next week." as quoted from the "AMD’s Radeon HD 6870 & 6850: Renewing Competition in the Mid-Range Market" review, (see page 10 under STARCRAFT II ).
Therefore, I don't see any kind of deliberate attempt or conspiracy to exclude 6850s "vital statistics" to the masses consumption though it'll be slightly delayed.
Other reviews do show the one resolution where the 6850 has the clear advantage is 2560x1600. However very few people have a monitor that can do that resolution (especially people buying mid-range graphics cards).
It's good for those who want to use Eyefinity, that the 6850 seems to do particularly well at high resolutions.
Hopefully some people actually make it to this comment but it's unlikely after 50+ pages. I do not think including the GTX460 FTW was necessarily a bad move, but I think it does bring to light an issue that has plagued reviews for quite a while now. A reviewer typically receives a card from the manufacturer, and very likely this card has been picked to show the product in the best light. Unfortunately this should be seen as a best case scenario and not the typical product that you or I could purchase.
Now, as long as a product such as the 460 FTW has a set performance level (ie set speed on gpu and ram), you can be sure unless the company pulls a switch-a-roo that the product you/I buy will match strictly in performance.
What I don't like (and why I mentioned this has been going on for years) is the N=1 problem of reviewing these cards. The pressure to get the review of at/near the release date to get page hits makes for a likely inaccurate review of cards from a power/heat/noise standpoint. This is compounded by Nvidia's current policy of having different load voltages for each individual card (at least with ATI/AMD's cards the load voltages are static throughout a particular model at reference clocks). You mentioned in the review that this particular 460 FTW had the lowest load voltage of all tested 460's. This is not unexpected as you would assume NVIDIA wants to give you the best product they have, but this is also likely not the norm. But maybe it is....
So here's my recommendation:
At an initial review of a new product line feel free to give the performance specs at Day 1. Compare it in games, non-game benchmarks, whatever. But I'd ask that variable information such as power draw, temp, and noise level be given a greater than N=1 before putting that number out to the general public. Just like you do multiple runs for the game/non-game benchmarks due to testing variability, it is vital that you have multiple data points for the power draw, temp, and noise. If you have another 460 FTW bought off the street that draws 25-50w more at load, thereby also increasing the noise level, I think your review would have sung a different tune in the conclusions. Or maybe *all* of the FTW's are this good at power/heat/noise level. How you go about getting this additional data is up for debate (and ultimately your decision), but it would make sense not to ask NVIDIA and AMD for 10 of the same cards, as you'll just get 10 best-case examples.
Ideally what you need is a trusted source of a couple cards/people to do a proper sampling. And just like with journalists protect your sources. Neither NVIDIA nor AMD should ever know who these people/suppliers are to avoid conflict of interest issues. A core group of your friends that will purchase cards at release to test and then keep, or even better, use these cards as give-aways to your loyal readers!
Even easier (but more prone to influence from companies) I could see having a close relationship with a large e-tailer such as Newegg/ZZF/Tiger Direct (since they receive a tremendous amount of business from you), shipping you a handful of cards solely for power/heat/noise testing. This would have to be done on the up and up to prevent cherry-picking, but even having 2-3 extra data points from independent sources would bolster your reputation and give a great article on a particular model's variability (ie GTX480 having very large variability between cards or vice-versa).
Anyways, keep up the great work and hopefully you can implement even a small amount of my comment in the future articles!
I specifically came to the AnandTech just today through a reference on a Steam forum that was discussing the 6870 vs. the 470. I specifically registered to reply to this debate as an IMO.
Background: I have built my own gamer but have yet to own a high level AMD. My mobo can handle either as well as overclocking. I have owned several Nvidia's including three 260s and two 295s. One of the 295s is an EVGA. I do not favor one brand/product over another. My Nvidia's are more of a 'recommended at the time' for my particular system/monitor/games than a bias or preference. I would have no problem buying whichever brand best suited my needs. In fact I am leaning toward AMD and my personal preference is to get a card that can be OC'd later if needed.
The Sides: First off, I know there are fans of one company over another. I see it in articles, forums, and by sales people. Since I have a good education that includes statistics, logic and scientific method, I'm not influenced by them and will ignore their opinions if they seem emotionally weighted.
The article: My overall impression of the original article was one of appreciation. The author took time to give meaningful information before, during and after each test and a well balanced summary and conclusion at the end. As a result I will be including this site more in the future for my pre-purchase evaluations.
IMO: I considered the 470's inclusion to be appropriate since it is part of the competition in the market. If this card had been an OC'd AMD competitor, it would have been just as appropriate. I consider any strong reactions against its inclusion to simply be an extension of the fan based fervor of one product over another. Such protests simply don't matter to me. I want to know the options and be able to trust the review.
Isn't it a little odd that the BENCH section shows a picture of EVGA cards for the GPU bench section?
Obviously two video cards fit in that little image... so why not use a Palit or XFX or maybe to keep things unbiased, a reference design nVidia card and a reference design ATI/AMD card ? Oh that's right, nevermind... i get it now.
If it's on the market, with warranty, and the user doesn't have to OC anything themself, its fair game for comparison. It's hard NOT to find an OC version of the 460, with many different OC SKU's. This was a completely valid review, and it was NEVER hidden that the 460 in the review was a reference clocked card. Even at OC speeds, the power consumption is still within the ballpark of the barts' cards, so its a fair comparison.
So what if Nvidia asked to have it put in the review? It's their chip, and their partner is confident enough to back up those speeds with a warranty. By the time the warranty runs out, the card will be obsolete anyways.
Anand, keep up the great work. Your reviews may take a day or two longer, but they are way more informative than other sites. This is a classic case of haters gonna hate. You are absolutely correct in assuming that if you did NOT include the OC card, people would accuse you of ATI favoritism.
The only thing I would say is that if you are going to include OC cards from nVidia, you should probably see how well barts overclocks as well. Now, if the ATI cards are difficult to overclock, well that's a valid point too. It's easy to get OC nvidia cards, or perhaps OC them yourselves, but hard to OC ATI cards. This should be discussed if possible
In the end, reviews are most useful to consumers, the people who actually want to spend their money on a product. They should know what they can buy with their money, including factory OC cards. To reinforce my previous point, they should also know what their cards are capable of with some user modification - even if that involves more risk.
I can agree with you, but Anand clearly doesn't agree with you.
Look at the gtx 460review and the gts 450 review and the hd 6800 review. They have one thing in common, lots of factory overclocked nvidia cards, but NO factory overclocked ATI card.
This isn't fair game, this is heavy bias towards nvidia. Deception.
Personally I like the position expressed here by Anand, if there is a publically available OCed part, then I think including it in a review is fair game. After all, part of the point is to make a purchasing decission, if there is a factory OCed part with full warrentee available then I think it's fair game.
I would've been upset if you included the overclocked card whithout also including a factory clocked model. As it is, I think you made the right call in including both a stock clocked 460 and the (or at least close) fastest available factory overclocked 460, and making it very clear that the overclocked model was overclocked. In doing so you clearly demonstrated the range of performance 460 options currently available.
The only problem is that the 450 review had no factory overclocked 5770 or 5750 cards from ATI. Only factory overclocked gts 450 nvidia cards. That doesn't upset you?
You had the numbers for the stock 460. The OCed 460 was labeled as such on graphs and there was sufficient disclosure about its inclusion. I think anyone who read the entire article and even those that read it in the future will have an accurate picture of the graphics card market right now.
Even if I did think it was misleading, based on the history of the site and just having open articles such as these, I'm inclined to believe that any sort of misleading article coming from AnandTech would be a result of oversight, rather than a result of any bias/greed. My trust with AT remains intact.
This article would have never seen the light of the day if not for the uproar in the HD 6800 review.
Anand got away with his bias in the 460 review 3 months ago. Only factory overclocked nvidia cards, none for ATI.
He continued being biased in the 450 review. Again only factory overclocked nvidia cards, none for ATI. No admission came from him until now. Isn't that rather suspicious?
How many overclocked boards from those manufacturers did he have in his hands that they sent him to test to put in the review? Is he supposed to go out and buy them himself or something?
That's what some reviewers do actually. Anand shouldn't be above that.
The 1st time it happened was the 460 launch. We could forgive that. But he made two articles for the 460, there was no hurry for the 2nd, why didn't the second 460 article contain factory overclocked ATI cards?
Then the 450 launch. He has by now come to accept nvidia's pressure. There was no excuse for him to not call ATI's vendors to have them send some factory overclocked cards. He should have been prepared, this is his new policy after all.
And then this review happen, and he gets busted by too many people and has to confess.
No matter how you look at it, if he was fair, he would have had factory overclocked ATI cards for the 2nd 460 review, and for the 1st 450 review. But he didn't, Anandtech isn't fair towards ATI.
1. Anand, Plz give us a reason why you have not OC'ed the new AMD cards and include the data in the review.. dont say "Time Constraint". After all this im kinda surprised ur still not out with a new OC article for the 6850 & 6870..!
2. How could u even recommend the GTX470 even with the new pricing, we all know its power consumption is way off..i know u stated "if performance is ur only concern" then go for it, but really Anand u'v gotta to be kidding
3. Anand tech is for all kinds of readers, but i believe most people who come here know Overclocking quite well and can do it safely..and if ur talking "money" tell me why i should pay even $10 more for some thing that i can do my self? (Dont say custom cooling and volt mod switch's)
Anand besides awesomely explaining the architecture, its time u overhaul the way u present ur test suite. it doesn't matter if ur one day late with ur review, people are gonna read it..! X-bit labs has one of the best test suite's in my opinion. We all believe ur the tech site for the people, and by the people to a great extent, but plz don't be too diplomatic in ur conclusions. Good luck :)
Any review of a new graphics card should have a comparison to what consumers are currently purchasing. As such I think the inclusion of the GTX460 FTW was not only correct but necessary to provide the reader with a realistic view of the competition at that price price level.
I think most of the complaining about this is happening to mask fanboy disappointment at the new cards not being the fastest at their price range.
There are a lot of non-fanboys upset about this, myself included. I haven't owned an ATI card since the 9700 Pro. ATI fans have nothing to be upset about for this release. The 6850 at $180 beats the stock 460 1GB at $20 more, and will likely be a good OC'er. The 6870 at stock beats the GTX 460 more often than not, even OC'ed to 850Mhz.
Today, it would be a tossup for me as to which card to purchase. If I only cared about performance at the sub $200 price range, I'd go with the 6850, and OC it. In the end, I'd probably go with the MSI model 460. It's under $200 shipped, and comes with a nice custom cooler, and it offers PhysX. Both companies have compelling products.
But the issue here is having standards for testing, and sticking by them. Anandtech has long had a policy NOT to test OC'ed cards for many reasons which they themselves spelled out in the article. In a month, when all the FTW edition cards have dried up off the market, and the average user is looking at paying $220 for a 460 that will only clock to 800Mhz, this article will still be looked to, and will be a disservice to the readers, especially the less tech-savvy ones. What NVidia did amounts to a transparent PR stunt, and Anandtech caved under their pressure.
"The 6850 at $180 beats the stock 460 1GB at $20 more ..."
In terms of making a purchasing decision, that fact is completely irrelevant. Nobody in their right mind would buy a stock-clock 460 with 675 GPU.
Using Scan UK as an example, their cheapest 1GB 460 _is_ an oc'd card (700MHz Palit Sonic). Indeed, the 800MHz Palit Platinum is cheaper than a couple of brands with stock 675 cores! (Zotac and PNY)
"... and the average user is looking at paying $220 for a 460 that will only clock to 800Mhz..."
Wrong. Just buy a Platinum which is already at 800.
Simple fact is, the entire 460 landscape is now overwhelmingly an oc'd product range. For this reason, including the FTW was absolutely the right thing to do since showing how it performs truthfully represents what is available to buy, even if the brand in question isn't specifically the FTW (Scan has _nine_ different brands with core clocks of 800 or higher, the Platinum merely being the best priced given its 800 clock).
If wanting FTW-level 460 performance is a problem because the FTW isn't available from your favourite supplier, then just get a Platinum and oc it with Afterburner, which will cost less anyway, and the Platinum is easy to obtain; review sites typically reached 850 core without a voltage increase, 890 to 900+ with a voltage increase.
IMO the earlier poster stm1185 was correct when he said much of the moaning is down to people being peeved that the 6850/6870 aren't as fast as they'd hoped, ie. slower than the 58xx equivalents (how quiet they are about AMD's naming scheme con, yet happy to complain about the FTW). But they shouldn't be worried, I'm sure the 6900 cards will give solid competition against the 470/480.
To me the graphs make it very obvious that a 460 with 800+ core can match or beat a 6870 at much lower cost, at least for the game(s) I care about (Stalker); the FTW sits right inbetween the 6870 and the 470, so I've no doubt that two FTWs (or two Platinum's oc'd) would perform really well, matching 6870 CF and yet costing significantly less. Surely if Anand was being _deliberately_ biased (as many have claimed), they would have asked for a 2nd FTW so they could include SLI numbers - which, I've no doubt, would put the 6870 even more to shame. :D
I just don't get this mindset that one should not be able to see the big picture, just because a new card from one vendor can't match an older card that's available factory oc'd. Tough cookies, AMD should have made a faster product then.
I'm afraid you are the one missing the larger picture here. Anand is who one who has become an nvidia fanboy if anything. Just count the articles over the past 3 months: 460 review 450 review 6800 review
Percentage of factory overclocked nvidia cards: 100% Percentage of factory overclocked ATI cards: 0%
This is pretty damning evidence, I don't see how you can argue this.
And to bench the best of the best of the best 460 card is still misleading as heck, since it doesn't represent the majority of overclocked 460 by far.
He chose the maximum overclock to make nshit look as good as possible. Look at toms Hardware, they took the average overclocked 460 to represent most 460 cards. Notice the difference in intentions. Anand argues he wants nvidia's market represented fully by including that one card, but that's not what he's doing, or he would have been on a more fair approach like Tom's hardware.
Couple that with the 100% and 0% statistics, Anand is the big fanboy here.
"To me the graphs make it very obvious that a 460 with 800+ core can match or beat a 6870 at much lower cost, at least for the game(s) I care about (Stalker)"
Maybe we read different reviews. I game at 2560x1600, and at that resolution, the 6870 beat the FTW edition in 6 out 9 tests, and likely would have beaten it in Starcraft as well but wasn't tested. That means it won 66% of the time against the 850Mhz card.
I game at normal HD (very few will be using 2560x1600, sorry). I found plenty of reviews where the FTW beat the 6870. Found another one today - FTW faster in every case except one.
But like I say, your argument fails anyway since the 6870 is more expensive.
The next poster must be blind, there are several others clocked over 850, or as I said just oc a Platinum.
Looks to me like a lot of choose are choosing to believe a lie (that Anand is biased) because you want to believe it's true. I proved that if Anad was being deliberately biased, they could have mentioned simply oc'ing the Palit which would give FTW performance at MUCH lower cost than the 6870, with two of them SLI making 6870 CF look insanely overpriced.
"The next poster must be blind, there are several others clocked over 850"
No there aren't. If you're so sure, please provide a link. AFAIK the FTW edition is the highest clocked card on the market by quite a bit.
"or as I said just oc a Platinum"
Manually OC'ed cards aren't applicable to this review. It's done at your own risk, it will void the warranty, and is simply something most non-technical consumers shouldn't attempt. Not a fair comparison at all, especially now, when it's too soon to know how the 6000 series OCs.
There are various degrees of bias. So Anand might not be at the ultimate nvidia fanboy level like you, but once again, if you observe his actions and methodology over these past few months, you will see:
Percentage of factory overclocked nshit cards: 100% Percentage of factory overclocked ATI cards: 0%
THAT, is bias. You have not attempted to argue this because you know you cannot.
As far as me being blind, the burden of proof is on you if you want to claim higher factory core overclock than 850mhz. There are none on newegg. Also, Anand's cherry picked low voltage 460 chip already use more power than a standard HD5870 and 850mhz. Using any crappier chip will net you far worse power consumption at best, and at worst you won't even reach that clockspeed. Overall, I would conclude the 6870 is superior. Just my opinion of course.
Oh hey, I found one in "low stock"--for $291. Not such a competitor to the Radeon HD 6870 at that price, now is it?
It's probably mostly a fake card (i.e., extremely limited quantities). New Egg has 43 GTX 460s listed. Eight of them are clocked at 800-815 MHz. EVGA is the only company that has one clocked above 815 MHz, and they clock it at a whopping 850 MHz. If so many GPUs could clock that high, don't you think Zotac, Palit, Gigabyte, Galaxy, or MSI (all of which have a GTX 460 clocked at 800 MHz or higher) would have one clocked above 815 MHz?
And this is the day after Nvidia's big PR stunt. If availability is this short now on a card that launched three months ago, do you think it's going to improve in the future? Not at that price, it won't.
Did nVidia called and requested Anandtech to test with OC'ed 460? Yes.
Did Anandtech did it? Yes. And it happens to be the FTW -- the 26% OC'ed version.
What's in between? Lots of explanations and points from every where. Kind of like the tribal council in Survivor. People give explanations why they want to vote off someone is for the tribe's good. But everyone knows it's because of the alliances.
"We were honestly afraid that if we didn't include at least a representative of the factory overclocked GTX 460s that we would get accused of being too favorable to AMD. " - Anand
But this goes against your policy of benchmarking overclocked cards, especially against a reference card at launch. If you're going to include overclocked cards in the review, do it apple-to-apple with both sides OC'ed.
Another thing I don't understand: if you included NVidia overclocked parts in the past, why haven't you ever included overclocked AMD parts? GTS 450 vs OC'ed 5770 for example. Something is wrong here...
I'd like to believe that you were doing a fair and honest review of the 68XX series, but the 6850 was NOT included in many of the benchmarks... virtually cut off from its own review! What's even more appalling is that you don't have time to benchmark the 6850, yet had time to bench the GTX 460 FTW??? Example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987/amds-radeon-687...
I think the inclusion of the 460 FTW was another case of AnandTech caving in to NVidia pressure, and the integrity of the review is once again compromised. I don't believe for a second that AnandTech's decision to include the 460 FTW was independent of the NVidia coercion.
If you test a non-overclocked launch card, test it against a non-overclocked card from the competition.
Seeing as the EVGA 460 GTX FTW isn't available in my country at all (the best I could find was a "superclocked version" at 763 Mhz, far from the 850 Mhz version you had), and the regular non-OC version almost flood our webshops, your review automatically seems biased.
Add to this your charts - look at them. Then remove the EVGA card. Does it look different? Doesn't the HD6850/6870 GPUs look like a much better deal? Yes, they do - and they are available in every country.
Another point against OC card is they differ from one company to another, some specifically go for the 'golden samples', some make minor overclocks at no extra cost to give the AIB a little edge, but making factory cards that actually cannibalizes on the next GPU in your lineup - like the 470 GTX - is rare, and usually not something Nvidia would approve. But at this release, suddenly we see a 460 GTX OC card that does exactly that.
You did cave in. Talking about it won't change that fact that the results on your chart, to the layman, presents Nvidia in an extraordinarily good light, and unfairly so.
I, personally, definitely think, that having more information to base a buying decision on is a nice thing; and the separation between stock and OC'ed 460 it was absolutely clear from the text of the article. I had absolutely no problem with this inclusion and think that it brought value.
By the way, it would be easier for you to accumulate results by including a poll (I remember you were testing a few of these some time ago)
Any poll on a subject like this would be worthless. It would be too easy to vote multiple times and skew the results, and in this case there would be many who would do that.
It seems to me, though, that this discussion is worthless as it doesn't look like Anandtech will do anything different or even respond to all the points that were made here. It's business as usual for them. At least now I know to stop reading Anandtech's articles after architecture and features details pages, before benchmarks. Even the former was below Anandtech's standars (hmm, that one sounds funny now) in this article.
1. A good review and a good editorial decision that only burnishes your rep in my eyes 2. If you back away from it now under pressure from trolls/fanboyz/wannabe ignorant masses I will be seriously disappointed in you (and I'll bet that I am not the only one) 3. Keep your reviews as they are and keep your focus on providing as much relevant information as possible to your readers
Most of the negative comments I have read regarding this are clearly by people who either did not read the review, were not capable of understanding a simple, clearly written and informative article, bear manifest animus against Nvidia, or are unable to reason critically.
Your only mistake so far has been to take them at all seriously. I for one, am mortally tired of seeing people accepting public humiliation/forced mea culpas for speaking a truth some vocal pressure group finds offensive.
I feel compelled to address some of their more obvious errors of thought.
- The entirely artificial distinction between "stock" and"factory overclocked" cards. This is truly a distinction without a difference. All that should really matter is performance, reliability, price and warranty. Reference clocks represent a lowest common denominator for the chipset maker. If a card maker can improve on that (no matter how they accomplish it) and will guarantee the results, good for them and better for me.
- The idea that somehow the results of individually overclocking any one specific card are/would be relevant to this discussion. Individual samples may well vary in the amount of headroom they have. It's fun to read about individual feats and learn how they were acheived. But I do not find them relevant to my purchase decision, as they do not inform me what my results will be for the card I purchase. A statistically valid sampling would be impracticable for a website,and besides makers of factory overclocked cards essentially already provide that service.
- The idea that you must always follow guidelines you wrote to the letter, or forfeit all credibility. I am still astonished by that mental leap. Anyone who grows and learns will evolve their internal guidelines. Failure to do so is what creates stultified, inflexible, and ultimately dysfunctional bureaucracies.
- The idea that every occurrence is the result of an evil, greedy conspiracy. Paranoid much? How to break this to them.... This phenonomen is called "projection" and actually says more about them than it says about objective reality.
I could go on, but it is time for my - wait for it - Gin and Tonic. Keep up the good work Anand.
No one has yet attempted to explain this following strange statistic: Articles spanning to 3 months ago : 460 reference card review 450 reference card review 6800 reference card review Percentage of factory overclocked nshit cards: 100% (7 cards) Percentage of factory overclocked ATI cards: 0%
Even if you personally don't distinct between "stock" and "factory overclocked", how else would you explain these statistics, other than simply realize that Anand is biased?
Guidelines are broken to make nvidia cards look good, but these same guidelines are restricting ATI cards... It's astonishing that you cannot see this.
How about that notorious Rumsfeld (never liked the guy, but he was right this one time) quote, "you don't go to war with the army you want, but the army you've got."
Check Newegg and tell me as of now, how many 6850/6870oc cards you find vs 460 oc cards. Based on that data (and bearing in mind nda restrictions on things not yet released), how many 6850/6870oc do you extrapolate are available for review? I know, I know Newegg is part of the conspiracy.
It is a matter of timing. I anticipate that in a few months there will be some (if the cards have any headroom), but there are none now.
So should Anandtech have withheld the info on an available competitor from us? For several months?
What if I needed a card now?
Note: The last two videocards I bought have been ATI, a 3850agp and a 5870 mobile. Both were the very best choice available to me at the time I bought them and have proven more than satisfactory.
Look, the 6800 review isn't the first time this happen.
I would suggest you to look back at the GTS 450 launch review. FOUR factory overclocked nvidia cards. NONE of the factory overclocked cards are from ATI.
Even back then, we had lots of factory overclocked 5770 cards, as well as factory overclocked 5750 cards.
To summarize your comment, most of the people who disagree with you are idiots.
The people on both sides of this issue, and that includes you, seem to be highly inflexible and incapable of understanding the other person's point of view.
The point people are trying to make is that NVIDIA went out of their way to encourage the use of a particular card that features dramatic over-clocking. 25% on a factory video card is extremely rare and availability seems to bear that out. So they may be comparing a pie in the sky to real cards.
NVIDIA is counting on the fact that a lot of people skim the reviews and are not particular about filtering out biased sites so if they see that one card is beating all the others, that generates an impression. It may not sway you, but globally it makes a difference. And if AnandTech bows even a little to tactics like this, they are seen to be caving in to companies that profit on how well they can "spin" their wares rather than relying on actual product quality.
To summaries your comments: 1. anyone disagrees with you are fanboyz/trolls. Despite the availability of the included FTW card is extremely limited, there are people like you that loves seeing it comparing to the 6800. Love the bars.
2. You love anandtech this way and if they do less like this, you'd be disappointed.
Well, one thing for sure is that Anandtech had been famous NOT for being a biased, or just another review sites. I for one was attracted to this site for its in-depth knowledge and fairness position. For the past few reviews of Anandtech caving in to Nvidia's pressure? Yes it will attract people like you, but it surely has lost my respect, and probably many more like me.
Yesterday, in response to one of my posts, someone insisted that site reviews were not finding the FTW to be as good or better than the 6870 (which is nonsense of course). I mentioned that I'd found another such review, so feel free to have a look - it's on techradar (just add the dot com), search for 6870, check page 2. Out of seven gaming tests, the 6870 is faster for only one of them, and for half the other six tests the FTW's margin over the 6870 is substantial.
I commented about this on another site and I'll try to be a precise as possible with the problem of allowing Manufacturer A to slipstream cards into Manufacturer B's hardware launch.
In and of itself providing more data points is not a problem within a review. People complaining about that are really missing the REAL problem of doing this.
The first problem is that when you allow a manufacturer to change your test matrix by inflating the number of data points within a hardware launch it deliberately takes away resources from an article that would otherwise included more information. While you were able to include CF results, many other sites which did the same thing as Anand did (and included more Fact OC'd cards) were not. Many were not able to include info on new AA modes, even when their reviews were late. Many sites barely went into the display configuration changes on these new models, or if they included information it was brief ...really brief. I don't think ANYONE covered Eyefinity changes or improvements or benchmark data. Considering this was a key feature of Radeons it should have been covered ..... in detail. Many sites gave almost equal billing to cards which were on the market for at least 3 months or more to the point that reading this "launch review" almost seems like a GPU shoot out review rather than providing in-depth information on new hardware, which is what launch articles are for.
The second problem is as I mentioned before. It is odd, rare and not normal for a GPU shoot out review to appear within a launch review. By doing this it left NO ROOM for Fact OC'd cards to appear from ATI within the review because that wasn't the point of launching new models. Fact OC'd cards are likely to appear, actually they have of 6870 cards...yet considering a shoot out review was already done with 460 models, will another Fact OC review appear from ATI so we can see those data points? You may, but lesser sites might not as they might not have the same access to the 460 cards as they did on date of the launch of 6870/6850 which DOES NOT give us more information to make informed choices, it gives a less or a distorted view of what is out there.
The third and final point is that this just stinks from a ethical or journalistic point of view. Not because I like ATI over Nvidia, but because it creates a precedent that NO SITE IS LIKELY TO REPLICATE GOING FORWARD. Meaning will you or other sites include Fact OC'd cards when the 580 launches? How about the next review? Or the one after that? The moment you don't it breaks the farce that "we did this to bring you more information" because you won't be able to explain the reason to include more information in one review, while not doing it the next.
As a reader of tech sites I should be able to come to Anandtech, TR, Hard, etc and not question the validity of the results. I should be able to look at the numbers and say " well they are what they are" knowing and believing that every effort was taken to provide a review that is of the sites making. Not Nvidia's or ATI's. When you allow manufacturers to change your test matrix how are we to know that the 480 wasn't a cherry picked model, or the 5870 wasn't cherry picked? By doing this it opens up a pandora's box that would have remained closed if we knew that your standards were upheld and were free from being tainted. Now we have to question results when we wouldn't have before. That's the problem with doing this.
This whole controversy could have been avoided by AnandTech by doing a stock comparison of all the cards and then a ANOTHER time later on they should have done another article on the cards OC. Simple. Hardware Canucks decided to do just that and only reviewed and benched STOCK cards as is there policy NO Matter what AMD or NVIDIA wants. They also stated that they will follow up with a review of the cards OCed on the next follow up. Simple. I don't want a review of the product OCed if I did then I would ask for it and or make it a point to let your Manufacture know about it. It;s the same way that I wouldn't want a review on a product (ex :.. Iphone ) Oced and then compared to another smart phone of equivalent value /features and what not. Just wouldn't tell me the truth of the product as sold my the Manufacture.
The problem here is when you cross the line and start doing reviews of products that are not in STOCK reference state then you run into many other issues with regards to credibility , simply because that is the World we live in. Stick to stock designs and avoid all the neg feed back next time. Besides no one said you couldnt do a separate OC review later.
Exactly and that's my point. NO MANUFACTURER SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE TEST MATRIX. It left no room for rebuttal and alot of it could have been avoided by simply posting a second review after the launch date which would have ensured that a full review was done on new hardware. The 460's were 3 months old and could have been reviewed before.
OK, I can't resist. Both of us must have way too much time on our hands, lol.
I'll summarize what I hear (metaphorically) you saying about the "problem" of one manufacturer slipstreaming into another's launch.
1. Including that data takes away from the resources/space available for the review of the launch manufacturer's product. 2. It's not "normal" and isn't fair to the launch manufacturer who hasn't yet provided/developed oc cards, therefore we actually have less/distorted information. 3. It sets a precedent that will be hard to replicate going forward, (conceptual leap coming up) and if they can't that will prove that providing us data on the 460oc this time was a "farce." 4. This all makes you question the actual validity of the hard numbers/data reported in the review.
I may be overanalyzing this, but I think that I'm also hearing a subtext of not fair to the launch manufacturer.
I agree with point 1. It is obviously true, though I would suggest not very relevent. It is not enough for me to know every detail of a specific product without some context. I want to know the important features, and the actual performance/value compared to other products that are also competing for my not unlimited dollars. I think as a consumer that any review (launch or otherwise) should always be a little bit of a shoot out or else it becomes meaningless.
I can't agree with any part of point 2. I place no value on "normal," or on how anyone else does something. I also think that it's unfair to me to withold data from me on an available product until other manufacturers have a chance to catch up. I don't see how I have less information by having more information on what is available at the time of the review. That less is more thing may apply to Bauhaus architecture, but in most areas of life, less is less and more is more. A review site should have no interest in being fair to a manufacturer at the expense of the people they actually work for -- their readers.
Point 3... I hope that Anandtech and others will always provide me some context/comparisons of similar (performance/price) available products to help me judge the relative value of the launch product. I don't think it will really be all that hard to do.
Point 4, ok. If that's how you feel, though you lost me on the connection.
There seems to be a pervasive feeling in some of the comments that Nvidia did something bad by trying to get reviewers to promote their product and by trying to create a competitive product to ATI's latest launch cards.
Apropos dealing with the press, someone once told me that there were no inappropriate questions, only inappropriate replies. Both Nvidia and ATI try to influence reviewers, and good reviewers resist those efforts. Resisting means writing straight-up reviews from the standpoint of their readers. It does not mean refusing to review a product their readers are interested in because OMG, the manufacturer also wanted it reviewed.
Second, I am not going to be angry at either manufacturer for trying to make a better product for me at a better price. I actually think that's a good thing and I would like to encourage both of them to continue working hard for my dollars.
Finally (for you brave/bored souls who stuck with me) I want to reply to the comment suggesting less gin and more tonic. Less is less and more gin is more of a good thing. Cheers
What happened to you? Was my last question too hard for you?
Why was nvidia allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the 6800 review, when ATI wasn't allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the gts 450 review?
6800 review: Nvidia was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't. 450 review: Nvidia was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't. 460 review: Nvidia was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't.
Do I need to reiterate that we had access to lots of factory overclocked 5770 cards, as well as factory overclocked 5750 cards up to the 450 review?
1. It looks like you got this point. However, there were many things that were key features of the card that were not addressed that people WILL use. Eyefinity benchmarking / review to name one, considering these cards now support an additional monitor. How does it perform? How does it perform compared to the 460? You can't answer it and neither can I but it would have been nice to know don't ya think?
2. Number 2 actually does withhold data because there ARE FACT OC 6870's. Some substantially overclocked. If you didn't know this well..... I guess the review didn't include enough data points. The point of "fairness" that your extrapolating has really nothing to do with treating either manufacturer with kid gloves. It's about making sure that the review is giving an accurate diverse representation of what's available. So when you see Fact OC cards from one manufacturer and not the other that's not necessarily an accurate snapshot. In fact that's the opposite, which is why you don't have GPU Shootouts slipstreamed into a GPU launch articles. Those would normally be two separate review articles.
3. Point number 3 is no kind of conceptual leap at all. You are either providing additional data points to hopefully provide a better picture to your readers or you're not. Including the 460 FTW in and of itself isn't a bad thing. However, doing it one time only basically says it's only important one time only. If that's the case then the obvious question is, "why is that?"
4. The feeling isn't pervasive it's pretty front and center. A hardware journalist allowed a manufacturer to directly change/alter their test matrix. To be honest AT didn't cave to the point that others did. Some provided so many OC'd 460's that you could barely tell it was a launch article. That being said, stealing one cookie from the cookie jar while others took eight doesn't mean you get off.
Now as far as this..... "Both Nvidia and ATI try to influence reviewers, and good reviewers resist those efforts. Resisting means writing straight-up reviews from the standpoint of their readers. It does not mean refusing to review a product their readers are interested in because OMG, the manufacturer also wanted it reviewed."
This really is a straw man argument. No one is saying that AT should NOT review Fact OC'd cards. There's a place for these cards and for years they always appeared in a "shoot out" type of article or a straight up review on the Fact OC'd card itself.
I understand and you do make valid points with your post. I totally agree with you especially your 3rd point.
Like I said it creates way to much " what if's " and in the end it is not a Apples to Apples comparison. I know why ATI or NVidia would not have an issue with it so long as it is there product that is put in a better frame of light so to speak, but for a Review sight such as AnandTechs I just don't see the point.
There are already too many review sites are starting to do this and this is what is causing all the uncertainty. I used to frequent Toms H allot in the past but personally I feel they are also now creating reviews that are confusing and not providing the same reviews that they were in the past. This causes people to start questioning what is going on and why it is done that way. Reviewers MUST be neutral and just supply the facts as is. Just provide the data A to A , B to B Then let the public decide.
I apprectiate this response, but in this case it's pure AMD fanboy pandering. These AMD/ATI fanboys are just bandwangin jumpers and don't like the fact that what you showed is the exact information everyone wants to see and needs to see . Very interesting artical it was and very informative. In this case, the ftw was a perfect comparison since the overclock is so much higher then standard overclocks on other GPUs.
I wish the fanboys would all just go away, so we could get the real story so we all know what to buy for the money we have.
BTW, if you were to cave to the fanboys and not do the logical test like you did here. Then I would consider that being unobjective from a different point of view.
Fanboys should go away? You want Anand to disappear from his own site?
If you don't think Anand is a fanboy, perhaps you can be the one to finally solve our little funny statistic: Articles spanning to 3 months ago : 460 reference card review 450 reference card review 6800 reference card review Percentage of factory overclocked nshit cards: 100% (7 cards) Percentage of factory overclocked ATI cards: 0%
6800 review: nshit was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't. 450 review: nshit was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't. 460 review: nshit was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't.
Can't you see that this is suspicious and fishy as hell?
Spending 1 second of time by measuring a card that is not the main subject of reviewing without having first truly reviewed the main subject (and that includes overcloking data) is a definition of bias.
PS. I prefer nVidia. But doing this, you shed a bad light on them too..
Exactly. I actually have a 460 in my main comp now. However, I really would have liked to know that the reviewers spent most of their time on the new product because I buy new cards quite often. By allowing Nvidia to directly affect the test matrix I don't know if the whole review can be believed and this is the point. It's not fanboyism. Including the cards in and of itself isn't the problem. The problem is that they normally either wouldn't have been or would have been included in another review. By them placing focus on the 460 cards which have been reviewed already it places doubt on the validity of the test/review.
I have come to this site a lot for reviews. That's how I base most of my purchases. I read the review and I see nothing wrong with the review. I felt that it was unbiased. So really don't change a thing with what your doing Anand.
The only problem I'm seeing is that the manufactures (AMD/Nvida) are going off half-cocked and leaving reviewers, like Anand, struggling to keep some kind balance in comparison of the products across the board (Price/performance/ value, etc).
If you took the OC card out of the data in the review, it would not be even and it would have more wayside to ATI. A direct competitor to the stock 6870 is a heavily OC'ed GTX 460 that EVGA has offered retail. That's it and that's what the review is all about.... Whats awesome about the latest from ATI and where does the 6870 & 6850 stand in today's market right now. I don't think that its fair to ask Anand to start pulling OC'ed ATI/Nvidia cards to show the 0.1~2.5 FPS difference on data. That's just not possible as a reviewer and you, the customer, can OC these cards yourself to get in-between the lines on your own time.
Again, Don't change a thing Anand! You write the best reviews and by far the most unbiased reviewer on the net! KEEP THE BALANCE! :)
Only a nvidia fanboy would look at these reviews and call them balanced.
Ask yourself this: Why was nshit allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the 6800 review, when ATI wasn't allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the gts 450 review?
Even back then, we had lots of factory overclocked 5770 cards, as well as factory overclocked 5750 cards in the same price range as the 450.
Even the irrational nvidia fanboys haven't been able to answer.
It's really easy actually. It's called politics. Which Anand left out or each review would be 50+ pages. I guess that's something that you don't understand. So let me explain it to you...
I like both company's a lot. They both have something awesome and unique to bring to the table when it comes to graphics handling. Between both company's it's a healthy competition for the most part. But from what I have seen over the years is that ATI is relaxed. They don't push like Nvidia does about new products. ATI has their loyal customer base and they are cocky about it. Whereas Nvidia would like to have their cards in everyone's PC/MAC. Nvidia is consistently trying to prove across the board that their product rocks from the entry level user to the enthusiast. What you see with ATI? "Meh, Let Nvidia do their thing. We are not worried about it. Oh and we just made Eyefinity. Its support for more than one monitor setup. Cool huh?"
ATI does not push the envelope when it comes to the reviews. They only ask to review the stock reference cards and that's where they stop. Running OC'ed cards is your business, not ATI's or the reviewers. Plain and simple. But you may still not get the picture lakrids, so I'll stop here.
I'll ask you again: Why was nvidia allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the 6800 review, when ATI wasn't allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the gts 450 review?
"ATI wasn't allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the gts 450 review." Do you understand this? Do you understand what that sentence says? Look at the 4gts 450 review and see for yourself.
"Running OC'ed cards is your business" And this is where you go completely off track. I wasn't even talking about user overclock, I was talk about Factory Overclock.
It's Anand's job to have factory overclocked cards from both sides. You can't argue your way around this. It's Anand's job to stay fair, balanced and objective.
It was HIS job to make sure those factory overclocked gts 450 cards are compared to factory overclocked HD5750 and HD5770 cards. He failed at this.
It was HIS job to make sure that XFX or someone else would send him a sample of a factory overclocked HD6870, if he intended to use a factory overclocked 460. He failed this as well.
Congrats, you are in for some good gaming :) - i have a 320M in this laptop. But what the heck, i dont have time for gaming, because i am hammering on this comment section together with Lakrids. ROFL.
The problem is that we dont know what the stock will be, and neither did anand.
Looking at the market, its come and go, in small drops. That have been the strategy always. It sells the lower clock version, that is the purpose - its just about maximizing buttom line. So its a smart way of binning and selling your cards if you have yield and variability issues, if you have a strong consumer brand like NV.
Anand knows must know that issue, but perhaps it was not - say obvious - enough, in the minor details that gone into their arguements.
The cards should arrive today. I have to benchmark a couple of Quadro FX5500s first though. Some early results from a friend of mine are interesting though, comparing to 8800GT SLI and 4890 CF:
(we've started benching with Unigine and X3TC aswell, data not yet added)
I thought Scan would run out of the FTWs pretty quick, but they still have them in stock. Oh, I noticed 10 on eBay BIN, but they were of course grossly overpriced (a massive 30 UKP more than from Scan; who uses eBay to buy a new gfx card??).
So long as it is tested at stock speed as sold, and as warranted, IMO it is fair game to consider it a separate product regardless of having same GPU on it... because ultimately for the purposes of the consumer pubic, while available they have the chocie of buying one.
It is not a race where it only matters who wins, it is about which products one can buy which will potentially fit their needs. However at the same time, if you include a factory o'c card and it costs more, it would make the article all the more value added if you also tested the max "reasonable" o'c for that card and the same for the factor stock speed card so for those who don't mind running above initial nVidia spec, they know if spending more money gets them anything in particular besides a firmware with a few bits flipped.
Something else I and some others would like to see is the fastest a card can run and the benchmarks for that speed, even if it requires underclocking, to keep the fan at some low noise level threshold instead of increasing enough in RPM to notice much if left on auto/thermal control instead of locked at a fixed speed. It has been many years since I bought a card with thermally controlled fan where I would accept hearing it ramped up to high RPM. I should add I would find that info most useful if the card remains below 70C GPU temp, knowing how far it might need underclocked to achieve both simultaneously.
1- The EVGA card should have came from retail, NOT from Nvidia. The credibility of the review is negatively affected, no matter what counterargument you might come up with. Overclocking beyond 850Mhz and power consumption figures are both inevitably favorably affected by cheery picking a GPU. You even go as far as alluding to this very fact, but buried this very important information in the middle of the last page, as if to protect yourself from not mentioning it at all: ''...GPUs capable of running at this voltage are likely coming from the cream of the crop for NVIDIA.'' This very critical information should have been in the very first sentence of the review and in BOLD characters. That might have helped with the credibility.
2- You should, at the very least, have provided overclocking figures for both the 6870 and 6850 in a separate ''overclocking results'' page. What would have been far better is to include those results in every benchmark. We all know overclocked version of both AMD cards are coming anyway. In fact XFX have already released an overclocked 6850 black edition. And guess what? Kitguru ( /www.kitguru dot net ) already report overclock beyond 1Ghz @ 1.3V with this first batch of silicon!!! We also know that 850Mhz for the 460 is very near the practical limit with air cooling. Then why not push the 6870 and 6850 to their practical limit too? This is where all other arguments fail and suspicions arise...
I will conclude by saying that price/performance/power ratio is pretty much the absolute rule by which a GPU should be judged. From that perspective, AMD rule absolutely, period. Just overclock the hell out of a cherry picked 6850 and pit it against this infamous EVGA 460 you have in your hand. Then benchmark in SLI and Crossfire for a good measure. We all know who will win the price/performance/power crown, don't we? Yeah, I thought so...
In the end, all this sound way too much like a not-subtle-enough attempt to damper the launch of the 6850 and 6870. Some kind of smoke screen or diversion to steal AMD's thunder. This cherry picked, overclocked to death EVGA 460 with incredible thermal and power figures had no business in this review without balancing the facts with an overclocked AMD card. Fundamental and very basic journalistic ethic principles have been neglected and I don't like that at all.
What can we expect from your upcoming Cayman review? Results from cheery picked overclokecked 480 provided by Nvidia?
While I don't doubt the credibility of the site - very professional and clear and high quality material here - I am baffled by the sheer naivete illustrated by accepting a product sample directly from a vendor for inclusion in a review, no less a review of a competing part.
When you review video cards, you should really use off the shelf parts when possible. I know it's not always possible when you're reviewing the newest thing out there, but for something like this? Yeah, it should be common sense.
For years I have come to Anandtech to read about new technology and products. After the 6800 Series review, I don't trust the site anymore, even if other sections of the site are not biased. After all, how should I know when the money talks and when to expect a proper review? It's impossible, it just became too obvious now in the case of nVidia but has been going on for a while.
Which other sites do you recommend for unbiased, balanced reviews (not just graphics cards) which also have the resources to cover a vast amount of products and news/previews and have a presentable layout?
[HARD]OCP. Always thourough, always legitimate. They did the 6xxx review a week ago and made a note about what NVIDIA was trying to pull on them too, except they wouldn't go for it unlike AT.
First of all the_elvino said exactly what I feel about Anandtech. I was firstly attracted to this site because it's professional and always gives deeper explanation for the new technology and deeper inside news from the industry point of view. Now what, Anand bent to nVidia's pressure. The independent point of view is gone. He might still have the great knowledge base, but that might help him better at hiding things for certain party's interests.
Second of all thanks Bates777 for recommending the [HARD]OCP. Sounds like a good place to go from now on. I guess the reality is you can never trust anyone that is *in* the industry. Independent reviews from normal gamers might be the better solution (have to filter out the fanboys though).
Um where is the review comparing the New 6870 and 6850 OC cards from XFX to the Nvidia OC cards ? I'm thinking this is going to change Anands initial review he did when he compared 460 FTW to Stock AMD cards. The right thing for ANADTECH to do is put out a NEW review now on a level playing field and see where things stand now.
It is perfectly legitimate to include a sample of all commonly available hardware with which the subject competes. The EVGA card is a good example of competing hardware and should be included. I always thought the overclocked cards were included to give a complete picture, not to further any one marketing strategy.
While I am a big fan of AMD video cards and love to see them win, I also know that it is only a matter of time before over clocked 6000 cards hit the market.
I think AnandTech does a great job of indicating which cards are overclocked and listing the advantages/disadvantages of the cards when including them in comparisons.
That's just it though there were and are 6850's / 6870's that are Fact OCd. They just weren't included which is why it typically isn't done. You would have to go back a ways to find Fact Oc'd cards appearing in a GPU launch review. Usually that's a separate review.
So do any of you have the 6850 or 6870 now in use? Or oc'd versions? What results do you get? 3DMark06, Vantage, Stalker COP, Unigine, X3TC, Cinebench 10/11.5, etc.
I purchased a 6870. I did manage to OC it using ATI's OC tool but it is not as good as Saphhires Trixx tool of which I have not been able to get it to work so for now I am just experimenting. Right now It is back running at STOCK and every game I run on it seems great. I had a chance to slip in a second card for an hour ( My friend got one too) and I was blown away at how great this cards scales in crossfire. I'm definitely getting a 2nd card , even though 1 was more then cutting it for me , guess I'm just never happy. :) Blue Ray playback was also amazing! All in all I'm happy with it and the price , and honestly I don't see a need to OC this CARD if you Crossfire them as the Performance is mind blowing. I'd rather have stock cards then OC ones just because the longevity is more stable on components. That said if I could just that Trixx OC program figured out I'm still curious to see what this 6870 can do.
"while on the other hand you kind of have to wonder, why buy an MSI card when you can buy a cheaper one and overclock it yourself? So what do MSI do to combat this? They release stuff like the Lightning and HAWK series which lets even more abilities open up with in MSI."
Not only that, that particular sample was even a special edition of a special edition:
"MSI actually told us that each GTX 460 has a bit of fluctuation when it comes to the default core clock. The particular one we had came at 1.062v which was on the higher side of things, so +200mv gave us 1.262v; much higher than the standard 1.087v limit that we're used to seeing."
So, it's even more limited than EVGA FTW. And power consumption is abnormal: more than a 480 and almost the same as 460 SLI!
The point is, all GTX 460 out there have extra ordinary overclocking capability, so the used of EVGA FTW in Ryan's review is fair as a representation of what a GTX 460 can do.
I point out this MSI specific to describe that EVGA FTW is not a limited edition because any other vendor has their own overclocked GTX 460. So when you can't find an evga card, just pick up any other available gtx 460 and you can overclocking it by yourself higher than the evga card.
I don't think you get the point. There is a big difference between manual overclocking and low stock, worldwide unavailable special edition factory OC'd card.
If you say that "use of EVGA FTW in Ryan's review is fair as a representation of what a GTX 460 can do" because one can overclock any 460, then he sould have overclocked 6850/6870 too. Both of them can be overclocked, you see, and then it would be a fair representation of what they can do. And they can do a lot, e.g. both be faster than OC'd 460 (according to Overclockersclub review).
"... worldwide unavailable special edition factory OC'd card"
I live here in Papua, a place maybe you'll never find on the map, but I already buy two special edition overclocked GTX 460 (platinum and hawk), so these cards worldwide available.
GTX 460 is made for overclocking because it can be overclocked more than 300 mhz higher than its reference clock (988 mhz is the highest clock this far). So, any comparation with gtx 460 without point out its overclocking capability is unfair.
6850/6870 can be overclocked too, but not as much as gtx 460, the highest clock for 6850 is 975 (200 mhz higher) and 1055 mhz for 6870 ( just 155 mhz higher)
Please visit these links to see how a gtx 460 at its highest clock compared to 6850 and 6870 at their highest clock too
Just because it's available in your country doesn't mean it's available everywhere, or even in most countries. HAWK and FTW are special edition cards with limited distribution.
What does it matter by how much MHz a card can be overclocked? What matters is the resulting performance.
This link shows that evga ftw at 850 (its default clock) is little slower than HD 6870, but does not show what will it does when overclocked to the highest clock. At the same time time, this link shows that 6870 overclocking capability is not good
"What I found was that each one of the HD 6870 cards reached a limit at 1000Mhz or below. So really all I was able to realize was a maximum of about 100Mhz on the core and just over that on the memory on each of the HD 6870 cards"
I tend to compare gaming performance when talking about gaming cards, not synthetic benchmarks. Strange, I know.
Those Tweaktown articles don't have many common games to compare. Most of those few are games that are known to favor Nvidia's cards and even in them the lead of ultraoc'd HAWK is minimal, a few FPS at best.
Power consumption results are funny, though. Check them.
921/1022 is pretty high overclock for a 460 and it still doesn't help it beat those 6870 cards whose "overclocking capability is not good" as you put it. Oh, btw, that same site wasn't able to reach those ultra high oc clock for HAWK, in case you missed that link.
Overclockersclub has two articles comparing overclocked 460 (HAWK and FTW) and overclocked 6850/6870, and a much bigger selection of games to choose from. Their results are clear.
I have no interest in repeating this yet another time, we're running in circles. EOD for me.
i have no problem with the OC card being in the review.
this is because... 1. you were very upfront about the inclusion of this special card and 2. you explained why it was relevant to include it in this situation.
this also means i think you should keep the OC inclusion on a special basis, and you should probably make all OC cards a special color in the performance charts, like bright green or something that stands out so we know it's not a normal card.
I love competition and I love best price performance, so I always try to find the best cards from both company.
Before GTX 460, I agree that reference cards must be compared with reference cards only since I thought that all cards is indifferent in overclocking capability with exception not more than 50 mhz. Then came GTX 460 that can be easily overclocked 300 mhz higher than its reference clock, and I change my mind. With this overclocking capability, GTX 460 not just compete with its rivals from AMD but also compete with its older brother GTX 470, furthermore almost all the GTX 460 in store now (at least in Jakarta) is factory overclocked with names like hawk, cyclone, sonic, platinum, OC, SOC, etc, and its hard to find one with reference clock.
Base on these facts, I agree that any reviews of the cards between $180 - $270 must also including GTX 460 and its overclocking capability to give a comprehensive description about best price performance available on the market.
So Ryan, you've just done a great review and I appreciate that you still down to earth by saying it as an incomplete review.
Seriously, can anyone find them now? I see 6870 and 6850s are in supply (with inflated prices gg), but there are NO 850 Mhz 460s around period at this time.
Where is that market availability quoted in the 6870/50 review?
Honestly I have loved this site from the first day I visited it for one main reason. The reason is simple, basically I have always felt that this site gave some of the best reviews of products (tech related products) that I have ever read in my entire life. Overall every review on this site has always been very in depth (in my opinion) and on top of the fact I have felt every review has always been great as far as overall content is concerned. I have always felt that the fairness displayed in the articles on this site is simply second to none. Sadly when you visit most review sites it's almost always instantly clear that their opinions are biased towards certain products.
Even though it's very understandable that it could have come across like they might have been being influenced by NVIDIA if you look at all the articles on this site and compare the quality of every review on this site you would quickly come to the conclusion that they have always taken the "high road" and showed a much higher level of integrity in their reviews on this site than what is standard in this day and age.
So even though its obvious where I stand on the issue of anandtech being fair in their reviews I am just going to go ahead and say that I fully support any decisions that anandtech makes when making decisions on what products to compare with each other and or how they chose to test the products they review. For one simple reason, because from what I've seen they have always maintained some level of fairness in every review I've personally ever read threw on this site.
I have lost a lot of respect for your site over this particular review .To me it seems you allowed a company to push you into doing something against your avowed policy. In this case I think it was a poor choice.
Hello all from late 2021! Reading again the comments in this old thread (including my own) has been quite the rabbit hole. It's extraordinary just how much time and effort we all spent raging about this issue, which for many boiled down to pricing and hence perceived value. Other issues aside, how much we argued back in 2010 about differences of mere tens of $ is amazing, given what has happened to the market since 2018. In 2010 I remember feeling slightly guilty at spending 350 UKP on two EVGA FTWs, oh the expense! Now I look on Scan and see an RTX 3090 for 2500, while the modern x60 card (3060) has jumped by more than 3x compared to the final generation of 460s (I later bought a couple of new GTX 460 v2 cards for 115 UKP each, which btw oc to well over 1GHz, leaving the FTW far behind).
If the gamers of 2021 could have told us back in 2010 what was coming, nobody would have believed it. :D
FWIW I used my FTW SLI setup for quite some time, also across a platform change from P55 (i7 870) to Z68 (5GHz 2700K), then several GPU upgrades from the 2nd hand market (560 Ti SLI, 580 3GB SLI), then switching to a single new GTX 980 (I sold the 580s for a profit, bought by a movie company for CUDA, so the 980 upgrade only cost 100). That alas is when the pricing really started to climb, especially with Turing. Finally I bought a used 1080 Ti for 450 UKP and two years on it remains solid, no modern product yet makes any sense as a replacement (anything usefully faster costs far too much). I wouldn't mind a drop in stock power consumption and noise, but not when something at least as fast (3060 or 6600 XT) costs more than what I paid for the 1080 Ti.
In the meantime I've adopted a different approach, and in 2021 it may be suitable for many: stick to 60Hz, downlock your card, play older games. I'm using a 48" 1080p TV, currently playing games that are not that complex, such as Subnautica BZ and ETS2 (not been impressed by newer game launches in ages), so much so that a hefty downclock still allows the games to run at max settings with 60Hz locked, which of course means it's much more efficient, cooler, etc. Ah well, until some GPU market sanity returns, it's a thing one can do, and at least I gain from 200fps h264 encoding with NVEnc when I need it (2x faster than any Turing/Ampere gamer SKU).
I wonder how the rest of you have faired since the heady days of 2010 sensible pricing. Gaming tech product costs in 2021 have gone quite bonkers (obviously made worse by several external factors, especially crypto, but SKU upselling was already well underway by 2018), and who back in 2010 could have imagined what would happen with AMD 7 years later with Ryzen? Funny old world...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
620 Comments
Back to Article
Chubrock - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I think it would be nice to have all requests made by both sides made available to us the readers on a per review basis.And make it known to the companies that their requests will be made available to us.
We deserve all this information to allow us to see how these companies are conducting themselves and what sort of spin they want to attempt to place on the review we receive, whether you acquiesce or not.
What else is there we don't know about this review in the frame of requests made by AMD or Nvidia ? We already have heard some rumblings about a game called Hawx 2 and a benchmark of said game nvidia has been pushing.
Can some light be shed on these other still hidden topics we have not been given a clear picture of ?
Granseth - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I agree with you, that it would be nice to know what kind of issues the different companies pushes.I also didn't mind an overclocked nVidia card in the test, since GTX460 is a special card where this kind of OC isn't uncommon.
And I hope there will be a follow up review, because the review seemed rushed. I am curious why crossfire seemed to be a bit better than the 5-series cards.
And lastly I would really like to see a subjective/biased section to the review. A sort of section that you do what you can to find out where a card shines, and where it sucks. Like find out that its great with one game engine, high or low resolution, with/without heavy AA and so on. That way it's easier to see if I'm going to be especially happy or unhappy if I get the card.
faxon - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
i would make my own reply but this basically sums up exactly my feelings on the issue as well.GullLars - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
+1Also, while i in general dislike overclocked parts compared to stock parts (which are not also represented in overclocked specs) when the article is not specifically about overclocking, you argued the case for including the card well and included sufficient notifications to not set me off. The only hostile oppinions i have is towards nVidia for not making the card 465 instead of 460 OC when it's close to, and in some cases beat 470.
It's sort of like including i7 920 OC@4Ghz (and stock) when reviewing Phenom x6 1090T at stock.
fingerbob69 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
It's not that the evga card was oc'd that is the issue. Plenty of other sites include them and while some keep results from such cards to a separate graph/page, others don't. I would suggest most reading a gpu review are savvy enough to know what they're looking at and draw conclusions accordingly.Where I have a problem with the evga card is that it is the one specifically requested by nVidia. [And why not, it's the one currently available with the near heaviest oc so why wouldn't nVdia want this one included?]
In short nVdia wanted to cherry pick the oc'd card you were to use and you let them. And we can get all Machiavellian over the fact that nVdia sent these cards out so no doubt each sample was again cherry picked.
B3an - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
The EVGA is available to buy, so regardless if they're "cherry picked" of not, why does it matter? If you buy one, it's going to perform exactly the same as another EVGA 460 FTW. It's not like it was a stock speed card that has been cherry picked so that it reaches extremely high OC's to give the false impression all 460's will overclock so well.mczak - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
If you buy one, I think though you are very very likely to end up with a much higher power draw than this card had. The result of this specific card is EXTREMELY good for a 460FTW - I've seen results where this approaches GTX470 power draw (at load), apparently because this specific sample had very very low voltage while others did not. Now if that was just luck or not I can't tell but I think it would paint a bit of a different picture if power draw at load were ~50W higher.Other than that, including a OC card looks fine by me as long as the reference one is mentioned. Personally though I think a card with about a 800Mhz clock (and a bit less memory clock too) would have made more sense, as that is much closer to what common OC cards are clocked at.
Leo V - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
+1I was on the fence, until reading above post. If the reviewed GTX 460 FTW sample's power draw is not typical, this makes a strong case against including it in the review. The article itself discloses the sample came direct from NVIDIA, who had every reason to pick one that makes them look good.
I applaud the full disclosure provided, but I'd be disappointed if I ended up buying an OC'ed 460 only to discover its power consumption is above what is quoted.
mindless1 - Saturday, October 30, 2010 - link
Even if you buy two of the same card off the same shelf at the same store there is still the possibility you get two cards with different power consumption merely because they may not use high precision resistors in the voltage feedback loop so one or the other inherently runs at slightly higher stock voltage.I propose a fairly easy way to detect this, you only need to measure GPU voltage (memory voltage to a lesser extent) to see if it's a tweaked card or within expected deviations for power consumption, assuming all else about the layout and component specs remains the same.
Quizzical - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
How available to buy is it, again?http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
Out of stock at New Egg.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtool...
Out of stock at Tiger Direct.
http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-External-PCI-Express-Gr...
Out of stock at Amazon--and $261 even if it were in stock.
http://www.avadirect.com/product_details_parts.asp...
Oh hey, I found one in "low stock"--for $291. Not such a competitor to the Radeon HD 6870 at that price, now is it?
It's probably mostly a fake card (i.e., extremely limited quantities). New Egg has 43 GTX 460s listed. Eight of them are clocked at 800-815 MHz. EVGA is the only company that has one clocked above 815 MHz, and they clock it at a whopping 850 MHz. If so many GPUs could clock that high, don't you think Zotac, Palit, Gigabyte, Galaxy, or MSI (all of which have a GTX 460 clocked at 800 MHz or higher) would have one clocked above 815 MHz?
And this is the day after Nvidia's big PR stunt. If availability is this short now on a card that launched three months ago, do you think it's going to improve in the future? Not at that price, it won't.
krumme - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Thank you.Theese fact must make this discussion end.
But how difficult was it to foresee that situation Anand?
GeorgeH - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
In fairness, the external exhaust model is still in stock at Newegg (240, 230AR) and the internal exhaust model is still available (230, 220AR) direct from EVGA as of Sunday 10/24 1pm PST.Time will tell how long supply remains available (as acknowledged in the article) but for now an 850MHz 460 1GB with a warranty is still a viable option.
Quizzical - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Today there is still limited availability. But what about in the near future when there likely isn't, or when there are factory overclocked Radeon HD 6870s? What then?Will the article still leave the EVGA GTX 460 FTW in all of the charts but no factory overclocked 6870? Will the article conclusion still say, "Meanwhile if you care about a balance of performance and power/heat/noise, then it’s the 6870 versus the EVGA GTX 460; and the EVGA card wins in an unfair fight."?
And more to the point, what will happen a casual reader who comes along months down the line wanting a good video card but only glancing through reviews? Will he be given the impression that a typical factory overclocked GTX 460 outperforms a typical 6870, even though we both know that on average, the 6870 wins handily? That was Nvidia's goal with this whole stunt. And this site helped them with it.
There's a time and a place for "this part is an awesome deal today even if it will soon be gone". But a review of a major new card launch isn't it.
GeorgeH - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
How about including the rest of the quote?"Meanwhile if you care about a balance of performance and power/heat/noise, then it’s the 6870 versus the EVGA GTX 460; and the EVGA card wins in an unfair fight. As an overclocked card in a launch card article we’re not going to give it a nod, but we’re not going to ignore it; it’s 5% faster than the reference 6870 while at the same time it’s cooler and quieter (thanks in large part to the fact that it’s an open-air design). At least as long as it’s on the market (we have our doubts about how many suitable GPUs NVIDIA can produce), it’s hard to pass up even when faced with the 6870."
It's clearly stated that it's an EVGA card, not any overclocked card, and that it probably will have limited availability. The article even goes on to state:
"Without the EVGA card in the picture though, the 6870 is clearly sitting at a sweet spot in terms of price, performance, and noise."
If a casual reader can't actually read, then admittedly they might end up in the difficulties you describe. Anyone else who reads the article will get very relevant advice. That advice might change with Cayman, if Nvidia's price cuts aren't permanent, if Nvidia has anything other than a paper tiger 580 to respond with, and if AMD can put out 6870s with a significant stock overclock at about the same price. That's no different from any other article, though - which is why the date is always on the top of every page.
ssj4Gogeta - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I believe OC'd cards are too much of a variable for an article which people will be referring to for the next year or so.OC'd cards with any significant OC have very limited quantities (otherwise the company will just release a stock card with those specifications). So my opinion is that OC'd cards should be included only in exceptional cases and they should be given only a single page in the article in those cases.
DanielRwz - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
As a standard rule, OC'd products should not be used in reviews of new non-overclocked products.Unless of course the over-clocked product represents the majority of products that an average consumer would find readily available in the market at the same or lower price point of the new part being reviewed. If the over-clocked product represents an anomaly available from only one vendor at a similar price point, then it should not be included in a review comparing to a reference non-overclocked product.
xprojected - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
"Out of stock at New Egg."Back in stock, still at $229, and $239 for the EE version.
PR stunt, possibly. Fake card, no.
ProDigit - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
because less people are aware it's an overclocked version.The majority of computer users see a good review of the 460, see one sold for a good price in the store, buy it, and don't get the same results, because they have purchased a normal non OC'ed card.
bhougha10 - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
It's ironic that this cherry picked card is the exact one that everyone wants to see (I very much wanted to see this one). And so logically, it was the one that they did in the review here.Omophorus - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
The idea is nice in theory, but so much of what they review is new product being tested under NDA that they CAN'T tell us what they're getting, and let us decide before they publish what the content will be.just4U - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Anand,
All in all the review you posting about put Amd's new cards in a very favorable light. I don't understand why people would have been complaining about the Evga cards inclusion in the comparison charts. It was a solid review.. and I think it's a bit of a shame that you had to clarify it with this secondary followup.
I "DO" agree with some other posters here though. a small note on some of the politics surrounding a launch should be touched up on... Just little things like what Amd or Nvidia (or Intel, Microsoft, Apple etc.) are hoping to have included in a review. You know, off hand comments.. that give us a little insight.
E.A. BURR - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
Fully appreciate the eagerness of the Anand staff to avoid any possible misunderstanding with the readers! Have just registered specifically to express this very attitude. As for the issue, I believe that, as it has been many times mentioned below, we deserve being fully informed about the choice we have, but AMD (or any other company in its position) also deserves a fair-play - its own overclocked part presented as a possible alternative.The factory overclocked parts surely have the right to be tested, especially when their performance gain happens to be so clear as in the case with the EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW, But I would have preferred, for example, the Palit Sonic Platinum to be tested, as it is really available.
Single page or not is not at all critical.
And, frankly, I don't believe that all the buyers of the EVGA card would run to check the power draw ...
donjuancarlos - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
The EVGA 460 is a standard card available at retail. As long as you include a stock version of he 460, why not include the also-available OC'd card? It would be nice to see an OC'd and overvolted 4850/4870 in your review, though.futurepastnow - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I think the right thing to do would have been to give the GTX 460 FTW its own separate mini-article.Since these overclocked GTX 460s are apparently what Nvidia intends to use to compete with the 6870 at its $239 price, and the factory OC'd cards vary in clock speed and performance, test the 460 at various overclocks to analyze exactly how much it needs to be OC'd to be "worth it." I.E., at 820 MHz it doesn't beat a stock 6870, but at 830 MHz it does, or whatever.
Tunnah - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
how do you explain this if the ftw's have been out weeks/months before the BARTsfuturepastnow - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
The prices are going down to compete.jonup - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Agree! While I did not mind the inclusion of the EVGA FTW card, I would have loved it to be compared to overclocked HD6870 and HD6850. I do understand that you did not have enough to test OCing and should do a follow up article, in which you should have included 460 FTW. If you did not have to test the EVGA card you might have time more time to concentrate on the main attraction of the review (HD68XX).Take Care,
J
Voldenuit - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Exactly. Looking at GTX 460s on the market, a large proportion don't even run at stock (675 MHz), instead opting for low overclocks (700, 715, 725 MHz).nvidia has been friendly to factory-overclocked cards since the TNT2 (if not longer) and they are pretty much a fact of life. In addition, that EVGA FTW has been around since way before the 6870 launch so is not a paper launch to show up the new Radeon.
I think it's entirely justified to include the card, my only comment was that the technical details were omitted in the article so it was confusing to compare it to other OC'ed 460s.
cactusdog - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
If you're going to incude the OC card from manufacturer A you should include an OC card from manufacturer B.Heck going on Nvidias logic why dont we only test OC models, they are all freely available.
Did Nvidia ask for an overlcocked 5870 to be included in the 480 review? I think not. I dont like the idea of any company influencing reviewers. IT STINKS.
The whole thing stinks of DECEPTION.
just4U - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Since the 6850/70's have just been launched there probably isnt alot out there in regards to factory overclocks. Plus (my guess) is AMD won't make those cards so good that they start to compete with the new 6X cards coming out next month that are in a different price bracket.Nvidia on the other hand did something right in the 460 (been awhile..) and those loyal (or neutral to both companies) are going to continue to look at it with great interest... which means ofcourse that Nvidia will run with it for all it's worth.. trying to make the 460 look as good as it possibly can. Not a hard thing to do really and since AMD currently has the upper hand that's about all they can do until the next launch of a new Geforce series.
karlostomy - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Completely agree with Cactusdog.Nividia had their hand in this review.
1. They supplied a card for comparison that is not available to retail
2. They supplied a oc card that was inappropriately compared to reference clocks
3. They cherrypicked the best very best oc card they could and supplied it to anandtech
4. They pressured AT into including it
5. AT complied.
6. Magically, AT did not include a price for the EVGA 460 oc card, so as to make value comparisons.
As far as I am concerned, AT has lost a LOT of credibility.
I guess it's going to be hardocp.com from now on.
Spedez - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
You just don't get it don't you? You use overclocked designs from one company (worse, challenger company) but not the other. Fair? There are a million and one "standard retail" OC'd Radeons including 6800s out there too. OC'd cards need to be handled in separate cases, perhaps even separate articles, but this is the first-time launch review and should be kept apples-to-apples as yourself also said.zero2espect - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
i understand you wanting to be up front and honest with everybody. but you have nothing to apologise for. every single person that i turn to your website comes away refreshed, rejuvinated and "clean" knowing that someone, somewhere, does honest, thorough, not "cut and paste from the PR" and non-sponsored reviews.as always, great review.
keep on rocking. respect.
SandmanWN - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Pff, whatever. The whole point of the article was to show the new 6800 series.They failed.
1. Diverted time away from the product to review and include a competitors "hand picked" product and admittedly didn't finish the review the way it was intended to be done.
2. Pitted an overclocked card against a stock card and made no attempts to give a fair comparison by overclocking the 6800 to show its potential. This leaves the readers here misinformed with the notion that a 460 FTW will be the better purchase when we have no idea how a 6800 will compare under similar circumstances.
3. You receive free samples by vendors to shed a light on new products. This article has become more about manufacturers and review site ethics and the competitors card instead of the stated goal. You potentially upset your vendor and obviously a number of your readers and damage the only thing that keeps you above the rest of your competing sites... your reputation.
If I were an investor in (product A) and AT was my project manager whose results stir up controversy and simultaneously give props to my competitors (product B)... Well I would think someone would be on the chopping block.
just4U - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I disagree, Did we read the same review???????? If you look you can clearly see that the review was very favorable towards AMD's new cards.SandmanWN - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
The review was about the 6800. It should have been focal point not a favorable side show.And clearly a lot of people saw it in a different light than you or there wouldn't be a rebuttal from the site, duh.
AnnonymousCoward - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
1. It's a retail boxed product, not hand-picked.2. Ohh no, it's OVERCLOCKED versus STOCK!! Now if nvidia had called this the GTX 461, then it'd be fine?? It is a retail product. It makes graphics go fast. It costs $$. Sure it's possible to OC the 68xx, and that would be a great piece of additional info.
SandmanWN - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
Again, missing two fundamental points.1) Hand picked product delivered by Nvidia.
2) Diverted time and didn't give a complete review of the product at hand, most probably caused by taking time to review a competitors product...
Lets not be a fanboy here. This is pretty common sense stuff.
AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
#1 only potentially affects power consumption. #2 is questionable.Imperceptible - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I didn't mind it because like you said it's available on the market with full warranty as any other videocard. It's not like you OC'd your own 460 in which case results would vary much more than using 2 of the same factory OC'd cards. Also in doing my own comparisons based on your results with local prices here, that particular OC'd 460 turns out to be an excellent choice. I think you'll find it's the fan boys making the most noise because they feel it doesn't make their "team" of GPU maker look as good. But possibly in future it might be best to include factory OC'd parts from both sides to try keep both parties happy. Anyway, thanks for the review and keep up the great work!Sandstig - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Agree with Imperceptible's comments. I thought the article was very clear on how the card was factory overclocked and provided by NVIDIA.ShortyZ - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Yep, in my mind parts are parts. I thought it was a good review of AMD's new offerings and I liked how the OC'd 460 was thrown in for comparison as a kicker.FATCamaro - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Props to you, been reading AT since you were a teenager. I didn't take particular offense to the 460 OC being included. It was a little bit confusing at first, but I didn't mind it too much. Please make sure you highlight its increased price versus the regular old card clearly. Not sure if this happened.I can also see why nvidia really wants the OC results included. People have been having good OC results from the GTX460.
AMD/ATI shouldn't care the 6800 series is a hell of a value proposition. The 6850 cards were sold out on Newegg already today.
itsmekirill - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
The vast majority of GTX 460s on the market come with hefty factory overclocks. Some products just lend themselves to that more than others, and it's been acknowledged by most I think that this particular GPU is an excellent candidate for large performance gains through overclocking.You already went out of your way in the original article to downplay the role of the EVGA 460. That really ought to be enough, although from a real world standpoint I don't see how that is relevant at all, if what we're after is a price/performance comparison. Yes, it's not reference clocked, and so what? If it provides X performance for Y dollars, what difference does it make?
Postman802 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I have a little addition to the above comment.If it provides X performance for Y dollars, out of the box with warranty, what difference does it make?
I appreciate the effort of the reviewers on anandtech's to provide all the information required so i can best decide how to best spend my hard earned cash.
computergeek485 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Seems logical to include this as long as the stock one is always listed there also.jaydee - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I have no problems with the way the article was presented with the EVGA overclocked card. nVidia should suck it up though and call it the GTX 461 however...Minion4Hire - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Agreed. If Nvidia wants an overclocked 460 to be taken seriously then they should set a standard for said overclocked cards. It's not as if other manufacturers couldn't still offer cards outside of that standard, those cards would just remain overclocked 460s instead of 461s (or even curious-er, overclocked 461s). Maybe Nvidia is just too lazy to guarantee 460s at a higher clock and wants card makers to bin their GPUs for them.chang3d - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Wow! Does AMD do the same thing? (I wouldn't be surprised if they did)I didn't notice all this issue and drama, and now I dunno who to believe anymore cause it seems like every review site used the EVGA 460 FTW.
Let's focus on stock to stock as the primary comparison when you are talking about stock cards.
Yes, you can be more informative by adding the factory overclocked cards comparisons; but you need to have the stock to stock comparison first.
AstroGuardian - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Dear Anand and company,Why don't you just make an online survey and get feedback from the readers about their thoughts? If you ask any marketing student you will get the same answer: make a survey.
Throw some thinking about what kind of data is useful for AT and ship the survey online.
I am getting extremely curious how this issue will be resolved.
If you ask me i see no problem in including the EVGA card in the review. Why would i see a problem? Heck it's just a card. I don't care if it's named 460 OC or 470 or 6870. It'd a card. And i want to know what cards can do. I never vote for nVidia or AMD i always vote for the winner and i don't care who that is. If the 460 can beat the 470 so be it. Maybe some day the 470OC will beat the 480 and stuff. I don't care.
And please, keep your sanity and aim straight.....
Respect!
Mile
GeorgeH - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
When an OCd card is significantly faster than the standard card, has widespread availability at retail, and is highly relevant in terms of a price/performance to whatever is being reviewed, it'd by irresponsible not to include it in the review.In this case just because Nvidia hasn't officially made a "461" or "460+", that doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes one doesn't exist - and that card should be included in the review.
I read AT because you print what's best for me. I really don't give a damn if that means AMD and Nvidia occasionally get screwed be "unfair" comparisons - they're chip companies, not my grandma.
mmatis - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
review Intel graphics and didn't bother with either AMD or NVidia, I'm sure their fanboies would be equally happy! Just a thought, of course, but it might be worth seriously considering,,,}:-]
hackztor - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I see no point in not including it. Reviews purpose are to compare cards, overclocked is a card too. If AMD has an overclocked one add it if not tough luck for them. I like to see the max performance from the cards and it gives the readers the ability to know the max performance they can expect from overclocking cards themselves. I think the people upset are the ones who want to purchase the AMD cards and might be seeing lower performance compared to an overclocked competitor card.sparkuss - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I honestly only cared about the results in relation to my current card, a 5870 ref card. But I have seen other sites where they do a followup on all the overclock cards once they are out. If you expect to have to do that in the future of most releases, why not just keep them for a separate shootout and final price/perf data point.You didn't include any other token OC cards of the other models so why inject the separate data point now?
Yes it's one data point, but if you open that avenue of comparison, you open a need to add all the rest which you surely didn't have time for in this review yet.
You are still the only site that I come to for the final most honest reviews.
AstroGuardian - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
When you buy OCed card why do you buy it and not the ref card? Um?Because you want something more than a ref card. So what is that "more"?
Reviews like this. What is the point in having a separate shootouts other than comparing manufacturers? Simple as that
GX93117 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I don't understand the complaints unless its coming from people with obvious bias. I applaud you Anand and staff for going the route of being comprehensive with your information. I see no reason for people to be upset when the comparison is made between retail production cards. It's not like it was a custom tweaked card.At the end of the day, people come here for research and if they find a card they hadn't considered (be it an overclocked Nvidia or Amd) in their price/performance range then you have accomplished your goal.
eanazag - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I welcome the extra information as a consumer. It would be nice if there was a way to filter the OCed cards out in the Bench section if we'd like. First and foremost the stock cards should be reviewed, but after that if you want review OCed also, great.I know I have sat comparing cards and the OCed one's just confused me because I don't know where they stand in line in performance, power, and heat. I typically buy stock video cards because I know exactly where it stands.
Lunyone - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
* I think in the future you should always state the condition/requirements that any company requires for their particular product review.* If you are ever requested to use an OC'd part, than OC all parts and compare. Also compare all parts at the STOCK settings. Between the 2 tests, one can make their own informed decision with the data. This will totally remove any doubts (or at least minimize) and the fanboys will see the differences and make their own decisions too.
Concerning the review: Another website noted what nVidia was asking for, but instead took a higher road and adjusted the GPU settings close to stock settings (actually they averaged the ones that were available). I think this was a better way to address using an OC'd GPU against a stock GPU for comparison reasons.
gonks - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I think that if you put an OCed card in the charts, you should compare it with other OCed cards, not just reference cards, and in a separate page, otherwise is just bias...Also i'm still wondering why you didn't overclock the 6800 cards. I hope we'll see the results in the roundup next week.
B3an - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
It's not bias at all. The EVGA costs the same price as the 6870 but offers atleast as good performance. This is what matters. This is what people look for when buying a card... you know... other cards that cost the same.There are also no OC'ed 68xx available yet to buy, i'm sure they would have been included otherwise.
TheMan876 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I really appreciated having the OC'd card in there. These articles are around to help us decide what to buy. I keep my options open to the best performer at the price point I want to pay. The more information the better. Thanks for the article Anand and thanks for informing us even of all this behind the scenes stuff.gorobei - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
keep the main review pages at stock clocks for both competitors. Then on a single page overclock the new card and compare with the factory overclocked competitor. At least that way it is a lemon to lime comparison, instead of apple to orange.MrToan - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I'm a little surprised that anyone got so bent out of shape about that, you went above and beyond mentioning how unfair having an overclocked card is, nobody could have missed that. I'd say just ignore them, probably fanboys making noise, keep up the good work because thats why we show up here, and I had no problem with it. You saw a potential need and tried to address it before it could be asked for, what more could we want?I see a lot of people putting respect down here, not sure if thats the norm, but..
Respect!
MrToan
moretoys - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
The only issue I have is if one overclocked card is included, every card included should be compared overclocked and at standard speeds. And they should be the standard clock cards, not hand picked ones sold over msrp because of binning.I would be ok to mention there are binned versions with simlar performance, but these should not be the primary cards in the comparison, it can mislead someone into expecting to buy any 460, overclocking, and getting same perfrmance. (not saying they couldm't, but not a guarentee)
Now if you had binned cards fom both manufactures, different story.
AnandThenMan - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
As you say, overclocked versions come and go, and there is often no guarantee that the overclock will be the same. And as you pointed out, the charts will end up being a mess, one version is 10mhz one way or another. So my question is, if you have a policy, why not stick with it? So is this policy still in place or not? It makes your site seem wishy washy and disingenuous to tell the reader why you don't do something, they go right ahead and do it. Especially given that the reason seems to be Nvidia was pushing the overclocked versions "hard".My problem is, how do we know that the overclocked cards are not limited time units? Are these speed binned chips and in the future they won't be available? Is there long term reliability issues with these versions? At the very least, I feel these things should be addressed in the reviews.
So given you had a policy in place not to allow overclocked versions in reviews, my basic question would be, what has changed to make you change your mind? And in fairness, seeing you did allow the higher clocked cards in this review, in the future, you must also allow any overclocked versions. I think you just invited problems for yourself. AMD or Nvidia might ship you an uber clocked, hand picked, limited run card. You won't have any way of knowing if the card will be available for as long as the regular models.
Quantumboredom - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
While I have nothing in principle against overclocked cards, there are a few things that don't sit well with me in this case.1. "As a matter of editorial policy we do not include overclocked cards on general reviews". In this case it seems like you went against your own policy because Nvidia was prodding you and sent you a card. If Nvidia hadn't contacted you, and they hadn't sent you the card, would you have decided to include it on your own? I get the impression the answer is no, but I may be wrong.
2. Is it realistic for ~25% OC parts to be able to compete in volume against the stock HD68xx cards? I have no idea, but if not then this is just a shitty way to steal AMD's thunder. I guess the coming months will show to what extent the high overclocked cards can keep competing.
All in all I don't really like the way this case looks, but at least you are upfront about what you are doing.
Touche - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I think it was a very bad move and OC'd 460 had no place there. If you want to include OC'd cards, be it factory or not, you should do so in a separate article. In no time, there will be factory OC'd 6800 cards. That will be a good time to compare.There were factory OC'd card before, yet this is the first review you chose to include one. By that logic, you could've included all sorts of factory OC'd 4xx and 5xxx cards.
Even tomshardware handled it better:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6870...
This left a really bad taste for many of us. I'm not a fanboy of either company. I own as many Nvidia's cards as ATI's, same with Intel/AMD.
Bull Dog - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I personally didn't see a problem. You bent over backward explaining why you did what you did and your reasoning has merit.Don't make it a habit, but for one off occasions such as this. I'm ok with it.
That said: NVIDIA make a higher clocked SKU and get it over with. Backhanded moves like this, only hurts your customers in the end.
AnandThenMan - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
"Don't make it a habit, but for one off occasions such as this. I'm ok with it."That's not a fair way to do reviews. You either always allow them, or never. And seeing it was done once, it has to be allowed from here on in. Either that, or go back and change the review. Although that doesn't really help, the cat is out of the bag.
What if next time vendor X has a version with a very high overclock. Don't include that because this was a "one off occasion"? That's not a respectable way to do product reviews.
pillo-kun - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I dont really understand why people complain about it. If it is out on the market why not include it just to show what to expect of it/similar products. Not everyone is an ocer so if they can buy a preclocked card so why not... thanx for the best hardware site ever, been reading here scince 1999 or somehing :)Spazweasel - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Were it some other video card, including a factory-overclock might be an issue.However, with the 460 GTX, factory overclocks are extremely common, and extreme overclockability is an explicit selling point of the card. IN THIS CASE, including a good factory-overclocker was entirely appropriate.
It was pointed out in the article in question. I don't see a problem.
Continue to use your good judgment. Philosophical purity (and judgments thereof) isn't what we're here for.
AnandThenMan - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Who determines if a factory overclock is "extremely common"?rennya - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
The AIBs of course. Even at the date of release, the GTX460 OC versions outnumbers the versions that is on stock clock. Nowadays, finding a stock GTX460 is harder than finding an overclocked one.Touche - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
And among those, EVGA FTW's 850 MHz clock is extremely common? It is a true representative of factory OC'd 460s?Not that it should have been included in any case.
rennya - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
It is rare to see a 850Mhz of course, but the point is clear, even at launch, the OCed card SKUs outnumbers stock version SKUs easily. GTX460 release is the rare situation where overclocking is touted as a major feature for it (kinda like GT430 with its new role as HTPC card).If the price is similar, why OCed GPUs cannot be included. In the GTX460 official review, numbers from OCed GTX460 GPU also appeared in it, whihc may cause nVidia GPUs looks good and ATI GPUs looks bad. Why is that no controversy arisen from that then?
Touche - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
There are multiple reasons, all stated in other comments.tonyblair - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
There are so few sites that can be trusted to give unbiased reviews these days. So many are on the take to favour one competitor over another. The $ talks and the consumer gets shafted. This is not how it should be. Of course, this ain't a perfect world.Factory overclocked cards should never be used in reviews of standard cards in my opinion. It's sets a dangerous precendent that's open to abuse.
If you think the EVGA card deserves a mention, then by all means, give it it's own review and pit it against a 6870 there. Simple. Would've been far better than releasing the 6800 series reviews with NV's stench all over them.
cplusplus - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I just don't understand why people are so upset about including this card. It would be one thing if a stock 460 wasn't included in the review, but it is, so you can easily compare both cards to a stock 460 if that's what you want. But the OC 460 is a card that is available on shelves right now, with a warranty. If you were looking to buy a card right now, the EVGA 460 would be one of your options, so why wouldn't anyone want to see how it stacks up against the competition (or more to the point, how the competition stacks up against it). It's not like the card isn't clearly labeled in every graph, and it's not like the review doesn't take other things like its power draw and price into consideration. Basically, it seems like people are getting upset for including another valid data point in the graphs, which doesn't make any sense at all.mikeepu - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Exactly what I was thinking. Reading through the comments and seeing people say what they said of the EVGA 460 FTW being in the article, I couldn't help but keep thinking "Goodness! As long as a reference/stock clocked 460 card was in the graphs and visibly labeled to allow for easy comparisons, then whats the big deal?"Anyone who can read can easily look at the graphs and see where the chips fall. For example, I have a GTX 260 core 216, Its not in the graphs or any of the test for this particular review but by reading other card reviews (and using Anandtech's GPU Bench) i can see that it generally performs a bit better than a 5770. And since the 5770 is included in this review i can draw a very rough comparison between my old gtx260 core 216 and any other card that is in this review. Well, now that i think about it, i can just use anandtechs GPU bench to make the comparisons that matter to me. So long story short, having the extra data set that is the EVGA 460 FTW, is a non issue to me because at the end of the day, what matters is that i've been given relevant data for products that are available in the market with manufacturer warranty (none of that DIY-void-ur-warranty overclocking stuff)
On a somewhat related note, I reallly want a 6850... but i can't justify a new card because i'm still able to push decent frame rates with maxed out quailty in the games im currently playing @1920x1080 (TF2, MoH 2010, Bad Company 2, Mass Effect 2, L4D 1&2)
Man i went on a tangent...
crimson117 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I wasn't put off or anything by the inclusion, and it was an excellent, excellent article. I can't believe you did all this in one week.However, I think you should have left the mention as an aside, especially in a launch article.
I place the real blame on nVidia.
If the performance difference between stock and potential OC is so huge that it can cross major price points (20% price difference!), then nVidia should have given an official designation and speed requirement for 460 cards clocked at the 800MHz/1600MHz level.
Without official direction from nVidia, you get this messy list below, and it takes forever to calculate exactly which 460 has the best price/performance:
EVGA: 850 / 1700 , 763 / 1526 , 720 / 1440
ASUS: 775 / 1550 , 675 / 1350
MSI: 810 / 1620 , 780 / 1560 , 725 / 1450
Gigabyte: 815 / 1630 , 715 / 1430
Galaxy: 810 / 1620 , 700 / 1400
Palit: 800 / 1600 , 700 / 1400
Which is more worth it? The EVGA 763 for $207.55, or the ASUS 775 for $212? Maybe the MSI 780 at $205 is the best deal, but perhaps does it run hotter/noisier? Who knows.
p.s. I bought a 6850 this morning :) First new card since my $215 8800 GT from March 2008!
spigzone - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
"I wasn't put off or anything by the inclusion, and it was an excellent, excellent article. I can't believe you did all this in one week."It WASN'T an 'excellent excellent' article (review).
Maybe you missed the part where Ryan APOLOGIZED because the review was so poorly written, incomplete and rushed.
This review was well below Anandtech's usual completeness and standards.
rqle - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
As long as the card REFERENCE CARD IS IN the reveiw as well. The OVERCLOCK CARD must also be label as an OVERCLOCK card. Don't label it EVGA FTW, or any funky name other company uses.Amunet - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Test everything you can. If some people can't understand what an overclocked card is, that's their problem.More information is always better!
spigzone - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
So you agree there should have been a highly overclocked 6870 in the mix?B3an - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
No, because there is not a factory OC'ed 6870 available to buy yet. The EVGA FTW is. If you're going to buy right NOW you'll be looking at these two cards because of the near exact same price points and performance. So having the EVGA card is completely relevant and useful to buyers, which is the whole point of a review.plague911 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
^^ subjectfausto412 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I would prefer stock cards only. overclocked cards need to go against overclocked cards.B3an - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Yes because people never look at OC'ed cards, that are the same price, when buying a card do they. </sarcasm>AnnonymousCoward - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
"stock frequency" was determined by some engineer who graphed capability versus yield. "overclocked" is the right side of the graph from better performing parts. If a card costs $x and performs y, why do you care, fausto412, if it has "overclock" in the name? Would you stop caring if they named it "461"?El_Capitan - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I frequent 5 review sites daily, and AnandTech is one of them. As a consumer, it'd be a poor decision to buy something based off of one review. The same can be said as a reviewer, that it'd be a poor decision to test something based on one demographic audience.Every review site WILL test the reviewed product at stock settings. They will ALSO test similar performance level or cost equivalent item for comparison.
For me, I find that if you're going to start buying ANY product over $100, you want to get the best bang for your buck. We're talking about $180+ graphics cards here. When you start hashing out that much money, you're getting into the enthusiast and budget demographic. Sure, people are happy with stock settings, but there's an entire INDUSTRY geared toward the overclocking demographic. After-market heatsinks, water-cooling, companies with non-reference designs, RAM with heatsinks, etc.
When you see the price of a HD 6870, you see the price of a GTX 470. When you see the price of a GTX 460 1GB, you start looking at the HD 6850 and maybe the GTX 460 768MB. It makes sense to compare THOSE items at stock, for sure.
There's a totally different picture involved when you get one of the best bang for the buck video cards with the GTX 460 1GB and can overclock it from 726/1900 to 895/2040 (personal) compared to a HD 6870 from 900/1050 to a 950/1050 (see Tom's Hardware).
When you start overclocking, putting cards in crossfire and SLI at stock and overclocked speeds, a broader picture emerges. Not only do you get people who don't overclock happy, but you get the people who do overclock happy. Plus, you get more people who don't normally overclock to start getting interested because they see the benefits of overclocking.
Either way, it doesn't stop me coming here, even if I don't post much.
spenfunk - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Not only was it the right decision to include a competitive retail product in the review, but I would say it is actually required to provide a comprehensive review.As you mention, to not include it would have been unfair also.
For the record I am an ATI fan. (If there is still such as thing!)
Thanks Anandtech for the excellent and unbiased articles. Your integrity is appreciated, and I for one consider your reviews the "gold standard".
Now where are those Intel G3 specs?!
Will Robinson - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I doubt any AMD fan here was too happy about seeing the OC card in the comparison.If the standard card is used as well with the OC card clearly labeled then I guess its tolerable but not preferred.
In the interest of fair play I suggest the next NVDA launch (GTX580?) is put up against an overclocked version of Cayman XT which will have preceded it to market.
Naturally NVDA fans will understand,even if it does make their new product look weaker than it would otherwise.
El_Capitan - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Fans? I never understood it. Why can't someone just be a fan of performance/cost, or performance/power. Why does it have to be Nvidia or AMD? Fans of either Nvidia or AMD, regardless of benchmarks or reviews, will stick to their guns. It's not rational.I've had and have right now, both Nvidia and AMD products, and decide on the card right for me at that time. I'm a fan of choice.
mapesdhs - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
By the very nature of us humans when we're annoyed by something, those who didn't
like the inclusion of the EVGA are more likely to complain, as opposed to those who
approved of its inclusion (like me) who mostly will not say anything.
Thus, I believe it's very possible the responses we see here are biased because
people who don't think the card should have been included are more likely to say so,
because they were annoyed. Contented people don't moan about things.
So Ryan, _please_ don't make a decision on whether or not to include such cards
again based purely on the replies you read here - that would be a statistical mistake
of the highest order. If you want to go down that route then do it properly, send out
an email shot to all members in a proper poll or something, ie. to get the opinions of
everyone evenly, not just those with negative feelings who are by definition going to
be more vocal..
I understand why those who don't think the card should have been included hold that
opinion. Principles are principles, at least in theory. The reality is though that the EVGA
is real product, it's out there (or will be) and I for one would have been most annoyed to
discover the EVGA was a purchase option only after having bought the lesser Palit
Sonic Platinum (PSP for short), purely because it was never mentioned in reviews.
As always, I read the 68xx reviews on both toms and Anand. Toms didn't include the
EVGA in their tables, except for the oc table, but reading their results pages I
immediately found myself wanting to know how the EVGA would compare, especially
in SLI, ie. IMO I was being denied information which would have been useful.
Helping readers make better purchasing decisions is surely the ultimate goal of these
articles. To that end, more information is always good. When I read your intro and saw
the EVGA specs, my initial assumption was that it would be too expensive (200 UKP
or more) and thus not worth it compared to a 6870 or existing oc' 460. Searching on
Google, I was amazed to see it on Scan for only 174 UKP (though not yet in stock),
that's not much more than the PSP (which itself has dropped down from 183 last week
to ~160).
My budget is 185 UKP per card (buying 2 for SLI), so the EVGA info was incredibly
useful. Without it, I might have bought the Palit cards, never knowing there was a faster
option available, or that others might follow.
So, thankyou Ryan/Anand for including the card. IMO it was a good decision. For all
those who moaned about it, take a good, long, hard look at the power/temp/noise tables:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987/amds-radeon-687...
Given that two EVGA SLI are highly likely to be a match for 470 SLI and 6870 CF, are
you really suggesting that readers did not deserve to know that the EVGA was a viable
alternative? (especially given toms showed 6870 oc CF wasn't that much better than
6870 CF). With the 470 price drop, I was sorely tempted by the idea of 470 SLI, but for
me the temp/noise/power numbers are the clincher: if I can get them, two EVGAs look
perfect. Perhaps toms is right and these better 460 prices will only last a few weeks,
but if so then I'm sure the 6950/70/90 launch will cause yet another downshift in pricing,
and in the meantime I wouldn't be surprised if other highly oc'd 460s become available.
Talking only about reference cards is a great intellectual exercise, but how does that help
one make a real decision when hardly any of the cards available actually run at
reference clocks? This is the situation atm with 460s; toms dealt with it by using an
artificial 'average' oc, which to me is worse than choosing to exclude all oc'd parts.
Better to show just how good a genuine top-oc'd product can be and thus allow
readers to extrapolate from that best case down to whatever lesser version they might
wish to consider. It's simple math afterall. If one judged by reference results alone, one
could be forgiven for ignoring the 460 completely, whereas in reality there are some
excellent 460 products available like the PSP (800MHz GPU for 160UKP?!). Should
they be called something different though like a 461? Probably yes, given how much
faster they are.
I appreciate the rationale of not normally covering oc'd cards, but in this case, with
all the crazy price movements, I have no doubt that including it was the best choice.
Real data helps one to make decisions in the real world. As a result, between the two
reviews, I find the Anand article to be far more useful as a basis for decision making.
The only thing you could have done to make it even better is add EVGA SLI results;
is that possible? Please do if so!! 8)
If there are other readers who also think including the EVGA was a good idea, please
speak up! Ryan/Anand deserve to hear a balanced share of opinion.
Ian.
PS. I skipped the last page of comments before posting; hehe, I see AstroGuardian has
covered similar points. :D Kudos dude!
Flunk - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
The card is a regularly available retail product so I don't see any issue with it. I think you should have mentioned what the actual GPU and Memory clocks are but otherwise I don't have a problem.I personally find that factory overclocked cards quite often use quite conservative frequencies. It's normaly quite easy to get to similar or better speeds with bog standard cards. I have the bottom of the line Palit GTX 640 card and it easily matches the 850Mhz core and 4000Mhz memory clocks of the EVGA FTW card. Factory overclocked cards quite often just give you a good idea of what you can do on your own..
spigzone - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
If it is your editorial policy to not include overclocked cards in your initial review, DON'T INCLUDE THEM. PERIOD.In addition the time used including the FTW card contributed to the review's incompleteness and dis-jointedness.
Lame, lame lame.
Why didn't you just include the FTW card in your 'round-up' next week and include the highest stable overclocked 6870 in the bunch too? Are we going to make a terrible 'mistake' buying AMD based on the review because by following your own policy you 'unfairly' tilted the field against Nvidia? Are we too stupid to grasp the nuances involved and if on the fence on what to buy unable to wait a week until you can do a full fledged 'round-up' including overclocked boards from both sides?
Your audience IS (mostly) savvy and capable of overclocking their graphics boards.
What is your uncompromised integrity worth?
Listen to the sychophants on this thread clamoring to cover your @$$ for you at your peril.
lifeblood - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
If the 26% factory overclocked cards remain on the market for the reasonable future, then it was the right decision to include them. If they quickly disappear from the market due to insufficient chips, then it was the wrong decision. The problem with this is none of us can read the future.I would not have included the overclocked card in this review. While ALL companies have cheated and deceived customers, NV seems to be doing it a lot lately. For that reason I would not trust them. However, you were open about your decision and made clear your concerns so I have no grounds to complain.
Otherwise, excellent review.
IMPL0DE - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I think that factory overclocked cards should be benchmarked against other factory overclocked cards. EVGA GTX 460 FTW is a good card, true, but the whole review gets skewed when you mix it all up. Furthermore, even making a review with any card that would be overclocked by factory or by end user distorts the comparison given the fact that not all GPUs overclock the same. Expecting to overclock a card is a risky business. I couldn't get past the 725MHz on my Gigabyte GTX 460 without artifacts showing in games (and that's only 10MHz overclock over the stock card!!!) and so I've changed it to Gainward which reached 835Mhz with no problems.Keep the OC cards in comparison to other factory OC cards, or the whole review gets misleading to the users that are not very much tech savvy.
Also, you might also post a poll on this issue for us to vote.
Will Robinson - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Unfortunately I was banned from the AT forums about an hour before the launch of the review here at TR by moderator "I don't care"(irony) so I missed the opportunity to comment on this aspect of the AT review.It appears NVDA have done their homework for this launch,get an overclocked card in the review and make sure the forum opposition is effectively muzzled.
Good game NVDA.
GaiaHunter - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Can you, NVIDIA or EVGA guarantee that if every person that would buy a stock 6870 see this review instead decides to buy a eVGA GTX460 FTW will be able to?How many of these cards are out there compared to stock GTX 460 and stock 6870 and factory OC 6870/6850?
GaiaHunter - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Additionally if MSRP happens, for both or either, GTX460 and 6870/6850 will these factory OCed cards drop in price by the same amount and the same day?mosox - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
- First of all you also included an OCed GTX 460 in your GTX 460 review. Yet no OCed HD 5850 whatsoever in that review even if they were largely available. No OCed HD 5850/5870 in their own reviews.It seems that only Nvidia gets OC cards included around here.
- Secondly in your GTX 460 review you overclocked the REFERENCE CARDS and showed the results, you didn't overclock anything in the 6850/6870 review. Probably those cards you had would have gone up in flames if you did that.
- The current prices are our business not yours and the prices won't be the same a few weeks for now like they weren't the same a while ago so you can't justify the inclusion of a card because of its price, competitiveness. blah blah blah. Otherwise AMD can cut in half the HD 5970 price for a week at the GTX 580 launch - what will you do? Write that the 5970 DESTROYS the GTX 590 in terms of price/performance?
Wanna make a comparison with the GTX 460 OC editions? Sure. Get the overclocked 6850/70 first or at least overclock the reference ones and go for it in a separate article.
El_Capitan - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
WTF? So you're saying that if a card performance/cost wise is much better than the item(s) being reviewed, that they should just lie that it's the best card out there right now regardless of the price?So, a if a GTX 480 is selling at $200, and a HD 5970 still selling at $650, you're going to want them to recommend the HD 5970 because it's faster than the GTX 480? Go find crazy somewhere else, please.
mosox - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Who said that?The prices are all over the place, how much was a GTX 460 two days ago? How much will they be in December? What about the Barts price? If you don't know don't talk about that - the review is here to stay even if the HD 6870 will be $99.99 next week.
What are they gonna do, update the review every time there's a price change or do the sensible thing and not talk about the pricing but about performance?
And talk about performance - since when it's OK to compare OCed parts with stock parts? You compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges - say comparing a Phenom II X4 @4.2GHz with a stock Intel i-3 (about the same price) sounds good to you?
- For the reviews - only stock cards whatsoever.
- Then take the OCed versions of both AMD and Nvidia and do a benchmark in a new article. Or at least TRY to OC the darn stock cards you were provided by AMD - they won't bite you.
krumme - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
This deserves a longer read and some time for reflection, before the answer.But thanx for bringing this to the open, and using your ressource base.
And thank you for your openness.
I probably dont agree on your decisions, but this is an very important move, and shows quality and validity far beyond the review methology.
Thank you.
dkoay - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Anand, and team, great article.I believe the problem was that only the green OC card was used. Maybe include a red OCed card? 5850 perhaps?
spigzone - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Why not an o/ced 6870, the card being reviewed?B3an - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Because no OC'ed 6870's are available to buy.It was right to include the EVGA card as it's the same price as a 6870, and atleast the same performance.
The OC'ed 5870's cost more, even the OC'ed 5850's do.
mapesdhs - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Also, toms tried to oc the 6870, it didn't work very well (ie. little gain).
Ian.
Parhel - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
No method exists yet to control the voltage of the 6870 cards. Give ita few weeks, and we'll see how well these cards OC. I'd bet money that they won't OC as well as the 460, but it's one more reason that this inclusion was inappropriate in a launch article. Compare architecture to architecture. This amounts to a one-weekend only sale from NVidia for the sole purpose of skewing the results on tech review sites. It's shameful that my favorite review site fell for it, while other lesser sites did not.Parhel - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Untrue. First, the OC'ed GTX 460 did not have "at least the same performance." Read the review. Overall, it lost on pure performance against the 6870. Second, Asus released an OC'ed 6870. It's a mild OC, to be sure, but it exists and is available at the same price at the stock clocked cards.tannie - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Not sure if this was mentioned in the review but, I can't believe so many people missed out on this important piece of info:First, they want to announce massive (and what they claim are permanent) price drops on the GeForce GTX 460 and 470. We track this as closely as possible; the GeForce GTX 460 1 GB is indeed selling for $199 on Newegg, and the GeForce GTX 470 is now going for $260. Naturally, that makes it much more difficult for AMD to compete at $180 and $240. Suddenly, its own 6800-series cards are in another league entirely. Of course, such a dramatic move wouldn't be as juicy if it weren't accompanied by some scandalous drama. Immediately after receiving Nvidia's update, AMD forwarded a memo received by a French distributor, purportedly from Nvidia, which made it clear that the sale on both models is only going to last THREE WEEKS, after which time prices will presumably rise again. Ugh.
Source : http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6870...
So grab those GTX's while they're still competitively priced....
DearSX - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I was not even aware that overclocked 460s where so fast. Its not like I'm must going to ignore the other cars cause they weren't overclocked. I'm discerning, I need to wait for an overclocked AMD to compare, or look for one. I like to see all my options on the table, neither anandtech nor other sites will do that (I use the Bench btw). I still come away with good info. Thank You anandtech.Trefugl - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I wasn't bothered by seeing the results there and I even found it helpful to know that an OC'd GTX460 1GB could match the 6870.I would also have liked to see some data for the OC'd 6870 for a good comparison; one page would suffice. Maybe it would have made more sense to just compare the GTX460 FTW on one page also to keep things concise.
It really is a grey area since there aren't any factory OC'd 6870's at this point to compare to, so you could even make the arguement that you couldn't compare a factory OC'd 460 to the manually OC'd cards either...
Anyway, I wasn't really bothered by it being there... I do think that more data points are better (assuming readability of graphs).
El_Capitan - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
There are three reviews that have overclocked the 6870 and 6850 that I know of. That's Overclockers Club, Legit Reviews and Tom's Hardware.Exodite - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I'm generally against comparing overclocked results in a review since results can vary wildy from card to card, reviewer to reviewer.As the card in question, EVGA's GeForce GTX 460 FTW, is factory-overclocked, available and has the same warranties as the baseline 460 it's a different thing entirely though and the inclusion made a lot of sense.
That may not hold true for all kinds of cards but as the GeForce GTX 460 in particular enjoy a good and consistent overclocking headroom it makes for an interesting comparison as many users surely run their cards at similar clocks even if they don't own the EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW in particular.
I see no need to do this on a general basis though. Not many cards have the same high and consistent overclocking headroom as the GeForce GTX 460, nor are many widely available in factory-overclocked versions to the same extent.
For this particular review, and card, it was a good decision though.
tviceman - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
As many others have said, since there seems to be more factory overclocked gtx460 cards available for purchase than stock reference gtx460 cards, I think it was a good decision to include it.rmlarsen - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
No apology needed. Just keep up the good work. It was a perfectly reasonable and well documented decision.Puddle Jumper - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I think the way you handled things in the HD6x00 review was perfectly fine. You made it very clear that the card was overclocked and never attempted to pass the GTX 460 FTW off as anything else.mino - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Another signature under this post.skywalker9952 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
And anotherCrazymech - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Yea, well said.bubolini009 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Yea, well said.maree - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
yes, this comment makes lot of sense. Anand and Ryan please take note.karlostomy - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
hear hear!formulav8 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Plain and simple Anand, you lowered your own standards and caved in to nvidia. You can SAY otherwise but you DID give in to nvidia. There are PLENTY of other OC cards like 5850's, ect.. that are factory oced that i'm sure would have been pretty easy for you to find (To try and at least balance your compromising) and yet you had no desire to include any of them for 'reference' as you claimed. It would have been very simple (and even lesser stress) to wait till you did your review of the new ATI cards since that was obviously the title and overtone of your article and do a video card round up later on.Your simply downplaying the whole ordeal trying to make it look like you did it for your "readers."
I've been on this site near to since you started and this is one of the most dissapointing things you have done. And it has NOTHING to do with nvidia/amd per say. It has much more to do with why/what you did.
And yes its only a stupid video card review but I highly value integrity.
It looks like most of the people commenting here are doing it for stupid fanboy reasons or to make you feel better. To me personally it has to do with you/your reviewers ethics.
The least you could do is remove all oced results and references in the article. All I can say is dissapointing.... And of course I expect you to just ignore my comment and move on like nothing happened.
Of course this is nothing more than my 1 penny opinion. It may not even be worth that to you or anyone else. :(
Jason
spigzone - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Totally agree.I would add it's inherently DISHONEST as Nvidia AND Anand knows there is a segment of buyers who just skim the performance graphs of the few top of page googled review sites to make their choice and those buyers see '460' graphing better than '6870' ...
It's allowing your integrity to be COMPROMISED into being a TOOL for Nvidia's marketing department.
When even Tom's Hardware puts Anandtech to shame on the use of the FTW 460 in their review, Anandtech FAILED.
Jodiuh - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
You made the right choice and gave us more information as opposed to artificially limiting the competition. Anyone upset with the choice to include that card's being a silly little fanboy.These 460's clock significantly higher. Running stock? Return the card and go buy a Dell.
That said, I think its time to start listing cards twice. Stock and overclocked. Note it with an "OC" and put the clocks in the test setup. While ur at it how bout kicking singleplayer benchmarking to the curb and doing proper multiplayer craps runs in games like BC2. I've never played a time demo or spent the majority of my time with an MP centric game by myself. Your video card reviews do not reflect what I see when gaming and that needs to change.
Creig - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
why not simply overclock a reference card? Why include a factory overclocked card that was most likely assembled using a binned GPU and costs more than the stock card? Or is possibly even a handpicked card? Overclock a reference model instead. That way we can get an idea of what the standard models are capable of, both at stock clocks and highest stable OC. Most likely, the clocks will end up nearly as high as the factory models anyhow and we'll know what the factory overclocked models are capable of. I would say leave the factory OC'ed models for their own shootout.So Nvidia sent you (AFAIK) the most highly overclocked 460 available on the market and attempted to pressure you into including it in a review dedicated to their competitors latest lineup? Seems like a rather sleazy thing to do. I realize that business is business, but does AMD try to pull things like this?
You mentioned that, "Both sides (correction, all companies) have done nasty things in the past but you come here to read about products, not behind the scenes politics so we've mostly left it out of our reviews." I disagree. I WANT to know when companies try to pull stunts like this. One of the reasons that I've stopped purchasing Nvidia cards is because of their corporate tactics. It seems that their motto has become, "If it will make us money, DO IT!". I like Nvidia hardware. However, I simply cannot bring myself to support a company that will pull stunt after stunt like this. PhysX lockout, Batman:AA, bumpgate, AEG, etc...
So please, DO inform us when companies attempt things that you consider questionable. The more their dirty laundry is aired in public, the less likely they will be to try similar things in the future. There are those of us who care about such things and we tend to vote with our wallets.
mapesdhs - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
"why not simply overclock a reference card? Why include a factory overclocked card
that was most likely assembled using a binned GPU and costs more than the stock card?"
Get your facts straight. From most sellers, the cheapest GTX 460 1GB _is_ an
overclocked card. Focusing now on stock cards is a complete waste of time. Nobody
in their right mind, knowing all the facts, would buy one. For example, the Palit
Sonic is cheaper than a couple of the 768MB versions, and also cheaper than
some 1GB cards with lower clocked GPUs.
This obsession with reference clocked cards is ridiculous. It doesn't match the
reality of what is available to buy. And of course factory-oc'd cards are selected
parts, that's the whole point of such products, ie. they're guaranteed and warrantied
to work at the higher speed.
As for overclocking a reference card, by definition that won't convey what is
genuinely available to buyers. How is one supposed to make a sensible decision
based on performance data that inherantly underestimates what one can obtain?
NVIDIA boasted when the 460 launched that it could often be oc'd to 900 or so,
but back then there were no such products one could buy so any possible oc at
that level was entirely up to the buyer to risk. Now we see cards running at close
to 900, so surely we have a right to know how well they perform, especially since
such cards also have the memory & shaders running at faster speeds.
Having said that, it does make perfect sense to list both normal and oc versions,
but toms' review showed the oc'd 6870s weren't that much better anyway.
The real point about 460s now is that buying a stock clocked 460 is just plain
dumb because oc'd editions are so widely available and cheaper.
Ian.
lesherm - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
As a longtime reader of AT and purchaser of AMD and Nvidia products, I like knowing who offers the best product in a given price range. I think it made sense to include a representative for OCed 460s since they really change the landscape for the consumer. Even reference cards have problems with availability sometimes, and I feel like AT does a good job on calling companies out on availability issues. There was a pretty large caveat slapped on the 460 FTW's inclusion in this review, and I am better informed for it.Keep up the good work.
Donnie Darko - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
The greatest problem with using an overclocked card is that it produces an unrealistic expectation of what an end user is going to expect. Factory overclocked cards are all binned chips, but a typical consumer will see that card as 'just another 460' that had the frequency turned up. This leads to the problem that people will purchase the cheaper version and expect it to perform like the binned chip by just turning up some sliders.A reference design and a factory overclocked card are really two separate products that unfortunately share the same name. If the chip is capable of performing that much better, and there are enough of them to bin, then the parent corporation can produce a new SKU and release it.
Using an OC card in a review is dishonest for the simple reason that it builds false expectations since the end user cannot bin their own chips, and therefore should not be done.
OCing should stand alone in a separate article as it represents a different focus and value proposition. People that are savvy enough to differentiate between a factory OC part vs the DIY route don't need to see the OC version in the review to know of its potential and those who aren't need to be protected from the risk.
Leave OCed parts out of reviews, but not out of the whole analysis process.
spigzone - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
" People that are savvy enough to differentiate between a factory OC part vs the DIY route don't need to see the OC version in the review to know of its potential and those who aren't need to be protected from the risk"Nicely differentiated and stated.
rocky12345 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
As stated in the title there is no reason to include a overclocked card like the EVGA one. Some else pointed out well if AMD didn't have a OC card then tough for them. Well the same thing could be said for Nvidia if they did not have a refreshed product to compete with the new AMD cards in the same price point then tough cookies for them grin & bear it. For Nvidia to actually call rview sites & ask them to include a overclocked card in a newly released product like the 6800 cards only shows that Nvidia wasunprepared & had to act in desparation to make themselves look good. Just because you can buy a OC'd card online or in a store does not make it a full channel product it is what it is a overclocked card plain & simple it is running out of spec from what it was released as. I dont care if Nvidia or EVGA say oh well you got full warranty the cards are out of spec & they will fail & most likely just after the warranty runs out. Like I said if Nvidia wanted to have something to put up against AMD in these reviews then maybe they should have released a higher clocked 460 & called it a 460+ or 461.
As always good review from Anandtech when I am about to buy new gear I use this site as my starting point. You guys seem to be on the level & makes people like me trust your reviews.
Thanx
Sind - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I don't believe they have any place in a review like was presented last night. Adding an overclocked version of a card versus a stock clocked just released product and then not even exploring overclocking that newly released card in the article is misleading. I have no problems comparing stock to stock or oc to oc in seperate articles. I'm disappointed however that you went against your own policy and included it anyhow, regardless of this request for feedback, you still went and did this in the review.destrobig - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I didn't think much of it when reading the 6800 article. It seemed like you were pretty upfront about the OC 460 and what it meant. As a test, I looked through the 460s on Newegg and most of them are overclocked (pretty significant overclocks too). To compare some AMD cards, I looked at 5770 and 5870 cards and most are not overclocked (those that were were rather mild overclocks). If you were in the market for a 460 you'd have to out of your way to get a non-overclocked card so including the OC 460 in the review was a logical choice. If you had include an OCed card that was in general not OCed then it would have been a bad comparison.soydios - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
In my humble opinion, the original article more than sufficiently highlighted the fact that it was using an overclocked but warrantied card and elaborated on both your reasons and your concerns in doing so. Ultimately, if I am using the article to guide my purchases, then I want a comparison and explanation of the widely available products on the market, and the original article gives just that. If you encounter a similar situation again in the future then I encourage you to do exactly the same thing that you did there, including continuing to give heed to and notice of your reservations.shaggart5446 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
my believe is that it shouldnt have been there at should wait until amd partners get theirs oc out and then do a different comparison on all oc cards and see the result there wasnt any oc amd cards so how r u comparing oc against stock just doesnt make any sence i think nvidia has to do something with this review because the 6800 was just too good for the 460 and nvidia doesnt have anything to match so they went to evga and cook up something for launch day why wasnt this card available from 2weeks ago why is it just showing up nowStuka87 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I commend the standpoint of you and the other contributors of this site for not giving in to the companies that want to you review specific products, or shows them in a better light.On that note, the fact that there are so many variables in the over clocked cards, I do not agree with them being used to compare to factory cards. I can see why nVidia would want reviewers to do this, but I feel its almost false advertising. As people see "GT460" and think "Oh, that beat this and this card". When in fact, a factory GT460 doesn't. Only the over clocked model does. And even then, only some over clocked cards may in fact perform better. As there is know standards for the various card companies to follow.
As for keeping the politics out of the reviews, I agree with that. I have worked directly with some companies on reviews and testing, and the behind the scenes stuff should stay behind the scenes. People who visit this site regularly should know that you don't bend to every whim from the various companies you deal with.
I enjoy this site so much partly because I know the reviews are typically the least bias'ed reviews around.
Keep up the great work Anand and Crew.
Twoboxer - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
The review gave data and a conlsuion. The conclusion was clear from the data. What's the beef? I think the only other thing you could/should have done would have been to attempt to OC the 6850 to the same degree.Every 460 on the market has a different clock rate lol; they seem easy to OC. Maybe the 6850/70 will too. OTOH, maybe those two cards don't OC as well as a 460. Shouldn't people know that?
Besides technical competence, the most important thing is for this site to maintain the perception of honesty, and have that perception match reality. You know that. I think your rapid reaction and explanation is once again testimony to both.
Now, I'm sure you'll give us more data - push the 6850 and 460 from stock and lets see how they fare/compare.
a2f - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I could care less.Don't let fanboys tell you how to run your site.
AnnonymousCoward - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Do you mean you couldn't care less? Saying you could isn't saying much.a2f - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I will say having the OC card confused me because at first I didn't realize it was overclocked. But that's probably because I jump to the benchmarks before reading anything.spigzone - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Most people do.blastingcap - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
How about this solution: you can include as many oc'd cards as you want, but you must also include the price of the card in parentheses for every card tested, **on ALL of the performance charts themselves**. Either that or a mandatory price/performance chart at the end of the review.lenghui - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I think it is great that AT includes the OC'd EVGA 460 in the comparison because the card is readily available with full warranty. Give us the info and let us make the decision as long as it does not cause confusions.However, I read a recent article by Anand, in which you distinguished AMD and NVidia cards with two colors of different shades. In fact, you did this after several user feedback. As a result, the comparison charts were very easy to read. Could you apply that same color scheme in future comparison? (blue and red would be my color of choice...).
As always, thanks AT for the great articles!
7amood - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I understand your point of view and I like it.I first was feeling outrageous but the disclaimer cooled me down.
I first take a quick tour around the article pages and then do a full reading.
I didn't notice the disclaimer first and didn't know why was this article talking about nVidia's card.
I suggest making disclaimers more noticeable (bold, color, ...etc.).
after all, I wouldn't mind seeing the same thing done to a brand new nVidia products.
morsel - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
The original article was up to your usual excellent standards, and the inclusion of the OCed 460 is an intriguing option worthy of serious consideration. Great writing as always, don't let the turkeys get you down.spigzone - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
The original review was so rushed and incomplete the reviewer felt compelled to APOLOGIZE for the poor quality of the review and promised to get it in order as soon as possible.But I guess for some oiling the waters takes precedence over factual reality.
Tunnah - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
not gonna read through other comments, hoping i've said something that plenty of others have said - who in the catshit has the balls to cry omfgwtfbbq ? o noes they included settings for an overclocked card as a benchmark i want my money back! (yeah exactly)it's a benchmark, a yardstick, and was no way highlighted to show favourtism..tbh the only people i can think who would possibly bring this up are AMD employees and trolls
get a god damn life
spigzone - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
go such a green lollipop.SlyNine - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Having another data point to base decisions on never hurts.spigzone - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Yeah, integrity is SO overrated.doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Yeah, knowing which card is better value for money is SO overrated.And what are you on about, integrity?
They couldn't have been more explicit about exactly which card they were including and gave clear caveats which any monkey could grasp.
Like there's some kind of moral law been broken by telling consumers which card is faster?
Why are you so naive to think that just because a card is FACTORY overclocked it should be ignored?
jecs - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
To me is nice if you decide to include an overcloked Nvidia 460 card that is close on performance and price, in fact it was great for me to see this on the same graphic and a logical or pertinent inclusion. I think, and pardon me, this should not be a sport team competition for consumers and those complaining just wanted: A winner and a looser. I will buy from every brand my budget allows me when I feel a specific feature is better for me alone and for what I do and not necessarily for what others think is obvious or best. As a matter of fact I need to buy a Nvidia card for a specific 3D rendering software - Octane, not for gaming, so my only hope is to find a 460 card with 2 gigs of memory at a lower price. But I think the new offerings from AMD are even better performers in general now.Keep the good work! Competition will keep the market improving and with better choices for us.
strahd13 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I thought you handled it right, you made clear the irregularity upfront and and we can simply leave out the data as we read if we do not like it.spigzone - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Hey Anand, here's the Bottom Line:YOUR REPUTATION JUST TOOK A HIT.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
For the majority of people I think Anandtech probably just gained credibility, just because they're decent enough to be open and honest when a bunch of fanboys start throwing their dolls out of the pram.glad2meetu - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I have no issue with the approach taken by Anandtech. This site is considered a premier site by most people who follow electronic hardware. Most companies will go out of their way to try and get a favorable review. There is nothing wrong with that. Anandtech takes a balanced approach to reviews. AMD has a lot to be proud of with these new cards.You clearly labeled the part as an overclock and stated that you would be reviewing AMD cards from several vendors next week. I look forward to that review since it is obvious that the AMD parts are going to be able to overclock as well with more elaborate cooling. You also list the non-factory overclock nVidia parts in your graphs. Your smarter readers will be able to deduce what they can probably expect from overclocked AMD parts. Other readers are going to respond the way they did. Both AMD and nVidia have competitive parts. I have not yet decided what I will buy.
spigzone - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
If Anandtech had taken PRINCIPLED approach to this review, this *hitstorm wouldn't have happened.doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
So there's now a 'principle' that certain products should be ignored when reviewing others? Why's that then?It's like you genuinely think this is some kind of moral outrage, I mean seriously, how sad could you be?
I think the main principle to any review site like this is to help customers find the best value for money, or best performance, etc, basically the FULL picture.
How can you provide the consumers with a full picture if you don't include a better value proposition from a competitor?
How is it BETTER to hide information from consumers? It isn't.
Touche - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
The fact that you've put a disclaimer in the original article is worthless. You shouldn't have done it, period.And you completely disregarded one important fact: reference cards are available all over the world. EVGA cards are not to be found in my country at all! Let alone these special overclocked ones. And the one you included is the highest OC'd 460 there is, not even close to being a representative of a majority of factory OC'd 460's.
The inclusion is not beneficial to all your readers worldwide, and is least beneficial to the integrity of your site. Bowing to demands of a company in reviews, taking any hints at all even, is below all standards. Anandtech is one of my most frequented sites, and generally highly regarded, but this put a big stain on that.
Tunnah - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
so basically you're saying they should only review stuff available to you ?Touche - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Your reading comprehension is remarkable.What I am saying is one shouldn't include a niche card (both performance and availability wise) in a new generation graphic card's review.
Tunnah - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
why ? are the readers so devoid of comprehension that anything outside the norm would send them into the abyss ?i can't understand this at all, from what i can tell not 1 reader has assumed the OC'ed card to be anything but so..in fact most see it was a good yard stick as an alternative not as a higher model but as a different path; if there's so many OC cards out there than maybe my factory clock can perform just as well..
..to be honest you all seem pissed about information to the masses..let's be overdramatic here and say 1984..but i'm drunk as a skunk so i can be
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
+1 exactly.Who cares if a card is niche? The fact is I could buy one right now, and the majority of the readers on this site could buy one right now. Just because a tiny percentage don't have the ability to buy it, so what?
If you can't buy it, ignore the provided data and move on. Why is it so challenging to NOT buy a card if you know it isn't available to you?
StormyParis - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
The risk is 2-fold:1- nVidia may be trying to use EVGA's specific factory overclocked product to have AT, and us, validate the whole factory overclocked category. As far as I know, specs of individual factory overclocked products may vary even more widely than specs of standards products, and we already know those can vary...
2- nVidia is artificially adding products, and padding their lineup, to drown ATI's. And hijacking review space, again to drown out ATI, by getting reviewers to describe their oddball offering at length.
In the end, I think the proper place for this non-standard product, in this specific review, would have been a sidebar. A specific product from a specific vendor has no place in a reference design shootout, especially when there's a strong risk that other overclocked cards will NOT be the same specs.
You fell for it.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
1 - Are you saying you lack the intelligence to realise that the EVGA own brand factory overclocked card isn't necessarily the same as other manufacturers? It seems the problem is not with Anand, but with yourself.2 - You mistake the fact that NVidia made a suggestion with that being the reason it was included. Anandtech clearly eluded to the reasons why they chose to include the card, perfectly logical and rational. You describe it as an 'oddball' offering, but it's available, to buy, right now, with a warranty at reviewed speeds. So what's 'odd' about it?
Why do you think that separating the 'non-standard' products would make any difference? The conclusion would still be the same, it would just be spread over 2 reviews, instead of one. Again, we seem to arrive at a point where I simply have to question your intelligence. Are you saying that 1 review is too confusing for you, so you need to have it broken down? Bless.
And we all know that overclocked cards are not the same specs, even a monkey knows that, but they didn't add 'overclocked cards' - they added the EVGA card. There's a difference, and they couldn't have been more clear about it.
Antah Berantah - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
"especially when there's a strong risk that other overclocked cards will not be the same specs"Do you really mean it?
I have two GTX 460, one from Digital Alliance and another one is MSI, both running at 900 / 1000 and seems that I can push them even higher
fredgiblet - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I have no problem with the inclusion of overclocked cards as long as they are clearly labelled as such. I agree completely that nVidia SHOULD simply create a new product line with higher specs (they've done it before after all) but in the meantime I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to push OCed cards and for you to review them.HOWEVER, I would say that you should cease posting OCed cards if they persist in not creating a new product line for some time, give it a month or so, if they haven't responded by then then they probably won't and there's no reason to do their work for them in the long run.
Tunnah - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
thats the thing OC'ed cards are always labelled as such one way or another; anand is hardly a site for the laymen, we come here for in depth reviews that aren't watered down for the everymanwhen i look over a chart i realise if there's a card with the same name but with a few extra letters, its gonna be an OC'ed model
if you think otherwise then i dunno what the hell you're doing here
brybir - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Here is my opinion for what its worth:I have a 4850 in my rig. I will be upgrading this Christmas to a new card. When I come back to AT around that time and look at reviews (and specifically bench), I dont want to have to wonder if the cards I see there are actually available, if they are the same card, same freq, same memory etc....
The indisputable fact is that reference cards will last throughout the life cycle of the product, overclocked cards come and go for many reasons that you know, making performance, price and availability somewhat questionable. In six months we will know if the EVGA 460 FTW is available at the current price, but we dont really know.
So my vote would be stock v stock in your baseline reviews of new products, and then OC reviews separately against other OC'd cards.
I like that you told us that Nvidia asked you to use the 460 FTW card, and that they lowered prices (although other sites say its possible that the price drops will not last) but then it feels like you sold out to appease them (even though I know you didnt, this is Anandtech, it feels and reads that way, and I dont like it one bit).
So in the end, stock v. stock, separate OC article is what I would like to see.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
So you're suggesting splitting up a coherent, logical review into 2 parts.For what? How is that a benefit? It changes nothing.
They included a Stock vs Stock comparison in the article, which is what you're asking for, so what's the problem?
They didn't manually overclock, they compared STOCK FACTORY overclocked cards to STOCK reference cards. Since there WASN'T an available Factory overclocked 6870 at the time, they didn't have the option to compare Factory overclock to Factory overclock. Is that fair, I hear you cry? Well of course it is, because right NOW, that is an accurate reflection of what CONSUMERS CAN BUY. You can't ignore factory overclocked product A because company B hasn't pulled their finger out yet and got their own factory overclocked product out. You include everything you know at the time.
cusideabelincoln - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I don't mind that you test overclocked cards, but I think you should keep them separated from the normal, reference data in a review. So either dedicate a few pages in the review discussing overclocked options and their performance, or make an entirely separate review like you did with the Gigabyte GTX 260 Super Overclock (which was an awesome article):http://www.anandtech.com/show/2854
Hrel - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I think you should definitely choose a card to represent overclocking for each GPU. AMD and Nvidia. Especially if there's a card that's factory overclocked that's really spectacular, and actually offers a tangible performance adavantage; whatever companies GPU is powering it. Though I think you could probably keep the factory overclocks on their own page or 2 and then your own custom overclocks on their own page or 2. Now, if a certain companies GPU, 400 series or 6800 series for instance, overclock really really well, better than the competition that's DEFINITELY something I want to know.Personally I buy the cheapest version of whatever GPU I'm buying that I can find. I don't care if it's pre-overclocked or not; if I want it overclocked I'll do it myself. So personally I mostly just want to know the limits of the card without increasing core voltage and with increasing it, and I want to know if AMD overclocks better than Nvidia or visversa. As far as factory overclocks it's not something that I'll pay extra for; but I'm sure some people will so it should surely have its own little section.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
@ both of the above.Are you both seriously saying that you lack the mental capacity to distinguish a factory overclocked model from a reference model in a series of graphs?
Really? Poor little monkeys need it broken down?
It's like an insanity defence, but with stupidity instead.
Parhel - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
We all have our opinions on this, but if you can't treat others with respect, nobody is going to be interested in what you have to say. Seriously, if you aren't capable of having a debate without resorting to insulting other people, you aren't worth talking to.Parhel - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I spoke up on the other article, but since you've asked, I'll say it again. This move has caused Anandtech to lose credibility in my eyes. I've used your articles to assist in making purchasing decisions many times, and have often recommended it to colleagues to do the same, but I won't feel comfortable doing that any longer.Since Derek stopped writing the video card reviews, they have slowly become more and more biased. The HD 5870 review was "damning with faint praise" at best when the rest of the world considered it the most significant launch of the year, and your GTX 480 review was by far the most positive spin of anything I read.
If you truly felt that including OC'ed cards was proper for a comparison, you would have done it before today. You would at least have OC'ed the 5970 in your review of the GTX 480, as that card was built to be sold to enthusiasts and OC'ed. Or, you would have compared a Toxic model 5850 to the GTX 470. But instead, every AMD card you have ever used for comparison in an NVidia launch was stock.
OC'ed cards will come for 6000 series, prices will drop, alternate cooling and memory configs will appear etc., etc. But people will look to this review for months to come, and come away with the wrong impression from your charts. It's a disservice to your readers, and has lowered my opinion of the site.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
OH wake up.Any review of any graphics card would be a FAIL if they didn't look at the prices of the cards.
And those prices will NEVER stay the same for 'months to come'.
Reality check please? It simply isn't possible to write a review, particularly in this industry, which will still contain the accurate prices in months to come (unless they tied it to some kind of API to update them automatically - which BTW Anandtech, if you need, contact me).
It's obvious that reviews and the prices they quote can become outdated, but everybody knows that, and would obviously notice by simply looking at the latest prices on newegg.
The second part of your criticism is that people will come away with the wrong impression. Did you? Because I know of 10 monkeys that would be capable of reading those graphs. Unless you question the accuracy of the data, there is nothing to suggest anybody would come away with the wrong impression. If they come away thinking that the EVGA card is better value for money, then they are CORRECT, not 'wrong'.
JasioKwasio - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I've seen all the disclaimers, including comments on the temporary state of the EVGA offer and your doubts of how long it is going to last. I perceive your site as credible one.Way to go!
CrazyGPU - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I do think that it was a correct choice to bring up the 460 OC cause its a real competitor of the 6870 price performance wise.I also want to congratulate Anand for being so good at making reviews over the years.
rs1 - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
"From my standpoint, having more information never hurts."Here, I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with including an extra datapoint for a factory-overclocked card when the overclock is large enough to make a tangible difference in performance. However, treating the overclocked card as the "official" competitor of the reference 6850/6870 does not fall under the category of "having more information". I get that nVidia wants the story spun that way, but that doesn't mean that you should go along with it.
At the very least, treating an overclocked nVidia card as the official competitor of the reference 6850/6870 completely discounts the possibility of overclocked 6850/6870 cards. That's not really fair to AMD, and comes across as a fairly serious omission in my opinion. If an overclocked card is going to be treated as the primary competitor then I think the fair and balanced thing to do is to also overclock the card(s) under test as much as possible, and include the overclocked numbers in the results (or maybe generate two sets of results, one for cards running at stock settings, and one for overclocked, and then the comparisons are always fair). Then people truly do get more, because they can see the complete picture. To do otherwise just writes off the possibility that vendors will be releasing 6800 series cards that also sport a 26% overclock in the coming weeks and months, and which blow right past the overclocked GTX 460.
Really though, I think the place for benchmarks of an overclocked GTX 460 card is in the GTX 460 article itself. Would it be so terrible if people interested in seeing how an overclocked GTX 460 compares to a stock 6800 had to click a link to the GTX 460 article and browse through to get a feel for approximately how much faster the overclocked card was? In general an overclocked card is not going to outperform its reference model by more than 10-15%, so including only reference models when comparing between product lines is not unreasonable. Anyone wondering how an overclocked card of a given series would perform can just add ~15% to the reference score and come away with a reasonable upper-bound.
So I don't fault you for including an overclocked card, but I do fault you for branding the overclocked card as the official competition for the 6800 series, and for not including benchmarks of overclocked 6800 series cards in all the comparisons. Even if you had to overclock the reference cards yourself, having the numbers there for comparison is more fair than having no overclocked 6800 representative at all.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Sorry, how exactly did Anandtech treat this as the 'official' competitor, and why are you so desperate to distinguish 'official' from 'unofficial'. You can 'officially' buy the EVGA card, who cares who manufacturers it? It's a card, it works, what's the problem?You make out like this HAS to be some kind of battle between NVidia and AMD, but that's ridiculous. It's a comparison of ALL GRAPHICS CARDS, to find which offers the best value for money.
You then claim that they have discounted the possibility of overclocked 6850/6870 cards. How exactly? Where in the article did they state that there wouldn't be overclocked 6850/6870 cards? Of course they didn't, so of course they aren't discounting anything. The critical point here is that there aren't overclocked cards YET, so as of right now, they didn't have the option to include a factory overclocked 6850/6870. But wait, are you saying that means they are not allowed to review the EVGA card until some random competitor makes a new card? How is that reasonable? The EVGA card is available right now, so why not include it? If you release a product first, and it's available to buy RIGHT NOW, when a competitor has not managed that, that is NOT reason to refuse to review it. By that logic, before reviewing any new card from any manufacturer, we have to wait until an other manufacturer releases a new card, whenever that may be. That's ridiculous. When you do a review, you review what is AVAILABLE at the time.
IF 6850 and 6870 overclocked cards come along in the future and are then ignored, THEN you can cry about it. Until then, wake up and realise that all Anandtech did was show the competition.
And manual overclocks of the 6850 and 6870, couldn't be more irrelevant. This is FACTORY warranted overclocks, there's a big difference.
Quizzical - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Including the EVGA GTX 460 FTW was a huge mistake, but for reasons that no one has yet touched on. (And yes, I did read all of the previous comments.)You've really got two different audiences here. One is the people who follow tech and know when parts launch and read reviews right after they are posted. That's the people who are replying to this thread. For people who might buy such a card today, including factory overclocks is fine, though it would probably be better to either include a lot of factory overclocked cards or none at all.
But the other is people who want to buy a new computer, haven't been following tech, and want to know what to get. They'll come along and check reviews months later. They probably won't read the whole thing; they just want to know enough to have some idea of what to get, so that they don't pay $100 for a low end card like a GeForce G 210 or a Radeon HD 5450 thinking it's going to be a great gaming card.
Go here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2848/14
That's the conclusion to your Radeon HD 5850 review. Basically, great value for $260. And it was. But it didn't stay at $260 for long. In that case, at launch, it would have been a pretty good value for $300, too. But you (meaning, AnandTech writers collectively) probably wouldn't have been quite as positive about it had it launched at $300. The original article doesn't mention the price hike.
Now, I don't believe that was intentional shenanigans on AMD's part. They probably intended to get twice as many Cypress wafers in 2009 and keep the cards in stock at $260. They didn't expect TSMC to be unable to deliver. But price hikes on all models of a major card like the 5850 are rare.
Price hikes on individual SKUs like the EVGA GTX 460 FTW are not so rare. Nor are such cards disappearing entirely. For that matter, have a look at it right now on New Egg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
Oops, it's out of stock. That was fast. There is a second SKU of it for $10 more still in stock, for now. No idea how long that will last.
Now go back and read the conclusion of the Radeon HD 6870 review. It surely would have been more positive about the 6870 if one had completely ignored the heavily overclocked GTX 460.
How long do you think the EVGA GTX 460 1 GB FTW will be around? Out of 48 GeForce GTX 460s on New Egg, it's not just the largest overclock. It's the largest by a whopping 35 MHz. There are eight others in the 800-815 MHz range, so plenty of other companies are trying for big overclocks, too. If a lot of GPUs were suitable for a factory overclock to 850 MHz, don't you think someone other than EVGA would have managed to release a factory overclock to at least 820 MHz?
What stops Nvidia from providing a few hundred cherry-picked GPUs to EVGA for a PR stunt to coincide with the launch of an AMD card? Maybe they sell the GPUs for one particular SKU significantly cheaper than they would have otherwise, and simply absorb a cost of several thousand dollars as a marketing expense. That's well worth for them it if it gets reviewers to tone down praise of the Radeon HD 6870 enough that hundreds of people who check sites like this months down the road decide to buy an Nvidia card rather than a Radeon HD 6870.
I'll tell you what stops it. If reviewers ignore the factory overclocked GTX 460 in the Radeon HD 6850 and 6870 review, that stops it. But you didn't do that. And you'd better believe that Nvidia will try it again in the future. After seeing how well it worked, AMD might well try it, too, as they'll now be able to say, you did it for Nvidia, so you have to do it for us or else they'll have a legitimate claim of bias.
So how does only reviewing reference cards stop this? Surely we can all agree that a GeForce GTX 460 1 GB for $100 would be a great deal, at least for the end consumer. If Nvidia wanted to slash prices to that level, and the review conclusion said, go get the cheap GTX 460 instead, there would be nothing wrong with the review saying that.
But Nvidia can't do that without losing their shirt. They can offer an artificially good deal on one particular SKU of one card from one board partner for one short period of time as a PR stunt. They can't do that with all of the GTX 460s at once or else they lose money on the card. Try to do that to counter every review and you lose money on all of your cards, and then go out of business. They can eat several thousand dollars to spike some reviews as a marketing expense. They can't so well eat a loss of millions of dollars to dampen enthusiasm over the launch of a competitor's cards.
Parhel - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Excellent find:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
Wow! Just . . . wow. The GTX 460 FTW edition, in stock for half a day.
Just long enough to fool reviewers into thinking this was a real card.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Yeah, just WOW.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
In stock. Get a grip child.
redpriest_ - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
100% agreement with Quizzical on this.bennyg - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Good point well made. If a 800-815MHz gtx460 had been chosen instead, it would make far less difference if it had sold out so quickly as there were other similar parts for similar prices around.The issue boils down to the evga gtx460 being so different from the rest - that picking it and not mentioning the other issues was a mistake.
Issues being: price changes? availability (both of GPUs from those top bins, and to market)? engineered stunt? other companies with similar clocked parts coming soon, or not?
Antah Berantah - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
So good is gtx 460, any other card you buy can easily overclocked to at least 850 mhz- i'm going to push my gtx 460 hawk to 1 ghz. so the evga gtx 460 ftw is just an ordinary overclocked cards and compare it to stock 6870 is fair.If you want to compare overclocked 6870 with overclocked gtx 460, please pick up any 6870 cards you like and overclocking it as highest as possible then compare it with my gtx 460 hawk in its highest.
spigzone - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Excellent, well thought out and written post.maree - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
+1 to that.This is definitely one of the most reasoned comments on this debate.
My personal point of view is that Anand was within his rights to include an OC card, as it seems that is going to be the strategy of NVIDIA to fight the 68xx onslaught. But the problem I feel here is I dont think Anand bought it from the market like rest of the readers do. We dont get the card delivered to our doorstep by EVGA. In fact I dont even get to buy the EVGA card in my country. My strong feeling is when the readers attempt to buy this card, either the price will be up or power and/or performance will be worse
Anand's explanation seems reasonable, but bottomline is, it is not in good taste going against their own policy. so time to redefine/crystallize thier policies and have separate section/article for OC cards, where needed.
cactusdog - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Exactly, review all the OC models or none at all. The manufacturers know most users just skim the bar graphs when making a purchase decision. Shenanigans.Quizzical - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Except that that wasn't my point at all. That was just a side comment in the second paragraph.The bigger issue is that comparing a card that is going to be produced by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to a limited edition card only briefly available at the claimed price on the day of the review muddles things for people who want to find out about cards months later, therefore making the review less useful to that audience. In particular, it encourages more marketing shenanigans and PR stunts, making it harder for less tech-savvy users to decipher which cards are better than which others.
The card is a PR stunt, and not representative of the factory overclocked GTX 460s that are widely available. If it's such a real card for $240, why did New Egg sell out the day after the reviews went live? Tiger Direct is sold out, too:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtool...
It's likewise sold out at Amazon, in spite of a price tag over $260 there:
http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-External-PCI-Express-Gr...
There are a couple other places that have it in stock, but what I could find charged over $260. Matching the performance of a $240 Radeon HD 6870 with a $260+ card that is hard to find and much higher power consumption isn't so impressive.
Now, there's a place for saying "here's a great deal on a card for much less than the usual price". But in a review of a competitor's card is not it.
anactoraaron - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
+1Excellent post. And your reward for such an excellent post is a GTX460 1gb FTW from EVGA! They will ship one out to you when they are in stock... i.e. when Ryan sends the review card back.
My guess is there were 25 cards like this made. The next version of the 460 FTW (different SKU) will likely be at 825mhz...
I can recall AMD messing up numbers and us readers calling the numbers into question sparked AMD to give Anand full disclosure about the testing - I believe it was the article about Zacate - and they redeemed themselves. I doubt EVGA or Nvidia will do something similar as I agree with everyone else that this card was merely a PR stunt.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Why can they not say 'here's a great deal on a card for much less than the usual price' in a review of a product?It would be IRRESPONSIBLE of them not to! If I read this review, and decided to buy a 6870 based on it, and then I later read a separate post saying 'Oh by the way, the EVGA 460 FTW is actually a better card, get that instead' I would be EXTREMELY annoyed.
Who cares if it doesn't have the same availability? If people can't buy it, they wont see it as competition. Simple. If at some point in the future, the price is higher, or people can't buy it, then of course they wont buy it. So what harm is done? On the other hand, if it IS available, then they CAN buy it, and it gets them a better deal. The fact is, it IS available still, despite your nonsense, and people CAN buy it if they want, and if they do, they will have gotten better value for their money.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Why should they review all or none?By that logic, a tech review site can only ever review an overclocked card if they also happen to own every overclocked card which ever existed.
They can review any cards they want.
The fact is at the time of the review there weren't any 6850/6870 factory overclocked cards, so they gave a full picture IMO.
Most users know how to read, and seeing the EVGA FTW card will not lead them to believe that the reference card is the same.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Wow Watson.You managed to deduce that electrical components in the PC industry can change in price.
Shocker.
There are two GTX 460 FTW's available (and in stock) on Newegg right now, and it certainly doesn't look like a short term product, blowing your whole nonsense conspiracy theory out of the window.
Big surprise that after such a positive review on a popular review website, lots of them got sold. How could we possibly explain that within the normal dynamics of supply and demand? Oh wait, it must be a big conspiracy to trick Anandtech and the world.
Seriously, give yourself a kick. Of course a manufacturer could lower prices for a specific product for a really short period of time to coincide with a competitor launch and make that competitor look bad. But so what? That means that they have to give customers a card which is better, for less money. Those b******s.
Even if this is for a short time only, and if they do later increase the price, given that the review will have stated something like 'great value for X', do you not think consumers will notice before buying that the card costs X+15%? If the cost increases significantly, Anandtech could of course update the article, or they could simply do a more recent round up.
No tech site will ever be able to 'future proof' the prices mentioned in their articles. An article HAS to consider price, and those prices HAVE to be the current ones. What you're claiming assumes that a) People don't look at the prices when they buy. and b) Anandtech wont add any updates if EVGA hike up the prices at some point. Both of which aren't necessarily true.
The bottom line is that the EVGA card IS AVAILABLE right now, and it IS better value for money. So why shouldn't Anandtech tell people that?
The complains on here about a 'predicted' (and totally unfounded) lack of availability in future, or price increases, are total nonsense. Not only are they 100% speculation, it would be irrelevant even if true. Any review is aimed at letting the customers know the best deal NOW, not in 2 months time.
heflys - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Hence forth, I shall be getting my opinion more so from sites like [H]ardocp. That's all.Roland00Address - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
1) I don't mind you testing OC cards, I am all for it, more data is not a bad thing.2) I don't believed you caved to nvidia pressure or think you are trying to be biased in any way.
That said
3) I am very much AGAINST having OC cards in the first review in the card. For a couple of reasons
A) The first review of a card should give you information on how this card generation compares to the previous generation and two generations ago. The first review should help give you a general idea of how card A performs against its father and grandfather card. It is more important to add older cards such as the 9800GT, HD3870, or HD4890 cards which many owners own but weren't listed on your review. (You did included the HD4870 and GTS250 which is somewhat of a measuring stick.) Having two many info points about this generation doesn't clarify this generation vs the last generation either there are two many datapoints on the graph that boggles the mind or you have to not test some older cards due to time constraints.
B) You sacrificed time adding this datapoint to your review, you already had to rush to get the review done in time, it showed in the HD6800 series review (still a good review but rushed). Some of this time from testing could have been saved if you did this superfluous datapoint.
Thus in my mind the OC GTX460 should have waited for a future review (which you customary do when many vendors send their own tweaked versions of the card.) It would have been useful then, adding it to this review detracted from it.
NewBro - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I have to admit, I did feel weird reading the review and found a specific brand card 'EVGA GTX 460 1GB FTW (OC)' in the otherwise generic reference card benchmark. I didn't flip out or anything like the others, but to me I feel like you're treating it like it was a different model/chipset, which I believe is what gets the others.DOOMHAMMADOOM - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I read your website daily, with that said, I love coming to you guys, as you seem to be one of the more upfront and honest websites out there. You are untouchable when it comes to the quality of SSD reviews.I wasn't bothered by the review, you stated in the beginning why you included it and I thought it was a good point, to me, it seemed like most 460s that are sold are OC versions, so it would make more sense to include one in that scenario.
Including a stock and OC version of every card would be nice if possible. I still came away from the article thinking that AMD has served Nvidia a solid blow here, not that Anandtech was catering to Nvidia.
Ditiris - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I believe you did the right thing by including the EVGA 460 FTW card since it's a retail offering with a retail warranty competing with the launch products.Since you're soliciting for what we'd like to see in reviews, I would like to see one review with the retail offers, and a separate review with attainable overclocks. By attainable overclocks, I mean overclocks which most users can realistically expect to achieve. And of course, I would like to see this for both CPUs and GPUs.
glynor - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
But I would strongly prefer that you keep any overclocked cards to their own segregated comparison page in the articles, and include the warning. It just gives too many opportunities for companies to play games to do otherwise.Otherwise, if a GPU vendor wants to stand up, call it a "product", and stand behind the chip at that clockspeed, they should. If they don't, then that's on them.
Still, when you have a chip like the GTX 460 available and easily overclocked like it is, and OCed variants widely available, you can't really ignore it. That's why I think the separate page is the best way. It makes it separate, and special, like it should be, because those cards are "special" and may come and go.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
ummmm errrrrrrr monkey need graph split.Monkey no read.
jav6454 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Hey Anand,I liked that the GTX460 OC was in there; however, the only 'but' I have is that the card should have had it's own mini-article first and then be included. After all a 26% overclock (like you guys stated) lends itself to treat it as a new card; GTX461 or whatever nVidia wished to call it. Which is why, I think it should have been reviewed separately. Compare the GTX 460 OC with the stock GTX 460, and then draw out conclusions. I was thinking that adding the GTX460 OC in there with benchies was sorta throwing a help bone at nVidia by making them not look that bad; seeing as their precious GTX460 was, well, crushed.
I would have not minded at all, if and only if I would have seen a article of it first, and then the HD6870 and HD6850 review came out. But a surprise card just like that was in my view, a huge 'but'. However, I don't make a huge fuzz since the article had clear warnings and clear explanations of why the GTX460 OC was there. Like I said, it was just too 'out of the blue'.
Anyways, I enjoyed the article and quite frankly, neither card interests me; however, it's good to know what these cards can do to the older gen HD5800 series and vs nVidias offerings, I was really surprised how well they fared. What really interests me is the HD6900 series.
haplo602 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Honestly I did not care about the OCed card, it was just one more data point to consider.What I'd like to see would be a dedicated page detailing the overclock range that's being sold and if the EVGA is the top end of the overclocks or the mid range ... that's the info I was missing.
simple_inhibition - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
personally, i think you did the right thing by including the disclaimer in the article, the stock clocked 460 and FTW versions. if there should be any public backlash towards anyone, it should be towards nvidia for throwing together such a half @ssed, last minute attempt to respond to a competing product that they were totally unprepared for.flipmode - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
It was the right move, here is why:1. Factory overclocked cards are, in fact, available on the market and they come backed by full warranties and it is good to know what performance they offer.
2. Seeing the fact that you can get the performance of a 6870 out of a GTX 460 is, in fact, useful information - we all now know that you need about 800 to 850 MHz on a GTX 460 to get in the same range as a 6870.
3. You still tested the reference model GTX 460, which is very, very important to include - very few GTX 460s are actually clocked to 800+ MHz, so the reference provides the lower range of performance.
4. You made very clear in the article that you published that the GTX 460 that you used was a factory overclocked model and you explained some of the issues of that to your readers.
5. Some readers are irrational. Some readers desire that one side wins weather victory is deserved or undeserved. Dear Anandtech: these readers make lots of noise, but it is these readers that can take you down the wrong path.
I always go around saying: I h-a-t-e Nvidia due to the fact that the company will engage in what I consider are unsavory tactics to get consumers to buy their products. So I hate the company, but at the end of the day I'll still buy their product on the merits. If I was shopping right now, I'd probably buy a factory overclocked GTX 460 on the merits: it is cheaper than a 6870 while providing the same performance right out of the box - I don't have to fiddle with it, mod it, install any special software, or drivers, or BIOS, or mess with any sliders and try to overclock it myself; it's ready to use right out of the box and with the full warranty intact.
Thanks for including the factory overclocked GTX 460 Anand - it provided valuable information and it presented your readers with a chance to save money while still getting the same level of performance.
mapesdhs - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
"very few GTX 460s are actually clocked to 800+ MHz,"
Wrong. Scan has _ten_ different cards at 800MHz or more. That's 44% of all the 460s listed.
Ian.
Parhel - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
"Scan has _ten_ different cards at 800MHz or more. That's 44% of all the 460s listed."Not sure what "scan" is, but at Newegg only 4 of the 22 in stock SKUs are clocked at 800Mhz and above. That's about 18%. The next highest under the FTW edition is only clocked at 815Mhz, a full 35Mhz less.
Newegg has only 25 of the FTW cards in stock, using the "add 99 to your cart" method. No other online retailer has any. Anecdotal evidence suggests this card is US only as well. If I had to guess, I'd say around 100 of these cards were produced.
Raraniel - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Never hurt anyone. However, if people have complaints about the use of factory overclocked cards, perhaps include them only in the section on overclocking, and then compare them to your overclocked reference cards.darkvader75 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
1. You have every right to include any available card in the article.2. You included the REFERENCE clock version as to show the base comparison.
3. The 460 has been out for awhile and Nvidia and it's board partners have had time to cherry pick cores for certain cards and make custom cooling systems and validate test them.
4. ATI has not had time to do 3 yet. This is a brand new core on launch day. Full factory overclocks are not a typical option on launch day. So you all want Anand to randomly overclock reference boards and compair that to a custom built factory overclocked cherry picked core?
5. I think the community has to allow Anand the time to work with these cards abit and the manufactuers to work with them too. I have seen some overclock reviews so far on this card. The 6850 overclocking very well with the GPU only and the 6870 not overclocking hardly at all. However only referance editions of the 6870 are available at this time. Not custom boards or cooling or power solutions like the FTW EVGA. Anand and his team had NOTHING to properly compair it too. But give these guys time. They are professionals they will do 6000 series roundups and even the supposed new card nvidia is about to launch to up the anti slightly. If they do hold back something it's due to signing NDA agreements and keeping us out of politics. Every company is full of politics and it causes confusion and does not increase our capabilities as the reader base. I don't want the he said she said circus at Anand. This is a PRO's site. I remember the scandel with Toms hardware taking money from Intel for advertising right before what seemed to be a heavily biased and terrible review of a Intel vs AMD product line. This caused that site to loose much of its readers for along time and it hurt them alot. However none of it may have even been true. They may have had a 3rd party to the advertising, but it got spun by fanboys and cost a honest man alot of shame and pain. This is the kind of crap we want to avoid here.
6. Anand and his staff work their asses off to give us unbiased and very clear reviews. If any of you think he was wrong for putting in a retail oc card then you are telling me that you are not inteligent enough to handle information. Thus you may need to pick a new website to read. www.disney.com is a good place to start or possibly www.apple.com
7. Think clearly about the situation from all angles. Before attacking Anand.
Thanks Guys.
Marburg U - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Multiple 800 MHz gtx 460s were out the day the NDA expired.doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
And your point is?SniperWulf - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I don't mind the inclusion of factory OC'd cards ***AS LONG AS*** the reference card is included too. If you didn't have time to test a reference card, I think you should have downclocked the FTW to reference clocks and put it in the review. Then, a few days later, write up a quick part 2 with the OC'd datamapesdhs - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
The reference card _was_ included. It's shown on every 1680x1050 and 1920x1080 page.
Ian.
arthur449 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I feel that including overclocked cards in comparison to new cards is fair if it's done in the manner of the 6870 review. Do it on a case-by-case basis and only if, as with the 460, the overclocked card is significantly faster than its reference clocks.Posting everything the vendors suggest as far as benchmarks and settings would run the risk of violating an NDA, or just more likely rub the vendor the wrong way and harm your relationship with them in the future for review samples. That would hurt us in the end.
jed22281 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
No need to worry about your journalistic integrity.It's a cut above many, many, other sites on the net, period.
But one thing I do beg of you....
Please put a better commenting system in-place!
And not disqus, it fracking blows IMO!
One that allows you to be emailed when there's new posts etc.
dertechie - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I would say the only spot you screwed up with the OC GTX 460 was not giving us the specs or cost of the EVGA card. I had to hit Newegg to get the specs (and that is one hell of an OC), that information should have been in the test setup page and conclusion. When I think factory OC'd cards I think nice aftermarket cooling and a 7-15% OC, the 26% OC surprised me there.Just make sure you don't use the FTW card NVidia sent you when you do an article on the relative OC ability of Barts and GF104. I don't trust either company to not cherry pick review samples.
Leyawiin - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I would love to see an HD 6870 and GTX 460 1GB when both are OC'd to their maximum. That's information that the consumer could really use instead of trying to cobble an idea together from several review sites or current and past reviews. Have a highly OC'd card from both camps would level the field and deflect criticism of perceived favoritism.TemplarGR - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Anand,First of all, i am no fanboy of either company. I am a professional developer, and on my home machines i use only one Ati gpu card, one nvidia gpu card, and intel cpus(+ gpu). I am not in love with a company. But I AM IN LOVE with technology and superior products. What i hate most, is when an inferior product outsells the competition based on marketing and sleazy "journalists". I just hate it.
Once upon a time, before discovering your site, i used to read Tom's Hardware. I abandoned it when i found out that it clearly favoured intel and nvidia. They didn't have the superior products, yet their reviews were biased. I never visit this site anymore and warn all people professional and not not to go there.
I really want to believe you never did anything to hurt ati in favour of nvidia conciously. The problem is, you are years in this business. You are no amateur, so i believe this was no accident, especially when you admit Nvidia's pressure.
So, instead of sticking to your policy, you included an OC card in the review. This is a lame attempt to save Nvidia and nothing more. And i bet all those people in favour of this desicion in the comment section belong to Nvidia's PR(professional and volunteer). But all us professionals with half a brain, know what you just did...
You want to know why? Because this was no simple review of a new card. This was the unveiling of AMD's new gpu architecture. So this will create a lasting impression, far more important than comparing simple retail cards.
AMD is in the process of releasing a more mature architecture, with a much reduced die size, temperatures, noise, power usage, with added features, faster when compared the older series(6800 is replacing 5700 not 5800), faster with DX11 games, and competitive in price.
Now you, instead of presenting AMD's improvements, after pressure from Nvidia you include a factory OCd card in order to make NVIDIA's offerings look much better than what they reallly are, and spoil AMD's release by making it look like AMD's new architecture is on par with Nvidia's Fermi...
If you really wanted to include OC cards, you should:
a) Include OCd cards from AMD, or OC yourself reference cards.
b) Include factory GTX 460
c) Add the OC in the name of GTX 460 in the graphs... THIS IS SLEAZY ANAND! The graphs matter,
and they write "NVIDIA GTX460 1GB", they do not define it as and OCed card...
You did nothing of those, and i believe these ARE VALID COMPLAINS.
This was no accident, you did it on purpose, and this is sad. One question only: What did NVIDIA offer to you?
mapesdhs - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
"b) Include factory GTX 460"They did. Are you blind??
Ian.
Antah Berantah - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
Read the review twice before you comment.thebest11778 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I appologize if someone else already posted this, but at this point there's already 147 posts sooooo I'm not going to go through them all.I understand why you used a factory OCed GTX460 to demonstrate what other options are available. More options are good. However the big question then becomes "How well would an OCed 6870 stack up?"
My recommendation would be to take a stock GTX 460 and AMD 6870 and OC each of them to their maximum, present the clock speeds, the voltages, the new power draws, and new noise levels. This way not only can we see how the cards truely stack up against each other, but we can see headroom in each card. Let's face it many of your readers are going to OC them themselves if they get them. I'd also recommend letting us know what tools you used to perform the overclocks (took me forever to find the right MSI afterburner when the GTX470 launched.)
I hope that helps.
3DVagabond - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
If the review was done just between reference cards the nVidia cards would have looked pretty bad. With the 460 getting beat soundly and the 470 being overpriced by comparison. Many people don't read every part of a review. So, the "disclaimer" by Anandtech doesn't make sure everyone gets the information. It also doesn't stop people from quoting the review out of context. 11th hour price cuts and "ringer" products delivered by the competition aren't done without prejudice.MGSsancho - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I would prefer to see FOC (Factory Over Clocked) cards mainly in the bench thing but not in primary reviews. Include a single page on the main reviews then do an extensive over clock review the following week or so. Would be cool to include the disclaimers and to have the FOC cards have FOC preceding the names on the bench. This way I know what it is and I can look at the price too. It would also tell me if I wanted to overclock it myself, what results (pros/cons) I could anticipate. Maybe some of use would rather get a cheaper product then void my warenty for performance. Some may only have their machines on a few hours a day so the noise, stress and heat are not issues. Others leave their rigs on longer than the stockmarket is open and thus leaving. 200w idle machine isn't a good idea while knowing everything they have is warenteed for the year. So yes I would like to see FOC cards included. I would rather know what the card is capible of. Just like how some CPUs have increadible headroom and thus are great buys while others are best left alone.All in all the openess for a meeting of the minds and the forum avaliable for Anandtech staff and their readers is what makes it possible to keep the site fresh n' tasty while the trolls are left in the past along with the water over their bridge.
nirolf - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I can't say that including the EVGA card was a mistake. But it would seem fair to have an overclocked 6870 in that case. And even 6850, the low clock speed is quite promising for overclocking.Ok, they're not available right now, but neither was the FTW when 460 launched. So you could have overclocked the card to a safe level and give us that as a comparison. From what I remember the FTW cards don't have much headroom left for overclocking. Instead, we didn't even get an overclocking section in the review, it's mysteriously missing, while the 460 review had extensive overclocking results.
So, while I believe that Anandtech is a trusted sources of reviews, my opinion is that this time it was an unfair game.
[email protected] - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I come to this site for anand's thoughtful and onest reviews,it doesn't hurt to get more information.
PS I also agree with Granseth and his opinion on re Questions
on Nvidia's suggestions
dragosmp - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
About the inclusion of the GTX460 FTW, I'm not debating if this is correct or not, but this is what you achieved.When you included this one OCed card you may have mislead people into thinking that all factory overclocked GTX 460 cards are as good as that - you created the GTX 462. Not all retail GTX 462 are as good as this, this is a best case scenario - you failed to point this out. You also failed to clearly show the price range a GTX 462 may have - the possibility may arise one thinks he's getting a cheaper OCed GTX460 with the performance in your review, but not so, he's actually getting a slower clocked card with lower performance. OCed GTX 460 speeds aren't pegged at the level of the card you've been using (at least you should have been using an average - overclocked card).
Buying an overclocked cards implies knowledge of what clock speed is and how more is better - this is (semi)enthusiast territory. We know to OC our cards and that any vanilla GTX 460 1GB can achieve the performance you posted for the EVGA FTW. Since you showed "the best" a GTX 460 can stable 24/7 do, why not pushing also a 6850/6870/GTX 470?
The EVGA FTW review should have been part of another article on "OCing midrange cards", or "Factory OC roundup" - these cards would have in common volatile clocks and prices.
For me it was somewhat easy to ignore the OCed card scores in the graphs, and the fact you mixed SLI/Xfire cards in the same graph with single cards. Mix'n matching is a bad point to this review from my pow. My 2 cents: do more focused articles, don't try to respond all readers with one product.
Antah Berantah - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
I beg your pardon, but GTX 460 FTW is not the best scenario, it's a good scenario. the best scenario is, any other gtx 460 out there can be overclocked to 900.interox - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Touring cars, you know the ones that race. Comparing those to the cars you or I drive is not the same. The same applies to gpu's. Got to be like for like or its just not a fair comparison.jwaight - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I thought you stated your position clearly in the article, and the matter was settled. The way you did things up to this article were fine. No need to change.pmonti80 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
If you act as you have done, including normal cards in addition to overclocked cards I think no change is needed.The only problem I have is when sites put overclocked cards and no reference cards in new card reviews citing price reasons (techreport I'm looking at you).
anthonywoy - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I have been a reader of this side for many years and was very disappointed buy the inclusionof the 460 OC. You should of followed your own editorial advice and left if out of the review.What a horrible precedent is being set. "When launching a new video card, make sure you have a OC version to look good". If I was AMD or Nvidia I would have a highly overclocked version of the card included in any new launch to make sure I look as good as possible.
I hope when they 580 launches, you include a highly overclocked 6970 (or make sure you bench the 6970 against an OC 480) Do you see where this leads?
Have a few thousand of these cherry picked cards at launch, and a week later show that they are "back ordered' and then a month later discontinue them. Which gpu maker could resist?
Which overclocked card are you going to include? How much volume do you need to have to include it? 1000 cards, 50? Where do you draw the line?
Nothing is wrong with OC cards, but the should be included in a separate, follow up article, not in the lauch article.
Shame on you Anandtech readers for giving approval for such practices. While we are at it, we might as well let Intel OC a cpu when AMD lauches their next architecture.
Antah Berantah - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
When amd launched their six cores cpu, I choose to buy i5 760 instead of 1055T because I know the former can be overclocked to 4,4 ghz on air and outperform the latter at its best overclocked clock. That exactly what Ryan tried to tell in his article.onewingedangel - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
As a stock clocked card was tested as well, I honestly don't see the problem.Of course you could overclock the stock clocked cards (both nVidia and ATI), but that is at your own risk, and overclocking is at the end of the day not the product as sold.
What is missing though is a max overclock result for the stock clocked cards (with the obvious milage-may-vary disclaimer) to understand just how much potential headroom there is in each chip.
mapesdhs - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
"As a stock clocked card was tested as well, I honestly don't see the problem."Indeed, I agree. But it seems an awful lot of people didn't see it, presumably because
they didn't want to. Good ol' Wizard's First Rule again...
Ian.
krumme - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Here is my take on it, also posted in the forum:......
We can argue back and forth. And there is advantages and disadvantages for this single review.
What stands as a fact is the wider consequences if this becomes new practice:
1. Nvidia and AMD will make further pressure to the review sites on launch day to use:
A. special oc cards
B. Specific games
C. Specific methology
2. If they succed, it will blur the decisions for the consumers - its the purpose of the actions of the marketing department. They will select the wrong cards for their needs.
3. NV and AMD will dedicate more ressources at marketing instead of engineering, to make all this happen.
4. The end results will be slower cards for all.
5. A second effect will be an eroding of the PC platform for gaming.
What Anand have to do in my oppinion is:
1. Have separate articles for oc vs non oc cards. Prefareble keep apples to apple comparisons here.
2. Publicly state the testing methology for the cards separate from the testing, keep to it as long as possible, and never ever change methology at launch times. Do it before, so testing history is intact.
3. Change to a more modern methology showing real framerates in the game, min. max. average, over a time period that stresses the card. Giving advice like Hardocp, how the card supports different settings.
4. Validity of the site is vital. Anandtech should publish information from AMD, Nvidia and Intel publicly, and the answer to it. Then the readers can decide from themselves. Its naive to think anandtech can separate politics from benchmark methology. If someone have something to hide, it should be know publicly. I have no doubt Anand have the power to introduce such politics.
Anand should take the lead. Tell the companies who is in charge, and let us know.
As a sidenote: what would have happened if years back, anand had told NV to take all their agressive marketing a put it up their xxx? - instead what happens is this mess. What anand does have big effect on the companies, their strategy, and the future development. Its a responsibility Anand should take more care about today. Anand is not a small reviewer anymore, its a significant player.
--------
Its not easy to be a reviewer and all can make mistakes. And this is one of them. Just say it probably was the wrong decision, and bet back in the game with an even better review ! :)
krumme - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
"NVIDIA called asking for us to include overclocked GTX 460s "Okey. They call. You want NV to call in the future?, or do you want them to write?
Did AMD call? - what did they say?
Do we want a future where there is a lot of calling?
This is not good. Defend your integrity. Defend your position and independency Attack NV when they do so, make a transcrip and put it on the frontpage.
B3an - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
What? Completely wrong, all of you. There was absolutely NO review of the EVGA GTX 460 FTW in the 68xx review. The card was simply included and mentioned on a single page because it's a close contender, and something you can buy for the same sort of price. Infact i can often find it cheaper than the 6870 even though the EVGA is overall atleast as fast, so having them both in the review was completely relevant and should have been done. It was clearly pointed out multiple times that it was an OC'ed card and was even downplayed because of that fact.When most people are in the market for buying a card, it does not matter if it's OC'ed or not, it's about performance vs money, and for that fact alone it was right to include the EVGA card. Basic logic.
khaakon - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
+1I can only understand all this whining to a very small extent. It seems there ARE issues about availability and pricing, even heat and power consumption. The EVGA card is also significantly OC'ed compared to many, but there will only be better silicon as it matures in the fabs, so availiability and pricing may get ok. Even this review might have sold a bunch, who knows - I still belive in AT's independence as a review site.
Because most all these issues where already mentioned in the review for crying out loud !!
khaakon - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Most (...most) writers @AT write very well. Honest and sincere and outspoken in a way - even fun sometimes without falling off on the bad side of humour - I love reading your articles, yess i'm an AT fanboi (not gay though - I'll leave that to the whiners:))psidrinal - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I actually created an account just to be able to say this;I've read anandtech regularily (essentially checking for news every weekday) for a long time, coming up on ten years soon. I've been lurking around here all that time.
I'm joining the disgruntled readers who cry foul over this since you've previously made a point of not including these types of products. A disclaimer isn't good enough; seriously, you can't disclaim your integrity. No can do. In particular when your staff has spent paragraphs advocating these guidelines! If you wan't to change them, go ahead, but tell us beforehand and in a separate post that your standards have changed.
A separate article, or even including the vendor specific EVGA card in the vendor round-up would have been the right thing to do. IF you really had come to the conclusion that this very specific EVGA FTW card was relevant to include. Considering everything that's been said, you didn't chose that specific card from your own volition. That is unjustifiable, whatever disclaimer you put up. Again, you can't disclaim your integrity,
I'm not saying you are biased towards a specific manufacturer, that's going much too far imo, but this was some amazingly poor judgment. There are already OC'ed 6850's selling retail too (albeit a measly 2% core in the ASUS case) and in many places they have the exact same availability as the EVGA card (ie, none). Neither have any place in a launch article. Since the writers on AT were the ones who convinced me that this is so, with strong arguments to the point, it's all the more reason for me to react.
btw, thanks for years of marvelous articles.
dlitem - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I don't resent the idea of comparing OC'ed cards (be it factory or self OC'ed), but what I did notice is that the Core / Shader / Memoryclocks were not clearly stated anywhere. Fix that, and comparing OC'ed cards is just fine.Personally I'd rather write like EVGA 460@850/1512/1025 whatever the clocks are into the performance graphs instead of the modelname. Also add the clocks to default-clocked cards if you are including OC'ed cards.
For the noise and powerdraw both the clocks and exact model are important as the modelspecific fan designs and current regulation circuitry etc. makes a real difference there.
BreezeDM - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
If all the graphs that had a 460 OC had a regular 460, then it would have been more information. However, the 2560x1600 Ultra High quality graphs only had the 460 OC. If they had a regular 460, then I would have no problem with including the 460 OC. It just looks like you are pandering to Nvidia here. It was probably unintentional, but thats what we see.cjb110 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
This is all a matter of trust. Do we the readers trust the site to review the products in a fair and clear manner? I think Anandtech's long history and previous reviews shows that they do their best to be impartial and present all the information even if damning to the product being reviewed.I think the article was a good balance, we'd get bored if every review contained paragraphs of what pressure every company made to the site, or every concession that Anandtech had to make. If its important then it gets mentioned, and/or justified. If you question the review, there are other sites to read, with other opinions, test suites and test rigs...if these other sites all disagree then post a comment, the staff are active and respond professionally.
In specific to that article it was a review of the Radeon's not the Evga, it was just a card at a similar price point, that you can buy, so it seems a reasonable inclusion.
So I don't think Anandtech need to change a thing about their review process, just keep up the good work!
eXces - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
if u have a policy to NOT review oc cards, then DO NOT!Skiprudder - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I think you have handled things the right way. An OCed 460 is honestly something we wou'd be very likely to see on say Newegg (Tomshardware actually reported that the majority of 460s on the site yesterday were OC versions) so not not include it would be a large omission for those of us interested in buying cards.I also applaud the way you called attention to the fact that this is an OC, not an officially sanctioned spec, and that it's a bit... grey for nVidia to be pulling this. You did say this, you let your feeling on the issue be known, but you put the needs of customers first and I applaud that.
If Anandtech was written solely on a theoretical level, then the OC card shouldn't have been included, but since you write to cover both the theory and architecture of cards as well as write to cover consumer usage, it's inclusion was valid. Don't sweat it.
setzer - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I can't speak for all viewers of AnandTech, but I come here to get information on products, to check real world value of products and to get some insight on the technology behind them.When I go shopping for a gfx card (not that many along the years: GF2MX, GF5200, Radeon 9600 Pro (2nd hand), Radeon X700 (2nd hand), Radeon 3850, Radeon 4850 (2nd hand)) I try to buy value for money. I.e. I try to stick to a certain price point and see what I can get in that range (usually up to the €100 range).
For this reason I prefer to have all options on table, be it factory overclocked cards or reference cards. If I can buy it I want to know about it. That is why I prefer launch cards reviews to reference designs reviews, because people don't buy the reference designs, they buy card from X or Y, which not always are as good as the reference.
AnadTech is a very impartial site (well, it sides with better technology, I prefer to side with what is the best I can buy for a given amount of money), the use of reference cards for reviews is a good example of this policy.
Bottom-line, I would like to continue to read reviews that state all available options and serve my need for buying information.
PS: You can always direct people to the gpu bench in case of more esoteric comparisons.
Kougar7 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
It's my own opinion, but I do find much of the intrigue and stories to be extremely informative in their own rights, and interesting to know even if not. Often they can change my opinion of a company or a product from worse to better, or better to worse.In this specific instance Anandtech presented us with more information, not less. I fail to see how more information from a (very) valid alternative option negatively harmed the review. I was specifically interested in comparing 460 to 6870 performance given just how dirt cheap some 460 cards are, and an overclocked 460 is a natural extension of that.
Interesting to note the singular "FTW edition" already has two very different cooler designs at different prices on Newegg...
tech6 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
This website has always been fair and has a high standard of editorial integrity.The inclusion of an OC card as well as standard card for comparison is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. There is currently no 68xx OC part for comparison (but will probably in the future) so there really is no bias here. The review of the 68xx series was (justifiably) favorable and I don't see even the slightest hint of bias here and any accusations to the contrary are just conspiracy theories.
Zstream - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
There was no FTW edition either when the 460 came out. It came out a week or two later...If you include a factory overclocked card from company A, you have the necessary requirement of including a factory overclocked card from company B.
If the card is not available, you publish a second edition of the review and include all overclocked cards.
However, it's your site but take into account the reason why you're popular is due to the no shenanigans type approach.
hsew - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Raise your hand if you just skipped to the performance charts. Come on people, I know you're out there.DMisner - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
If you insist on using factory overclocked cards why not do two reviews? Stock cards, both single and Crossfire/SLI and then a whole different review for factory overclocked(both single and multiple). Obviously you'd have to wait a while till their are fac. OC'd cards on both sides but the whole point to these cards is that they are responses to the competitor's cards and its unfair to give extra firepower to either side and then just say "well there wasnt any fac OC'd cards at the time of testing for this one side"ratbert1 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
...it did not bother me. Like others, it would have been nice to have the specs listed. I had to go to the egg to get the specs.People need to take all the information given and make their own decision on what to buy. You have done a great job of providing the information for us. I think you made enough of a disclaimer in the article. I understood it was a unique card, so I focused on the results of the factory clocked 460 as well.
Thanks for letting us provide the feedback.
Spacecomber - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I don't have any problem with including factory overclocked cards in a review article. The main thing for me is that there is a roundup of readily available cards in a given price range; so, the reader can draw some conclusion about how best to spend their money. Choices include older cards that are still available (often selling for less than they were originally sold for), new cards at stock settings, and readily available factory overclocked cards (especially if more than one manufacturer is selling these models). This information , along with some idea of what sort of overclocks the stock cards are capable of (I know this will vary from card to card, even with the same model, so I take these with a grain of salt) puts me, as a potential buyer, in the best position to determine where I'm going to get the most for my money.This assumes that other factors, such as noise and power consumption, aren't going to rule a card out for a particular setting.
(Hard to know who is putting more pressure on this site, manufacturers or fanboys. ;-) I trust this site and its writers as professionals; so, in the end, continue to use your best judgement, as you always have.)
Pantsu - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
For the single reason that Nvidia was the one to suggest this card added to the review, it should not have been done. It is irrelevant what reasoning you give for adding the card, Nvidia got its way in the end.Also I see while you did have a disclaimer about the OC card, you did not use the Reference model in the Unigine tessellation test, but rather only the OC model. I also was dissappointed that you did not even touch HD 6800 overclocking, even when you added the Nvidia OC model.
Personally I like the Anandtech architecture talk, but unfortunately after plowing through several other reviews, I have to say this is one of the most pro Nvidia articles I saw. I'd also advise against saying [H]ardOCP is the only "go to", since a lot of their tests end up being run at 2560x1600, which is somewhat favourable to AMD. Of course if you own a 30" display it's simply grand, but that user base is marginal at best.
In the future, please do tell if Nvidia or AMD are trying to pull shenanigans like sending OC cards and optimized benchmarks for you to use in reviewing competition products.
Dracusis - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I wasn't a fan of the OC card being included.I have no problem with reviews of OC cards but putting an OC card up against a brand new GPU just made the whole article really messy IMO. Launch articles should be where the tech falls in the various family trees. When you add in the OC variants of those famlies as well the analysis and comparisons just get way too noisy and muddied for my liking.
Keeping it stock for launch and breaking out the OC stuff into a separate article would be mush easier for me to digest. I'm sure the 68X0 family will also see it's own OC variants in due time.
mapesdhs - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I agree the clocks of the EVGA should be made clear, but overall I would like to have seen _more_
info about the card, namely how it fares in SLI. Looking at the game I care about (Stalker COP), the
EVGA sits right inbetween the 470 and 6870. Thus, two of the EVGAs SLI would be a very interesting
metric indeed. Can you get hold of a 2nd one, Ryan/Anand? Given the better temp/power/noise
aspects of the EVGA, if 2 of them can match two 470s then we deserve to know. Not everyone has a
case/etc. which can cope with two 93C GPUs inside.
Ian.
dld542004 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
You were absolutely correct in providing info in the review. You were very explicit in your comments. To those objecting..GET OVER IT! The more info I can have, the better buying decisions I can make. Keep up the good work!darckhart - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
You can't please all of the people all of the time.Thanks for giving me the info. Thanks for explicitly stating as such in your article. Keep on truckin.
mondena - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
i feel when the majority of cards for sale are OC'd, i have no problem with you using them, as long as you clearly state at the beginning of the article that it is not a stock clocked card. i thought you did that, and was very happy you included the gtx 460 ftw. and i'm an ati user.Touche - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Disregarding other reasons not to include it, how many of those cards you saw for sale have 850 MHz clock? Most of them? Half of them? Some of them? No, it is only ONE of them! Yes, really informative inclusion. I'll just go out and grab myself a factory OC'd 460 and have almost 6870 performance, as it's clearly stated in Anand's review...oh, wait, I probably won't.doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Except only a completely illiterate fool would walk away from the review with that conclusion.Anyone with the great gift of being able to read would realise that it was specifically the EVGA 460 FTW card which offers that performance and value for money, and would purchase that rather than the 6870.
Sando_UK - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Cheers for taking the time to clear this up Anand - I for one appreciate it. More information is always good, I certainly wouldn't want you to avoid reviewing/comparing overclocked models in general. It should just have been in a separate article in this case.Personally, I think you should avoid this kind of comparison in articles about brand new architectures/models as it muddies the water and detracts from a clear cut conclusion. Both companies only release new ranges maybe once a year, and I don't think it's bias as long as both sides get equal treatment when it's their turn. Their competitor's reply in terms of OC'd models, price cuts etc can be covered separately.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Couldn't you just ignore the 460 FTW if it was so important to you that it wasn't included?ehume - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
. . . I want to see it in the article.I don't try to overclock video cards. It's one bit of tech I haven't had time to explore. OTOH, a factory OC'd gpu where the manufacturer has worked out the kinks, that I find attractive.
Thank you for including the eVGA board. Please continue to include such things. More data is better than less (until, of course, too much data reduces the information, but that is not at issue here).
shangshang - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
that you put the gtx 460 in the review??? Let me guess. They're virgin ATI fanboys still living in mommy's basement? Such fragile egos..bubolini009 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
So whenever somebody complains it mean they are fan-boys. So we just have to accept things that are presented to us without any suggestions, objections or complaints.doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
What you're objecting to is being provided with more information.So, the people who complain about it are either irrational or fan-boys.
If you don't like being given that extra data, just disregard it.
aftereview - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I think inclusion of the card as it was done does not do justice to the article, if for no other reason because it creates unnecessary arguments.If this were any one of the other sites out there I really would not be surprised, but the need for the disclaimer itself should have constituted indication enough except that you did it anyways.
I do agree with having as much information as possible and definitely think it should have been mentioned but I also value consistency between articles. This card belongs in a roundup not a platform review.
If you are going to include overclocked cards on all platform reviews from now on then fine, otherwise the justification for doing it this one time is moot as it is one that can always be made.
But then again I suppose the argument is more one of principle than technical basis, and I would hope most readers will make the distinction necessary, besides it is a good way of creating conversation, albeit not the kind that I personally look for ;)
MThorne74 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
The issue of using an overclocked card is moot. The REAL issue here is that,\ by YOUR OWN ADMISSION you took the advice of NVIDIA on how to conduct a review of a new AMD product.How often has this happened in the past?
Touche - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Never. They have an editorial policy they stick to. Except when they don't, which they do, but they have it, but don't stick to it, except it's their policy...doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
They explained that they received advice from NVIDIA. They also explained that that wasn't the reason they included the card.And they had clear reasons for making an exception to their usual editorial policy.
A bit more open-mindedness is required.
sinPiEqualsZero - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Hi Anand,I'm glad you made this post, but in all honesty, I think it is much ado about nothing. The only thing that ultimately matters is what you can buy with your money. Including a product at a comparable price point is only common sense. After all, there could be someone out there who requires the GPU of an NVIDIA card and wants to know what compares to the new AMD ones.
In future situation, I hope you look at what's available on the market - just like you did here - and use that as a guide. To all the people who complained about including an overclocked card, would you rather not know how much performance the same amount of cash can get you on an NVIDIA card?
pastyface - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I think if you are supposed to appeal to a vast majority and not just above average tech readers, you would include all stock cards and also overclocking for all cards in comparison. The only problem with your review in my opinion is that the 460 name is linked with a very high performing model while the others are stock. If somebody just skims a review and goes right to the graphs about performance they are gonna be pretty mislead when they hop over to newegg and type gtx460 in the search column and add the lowest priced one to their cart.sinPiEqualsZero - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
You have a point. That could possibly be prevented with better-designed charts and labels. I agree that the cards should be included; if the price is comparable, I think Anand is duty-bound to include it even if it ruffles feathers since it is a viable option for the consumer.WTB better graphs and labels :)
rsj56 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Being another long time AT reader, I just had to register to put in my 2 cents... seriously this issue is being blown out of proportion.. I am pretty sure at least 90% of the readers are sufficiently tech savvy to make their own informed decision. There is a friggin disclaimer.. there IS a reference GTX 460... the OC'd one has a 26% warrantied, overclock. The only thing missing is perhaps some OC results of the AMD cards. Just look at the graphs and decide what u want instead of god damn bickering about it..Keep up the good work AT.
ionis - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I don't get why people would be upset about including factory OCd cards. The "OC" is enough of a disclaimer to anyone familiar with computer electronic (aka people reading this site). As long as power, temp, and noise charts are included, including factory OCd cards seems fair to me.As was said already, these are cards that are available for purchase with a warranty. It's not lock anand is OCing just one company's cards and including those in the review.
ezorb - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
In the review business all you have is integrity, that is all that separates you from nvidias home page. you should have left the FTW card out simply because Nvida wanted you to include it. you know all the reasons why you should not have used it, you told us all the reasons in the review. if AMD wanted you to us a particular game as a benchmark, and it is not one of you standard titles, screw them somethings up.so what happed, did they threaten you? promise you something other than a hand picked card with a cherry picked GUP. Product for you next giveaway? whatever they used it must have been strong because most of the other sites crumbled as well.
show us the emails and the request to include the card, restore the trust, disclose the correspondence. let us decide.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
This is nonsense.If someone came to you in the street and said, 'Please breathe' - would you stop breathing?
Of course not. Why? Because you'll make your own decisions regardless.
This is exactly what Anandtech did. They openly disclosed the request from NVidia, but also explained their OWN justification for including the card.
If the inclusion of that card in the review confuses you or whatever, just ignore it.
Folterknecht - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Hi!What kind of discussion "about a minor problem". German review sites received HD6850s with the right clockspeeds but the shadercounts of the HD6870 ... and published with this settings!!!
Personally I would not have used the highest availeble factory overclocked GTX460 as a second data point (~850 MHz). All reviews I have seen indicate that the GTX460 is able to reach ~ 800 MHz without raising voltages, but 850 MHz seem to optimistic. And this will confuse people, whith lesser background knowledge visiting this site in a few months and just skiming the diagramms.
Is it right to include a factory overclocked card in a review dealing with a new series? In most cases I would say NO, but the the GTX 460 is a little bit unique when it comes to overclocking, reaching speeds that would justify a complete new card (GTX 46X what ever).
And that is a point you have to consider when buying GPUs with a tight budget.
In Germany I get a Gigabyte GTX460 OC with aftermarkt cooler for 155€, able to reach speeds around 830 MHz. This little beast is as fast as a GTX470 or HD6870 selling at the moment between 200 - 220€.
It would be wrong not ot include information like this in a review and of course you 've got to prove in the diagramms.
You 've looked at different samples of GTX460 in the past, why didn't you use knowledge gained from this tests to indicate the average OC-Performance of this cards and put it into this review?
And I'd realy like to know if and how a company tries to influence reviews (special sample, benchmarks - hawx 2, whatever). People have a right to know who tries to screw them and how, that's what journalism is for.
Greetings
Folterknecht
Chaser - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Above the entire fray and about $270.00 including MIR.Quindor - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
It's just fine to include some specials cards in a review, if the basic cards are at least also listed. As you stated, in this case it provides a substantial boost to performance of the basic/reference card, so perfectly justified. Also because of the same price range.Please who don't read and compare the wrong stuff.... won't change by including or excluding factory overclocked cards.
epyon96 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
You have absolutely nothing to apologize for.In the future, perhaps a better way to do this would be to acknowledge the OC'ed card and simply publish a followup to include the overclocked cards in the comparison as well as compare the over clockability of AMD cards in the same review.
The reality is OC'ed cards availability is a lot more sparse. Especially in regions like Canada where prices already become distorted as it is.
slickr - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Stop whining and bitching, there was enough pointers in the article that Anandtech is largely against reviewing overclocked cards, but due to the nature of the GTX 460 overclock they felt it was necessary to include an overclocked one as well as the reference card.I don't see anything wrong in including overclocked cards here and there, if the overclock and performance is huge enough to warrant it.
SilthDraeth - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Companies would be less likely to deal with Anandtech at all if Anand started posting email logs, and chat logs, and phone logs of what each company was trying to do in order to make it's product look more favorable.At the least, they know they try, and most in the industry probably know by now that Anand is a straigh shooter, he will do stuff at your request, ie use updated drivers that fix a bug, or correct an issue, but he always is forthcoming about everything done to get said results.
In the case of this article, I don't see any issue with posting the results, as Anand layed out why it was there, etc. It wasn't like he just through it in, and as stated you could buy it.
Maki- - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I think one major problem of using the highest overclocked special edition card of the 460, is that you can't really buy it everywhere.Sure it's available in the US and very large internet resellers, but how about other places?
I checked the listing of the 2 largest resellers in finland, and neither carry it. Neither does overlcockers.co.uk it seems?
If you had used a more moderatly overclocked card, then you'd have a bunch of them available from many manufacturers. Now you're basicly saying that all the OC cards will be close to the performance of the FTW.. which they aren't by a longshot..
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
I don't think that's a claim they're making.And availability doesn't change the facts.
If you can get the EVGA 460 FTW, it's a better value proposition. If you can't get it, then ignore it and move on.
Kibbles - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Don't cave in to the corporates nor the vocal minorities. We all know if you let the companies dictate how tests are done we'd see one sided biased reviews that are pretty much just marketing. However, if you start catering to the dozen or two who scream and shout the most, then the site becomes catered to just those people.Just do what you think is right. You have the most experience and knowledge, I trust in your ability to decide better than then commenters.
number58 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I don't have any issues with the way you presented the information in the review. The addition of the factory overclocked card makes sense based on its price point. The normal GTX 460 doesn't line up with the 6850 or 6870. The overclocked GTX 460 is a direct competitor for the 6870, and would definitely be the card I compare to the 6870 when making a decision. I appreciate the extra information from the inclusion of the EVGA card.danjw - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I think it is to right thing to include as much information as possible in your review. Personally, I would like this kind of comparison in all the reviews. More information is always better. If there are factory overclocked ATI cards, I would like to see those in reviews as well. To me it is all about having the most information that is available. A warranted overclock, is a reasonable thing to include in comparisons.If you chose to include non-warranty overclocks, as well, that would be a little different. I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as you make it very clear that overclocking your part would void your warranty and that not everyone should expect to be able to get that level of performance.
davehcyj - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I thought inclusion of the overclocked 460 was fine.When making purchasing decisions its nice to know what all is available at a given price and with staggered pricing like amd and nvidia have now that likely means comparing an oc version of one to a stock version of the other.
ocre - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I like to see as much data as possible, now this is getting ridicules. If its gonna be this way and ask ppl what you should do because fanboyz go crazy at a review that list the OC card as well as the original card then we the average reader are definitely are loosing out in the end. The average reader doesnt post often, dont complain much and is here for the info. The average fanboy post endless times repeatedly complaining about one company or the other looking to cause drama with rude comments in an attempt to polish their loved brand and bury the other. They are relentless and we see them all over and one would think its the majority view but in actuality its the product of the high energy these fanboys put into their missions.From this article it seems there is a drive for bending in a way that would only hurt the neutral ppl who actually are interested in buying a card. Lets not reduce things any further, we need as much data and info from as much cards as possible. what are we gonna do take a survey at what cards can be printed next to ati cards as to not offend their fans. We can only include these cards cause they said its fair. What a shame. We are gonna have some skimpy reviews with this logic.
I think the more data the merrier, Why not? If the card is a good deal then it will sell. Put as much data, as many cards on the market as possible as they are all competing and its important to know what a person can buy and where it performs and where it stands compared to other cards out there. Isnt that what reviewing is about? Start trimming down the data anymore and its ruining the whole purpose. Please dont listen to idiots, you know that the more cards the better. How can anyone have a clear idea with limiting data. How in the heck did that evga card hurt the ppl out there who want to know where these cards sit compared to one another.
Clearly the evga card was stated as an OCed version, there was no trickery. We dont see many reviews comparing different brand and models anymore and this card was in a league of its own and its available and now we see how it compares to the hd6870. This is useful data to ppl who already may own this card or to ppl who may want to know just how it does against AMDs 460 killer. How is this not useful information to ppl who want to know?
There are crazed fanboys who are always looking for a fuss that are just so ready to jump on ppl at a moments notices. They are never satisfied even when amd releases a card that performs extremely well at a great price. Cards that are over 100$ cheaper then the 5870 and almost performs as well. A card that has greatly improved tessellation and is all around bad as. If they arent satisfied with this what can you say. They instead focus on drama and link sites where the cards are reviewed with games that give AMD a huge margin advantage then claim this one to be not fair.
There are huge variances in the games and a person could cherry pick a review to give nvidia or AMD a great amount of advantage. One could make nvidia destroy AMD in cherry picked situations and with those same cards completely reverse the advantage with AMD demolishing nvidia. This is why we need to stop reducing out reviews. Alot of sites do like 5 games or so and with such a limit one could paint all kindsa scenarios. Its impossible to be 100% fair with such limits. Its no wonder amd/nvidia want certain games to be included with the vastly varying outcomes and the small sample of data we are getting used to seeing. Remember back a few yrs we would see tons of games, tons of cards, tons of data. Its a big loss and now we have these databases where we can look at generic charts if we want to compare as its just not the same as it used to be. Like i want to know how the HD4890 is keeping up, how does it do against the 6850. Is my performance still in the ballpark of these new cards. Am i too far behind them.
Its all about the data and the more the better. How the heck can it hurt. it makes no sense. Quit thinking in those lines, data is useful and the majority of readers want as much as possible. Fanboys want only to see their loved company demolish the other. We cant start bending and triming down for these cases. Reviews are skimpy enough.
mac2j - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
To me a fair comparison is apples to apples, but the 460 OC FTW was an apples to oranges comparison.There are two really good approaches to take in these cases:
1) Stick to just reference card vs reference card and do a follow-up review of OC vs OC (although I have no problem with you mentioning the OC cards in your conclusions - its just not fair to compare them this way)
2) Include the 460 FTW but also include an OC 6870 in your comparison - even if you do it yourself. Other review sites actually overclocked their 6870's and included that information in the review providing up to a 10-15% performance boost.
Also be careful about the samples you get - your 460 FTW data looks better than the review data on that card published by other sites in terms of slightly higher performance and significantly lower power draw. Could be the test bed is different but could be you got handed a "ringer" card not typical of what I would get off Newegg.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Why isn't it fair to compare one card with another? If both apples and oranges could be plugged into a computer, and used to play games (or display graphics for other purposes), why shouldn't you compare them?1) They did include both stock models in their comparisons. Did you have difficulty getting that information from the graph?
2) There wasn't a factory OC 6870 available at the time of the review. Doing a manual overclock is not the same thing, at all, and is of no relevance. The factory overclocked card requires no modifications, and is under warranty at reviewed speed.
Your comments about being handed a 'ringer' apply to every sample received from every company, ever. I don't know if Anandtech bought the 6850 and 6870? Or were they provided with them? If so, this is a moo point.
dloiac1 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I don't see what the big deal is. Who care's if there was an OC card in the benches. People are getting so offended by nothing. It's not like the fact that it was OC was hidden. Knowing how the new cards perform against an OC 460 is just more information if anything. It doesn't do any harm to the readers.Summer - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Like most users, I see anandtech.com as the few unbaised sites that have not caved in to corporate pressure. Integrity was what made anandtech unique and the reviews given here, for the most part, were impartial. I don't know, maybe character and principle are overrated these days...JumpingJack - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Anand,Your review was fine, nothing wrong with it. So long as the test conditions, drivers, HW used are clearly stated there is no reason to change your methodology.
You are in a catch-22 in your business as the fanboy factor runs strong, especially with graphics cards. Much of your readership consist of enthusiast gamers, mail, with little or now social life or skills. It should be apparent that demographic behaves in juvenile fashion. The response to the recent review is just a typical case in point, no matter what you do, your conclusion is always going to offend some subset of audience. There will always be 'excuses' from one set of fanboys over the other if one product does not win over the other. The whole 'Turbo mode' is cheating is another fine example.
Keeping doing what you are doing and let the fanatical unwarranted criticisms roll off your back like water off a duck.
JumpingJack - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
No edit button for brain farts.."Much of your readership consist of enthusiast gamers, male, with little or now social life or skills."
JumpingJack - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
No edit button for brain farts..."Much of your readership consist of enthusiast gamers, MALE, with little or now social life or skills. It should be apparent that demographic behaves in juvenile fashion."
mlcloud - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Are you one of these males with little to "now" social life? Just trying to figure out if you're one of these enthusiast gamers, because you certainly lack the social tact you claim gamers lack. Come on, keep it civil, don't let the barrier of the internet make you forget your manners.I believe the reason many of these "enthusiasts" are upset is because the article is potentially misleading to the non-enthusiasts. People with a long history with graphics card know the various caveats surrounding factory OC'ed cards, while others may not even know what overclocking is. In the article however, failing to present the overclocked values of the 68xx series while including an overclocked card of another vendor may lead uninformed others (no fault of their own) to purchasing an overclocked card with little or no overclocking headroom and a larger power-draw, when the 68xx series may have had more potential or met the need better under the same circumstances.
There was nothing wrong in including the Evga FTW, in my opinion; there's a market for factory OC'ed cards after all, especially with full warranty. The lack of the 68xx's overclock values makes this act questionable.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
The lack of factory overclocked 68xx's at the time of the review is a fact which can't be changed by Anandtech.Manual overclock <> Factory overclock. Think about that.
Falkenad2 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
The GTX 460 is somewhat of a special case, considering that most designs can overclock by a considerable margin. Because overclocked GTX 460 cards are valid competitors, the inclusion of EVGA's card in last night's review was a good move to show what NVIDIA currently has on the table to compete with AMD's newest.MentorSage - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
At the end of the day the only thing most consumers care about is getting the best gfx card for their money, The GTX 460 FTW is closer in price to a 6870 compared to a standard GTX 460 1GB, which can now be bought for £120, so I don't see what the problem is. Thanks to its inclusion in the review and if I were buying a new graphics card, then I would buy the GTX 460 FTW, as the review has shown it to be a better all round card (CUDA, PhysX & better drivers) with more features than the 6850 or 6870 and for the most part, it's equal in performance compared to the 6870.I looked at all the reviews of the 6850 & 6870 on every other website I could find and I definitelty found AnandTech's review to be the most informative. Great review! :)
sovnarkom - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
It's fine to include a factory overclocked card in the review but it would have been more responsible to wait until factory overclocked (like the Sapphire Toxic series) 6850s and 70s were widely available for a fairer draw.doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
So in the mean time customers should be kept in the dark?rauelius - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Basically putting an overclocked card on a Launch is just plain disrespectful to the card you are reviewing. Save overclocked Vendor versions(IE EVGA, XFX, Palit) for comparing to other Vendor cards (IE Gigabyte, ASUS, Powercolor, Sapphire), keep in mind the vendor cards don't have to be overclocked. But comparing an Overclocked Vendor Card to a Stock Clocked Demo Card Provided by AMD is just unfair. It didn't bug me as an Overclocked GTX460 runs about the Same as a GTX470 and the 6870 battled well on both fronts. It was unfair to the 6850, as it makes it look like less of a deal...and a deal it is! I could see overclocked versions of the 6850 down the road offering GTX460-oc, GTX470,6870 performace for $200 or less...I'm a videocard athiest...I don't care as long as it's good....Imagine if Diamond Released a 6870 ULTRA with 1100Mhz on the Core and 6Ghz on the memory for $270 and it competes right with a STOCK GTX580 (for $500)that nVidia Paper launches.....That wouldn't be fair!!! The GTX580 would look like a RIPOFF!!! Now the 6850 vs GTX460-OC isn't that huge of a disparity, but it isn't the crushing blow to nvidia it should be....doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Why is it unfair to show that there are faster cards which don't cost any more money?Who cares if it's factory overclocked or not? That doesn't change the price, or the performance differential. At the time of the review, there weren't 6870 factory overclocked cards, so Anandtech gave us the most information possible.
'Disrespectful' LOL. So next time we want to review a card, to show it the up-most 'respect' we should ensure we ignore any available card which offers better value for money?
What's the alternative, tell consumers that the 6850 and 6870 are the cards to buy, despite there being a better value proposition available? Now THAT would be disrespectful, to the CONSUMERS. I care more about being disrespectful to consumers than to products, and so should you.
dev0lution - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
Any card available on the market from retailers in the same price range at the time of the review should be fair game. period.Anyone who is whining about getting additional information is a fanboy, pure and simple.
Kulamata - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
No problem here; more info is always welcome. The decision to include was carefully explained, and if anyone was not interested, they could just skip that portion. Since the card was available at a similar price point, and factory warranted, it's inclusion seems like a completely legitimate choice.Calling it a 465 would have been better, but that's Nvidia's problem, not Anandtech's, and besides, in this context, it's irrelevant.
On a related note, a bit more of the politicking/maneuvering/slippin'n'slidin' would be welcome; it's always entertaining, and Anandtech discusses such judiciously.
DarknRahl - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
For the record the only bias I have for or against either company is I don't like nvidia's proprietary technology that they then pay game developers to use whilst ignoring open source tech that every gamer could make use of.As far as the cards and reviews go I don't care at all. I just want to see the cards thoroughly reviewed and tested. If the 460 super OC would be within the price range of the other cards then add it to the benchmarks for sure. At the end of the day I want to know which card will give me the best bang for my buck.
If I was in a position to buy a budget gaming card right now I don't think I could go past a 6850 with some unlocked shaders and free morphological AA. *grin*
bjacobson - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
I don't have any strong feelings either way, although it may be illuminating to others to know that I skimmed the article and I didn't pick up on the fact that the 460 card was overclocked....so I erroneously concluded that the 460 was equivalent to the 6850, then I headed over to Newegg and saw that the 460 was cheaper than the 6850....I would prefer to keep overclocked cards out of it unless special note is taken to point out that the pricepoint is the same, that most of the (cards being reviewed, in this case 460) are factory overclocked...or something....just so that I don't run out and think that any old 460 is as fast as the FTW 460.
Farnsworth - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
IMHOthe problems are
1. if you can OC 6870 X% and EVGA 460 FTW around X% it would be a decent comparison.
but there is no mention of the 6870 OC in the article so please add it. I mean it is stupid to pretend that if the card is factory OC is important. We all know that GPUs aren't clocked according to some magical engineering formula. They are clocked based on how high they can go, but also companies make sure that product fits nice in their lineup and so on... So maybe 6870 is stretched to the max - just like 460 FTW. I don't know. I want to know. :D
2. cherry picking 460s for EVGA FTW means that price of the EVGA FTW will be something_competitive $(good for nV PR), but most of the time you won't be able to buy it.
zer00 - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link
The following are options that I find acceptable:1. Write one review article, but put the name of all the new cards, OC'ed, over-volt, etc in the title of article.
2. Write one article about the 6800s without FTW.
3. Write two review articles, FTW first and the 6800s with FTW next.
-----
I read the article to know more about these 6800s. Was the article about the 6800s?
Yes, but it is also about this new 460 FTW, OC'ed and what not...
Wait, isn't this an advertisement? An inline ad, no less!
No! This is Anand's objective and balanced review!
Oh great! An endorsement from Anand to the 460 OC'ed for the win!
It is the editor's choice.. eh, prerogative.
Hsuku - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
As an enthusiast, I come to the site expecting fair comparisons on all fronts. If you're going to bring in overclocked cards from one camp, bring them in from all camps. If you're going to compare a stock card to an overclocked card for one card, do it for every card.On another note, I overclock my own cards. Maybe enthusiasts consist of an irrelevant percentage at this point of time, but articles like this will encourage just that. Maybe you don't care anymore -- there are most definitely larger numbers elsewhere.
If you do in fact intend to continue to be meaningful to the enthusiast community, you need to include card overclockability in your reviews. In that case, I wouldn't have any issue with you putting factory OCed items up as comparison against an in-house OCed item. But stock versus overclock? To a standard buyer, I can understand that. But to an enthusiast, that is certainly not a fair fight; we overclock our cards, and the real measure of the merit of one card versus another is not the label on the front. We want to know what the card is truly capable of, not what it is being designated as.
The real question then is, who exactly are you tending your articles to these days?
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Factory overclock != Manual overclocklakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
It's too bad that Nvidia are the only ones allowed to have factory overclocks in Anandtech.davidsgotmicro - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I recently purchased two Asus GTX460 cards, the ones with the volt mod, and was very happy to see the 460 represented in the review. It is relevant.The GTX460 is relevant to my interests ;)
Metroid - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I'm against factory overclocked cards on this review because is unfair to the just now released 6850 and 6870 cards.There is nothing wrong about creating another review with the EVGA GTX 460 1GB FTW version x the 6850 and 6870 but it should have been kept it separately from the just now released 6850 and 6870 article.
Anand,
I do not agree with your statement "We were honestly afraid that if we didn't include at least a representative of the factory overclocked GTX 460s that we would get accused of being too favorable to AMD", since when we would think such a thing?
The point is, most users wanted a fair article and for that only reference cards should have been tested.
maree - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I can understand that they want to be fair to the underdog here. My impression of the review was that it was favourable to AMD. and that direct competition was totally absent for 6850, but one can be found for 6870 by cherry picking a special edition OC from EVGA.so bottom-line AMD wins hands-down here, but be on the look-out for some good deals on custom editions of GTX460. It is basically the editor's prerogative, but I think they were too rushed in appearing to be even handed. probably a separate story on OC GTX460s and a link to them in the conclusions page could have been a better option in this case.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
How would creating a separate review be ANY different?The conclusions would be the same, but users would have to trawl through 2 reviews to reach that conclusion.
How is that a benefit? If you split the articles up then you can potentially end up misleading people into thinking that the 6850 and 6870 make sense, when the reality is that the 460 FTW is the better option.
Imagine if you read the review, bought a 6870 and then later found out about the 460 FTW?
I just don't get all these requests for the review to be split up into 2. It's like the combined information gives the users some kind of stack overflow.
GTVic - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
There are a number of issues but the telling point is that a company like NVIDIA, who has demonstrated deceptive practices in the past, went out of their way to ask for this card to be included. That should have told you right away that they were expecting it not to be included unless they used some pressure and that should have convinced you it was the wrong thing to do.The other problem is that this is a zero volume card. It probably doesn't register even close to 1% of 460 sales and is currently not available. It is unreasonable to expect a 26% factory over clock to reach any significant volume so why was this card even released? My guess is a deal between EVGA and NVIDIA for the sole purpose of comparison with AMD's new cards. The card is predictably out of stock and you guys bought in like an old lady at the week old bread bin in the bakery.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
It is currently available (and in stock), you don't know what percentage of sales it'll be, and even if it was a small percentage that doesn't change the fact it's better value for money.If a man told you to breathe, would you stop? No. Because you make your own decisions. So does Anandtech,
karlostomy - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
You purport to explain why you included the OC 460 by explaining, in the fourth paragraph:"NVIDIA called asking for us to include overclocked GTX 460s in the 6800 series article. .....(blah blah blah) ........ We gave NVIDIA no impression that we would include the card despite their insistence. The decision to include the EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW was made on our own entirely."
Now, please can you explain how we are supposed to believe this?
Honestly, the outcome was EXACTLY what nvidia insisted on!
It really looks like you sold out.
The outcome speaks for itself.
I had thought Anandtech was one of the last few impartial reviewer websites.
Guess not.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
ACT 1 SCENE 1Karlostomy is walking along a road with a friend...
[ENTER Random Man]
Random Man: Karlostomy, please breathe.
Karlostomy: I am not doing anything because you told me to.
[Random Man EXITS]
Karlostomy's Friend: OMG, you're breathing, the outcome was EXACTLY what Random Man insisted on. You sold out. The outcome speaks for itself.
Get a clue.
ocre - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I think most of these comments that are negative arent getting it. They keep saying stuff like, "you shouldve oc the 6870, its not fair, OCs are misleading"The evga card is factory overclocked, everyone who buys it will get the same results unless they further OC it. If he OC the 6870 to be fair then it would be misleading as there isnt a pre overclocked model out and results vary.
Honestly i think anand, to satisfy these tarts you are gonna have to include a factory OC version when one comes out or put it in a new revenge article or what not. They keep claiming its not fair to the 6870 but i cant really get that at all. Its not a living creature, its not getting screwed. Its about reviewing cards and where they stand against one another. Most of these ppl complaining arent in the market of buying a card and trying to decide where to put their money. They already are one sided.
For the holiday season the 6870 is out at this price range, you also have these other cards to consider at a cost and that perform accordingly. This is why it is good to see where all of them stand when they are all available to buy and we need to consider all of them.
This is what unbiased is about. Its not to be fair to a card or a fandboy. Not to be fair to nvidia or ati. But to be fair to the person who wants to know what they can get with their money and where it performs against other cards being sold. This data doesnt hurt anything, its truth in numbers, anything else would be misleading. You could say nvidia asked us to review the evga card but we didnt cause it isnt fair to AMDs 6870 if the public knew what they could currently get from nvidias lineup for the same money.
ocre - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
To give a new card all its glory then from now on just do the review with only the card being released. they can have their own special day where they arent put up against competing models on the market. Just do a special release article so the card can shine without the real world market influence. It will top the charts every one and it will be so nice to see these cards in all their glory. Ignore what is out there, be fair to the new card, bla bla, what a load. We need to know where these cards land when they come into an already evolving market. This is the market to which is important, competitive cards in the market are what you normally put up against one another. When was we supposed to get articles that just let our new cards shine, its not praise and glory. Throw them in the field and let them all get down and dirty. If its a great card it will shine through the dirt and mud. Put all new cards up against whats in the competing market. Thats where the reality is, thats what we need to know, thats where we need to see them compete.This evga card wasnt available at the 460 launch. Its new to me and so fair to print it, it was a surprise to see how much this card performs over the stock 460. I couldnt believe how well it does against the 470. Its sooo much a better card then the stock 470. I wouldnt know that if i hadnt seen this. Its useful data. i dont think any less of the 6870, its a nice card that is nearly perfect. who could ask for anything more than this beauty.
This is the current market, a little different then a few months ago but entirely relevant and absolutely the data that we need to see.
Finally - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Techpowerup took a HD6850 and OC'ed it.Performance goes up ~16% as it turns out...
[I can't post a link, please check their ASUS review via google]
So where is your page concerning the OC'ing potential of these new cards?
Did you just plain "forget" about that? Or would it've ruined team green's impression?
Finally - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
...you listed the prices of the cards in order to show how they relate to each other. Good. But you didn't list the price for your fabled GTX460 OC.When you drew your "conclusion" that EVGA is much better from a price/performance standpoint you simply rolled with the price for a standard card - just as if they cost the same!
After this fishy thing went down you did not even _try_ to show the overclocking potential of the new Barts GPUs, gladly hammering the final nail into your cred coffin.
BTW, did you arrange that nice box (money-)shot of that EVGA carton + GPU (>> see review page 7) yourselves or did Nvidia supply that as well and gave you orders to use it for free advertisement space? It looks really good - only thing missing is a big flashy price tag and a direct link to an online hardware shop...
You tend to do that on AMD CPU launch articles as well. All of a sudden there is a full page dedicated to Intel's latest and greatest - which always makes me rub my eyes and quick-tap the backwards button in my browser just to check I'm still in the right review...
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
To quote the article:'At $260 the GTX 470 is several percent faster than the 6870, and at only $20 more NVIDIA has done a good job pricing the card. If performance is your sole concern, than the GTX 470 is hard to beat at those prices'
Read much?
Factory warranted overclock <> Manual overclock
Sammy Sosa - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
A major part of any review is to compare whatever is being reviewed to competing products. Any review that does not do that is a pretty piss poor review and worthless to me.Not to have included the evga oc card would have distorted the picture of the current market. It is a retail product from a reputable vendor with full warranty, so there is absolutely no reason not to include it in any comparison.
I look to reviews to see what the PRICE vs PERFORMANCE ratios are and if competing retail warranted products aren't going to be included because the have OC or Super Overclock or AMP! or ACDCMAXIMUMOVERDRIVE in the name or whatever, well that will just mean I'll have much less information to base any purchasing decisions on and Anandtech will be doing me a dis-service.
Would you be arguing about a car review that compares an LS model Echo from Toyota to an LX model Civic from Honda maker even though they cost roughly the same and are the same class of vehicle because one is an LS and the other is an LX and only LS models should be compared? Thought not.
assafb - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
In other words - if a company ships a board, with overclocked features, and gives full warranty, I consider it as if the original chip maker issued a new reference board, gave it a new name and just bumped up the frequency/speed. It has been done before by the chip makers.The EVGA board could have been labeled a 465 by Nvidia for that matter with good performance/price and mediocre performance/watt. In other words it could have been branded a whole new chip, and no matter how you look at it it is very relevant to the 68xx article. Give these kind of boards as much attention as you give any other board.
As a review site the main way to look at it, as far as I see it, is like this: As consumers most readers consider these boards in terms of performance and price, like any other board, so theory lovers and brand-fans take a back seat, even though they can make their voices sound loud.
Darkskypoet - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
It's that you didn't bother to pick a more available Factory OC'd 460, nor did you bench with any OC'd AMD / ATI cards. This is simply unfair. We have no idea from reading your article how aggressively the AMD cores are clocked. Most of us reading this site know how chips are fabbed to one extent or another, understand speed binning, etc. We get that nVidia's factory stock speeds on the 460 die are far to conservative vs average yields, and this is giving us chips that can go like stink over spec. Great! But the disservice, is that we don't know where a Barts core is sitting on stock click vs potential clock. Nothing, no Info. You didn't even try.Do you think it would have made a fundamental difference to a lot of the readers out there if Barts in either incantation also OC'd like a champ? Even this early in? Or if it simply could not, and that even the 6850 part was very close to max clocks of the samples you have...
Bottom line, you're outing and reviewing a new piece of silicon flesh for your readers. That is / those are the sample(s) that SHOULD HAVE BEEN OC'd in it's launch review... regardless if you drop OC'd competitors in or not.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
I would think it would be good to have overclocked the 6850/6870 anyway, the more information the better.As you say, not because of the EVGA card, but just because.
jcn4boxes - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
FWIW,It is our site to read, yours to produce. As long as the info presented is factual and timely it's all good.
Keep up the good work
embeejay - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I don't think you guys did wrong, and imo your articles most always reflect a good balance, so just keep up the good work :)Spedez - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
This site used to be trustworthy. Out of bias. But there is NO excuse to use overclocked nvidia cards to compare AMDs new reference cards. Fight should always go reference vs. reference. No exceptions. If you start doing exceptions for nvidia, then you'd better do them for AMD as well. I'm expecting overclocked Cayman (HD6970) to be included when GTX580 will be reviewed.doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
And am I to infer from your comment that you're assuming it wont be included?Bit illogical to get annoyed about something which hasn't happened yet, don't you think?
'Fight' NEVER has to go reference vs reference. The 'Fight' (competition) is between any available cards which you can purchase today. Nothing more, nothing less.
AndThenSome - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I would not mind including it, _if_ the card and it‘s stats would have been told in HUGE, bold and clear wording. Of course, you would at all times refer to both 460 cards, _which ist not the case_. In the StarCraft 2 sheets for example, the overclocked card is completely missing. As the EVGA card was the only 460 card in the top-of-the-page graphs on every earlier page, one might not notice and think about the ultimate power of ATIs cards in StarCraft 2, as it even outclass the highly overclocked card. Which is not true – at least not by that particular margin.Please stay consistent. If you do not have the time to include the extra OC card everywhere and show the same participating hardware in every single graph, then please do it only on a separate page. Yes, I think it is good to know about it. Yes, I would like to see it. No, I don’t want it to mix up and no, I don’t want 200 cards in a single graph. And no, I don’t want it to have the same graph color as the stock cards. These overclocked cards are something special – you even told that, so handle it like it is.
You managed to tell us about the bad overclocking experience you got with these new AMD cards. Why not include a second page with how good the nvidia card clocks and a third page that factory OCed cards might even change the whole picture (at least a bit).
After all the 460 stock has no chance against a 6850 in most typical gaming situations. If you agree with this statement, reading your analysis I believe you do, then please make it clear, show it in the graphs. Now you have a 160Euro 460 GTX that beats the 150Euro 6850 everywhere in your graphs, which is not correct. You might overclock it better and you might buy a highly overclocked card from scratch, but it comes with quiete a premium and might not even be what most users want. Reading you final analysis is not fitting the graphs anymore, and this is disturbing.
If you think that the 460 GTX is not as bad as the graphs show, tell the people what you think about it. Tell them about better OC, better drivers, better filtering and a 3D option or whatever you think is better, whatever your experience is. I would not care and buy AMD non the less, but some might do. Just don't mix it the way you did it. I strongly believe that the subjective opinion of an editor is of value. Some bashed you for your iPhone review, but I highly appreciated it. The review was a bit biased, because you just liked the design, the phone, the style and you told it. I don't own one, but hell - of course I know what you meant. If you have the feeling that the highly OCed nvidia cards are a good alternative, tell us. Just stay consistent and don't mix it.
In this review was much more information about the card, the chip and the why and all about as anywhere else. As always, you did a damn good job. I like most reviews here, and I like including the EVGA card - but please do it only on a separate page. Else you would force me to stop reading when the benchmarks start...
Best Regards
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Another request for information to be taken from one page to another page.It must be devastating for you to have it combined. Confused.com?
MrApophis - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
It was a good review, and I found it very useful in my pursuit to find a new graphics card. The OC'd 460's are now on my radar.You can't please everyone. In pleasing those who whine loudest, you may upset an even larger, silent majority. Most people don't take the time to comment when they're happy.
The only thing better would have been to include a more readily available OC'd 460 (800/815MHz). I'm still trying to find numbers on these cards after reading the review here.
It would also be fantastic if the conclusion could include a table of important things, like average fps, price, temperature, noise, and power for a select (say 3-5) group of cards within say $150 of the card being reviewed.
Thanks for your reviews.
Tom Kamkari - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I think its fair to have both sides, its was clearly marked OCed, so I don't see what the problem was.duploxxx - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
It is always difficult to compare cards with each other, stock - oc prices etc, so many differences that have different influences. not to mention drivers, seetings etc....I think anandtech always has had a good definition in the past.
Most reviews in the past have shown stock compares, I think it should stay that way and just add this as add-on. All the time you will get people complaining or accusing of misleading info.
My advice would be to add adendum to review afterwards, there are always bunch of cards that are different and there are always many different oc cards, many just by few mhz that have almost no influence and there will be 1000s of people that will never buy an oc'ed card like me, i would rather look at a cooler design then a card that runs few % faster..
duploxxx - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
additional to first info, the FTW is rather high oc'ed and not so wide available. General asus, msi, gigabyte cards are way less high oc'ed and more a reference to my opinion.but mentioned before add it separate.
krixter - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I think one of the problems in using an OC-d card throughout a whole review comes from the fact that there are many times more people who are not "home" in the matter of video cards, their performance etc.And when the smarter-than-average-average-joe goes to look what the 6870 does, he might conclude automatically that all gtx 460-s perform like the evga card.
It is just one card, and the highest clocked card at that.
If you ever want to use a card like that, I suggest putting the card under review in OC-d form into every chart as well, to make it fair.
Also, especially after nvidia "asked" you to include it in the review, you should not have included it. I recommend reading how Toms hardware handled the matter of nvidia pressing them to use the evga card. It's absolute bollocks by nvidia, and yet they are getting away with it most of the time.
Targon - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Since you feel it is fair to include a factory overclocked NVIDIA card in a review about AMD products, from now on, it should be fair to include factory overclocked AMD Radeon based cards that are reasonably available. How about the Sapphire cards with Vapor-X technology since these are all over and are VERY quiet, compared to the loud XFX cards that are out there? The Radeon 5870 from Sapphire with Vapor-X cooling is clocked to 870MHz rather than the 850 stock, and there are many more cards that are overclocked from various companies.Now, it would also be good to see reviews of games that NVIDIA does NOT want to see mentioned due to performance if they are popular enough to be known. You can also use games like Dungeons and Dragons Online for benchmarking, which isn't the most popular game out there, but it DOES have a framerate display built in and has the free to play model so costs nothing to check out. The Marketplace in particular can put some stress on a video card at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 with all graphics options set to maximum.
RollerBoySE - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Although I don't like the way you handled this, it's still a bit of a storm in a teacup.What you should have done was to only include stock clocked cards in the comparison, after all the article is about new GPU:s, reference designs and how they perform against other GPU:s and reference designs.
You still have the chance to write the follow up where you compare how well OC:ed and in other ways tweaked cards from several manufacturers perform against each other.
I would also very much like to read about how nVidia, AMD and others put pressure on you. Those details could reveal a lot of information that matters for me as a consumer.
RollerBoySE - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Why don't you use World of Warcraft as one of the test platforms? It's the most widespread game out there and it has got a frame rate calculator built in. There's a 10-day free trial so everyone can check out the figures without spending any money.doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
The article, from a consumer standpoint, is NOT about comparing reference designs, it's about comparing AVAILABLE GRAPHICS CARDS.If you want to compare the reference designs, that's RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE.
If you are a consumer who wants to buy a new graphics card, you WANT TO KNOW IF THERE'S A BETTER OPTION.
Full stop.
slickr - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
The GTX 460 is a special card because:1: There is 200MHz headroom for overclock, there are two version already one with 768mb and 192bit memory interface and 1gb with256bit memory interface.
2: The fact that you can buy 200MHz higher clocked GTX 460 at a similar price range warrants inclusion in the review by itself, not to mention that with such headroom for overclock there can almost be a new card called GTX 461 for example, the thing is that if there was such a card it would sell for 250 euros, while the overclocked cards actually sell for 220 euros which is amazing and great for consumers.
Other websites include overcloked cards even without the reference cards all the time and there is no fuss at all, why would this "special" review be different?
I'm not one that shies away from calling favoritism if its really there, but in this case there is absolutely not true and it was a good decision.
lakrids - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Hey Anand and Ryan, we're all looking towards the HD6970 now.EVGA
Here's some great tips on how to assassinate that pesky ATI card:
EVGA
Compare it to an overclocked GTX 480 from EVGA!
EVGA
Don't forget the liquid nitrogen cooling for the EVGA card. Everybody deserves to know how cool temperature those awesome EVGA cards operate in. And you can overclock that EVGA card even further!
EVGA
Don't forget the stone giant benchmark, and that brand new HAWK 2 benchmark.
EVGA
Show everybody how your favourite EVGA brand owns anything ATI can create. ATI happens to be ahead for once? HOW DARE THEY! Let's show them the mighty and AWESOME power of EVGA FOR THE WIN!
EVGA
Did I forget to mention EVGA?
EVGA
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
One word sums you up.Bless.
Mumrik - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
There's an amazing amount of idiotic and irrational bitterness in this discussion.psychok9 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I'm disappointed.I do not like seeing web site that bend to the obvious marketing needs of nVidia or AMD.
NesuD - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
My thinking is that to maintain a static baseline for comparison only officially specced models should be compared. If Nvidia doesn't think enough of their chip to officially spec it , assign it a model number, and market it under that model then it is unfair and misleading to compare it to other official factory specced models. For Nvidia to make the request is disingenuous at the least and for you to do it was a mistake. There is no place for an overclocked card in the context of an unbiased and fair review even with disclaimers. Any review of off spec overclocked and unofficial model cards should be restricted to only those types of cards for the sake of a fair comparison. While I do understand the reasoning behind the decision to include the card in the review I think it was an error to do so.doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
The EVGA 460 FTW is officially specced by EVGA.So by your own definition, it should be included.
It's not misleading to compare one product with another product, at all.
Whether they are factory overclocked or not is irrelevant, how they perform is how they perform, and what they cost is what they cost.
The 6850 and 6870 do not have factory overclocked cards yet, they are behind, they are late, and as a result there is not one available to compare. Therefore, the 460 FTW is the best proposition now. It would be 'misleading' to ignore a better card just because a competitor hasn't managed to get a corresponding card out yet.
DreamerX - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
since 6800 card just launched, and there will be more oced 6800 card coming up later. i suggest you can gather those card and make a comparison later, to close this gap up.anyway, it is another great review and i've read all the pages. it is lucky (or you have already knew this would happened) that you only add one OCed card into the mix.
Sunburn74 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I really can't believe people are in such an uproar. Nvidia asked for the evga card to be included because its such a significantly high factory overclock that such a card is truly in a different class.The only thing I didn't like is that Anandtech didn't make enough of a point that most gtx 460s aren't overclocked to that level.
All the people complaining about some need to oc the 6000 series cards are wrong. There is no need because the gtx 460 is factory overclocked (and again is in a class of its own). Its not like anandtech won't eventually do a roundup of factory overclocked 6000 series cards right?
What is the basic question this review is supposed to answer? How can the consumer best spend his 180-220 dollars? It answers that question very very well imo.
heflys - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
But that's true only if the 460 FTW remains in stock for that particular price.heflys - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Edit: Also, in some countries, the 460 FTW costs almost $30 more than the 6870. Look at Newegg Canada for a good example.Touche - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
In many countries it isn't even available. Reference 460s are, though. Go figure.heflys - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Precisely.....And why would AT all of sudden choose to present a review that features heavily OC' cards? It makes no sense in context of past reviews. If they want to use "it's in the best interest of reader" line, then they'd better do it in every review. I don't recall seeing Toxic 5850' in the 470 or 480 review.doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
The FTW IS in stock, and at that price.And it was when the article was written.
No prices are ever guaranteed to remain fixed. you should know that.
The bottom line is that it's available now, from Newegg, actually for less than stated in the article.
And even if it became unavailable, or increased in price, so what?
The article specifically states that AT THAT PRICE POINT, it's a better card.
If you physically can't buy it, then what's the problem.
If the price goes up much higher, then surely you'd notice?
God, stop crying.
dejo67 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I think that my displeasure with the review is that in the main test (at max resolution) there was no mention at all of the standard GTX460. In my mind that is misrepresentation of the facts. There should have been included the standard card from the 460 lineup.I have both ATI and Nvidia cards and feel that both have their merits. But the test is misleading to readers, as it doesnt show the card that should be the main competition for the 6870. It does show it in the jumbled mess of all the cards but the user is left digging for it. I dislike the fact that Nvidia is always attempting to strongarm everyone into doing things the way they want them.
I understand that as a review site you have to do what you have to do. I also appreciate that you have made such a truthful statement, to the fact that Nvidia did try to sway your comparison. I also commend that there were statements made as to the validity of the review sample being one that may well not be able to be produced in large quantities.
ocre - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I think you shot yourself in the foot the way you brought it up in the review. It was setting you up for scandalous accusation and sadly your whole intentions was to be upfront and honest. Notice ho many ppl here post saying stuff like," we need to know all the dirt on these companies". Its a shame but it appears these peeps are all about some drama.So instead of the way you brought it up in the article you shouldve just said it as you felt it and left out on the stuff that the fanboyz focused on. Something to the effect, The 6870/6850 is out and this is a round up of the cards in the market today that IN DIRECT COMPETITION, the 460 ranges largely and you represented the far worse and far best for that card. nvidia dropped its prices and so no the 470 is a contender.
This is the market these cards came to, tis is the market you need to represent in the review. Its not about being fair to the card or amd, its about giving the viewers a true picture of where it stands in the market and whats available and how they perform. All this talk about not OCing the 6800s or having an OC card to be fair to AMD is retarded. When they are on the market then they are relevant. We need to be fair to what the market has to offer, not amd or nvidia.
Stan Zaske - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I strongly believe you did what you had to do and it was the right thing! Nvidia released the GTX 460 at such a low default clock to drum up the enthusiast's dollars bragging about how great it is at overclocking and to not cannibalize their more expensive cards. AMD clocked the 6800 series as high as they could with the quality of TSMC wafers being what they are and the power envelope they considered optimal. Speaking of how many factory overclocked cards there are on the market, they are all different speeds!! How can you review factory overclocks unless they are uniformly the same for consistency? My Palit GTX 460 comes clocked at 800 MHz which is considerably higher than 675 MHz.I've been using Nvidia cards since Riva 128 and want to love the company for changing the world for the better but anymore they just piss me off and I can't help but root for AMD. On a personal note, I'd like you to include crossfired HD 5770's in future reviews because of the great value of these cards. I have one in my game box and may just buy another as a potential upgrade path when prices come down some as an alternative to getting a 6800 series card. Thanks!
The13thWizard - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I think that your decision to include Nvidia factory overclocked card was right, but I also think you should have overclocked its rival the 6870 just to see how well it fares against the overclocked evga! As a 17" monitor user I don't overclock my video cards as Im getting enough fps, but I have friends which have larger monitors and overclock their video hardware everytime they are going to play something in order to get better fps. So including a barts pro/xt oc results isnt a bad idea at all. All in all when bring an overclocked card in a review I think you should bring the equivalent card from the competition. Thats my advice as a reader to you. I hope you continue writing such a great reviews!Fugifighter - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Anandtech articles are the only ones I read where I do not have to take with a grain of salt. including an overclocked card has no big impact on my reading a review or not. I look at both this website's articles and the forums to make my own judgments. I see your site as a great tool in the ever growing world of technology. Please keep up the good work.fugi
theeldest - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I come to Anandtech because you're unbiased. You had good reasoning here. Keep using your reasoning abilities and I'll keep coming back.Leyawiin - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
one could argue that its factory OC'd at reference - AMD just isn't advertising the fact. Both it and the FTW can't be pushed very much farther than what they are out of the factory.heflys - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
If you guys are truly unbiased, and have the best interest of the reader in mind, I expect to see factory OC'd models (for both Nvidia/AMD) presented in every review hence forth. No exceptions. Shouldn't be hard, right?bryanW1995 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I was initially upset at the inclusion of the factory oc'd card, but as usual you guys have excellent communication with your readers. In most cases I would not recommend using a factory oc'd card from any company, but I don't question your integrity in doing so.Callys - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Stop using any overclocked products unless that is the focus of the article.That includes overclocked CPUs. It doesn't matter if most enthusiasts overclock, it still skews the comparison. Overclocked CPUs allow graphics cards and other components to stretch their legs more than may be possible for the average user.
Using overclocked products is like testing car parts on heavily modified engines. If I wanted to purchase a set of headers for my corvette, I might read Popular Hot Rodding or any of the LS1 mags. If one of the mags reviewed 10 sets of headers on an engine with 10 lbs of boost being pushed into it then said "OH WELL BUY HEADER A YOU CAN EXPECT 70 HP" - I would immediately throw that review out.
ekoostik - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I had no problem with the inclusion. I wouldn't have expected you to OC either 68xx's because the comparison is to a factory OCed card, manual OCs are always YMMV whereas with the EVGA GTX all purchasers would be receiving the same card.I do think when including an OCed card it needs to be extremely clear within the article what the rational was and what the pros and cons of such cards are. I felt like you did this appropriately, as always. The numerous caveats and explanations were sufficient.
That being said, I think you could have taken it one step further and each mentioning of the "EVGA GTX 460" within the article could have said "EVGA GTX 460 (OC)" so as to not forget that point, and so it would be obvious for readers who page flip/skip.
Your articles have a strong history of looking out for the consumer, and of being open and honest with every detail. Mistakes are quickly owned up to and explained; and readers' opinions and feedback are closely considered - almost to a fault. Because of this I continue to look forward to your articles, even if I don't always agree with an approach or conclusion, I appreciate the transparency (and of course the in depth analysis).
R3MF - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I am fine with the decision you took, and the reasons that led you to take it.medi01 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I understand that reviewers do depend on getting the review subject / juicy details in time from nVidia and the likes, but this whole story makes me think that I cannot trust any review out there. :("This stinks" basically sums it up for me.
Revdarian - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Like it or not, the card exists widely in the market and is in the same price range so it is a fair comparison, because you didn't have to go out of your way overclocking it in a way that wouldn't be guaranteed, because as we know when o/cing at home "your mileage may vary".In any case after the price drops of that very same day, the 460 1GB "vanilla" actually got down to the price of most 6850's and in some cases even under, making that another fair fight.
khimera2000 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Actually no these are not as wideley availale from a compatition standpoint, making its inclusion intresting, but ultimately useless since there are two major issues.first the FTW card represents the cream of the crop for overclocking, since a scan of newegg shows it as the ONLY card at that speed.
Second is the rational of using overclocked cards based on there availablity is only valid in my eyes when using the average overclock of all manufactuers for comparison.
Seeing as this is the only card ive seen at this speed with this chip, and the supply of these chips are probably sevearly limited there is no way of telling if this card will even have the parts to be here this week... or next.
I personaly read reviews, and buy the product a month later when i get the cash. I have baught OC cards but in all do fairness if Anand wants to do this again the next Nvidia option should be shot against a saphire toxic edition card, since its availability is near garanteed for every major ATi releas.
Parhel - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
"Like it or not, the card exists widely in the market and is in the same price range so it is a fair comparison, because you didn't have to go out of your way overclocking it in a way that wouldn't be guaranteed, because as we know when o/cing at home "your mileage may vary"."Except it doesn't exist widely in the market. It's a special edition that was released a few weeks ago. Only a handful were produced, and the best of those handful were sent to review sites. The FTW edition has already all but disappeared, and if you were to have purchased one yourself, it would more likely than not use more power and run at higher temps than this "golden sample" that arrived on Anandtech's doorstep.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
It hasn't disappeared, it is available, there weren't only a handful produced.Please get your facts right, instead of clinging to some desperate conspiracy theory.
And even if it did go out of stock and wasn't available, so what? Do you think you'll be able to figure out that you can't buy it if you realise it isn't available, and therefore look for alternatives?
Or is that challenging for you?
trexpesto - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Thanks for not making me go look up a separate chart. I am not the type that bookmarks this information, so thank god you included it.geok1ng - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I fail to see a reason why AT should not include a factory OC card in the comparison:if a product is on the market, then this product is a fair fight for marketing comparison and buying decisions.
HardOCP used the very same EVGA OC card, reached a different conclusion and NOBODY ever questioned Kyle's decision to included the OC 460 on the review.
so the problem is not that AT used an OC card for value comparison, since [H] did the same without any complains, the problem was that the 460 OC showed more value in AT tests than ond [H]...sp the crime in not use an OC card, but to conlcude that in given games and setups, this OC may offer a better value than the fanboy card.
It sadly reminds me of the troll on TH that spamms the forums claim thta the hexacore Thubans are greta gaming processors, and implies that the "only" site that has bad gaming results with Thubans is AT. That would be actually possible, were it not for the OCing Thubans article on AT, still the best search result on the subject...
AT has gained the trust of readers by YEARS of hard work and compreensive understanding of the market forces and users needs.
It was AT reviews that killed Jmicron SSDs, and that forced Indilix to offer a good SSD controller. it was AT that denounced the firmware "scam" on initial Sandforce SSDs.
So stop flaming and go buy new VGAs: a 470, a 6850. Or wait for the Geforce 580/ Radeon 69xx. Not everything is red/green flamebait...
Touche - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
"HardOCP used the very same EVGA OC card, reached a different conclusion and NOBODY ever questioned Kyle's decision to included the OC 460 on the review.so the problem is not that AT used an OC card for value comparison, since [H] did the same without any complains, the problem was that the 460 OC showed more value in AT tests than ond [H]...sp the crime in not use an OC card, but to conlcude that in given games and setups, this OC may offer a better value than the fanboy card."
Wait, what?! I would like a link to that [H] review, please.
Bates777 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
"HardOCP used the very same EVGA OC card, reached a different conclusion and NOBODY ever questioned Kyle's decision to included the OC 460 on the review."This is a lie.
HardOCP used a reference 460 as stated on page 2 of the article.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/10/21/amd_rade...
"NOTE: We are using a reference clocked GeForce GTX 460 1GB for comparison, so its clock speeds are 675MHz GPU/1350MHz Shader/3.6GHz memory. "
guld82 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
The EVGA GTX 460 FTW is CLEARLY a cherry picked card, not only does it run at 850/1700MHz, but it does it at 0.975V!!!That is not the normal voltage for EVGA GTX 460 FTW cards!!!
My estimate is that around 20% of the GTX 460 1GB can run at 850MHz/1700MHz, but the percentage of cards that can do it at 0,975V is less than 1%, and I simply cannot figure why you would include a card that represent less than 1% of the GTX 460 being sold in a launch article.
Most of the EVGA GTX 460 FTW uses more than 1.0V, e.g. 1.050V, and will therefore use significantly more power, which results in higher temperatures and more noise. These very high OC like this one are often not 100% stable when used in SLI, as the second card has to endure a higher temperature, although this cherry picked one will probably work fine.
EVGA are not sold in every country, and as there no alternative for a 850/1700MHz card.
Note that this is coming from a big Nvidia fan, that have been running GTX 280 in SLI since mid 2008.
I am still looking forward to reading the review of the Radeon 6950 and 6970 here, but please do not repeat this.
Manu64 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Signed....I hope AT knows how tens of thousands additional sold OC'ed GTX460 cards affect the environment. Really a very sad week for truly "green" people...
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Yeah cos people in the market for performance graphics cards always prioritise being green.If you're such a green freak, turn off your PC.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
'That is not the normal voltage for EVGA GTX 460 FTW cards!!!'Where's your evidence for that?
'My estimate is that around 20% of the GTX 460 1GB can run at 850MHz/1700MHz'
Where's your evidence for that?
'Most of the EVGA GTX 460 FTW uses more than 1.0V, e.g. 1.050V'
Where's your evidence for that?
'EVGA are not sold in every country, and as there no alternative for a 850/1700MHz card.'
So? Does that means we shouldn't be told how well it performs?
StriderGT - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
350+ messages, how many "payrolled" posters from each side?!?Viral marketing in all its glory....
EVGA FTW OC card should not have been included by this site standards and by any legit apples to apples comparison article methodology. The only loser, the reader, who can not establish a real base of price/performace comparison. A future round up could have included all OCed options whether in limited or high availiability.
PS Nvidia your tactics are bordering REAL annoyance, compete with PRODUCTS not with SPIN... Money could be much better spent in enginneeing and R&D than this kind of lowly strong arming reviewer tactics and comment section SPAMING....
StriderGT - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
320+ messages...doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Pathetic is quite an apt title for your post.How does the loser read by being told BOTH the stock vs stock comparison, but ALSO being provided with a factory overclock comparison?
How does the loser GAIN by NOT being told that there's a card available which offers better value for money?
Get a grip.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
reader lose* :-)celestialgrave - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
Count me as another that doens't mind the eVga OC card being included. I believe you put enough disclaimers in the article.Though the comments regarding the card being nVidia's cherry picked OC card does raise an interesting point that perhaps that additional disclaimer should have been added to the article.
Belard - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link
I didn't have a problem with the addition of a single OC card. In previous reviews, you have reset OC products down to factory default for a more proper comparison of products.Typical GF460-1GB are $200 and the slower 768 are $160. With the faster 6850 costing less than the GF460, OC the 460 to $240 doesn't make much sense.
Okay... lets OC the 6870 and compare it to the 460-OC... I think we'll know who'll win that race.
has407 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Anand and Ryan -- The review was fine. Price, performance and availability are relevant. Vendor, model number, and clock speed are irrelevant. (Although you make a good case for why model names/numbers matter for mainstream consumer products, that's not a primary criteria IMHO.)The only significant point of debate seems to be: Is the EVGA FTW relevant to this review? By all objective criteria, yes. By other criteria, maybe not. You included sufficient and clearly-stated caveats and concerns as to those other criteria. Nothing to find fault with there.
Would reviewing it in a different article or a "mini-article" be better? Doubtful. The questions would be the same: What is its price/performance? Is it an option I should consider (and why or why not)? Those questions can only be answered relative to other products, which is exactly what you did. Nothing to find fault with there.
You answered those questions, voiced your concerns, and did so in a clear, thoughtful, and forthright manner. Good work by any measure, and very much appreciated.
mi1stormilst - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Personally I don't want to know about the standard political volleyball games from these so called companies in every review. I get enough BS and politics at work. I come here to read primarily about the in and outs of the products that I intend to buy. Anandtech has always done a great job and churns out reviews three steps above their competitors. If Anandtech determines that something is out of character or breaks the mold I believe they have and will continue to keep us informed as needed. I suspect that the staff here at Anandtech are deeply in touch with the tech community and I am confident they will make the right call 90% of the time. I am not willing to criticize them for the remaining 10% because there will always be something that can be improved upon. The one thing I see missing all too frequently from all review sites is older video cards equally and fairly included in the latest video card reviews. I would like to see at least three full generations of cards in every video card review. I would guess that is a bone of contention for AMD and nVidia with every new generation. They probably want to minimize the the generational comparisons especially when comparing DX9, DX10 and DX11 parts. As well I am sure Anandtech has to get the review done in a timely manner with limited resources. Considering the information provided by Anandtech based on their experience, expertise and diligence I am very satisfied with the review and have no real bone of contention.Thanks again guys!!!
kreacher - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I prefer the overclocked cards to be reviewed in the roundup articles (e.g. GTX 460 roundup) rather than included while testing new stock cards.MOBAJOBG - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I would recommend that AT perform a test to overclock the Radeon 6800 series from AMD and also, for EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW from NVIDIA. It's suffice to mention that this simple action which is missing from the "AMD’s Radeon HD 6870 & 6850: Renewing Competition in the Mid-Range Market" review should have been done to avoid unsavory accusations from your readers.Take Care,
Ong
Jakall78 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
EVGA's GeForce GTX 460 FTW should NOT have been included in the review for one simple reason. It is NOT available everywhere around the world. See Europe. It is available for example in Germany or Holland, but NOT available in Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Croatia, Finland or Serbia, just to name a few. I think your site addresses interested readers all over the world.In all of the above mentioned countries, you can find stock clocked GTX 460 from multiple vendors.
Hence, my problem: why was there in your review a overclocked version of a card only available in specific countries?
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
so if a product is not available in Afghanistan that means people in the US should not be told of its existance?If a product isn't available where you are, do you seriously lack the intelligence to realise that you should therefore look at other products?
lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
It's still misleading as heck, since it doesn't represent the majority of overclocked 460.He chose the maximum overclock to make nvidia look as good as possible. Look at toms Hardware, they took the average overclocked 460 to represent most 460 cards.
Notice the difference in intentions.
Just like the gts 450 review, Anand wants Nvidia to look a good as possible, so he avoids factory overclocked ATI card.
He is biased.
medi01 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Nvidia cuts out reviewers for the GTS250http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1051123/n...
QUOTE:
Just what are the green fumblers doing this time? Two things: one bad, the other downright deceptive. The bad one is simple, if you don't review Nvidia cards and say that PhysX is the greatest thing since sliced bread and CUDA makes sex better, you aren't doing a good enough job. They will gently nudge you to change your tune, basically praise PhysX and CUDA until you wear the letters off your keyboard.
...
And if you didn't drool over PhysX and CUDA enough, you are cut out. This is exactly what Apple does to keep the press in line, but Apple has something Nvidia doesn't: competence....
END OF QUOTE
PS
Now I also see why Jopple's products are missing on some comparison photos, that would show them in an unfavorable light. It's very sad. :(
disappointed1 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Once you include an overclocked card from Nvidia in the main performance graphs, it is unethical not to include an overclocked card from AMD, and ASUS had one available at 915/1050 for MSRP, $240:http://usa.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=HtuZg3hlM5iz...
Either include both, or include neither.
Further, you dedicate an entire page to the overclocked Nvidia card without directly mentioning the price, other than that it competes with the 6870.
With these facts in mind, it is hard to argue at least the appearance of anandtech losing some objectivity.
doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
That card is barely overclocked at all, the memory is always 1050, the normal engine clock is 900.I also don't see any link to purchase that item in your link.
lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Look at the gts 450 review. The Calibre X450G is also "barely overclocked at all".Core clock only +8.6%.
But apparently Anand allows it, because he loves nvidia so much.
The 450 review had NO ATI card at all...
the_elvino - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I think everything about the issue has been said already, so we can sum up:1. Nvidia pressured AT into including the EVGA card
2. The EVGA card is a cherry picked card which is widely available
3. The specifications of the EVGA card were not included in the review (unbelievable!)
4. Some graphs didn't even include the stock GTX 460 but just the EVGA card
5. No overclocked card from AMD were used in the review and no attempts were made to overclock the reference cards
Anandtech has been my primary source for information on new products for years and I will still visit the site because I can feel the passion about technology and the articles are very interesting. However, I feel that the site is biased towards NVidia because AMD generally gets less praise and more criticism compared to other sites. The review also seems rushed and the title is very unenthusiastic ("renewing competition in the midrange market") even though AMD has in fact regained the pole position in the midrange market...so yes I'm disappointed as well.
karlostomy - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
eh what?(quote) "2. The EVGA card is a cherry picked card which is widely available"
Wrong. The EVGA card is a cherry picked card which is NOT widely available.
The EVGA card is in short, or non-existant supply at major retailers.
In some countries, it is not available at all. Fixed.
I'd also like to add point 6:
6. Despite their claims to the contrary, the evidence points to AT having sold out to Nvidia's demands.
Parhel - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Only Newegg has the FTW edition in stock and they only have 27 left. If you try adding 99 to your cart, you will see the quantity on hand. Go see for yourself. This was a total PR stunt that everyone knew about before the reviews even came out, and which Anand could easily have checked out before publishing. I'm not believing the excuses.doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
A PR stunt which allows people to buy a card for better value for money.Damn, Satan's minions at work again.
If the card becomes unavailable, I think people will be able to work out that it isn't an option anymore, and will end up going with the not-quite-as-good 6870.
omega12 - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Not quite as good unless you consider, the significantly lower power consumption, the better performance at 2560x1600 and of course the fact that it is not a marketing "ghost". Oh, and an honorary mention of all the HTPC features, none of which Nvidia has. Yea, clearly it isn't as good. Please tick highlight the correct answer:Who is paying you?
A. Anand
B. Nvidia
C. EVGA
D All of the above.
rsgeiger - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I don’t mind you using overclocked cards. As you stated it is an option for my dollar, so why not? I also like how you warned everyone that his is overclocked; that part should stay as well.Maybe overclocked cards, in the benchmarks, need to have a different color font; to identify it is not "quite normal". That way when glancing at the results a few extra neurons will fire off to tell you to really think about those bars on the screen.
I believe that this site is for people that actually read the article, and evaluate the results. And I also believe Anandtech has done a good job of remaining impartial over the years. Politics in any industry is brutal, and you guys to exceptionally well at mitigating it.
Keep up the good work, keep pushing back, keep thinking hard on how you review.
the_elvino - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
:)Saltbread - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
See the title?That's how I feel. I'm not going to read the 341 comments above me for fear of any trolls I might come across this Monday morning when I'm already at work. What I will say here is that I trust Anandtech more than any other site to gave me an in depth view of the facts (and the surrounding landscape) on EVERY article. If they were to fall from that standard, I'd be the first person up in arms. I respect the fact that others will have their opinion and I'm glad because what would life be without the checks and balances that come with differing views. But with regards to this issue, I'm glad Anandtech included the EVGA card. By doing so, it gives readers a more informed view of their available options.Now I think I'll resume trying to decide if I am going to expense myself building an HTPC specifically to run Boxee/Hulu Desktop/ XBMC /Netflix/Crunchyroll etc or wait for Anandtech to get the Boxee Box in for review and tell me if the latter is the better option.
darkhawk1980 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Honestly, I think it comes down to people not understanding what they want. They wanted to see ATI/AMD's new cards be much better. Yes, NVidia is just prolonging the Fermi series of cards longer by doing the factory overclock, but so what? It's their business, they can do what they want.Having a clear idea of how the cards perform will give any reader here a good idea of what to purchase. Whenever my friends ask me for advice, I check here first. Recently I had a friend ask me about buying a new video card, and steered him to the Radeon HD5850, simply because it was in his price range, and it's a good card for the money. He's been happy with it for the past 2 months now. And guess where I got the information to do that? Right here. I'd rather have a good, clear view of the 'playing field', than have a distorted reality where 1 manufacturer/vendor gets more play time.
CrankUpThePowerIgor - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
or at least that was the case when I bought my 460 (the only cheaper card was stock speed but sold out).I ended up with the 2GB Palit which has a mild factory overclock. I don't expect to see my card in charts, but I would say there is a case for having three 460 1MB cards: stock, mild and high overclock. That is simply the state of the market.
BTW, the choice of 2GB of video memory was partly down to benchmarks I had seen for 1GB vs 2GB ATI cards where although the average frame rate was identical the minimum frame rate was in some games much higher and that seemed worth a few Euros. Would be nice to see if that is really the case with the 460 though.
MichaelD - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I agree with Chubrock. Somewhere in the intro for the article state "We received a request from NVidia/ATI to include their new GTX9999HD card and we told them yes/no."I'm a tech-and-spec-junkie; the more cards in the comparo the better IMO. Obviously, NVidia threw this "95% of a GTX470" card in at the last minute to steal ATI's fire. And? So what they conveniently didn't say anything to world prior to ATs test? Sneaky? Sure. But that's life in the big city.
It's up to the reader to realize "Ah, the yellow line is this here overclocked 460 and not the stock 460." This is a techie-site; most of the readership is "in the know" and will look for these things. Bring on all the cards!
lvlFK - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Even after reading all the comments on the other article, I fail to see what the big deal is.Readers like to point out that it is unfair to compare a stock card to a card that has been factory oc'ed. But how? When I go to buy a graphics card, I shop against my budget.
Not whether a card has been factory oc'ed or not. I shop for best bang for buck.
So I understand that to provide a complete picture of the market, Anandtech chose to include a card that is available on the market today. And will probably be pushed heavily from Nvidia to compete with the 6x00 series. So I fail to see what the issue is.
PS: Been a reader long enough to have been through 3 site redesigns (IIRC).
Still remember reading Geforce 2 MX reviews on Anandtech!
Keep up the good work. You guys have never let me down.
omega12 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
And on top of that, you post an apologetic letter and ask for feedback? Seriously? This letter looks more like an attempt at letting people blow some steam off and save some face. I bet nobody even reads the comments.Let's analyse how retarded the 6800 series review was:
-No mention of new features. They have added a lot for HTPC users. Perhaps the green team asked you not to talk about it much?
-No overclocking of the cards? Seriously? You call yourself an enthusiast?
-The EVGA card is clearly a ghost. Most retailers and e-tailers in my area have no stock of it at all and the few that list it, have not ETA. It's not like you didn't know that this would be the case after so many years in the business. It is always the same scenario with every extremely overclocked card. My area you ask? Central London...
-You did not include all the cards in every graph.
-You conclude that the overclocked EVGA is the more powerful card but looking at your graphs it looks pretty damn equal. Or did you miss the first parts of your own benchmarks where the 6870 is on top? At 2560x1600 AMD only loses in 4 of the benches, yet you proceed to conclude that Nvidia is better. Furthermore, despite the lead at the higher resolution, it seems AMD does not to do so well at 1920x1200, yet there is no discussion of this irregularity anywhere. We just keep it hush-hush and declare Nvidia the winner based on the lower resolution.
I have seen you do this before. I believe it was an SSD article where you announced the slower drive as the winner in the conclusion. I was going back and forth in the graphs for hours, questioning my own sanity.
Lately you are blatantly favouring a few brands and the whole site has taken a turn from scientific analysis to blogging mind-dumps. And can you please cut it out with the Apple preaching? Yeah, we get it, you like Apple but do you have to stick company slogans in every chance you get? Want an example? Check your own 3TB disk review. Yeah, you tried it in a Mac and you could have said that it worked. Did you have to say, "It just works"?
As for the iPhone reviews, what can I say? You admitted you stayed outside a shop for hours to get each one of them. If that is not bias and extreme fanboism, I don't know what is and I don't know on what grounds I should trust your reviews on those phones. You very rarely address flaws on Apple products. I have yet to see you complain about how hot the MBP gets if you try to do any intensive work on it. Mine gets too hot to the touch (mid 2009 model). I have yet to see you complain about the sharp edges where your wrists rest as you type on it. I have marks on my skin as I am typing this, surely I can't be the only person with that problem, unless I am the only human with straight forearms and yours are bend upwards somehow. Anyway, I am getting off topic now but I am just trying to make a point. You are going downhill. You can be sure I will not be visiting for the 6900 series reviews. If things get better I will come back and carry on reading as I have been doing for years.
Touche - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Good points. And yes, many new features were covered poorly or not at all.I have been a regular reader of Anantech for more than 10 years. In fact, it's on top of my bookmarks on all of my computers. I have also noticed a steady decline in quality. Sometimes even things bordering bias, but for the most part the site was still on top of its game. This fiasco, however, left such a bad taste in my mouth that I lost much of the high respect I had for Anandtech.
krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I read it :)doobydoo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
-No mention of new features. They have added a lot for HTPC users. Perhaps the green team asked you not to talk about it much?There's 4 pages discussing the improvements to the cards. Most people buying this card wont be doing so for an HTPC.
-No overclocking of the cards? Seriously? You call yourself an enthusiast?
I agree they should have overclocked all the cards. But they overclocked none. So whilst incomplete, it's not unfair. (Factory overclock <> Manual overclock). I'm sure they'll come back and try to overclock it
-The EVGA card is clearly a ghost. Most retailers and e-tailers in my area have no stock of it at all and the few that list it, have not ETA. It's not like you didn't know that this would be the case after so many years in the business. It is always the same scenario with every extremely overclocked card. My area you ask? Central London...
Your area is therefore 'UK' then, the 'London' part being irrelevant and just added to try and make it sound worse. And shock horror, second link on google shopping:
http://www.lambda-tek.com/componentshop/index.pl?o...
In stock. Fail.
-You did not include all the cards in every graph.
I think this was just a genuine mistake.
-You conclude that the overclocked EVGA is the more powerful card but looking at your graphs it looks pretty damn equal. Or did you miss the first parts of your own benchmarks where the 6870 is on top? At 2560x1600 AMD only loses in 4 of the benches, yet you proceed to conclude that Nvidia is better. Furthermore, despite the lead at the higher resolution, it seems AMD does not to do so well at 1920x1200, yet there is no discussion of this irregularity anywhere. We just keep it hush-hush and declare Nvidia the winner based on the lower resolution.'
Yeah, cos pointing out a couple of graphs where the slower card edges it means that it's faster overall? If you're going to claim to have some kind of methodology which proves that they arrived at the wrong conclusion, I'm all ears. Otherwise you're just a crying fan-boy.
'I have seen you do this before. I believe it was an SSD article where you announced the slower drive as the winner in the conclusion. I was going back and forth in the graphs for hours, questioning my own sanity.'
Perhaps it's your inability to interpret graphs which is the issue here.
'As for the iPhone reviews, what can I say? You admitted you stayed outside a shop for hours to get each one of them. If that is not bias and extreme fanboism, I don't know what is and I don't know on what grounds I should trust your reviews on those phones'
Doesn't the fact that he is a fan of the product say a lot about it? All reviews will have their own personal opinions. And just like the customers, those opinions are based on experience with the products. Is it such an indictment that people who use the products like them? Damn companies who make products people like.
'I have yet to see you complain about how hot the MBP gets if you try to do any intensive work on it. Mine gets too hot to the touch (mid 2009 model). I have yet to see you complain about the sharp edges where your wrists rest as you type on it. I have marks on my skin as I am typing this, surely I can't be the only person with that problem, unless I am the only human with straight forearms and yours are bend upwards somehow'
My girlfriend has a MBP and it doesn't get hot at all, ever. In fact, she told me it stays much cooler than any laptop she's had. And what are you on about sharp edges? Maybe some relative out there took a sandblaster to it to try and put you out of your misery?
Such an angry little anti-Apple pro-Nvidia fan boy aren't you, boy. Grow up
omega12 - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Yea, because a games will never use HTPC functionality on his own entertainment PC. Just shove it under the rug there.Oh yeah? only 10 in stock... just enough to push marketing a bit further huh? you fail.
My inability to interpret graphs eh? Go on, look at the article. The 6870 consistently beats the 460 FTW in all the nigh resolution benchmarks apart from 4. I would say that the 6870 has definitely the better hardware but there seems to be a problem at lower resolutions. Perhaps the driver gets bottlenecked by the CPU. Why else would the 6870 win at 2560X1600 and lost at 1920x1200? Again check the graphs, don't take my word for it.
You girlfriend watches porn and reads emails on her MBP. I need it for some serious work, hence my choice for the Pro model. Go on, try anything intensive on it and tell how huggable it feels after a minute or two. As for the sharp edges (definitely sharper than your brain), your comment is ridiculous and you shall receive no response. Still typing this on MBP and still have marks on my wrists from the edges.
I think you forgot your brain in your mother's vagina. I am anti-Apple, yet use an MBP and i am Pro-Nvidia, yet I am here arguing against them... Way to go chump, entertain us some more, will ya?
omega12 - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Couple more points to add:My area is Central London and I specified it because, if you learn to read, you will see that I said I looked at retailers as well as e-tailers.
Genuine mistake that some cards are missing from the benchmarks? Really? Let's analyse this a bit:
6850 missing from all but one of the high resolution benchmarks. Isn't this supposed to be a 6800 series review? Seems like priority was given to EVGA.
The EVGA FTW is only missing from Starcraft 2 high resolution benchmark and in place we see the 6850. At the bottom of that page we see an apology that not all cards were included. We see no apology in previous pages for omitting the 6850. We only see it when the EVGA is missing.
If they had spent all the time they dedicated to EVGA, on the ATI cards, we would have CF results at higher resolution and we would have some OC results as well. As an additional bonus we may have some seen some HTPC software improvements like in other reviews.
hps_work - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
From my point of view your were 100% right by including the overclocked EVGA card in that particular review. It was an exceptional situation, but definitely it shouldn't happen on the regular basis.Edison5do - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I think the the only thing you should care about is equalytty. Meaning by this that if you are going to review an OC NVIDIA CARD put the ATI OVERCLOKED too, its not well competend putting an overclockes card against stock-same range card.other than that, dont get too hassle about fanboys they are everywhere, note that lots of this coment has some self love for whaever brand they support, I LOVE ANANDTECH BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT THEIR READERS, but dont let that drive you to the wrong side.
asphix - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I didn't mind the card. You added enough disclaimers to let me know that this was uncommon practice yet gave your reasons as to why you thought it important.The GTX460 is an overclocking beast and having the stock overclocked card not only allows you to see what performance you can get out of a product you can go purchase right now, but also hopefully attain (if not, then close to) that performance with an OC utility.
Like you said, the more information the better. I agree that standard practice should be as you've been doing... stock cards. But really, the purpose behind that is to review with the cards which will be most common on the market. No one likes a review that after 6 months half of the products are no longer available.
I've a feeling these factory OC cards will be available for a while... it seems like overclocking is a large part of the GTX 460 strategy and it's one of the reasons I chose the card.
Including the card as a reference point was much appreciated. Perhaps in the future do the review with a focus on a stock card and include the OC card as more of peripheral reference point than an actual contender... but either way it works for me provided the heavy disclaimers you provided and as long as this sort of thing doesn't become every-day practice.
burner1980 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Anandtech should try to be as neutral as possible.Therefore, you should only compare apples to apples (the real ones ;)
i.e., compare stock cards to stock cards and OC ones to OC ones.
If you choose to include a 460 OC card, it is totally fine. But then you should also include OCed 6850/6870 cards.
Thus, the picture would be (more) neutral again and your readers get an even more advanced impression of the power today`s graphic cards deliver.
Regards,
heflys - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Precisely........spunlex - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I was always very happy with the way things were done around here: only stock cards in product reviews, followed by a round -up of all the overclocked parts a few days later. If we really want to compare individual cards for purchase we always have bench.I think launch reviews should be more about the companies direction, and most importantly about architecture changes and improvements. Benchmarks are of course important but the launch article is really the only time we get and in depth look at what goes on behind the scenes and under the hood.
I don't think it's a big deal whether or not you include OC'ed cards in thebenchmarks as long as it is consistent, and the don't take up to much of the article its self. I just worry a bit that some of the graph will get a little long and might be hard to read for people viewing the site on a lower resolution display.
JFredrick - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
As with many others here, I saw absolutely no issue with including the FACTORY-OC'd EVGA card in the article. There are two key things here: One, it was made abundantly clear that this was NOT a reference-clocked board, so, as actually recommended IN THE ARTICLE, I evaluated the EVGA 460FTW performance "with a grain of salt"; and, two, "FACTORY" is a big word in this case. The card in question was not OC'd by AT. It comes this way, from the manufacturer, and is therefore the very definition of STOCK!! In the digital world, STOCK and REFERENCE are not interchangeable terms. I'm quite confident that AT, with or without the feedback, would have been planning a follow up review to include factory and non-factory overclocked variants of these boards.I don't believe I've ever read any review on AT that was blatantly biased. That's why I come here for hardware info. Accusations that AT is bending or bowing to manufacturer pressure is simply irresponsible. Any manufacturer, doesn't matter what they make, will try to influence the reviews of their products to improve product perception. As a reviewer's reputation and market exposure increase, so too does the pressure from the manufacturers. AT has, in my humble opinion, done an exceptional job resisting that trend, staying neutral and unbiased in an industry inundated by fanboys and stringent brand loyalty. That's not easy to do.
Does the inclusion of a non-reference card in a launch review affect that opinion? Not in the least. I interpret it as a token data point of the new product's performance in relation to other available products. Again, this is a STOCK board that happens to be clocked higher than REFERENCE, and the article makes that very clear. As has been stated here, a graphics card is a graphics card is a graphics card. If they come out of the box that way, they're all apples. Same warranty, same hardware (though cooling solutions commonly differ between them), premium cost added to be taken into the cost/performance consideration...etc etc. There is no possible way that any reviewer can be expected to sample and benchmark every possible configuration for every product launch. Having said that, as only a minor nod to the validity of the argument, it may very well have been a good idea to include a factory-modified variant of competing products as well.
And one final thought, if someone comes to this article and jumps straight to the benchmark graphs, they might leave with a different impression than if they read the text that goes with those pretty pictures. As the old adage goes, you get what you pay for. If you're only willing to pay attention to the pictures, then you are not likely to get the same quality of information that you might get if you invest a little more time to READ the article. In this case, there is not much room for misinterpretation, even in the pictures. The OC'd board is clearly identified by name, even in the graphs, and one need only go shopping for it to find that either it is not in stock (high-demand or low-supply) or is priced at a point appropriate for its performance...or both. Is there any damage done here? Not in this reader's opinion... ;)
JF
medi01 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Comparing cherry picked overclocked device with next to no availability that on many slides looks pretty much as standard one, is "not a big deal" right.krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
If you did READ some of the comments, you will see most have said what you did with quite a bit fewer words. Take that as a REFERENCE with unlimited availability.vancepants - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
It is my understanding that this site reviews and compares hardware available on the market. If it is widely available (not a limited time super secret special offer) there is no reason that it should not be included in a product comparison especially amongst directly competing models.I'm with you Anand, keep it up.
Touche - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Except it IS limited super unavailable single manufacturer cherry picked GPU model.Wolfpup - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I'm confused by why anyone would be upset by the overclocked 460's inclusion. You're free to ignore it, and Anandtech thoroughly described the situation. In this case I'm sure I would have included it too-it's an actual product out there, and it turns out a very competitive one. It may not be available later, but then we know that. For that matter, not all "official" products are really available in quantity.I don't see what's wrong with including more data, especially with so much background info also included.
jimmyzaas - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I think its fair if the comparison is based on price points, provided that a 460 FTW is at a comparable price point to the 6800s. In Canada, the 460FTW still costs more than some 6870s. That alone is enough to persuade me to not get one.People are complaining about comparing an overclocked card versus a stock card. One could argue what if the 6870 was also factory overclocked. Wouldn't you also expect a price premium on those hand picked overclocked 6870s? In the end, a factory overclocked 6870 would probably cost about the same as a 460 FTW is to a vanilla 460. Sure you can go ahead and overclock your 6870 and do a "fair" comparison, but that's not the point is it? The 460 FTW is factory overclocked and the overclock is covered by warranty. You overclocking the 6870 yourself (and perhaps requiring an aftermarket cooler to do it) probably isn't.
Sihastru - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
According to gpureview.com, the highest overclock possible for a 6870 is below 9% (900->975MHz with voltage tweaks). The same site says that the highest overclock for a 460 is just shy of 37% (675->930MHz also with voltage tweaks).So you see, having a top OC 460 in a duel with a top OC 6870 might not be a good idea, at least not for those unhappy about the FTW, "follow up" article or not. The 6870 is already clocked very close to it's ceiling, while the 460 is downclocked like crazy to keep it in a certain power envelope. Anyone in the market for an overclocked card is not going to have low power consumption very high on it's feature list (at least I don't). People interested in overclocked (and overclocking) cards only care about performance and price. Temperature and noise can be a problem if you buy your card while being blindfolded and having your face superglued to the floor.
And be sure, almost all 460's overclock like crazy with voltage tweaks, up to 37%, and very well without voltage tweaks, more then 20%. The 6870 don't. Plain and simple.
Anand should add all cards to ALL the test results in their max OC configuration and THEN we'll see some people REALLY cry. If you're going to void the warranty on a 6870 is only fair that you void it for the 460 as well, right?
The fact that the FTW is a ghost card might be true, but then again that means that people trying to buy it and failing will have to choose the second best, that would be an AMD 6870 card, right? I mean the other cards were like a reference 460 and a reference 6870 and a reference 6850 and some other expensive and now irrelevant cards.... and according to most of you the reference 460 is garbage (it's a french word).
I think what the fanbois are upset about is that 6870/6850 are not what they expected them to be and the fact that the 460 is so frickin' versatile and scalable with clockspeeds that it scares them. I mean Fermi was supposed to be such a FAIL... They just feel that the FTW spoiled their party and it's their party and they will cry if they want to...
The FTW is NOT a party crasher folks, it's an EYE OPENER. Wake up. What the FTW can do, ANY 460 can do. It should only matter if Anand would've tried to hide that fact from you. The products are what they are. You start the benchmarking mill and numbers come out. You arrange the numbers in nice graphs. What is left is user choice. And I prefer to be an informed user and not be kept in the dark just because AMD's 2nd DX11 generation cards overclock like crap.
Touche - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Overclockersclub reviewed three 6870 cards and got the following OC's:Sapphire HD 6870 974 / 1170
XFX HD 6870 1000 / 1166
Powercolor HD 6870 1000 / 1220
They were compared to EVGA 460 FTW's max OC of 921 / 1022 (and that card is the highest overclocker of all the 460s).
Overclocked 6870s won in most benchmarks.
Nice try.
Sihastru - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I did say "according to gpureview.com".Anyway, from 900MHz to 1000MHz it's still just 11%. And I must be blind, but apart from them mentioning the overclocks, I do not see any OC vs. OC card benchmark results.
So I don't see how "overclocked 6870s won in most benchmarks" since there were no benchmarks results for them.
They did "won" temperature tests by being more then 11 degrees hotter then the 460 FTW was (in idle), it was a "draw" for the load tests.
Also a stock 6870 requires more power then a factory overclocked 460 FTW. Another "win".
Then OCC concluded that the fan noise of the 6870 was a "Cons".
I won't blame you for trying, but let's keep disinformation to a minimum.
Sihastru - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Uhh, seen it now. What I said still applies. Except the blindness thing.Touche - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
What applies? The EVGA FTW is a cherry picked card that runs on lower voltages and higher clocks than other 460s, reference or factory OCd.Temperatures are irrelevant if they're not >90 C, power consumption is important. Stock 6870 consumes less than EVGA FTW. OCC's power measurements are not usable because they are different from all the other reviews out there, probably because they don't test it during gaming or even Furmark. So we don't have results for 6870 OC'd vs EVGA FTW OC'd, let alone all the others 460s OC'd.
Noise was not measured and even if it was, Radeon refference coolers are not made for most quiet operations. Custom AIB designs take care of that.
Anyway, your comment and my reply were about OC potential and performance, which you obviously got wrong.
MOBAJOBG - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Well, while a certain graphic card can only become unstable in temperatures of exceeding 100°C (that's boiling hot) however it's wiser to choose a product which does not surpass the optimum heat as can be experienced in the saunas most often set at 82°C.Take Care,
Ong
jchudson84 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
The review did an excellent job of providing the consumer a single source for making an informed purchase. I came away knowing where the 6850 and 6870 fit in the market along with learning about a potential interesting factory overclocked competitor.Factory overclocked products such as the EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW make purchasing the perfect card for your concerns (cost, noise, performance, and power) really difficult without all the information showing up in one source. When a noteworthy product is in the market, please do make us aware and informed.
xprojected - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
For those of you demanding apologies from Anandtech, take a deep breath, and find something else to do with your day. It's a video card.I would like to think that Anandtech readers are smart enough to find out which cards in comparisons are stock vs. O/C speeds, and to understand the price premiums and increased power/temp that comes with them. If a card comes factory overclocked, with warranty, from a reputable vendor, then IMO it is fair game. The only argument I could see against it is that specific cards are not available in certain countries, but Anandtech should not have to limit its reviews to hardware available in every country. The argument that it is a limited quantity card is also bunk. Look on NewEgg and you'll find the majority of 6850 and 6870s are now out of stock. Oh noez, no fair! It's a free market, and as long as nobody is lying or comparing hardware that is not publicly available, let them compete for your dollar/euro/currency of choice. I have alternated between ATI/AMD and nVidia many times, and yes, I did just go from a pair of Radeons to a GTX460 FTW.
krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
You sound like PR to me. Are you employed by NV?krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Sorry - missed something. Are you employed by the "repputable vendor" EVGA?CristianMataoanu - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I must say that the oc thing is very confusing for many people because many manufacturers strap some oc term to their product to make it more desirable. But you have oc card from 715MHz to 850Mhz or more. So if you say eVGA FTW and I find on the internet another eVGA, the 460 SuperClocked, what should I believe? Oh, this is the magic card. Sadly no, this is a "standard" 763Mhz. Another thing is that although called "factory overclocked" does not make it standard. The clock is the same on all FTW cards but they don't have a standard thermal envelope, so not all FTW cards will have the same thermals. The availability is another problem because while I can find the 6870 listed I cant say the same thing about the eVGA FTW. I live in Romania, but that did not stop AMD making the 6870 available from day one.So I must say that including an overclocked card and picking the one with the highest clock could be, and in my opinion it is, misleading.
rpmrush - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I think it shows you what a top of the line 460 can do. It's an off the shelf part. I think most would rather pick the 6870 anyway and have more room for O/C.lakrids - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
In the 460 and 450 review, there was no ATI factory overclocked, only nvidia overclocked.Why can't you see the Anantech has become biased?
Sabresiberian - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Don't listen to them.Okay, it's always good to do a self-check when someone suggests favoritism on your part, but it also is good to recognize the truth, and the truth is that many of the complainers are people who don't care to take in the facts about Anandtech or haven't taken the effort to review this site's history before making such claims.
The AMD Radeon fans are mad because their new toys are at the level of the Nvidia card 4th down from the top of the Nvidia line-up.
You were up-front and clear about what you were testing. Nvidia didn't send you some super-secret special 460, you got one from someone else entirely. It's no fault of yours that AMD released a product with a confusing name bound to disappoint all of us looking for something exciting.
In case anyone thinks I'm an Nvidia fanboy, I run a 2 Radeon 5770s in SLI in my primary machine and a GTX 280 in my second rig. My next purchase will depend on which card is better and the money I have in my pocket at the time.
;)
Parhel - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
"Nvidia didn't send you some super-secret special 460, you got one from someone else entirely."Did you even read the review? Nvidia most certainly did send them a "super-secret special 460." Ryan flat out said so on page 7. Seriously, why even comment?
krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
One week ago i read the original K6 and the first K7 review by Anand. And as the first time i read them years ago it was a pleasure to do it again.I dont know who you are, but judged from your writing you are yourself a young baby, talking about your own gfx. How pathetic.
khimera2000 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I dont think he did... and i dont think he read the article... or checked his sources. since the 850 is the highest overclocker off the shelf. there are over clocked cards available from amd but for some odd reason there not in the review. imagion that.But then again if this is fair in the eyes of the people here, then it will only be fair to compare the nvidia cards to the Toxic editions from saphire, and take the saphire as a full market part.
it is after all the exact same argument. If the sight wants to include overclocked cards to compare referance cards they will loose credibility. This is a great example because it clearly showes favoritisim of one vender over the other since the NV card was not representative of the average overclock available out there, but is advertised as such.
another point of conflict is that they did not bother to over clock the cards, even though other sights have ganed as much as a 14% performance boost over stock 6870, which would kill the FTW comparison right of the bat.
In the end Anand can say what it wants but becaus of these errors, and the scewed way it was presented ( we would not be here if it was not) it showes a mark shift in anands policies from a nutral source of news.
In the end they lost alot of integreaty because the comparison did not represent what was easily available, and does not represent what is available on average in the market. making the NV ATI comparison a mute point, that only serves to anger readers and misslead those ignorant to technolagy.
Grit - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
If the card is offered in the retail segment, then it's competition. *I* want to know how what I might buy will perform in my system, given the way I will use it, particularly at a similar price point.The choice was more than reasonable and Anandtech.com should do it again!
mapesdhs - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
The following is in response to CrankUpThePowerIgor's post, who wondered about
SLI performance of the 460, whether it helps minimum frame rates when the RAM is
only 1GB...
Yesterday I was talking about Anand's 6870 article with a friend with respect to
including the EVGA. My friend has two Palit Sonic Platinum GTX 460 1GB cards
SLI which have 800MHz cores - not far off the EVGA. Thus, I went hunting for
articles on overclocking the Palit (some cover oc'ing the Platinum, others show SLI
results, some show both oc'ing and SLI numbers). I can't include the article URLs
because posting here doesn't allow that, but just search the following sites for
reviews of the Palit and you'll find them easily enough: techspot, vr-zone,
techpowerup, overclockersclub, guru3d, bjorn3d. There are others, but this is
plenty to be sure of reliable data.
Most sites managed an oc on the Platinum of around 850 to 860 using MSI
Afterburner (a bit lower with RivaTuner), but one reached 890 and another hit
906 using a small voltage increase. It obviously varies, with more to gain if
one ups the voltage a tiny bit.
As for the EVGA card, pcper.com has an article showing not only stock numbers
but also oc'd aswell.
The point?...
The Palit card is _readily available_ and it's quite a bit cheaper than the EVGA,
down to 163 UKP here (11 less than the EVGA). Thus, if you want the performance
of a stock EVGA with 850 core, then availability of *a* card that will achieve that
performance is NOT an issue. Just get a Palit and oc it with MSI Afterburner; should
work fine. This also adds to the strength of the 460 option as a whole since the cost
of the Palit is a heck of a lot less than the 6870 (28 less than the cheapest 6870 on
the site I examined, and a whopping 41 less than the cheapest 6870 which is
actually in stock).
So, for all those moaning, remember that Anand in theory could have also included
results for an oc'd EVGA (or other 460 card with a similar default high core), but
they didn't. If they had, then never mind the EVGA, the data would have given
price/performance results even more favourable to the 460. Surely if Anand was
being deliberately biased they would have done this, but no such oc data was
included. Ergo, those claiming bias are wrong, period.
Prices at Scan: EVGA = 174 (waiting ETA; I asked - not long), Palit = 163,
cheapest 6870 (awaiting ETA) = 191, cheapest available 6870 in stock = 204.
Even ignoring the EVGA, the 460 wins IMO, especially the Palit (with or without
an extra +50 oc to match the EVGA). Doubly so two 460s SLI.
Hence, the key argument against including the EVGA which people now keep
using - that of availability - just doesn't hold up. If Anand was being biased, they
could easily have pointed out that the Palit card with a mild oc will perform exactly
the same, is easy to obtain and is cheaper than the EVGA (a lot cheaper than a
6870). QED.
Ian.
PS. CrankUpThePowerIgor, I hope the article refs help answer your query - PM me
if you'd like the exact URLs.. Looks like it does help indeed for minimums, but as
always with this sort of thing, it depends on the game.
krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Its a mess for the normal consumers.What about just buying a sapphire 6850 and clocking it to 900Mhz, as hardocp reald world test indicates to me, it will be about on par with a 460 1g at 800 Mhz? - its the cheapest solution.
Is that the purpose of a launch article to write oc sapphire all over? Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire, Sapphire
Touche - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Maybe your research shouldn't be so one sided. If you are going to include manually OC'd cards, you should probably know that 6850 @ 972/1159 is faster than 460 @ 921/1022 (which is higher than all of your mentioned cards). You can check it at overclockersclub. That is a stock clocked 6850. Compare its price to those 460s you mentioned. Somewhat different picture now, ain't it?JackNSally - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Why not just include the factory OCed card and then run the tests again at stock clocks? You can even use the same card.Knowing about what nvidia/amd/intel/any other company wants you to write about(certain games, tests, view) would be nice to know also. Let us know what they want, you report it, we make our decision to either give them the finger or support them or just take them with a grain of salt.
AnnonymousCoward - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
People get so hung up on "OC". And they wouldn't be complaining if it was instead called a GTX 461. WTF?As long as the card has reasonable availability to buy, it is absolutely ok to review it and analyze it. It costs x, it performs y, it uses z power. Crybabies have no case, complaining that it's clocked faster than "reference". It's called speed binning; Intel has done it for decades. Again, is the model number so important??
Regarding availability, newegg says "In stock."
The AT review included the important Load Power test, which showed the 460-OC draws 34W more than the 6870. This tells us much of the story beyond price vs performance.
krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
The card dont have reasonable availability. If it had, it would have its own model number. Small raindrops on newegg is just marketing bs. Go read the steam survey numbers for availability of dx11 highend cards.NV have variability issues, but selling low bin cards with lots of marketing fog from the high bin cards, is bad for the consumers, and bad for pc gaming.
AnnonymousCoward - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Maybe what you say has merit, but the fact is, the review happened 3 days ago, and right now the cards can still be purchased from newegg and are in stock. What more can you ask for? That sure seems like reasonable availability to me. 3 days and counting.krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Putting fx. 100 cards on newegg each day for two weeks, and then 20 every secon day for 1 month, until the next revision is fx. no way near availability in my book.mapesdhs - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
See my previous post. Availability is a non issue; just get a Palit 800MHz
Platinum & oc it withMSI Afterburner, it'll perform the same as the FTW,
and cost less. The Palit Platinum is very easy to obtain.
Ian.
krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I do know its fun to overclock but most users dont, its a very small minority.And that minority should be catered for in special articles, where we can go in depth we the options and effects.
Touche - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Just get any 6850 and OC it with MSI Afterburner, it'll perform faster than FTW, even OC'd FTW, and cost less.Hot Rod - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
This is the first place i look for a review....and this time, all the article (6850 & 6870) has done is confuse most people. using the GTX460 OC card was a "shoot your self in the foot" move...if ur gonna ruin the review, u could have also used the stock clock GTX460 data in the numbers..even though Nvidia dint want u to mess with the FTW..! anyway apology accepted :)medi01 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Secondly, they wanted us to know that the factory-overclocked EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW Edition card comes with an 850 MHz core clock, a 4000 MT/s GDDR5 data rate, and is available for $250 at EVGA.com. Furthermore, they have positioned this specific graphics card as the competitor to the Radeon HD 6870, and requested that we include it in our benchmarks. Now this card is impressive to say the least, and it’s certainly an alternative option for folks considering the Radeon HD 6870. But at the same time, it’s a single overclocked SKU from one vendor. If Nvidia had announced an official, updated product with this ambitious overclock—say, the GeForce GTX 460+—we’d be a little more open to the idea. As it is, we're leaving it out of the majority of benchmarks. A price reduction of the GeForce GTX 470 certainly minimizes the appeal of this product, anyway. If you remain interested in what an overclocked GeForce GTX 460 can do, we include it in the overclocking benchmarks section.Kudos to Tom and sad that Anand gave in. :(
krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
At least kudos to Tom and Anand for telling us that they are under pressure, and how they are under pressure.This OC bs startet years ago, and have diluted many reviews for cpu/gpu. Lets keep it separate all together for the future. I migh be a hardliner on strict methology, but Toms solution was bad, Anands was a historic failure compared to the integrity and quality this site holds for many articles (especially kudus to Johan its simply an pleassure each time).
Let this be the last time. And let this be the milestone for a new and better real world methology for testing gfx at Anand all together.
Bates777 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Exactly.This is how you do a review.
Hard OCP did the same thing.
AT, you fail.
What other reviews have you caved in on? Are your numbers even legit anymore? I'll be taking all AT "reviews" with a grain of salt from now on.
jinsean - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I think it was a good idea to include the 460 FTW edition. Getting a full grasp on all the offerings available to the consumer is the main reason why I read (and trust) in sites like anandtech. I want to have a unbiased report on the products available and comparable products.In this case, the inclusion of the 460 FTW edition in the 6800 series review provided me w/ information I would not have considered in my buying choice. However, ultimately for me, the price, power consumption and thermal dissipation for the 460 FTW doesn't impress me. I couldn't have made this comparison if anandtech didn't point this out.
I like to be presented as much pertinent info as possible such that I can make the informed decision.
Thanks anandtech for all these years of unbiased reviews that empower the consumer.
Sammy Sosa - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Wow, I forgot just how crazy geek fan-boy-ism is.The article was near perfect, I wish I could say the same about some of this sites readers.
Touche - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Many of those comments came from long time readers (>10 years myself), not fanboys. I have owned equal number of Nvidia and ATI cards and this post is being written on my HTPC with Nvidia GPU and AMD CPU. My main computer has ATI/Intel combination. But that shouldn't matter anyway. If ones points are valid, it doesn't matter even if he(she) declares himself as a fanboy.And it is not about how all of this is making the new AMD cards look, it's how it makes Anandtech look. That is my biggest disappointment.
Hemi345 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I enjoyed the article for the most part but also thought it was kind of rotten to include a super overclocked card that is only available by one of nVidia's AIB partners and with limited availability in all the comparisons. You've basically set the expectation that you'll always choose the fastest card available by the competition to compare a new product to (and if you don't, you're playing favorites).So if/when nVidia comes out with a 485 or 490 GTX, your review will need to match it up against something to the likes of XFX's 5970 Black Special Edition.
mapesdhs - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
The real point IMO is that there are numerous cards available with level of OC or
similar, not just the EVGA.
Ian.
lakrids - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
evga is already providing him money through advertisement. It makes sense that he want to make them look as good as possible by using their absolutely highest clocked card. evga and evga only.wifiwolf - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I don't think it's relevant to know what each company try to do to unbalance. The best way to make it fair is not to mention anything. How can you make us sure we know everything each company does? How can we be sure you tell everything and no omissions?So it's better to keep it this way.
krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
"I don't think it's relevant to know what each company try to do to unbalance""The best way to make it fair is not to mention anything"
Okey, i can say, i do demand something more of the media and the information i use.
pablo906 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
OC Cards are fine as long as stock cards are included and they are labeled in the charts as being overclocked limited availability products. If anyone is getting irate over showing what a card can do they are being iddiots. We overclock CPU's to see if a cheaper CPU will get you higher end performance and GPU's are no different. Showing as many possible combinations only helps to inform the reader. There is no PR stunt or cover up here. It's simply more information available to readers. Fanbois get worked up quick don't they.cky80 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Great job Anand & team. As an engineer, i would always prefer more data at every opportunity. If it represents the right distribution (ie: sampling) to what is available in the market, why not? People reading your reviews should know better, data doesnt lie.Sorry to piss off any NVIDIA or ATI FAN BOYS, we can all make mature judgement.
lakrids - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
"More data the better", then why is only evga represented? Can you answer that, mr. engineer?AnnonymousCoward - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
1. They had it on hand.2. The EVGA has a higher core clock than virtually all others.
3. Benchmarking additional cards takes more time, and there's little value in doing other cards with the same specs (or specs between 675MHz and 850MHz).
The GTS 450 roundup from last month only included ASUS, EVGA, Palit, and Calibre. Why are those the only ones??? They must be giving AT money under the table!
krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
They had it on hand you say??NV fucking called Anand on the phone. You know what that means?
This is serious business, and a lot is at stake. Its carefully and professional monitored and controlled especially by NV marketing. Its their job.
The unusual thing is that now its frontpage. We only see 0,001%
lakrids - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
1. Not by pure coincidence.2. All the more reason why is doesn't represent the vast majority of 460 cards. This is called misleading and deception.
3. All I can say is, The More data, The better.
evga already does give him a lot of money through advertisement. And they're features far more prominently and almost exclusively in the first 460 review. It sure looks greasy to me...
travbrad - Saturday, October 30, 2010 - link
There are some other reviews that included many different clocked GTX460s, and as you'd expect, higher clock speed = more performance. If you know how fast it is at 675mhz and 850mhz then you can pretty much figure out where the performance will be in between that (and other reviews that included many different clocks confirm this).Rage3d in particular had one clocked at 763mhz (right in between) and it was very competitive (especially since you can find that card for $200 with free shipping on newegg)
krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Ha-ha if you are an engineer you must qualify as the most stupid engi on this planet. Data doesnt lie. Do you even know the difference between reliability and validity?AnnonymousCoward - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Huh? What's not reliable or valid about the EVGA 460 OC that's for sale? Is the boxed retail version made of styrofoam?krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I will not anwer to you unless you are an engineer...But i can give you a hint, its not about the card or distribution, but the methology and context. I have to say most of it is say already on page 3-27 :)
Ram21 - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Seriously, the 460 is begging to be overclocked, and for only a couple extra bucks, to have it be on factory warranty is the best of both worlds. Include the card, you would include a motherboard if it was substantially better than the others.krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
Well its not available for all practical use.AnnonymousCoward - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
What is that supposed to mean? There are 2 versions in stock on newegg. But apparently it's "not available for all practical use".Mygaffer - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
If you had also showed the overclocked performance of the HD6000 series cards then it would have been fine. Its very easy today to overclock your video card, driver software will even automatically overclock it for you.If you had shown how an overclocked HD6870 or HD6850 product compared to an overclocked gtx460 it wouldn't have bothered me.
The way you did it seemed designed to mislead people who have less familiarity with overclocking.
travbrad - Saturday, October 30, 2010 - link
These cards are sold and warranted for overclocked speeds though. If Nvidia re-branded the 850mhz as a GTX462 (or whatever) would that really make you feel better?As for some OCed 6870/6850s, Hardware Canucks did an overclocking study where they also overclocked the 260FTW card further past it's "stock" speed of 850mhz. The results didn't really change much when you compare OCed vs OCed.
MatthewJ - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
1) Thank you for disclosing the fact that Nvidia pushed for a specific card to be used.This is very impressive and honest.
2) I think that there is nothing wrong with including the overclocked card, as long as you make it very clear that this is NOT A TYPICAL OC card, and that this card is more of an exception than the rule (compared to other 460 OC cards).
Also, if you include an OCed card, you should OC the 6870 and include those results as well.
If you do the above, there is no problem whatsoever with including OCed cards, especially since one of the strengths of the 460 is how overclockable it is.
So, overall: you did a very good job, but just didn't go far enough (by not including an overclocked 6870).
krumme - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
And what oc cards do you think NV and AMD will send to Anand then?What defines what can be send?
Anand had a policy for a reason. And broke suddenly it at the most stupid time.
Thats not trustworthy.
MatthewJ - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I think that the companies should be free to choose any factory OCed model, but only the model. Anand would then buy the specific brand/model card from a store.At this point the card itself is random, whereas the brand/model can be the "best" factory OC available. This way the "best" OC from one company is compared to the "best" OC from another.
Fair?
So, for example, Nvidia asks Anand to use an EVGA OC card (and then Anand buys it himself from Newegg to guarantee randomness), and ATI asks to use a Sapphire OC card (and Anand also buys it himself).
lakrids - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
It's not working.Look at the 450 review. There were no factory overclocked 5770 cards.
Look at the 460 review. There were no factory overclocked 5830 cards.
Absolutely NO ATI factory overclocked ATI cards. Because that would be sooo unfair to nvidia and evga.
And we all know how much Anand and Ryan loves nvidia and evga, or at least their money....
DaxxTrias - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I'm glad you included the factory overclocked part. Its exactly as you said its performance gain makes it almost worthy of being branded as its own part (GTX 465?)RussianSensation - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
I really do not understand the "eyes wide shut" mentality and how people can come to consider these factory overclocked products to be somehow illegitimate. We all want to know which cards are good buys - and that is exactly what the inclusion of these cards in the review aims to tell us. I don't care if the box says "ATI" or "AMD" or "Nvidia" or "factory overclocked". I just want to know the price, the features, and the performance of the products on the shelf.If the factory pre-overclocked cards are not available in your home market, then the results for a stock card are also included in the benchmarks. More information = everyone wins.
The bottom line is, whether NV released a GTX460 clocked at 850mhz or EVGA did it for me, it is completely irrelevant. The consumer just wants to know if Card A @ $239 is > Card B @ $239. Who cares who set the specs NV or the AIB?
Another chart could then compare the performance of both Card A and Card B fully overclocked in manual mode (i.e. MSI Afterburner). This way, we have information for what performance we can expect "out of the box" and what maximum performance each card offers with overclocking.
It's a shame really that AMD's AIBs are not as aggressive with factory overclocks though.
lakrids - Monday, October 25, 2010 - link
It's more of a shame that Anandtech has become biased.There was lots of factory overclocked nvidia cards in the gtx 450 review. But Anand didn't bother to review the competitors factory overclocked cards.
Same story for the 460 review. Apparently only nvidia is allowed this privilege.
poohbear - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Well thanks for putting up this blog to address it. I dont understand why you would've done something like that? its rather unprofessional to compare a stock card with a ridiculous 26% overclocked card!! people will think such an overclock is common. its an unfair comparison, you dont compare a souped up car w/ another bonestock car and call the comparison fair. To give an unbiased view on performance you need to stick with stock clocks, and hey if you're overclocking one card then u need to overclock the other one w/ similarly priced cooling (not stock cooling on one and a behemoth aftermarket cooler on the other) and to show overclocking potential based on stock designs. at the end of the day the focus should've been on the 6850 & 6870, not on a 26% overclocked 460 to steal some of AMD's thunder!I'm just surprised you need people to come out and say this? and btw u can just remove the overclocked 460 from the review to make it more neutral. its not too late to do that.
AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Your view doesn't make any sense, and this viewpoint is what keeps polluting this 500-comment thread and obstructing common sense. You wouldn't have that viewpoint if they had called it "461" instead of "OC", now, would you. Is the model number so important???"you dont compare a souped up car w/ another bonestock car and call the comparison fair." Oh really? So you shouldn't compare a base 350Z with the Shelby Edition Mustang? Why the hell not? If I have $30k to blow, don't you think I'd want those compared? But if the model number were different--if the Shelby Edition Mustang was called a base Zebra--then it'd be fine!
lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Model number is very important, everybody has criticized AMD this round, including Anandtech. Well deserved criticism I might add.If it was 461 and official from nvidia, it would have been perfectly fine. But it isn't, it's masking as a "460", being a best case top of the creme cherry-pick made to mislead as many as possible into thinking that it represents all 460 samples out there. That's not cool.
Especially not cool when Nvidia are the only ones allowed to have factory overclocked cards. Have you seen the GTS 450 review? No trace of any factory overclocked ATI card at all.
jsrivo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Including the FTW card introduces a dangerous precedent into the review process. What's to stop either AMD or Nvidia now from releasing a limited edition "official" factory-overclocked card a few weeks or days before the competitor launches a new series and request for these cards to be included in the upcoming reviews? It would be hard to refuse their requests unless you want to be accused of bias. And then a few weeks after the review is published, when the supply of cherry-picked cards have run out, the reader is unable to buy the said cards. Yes, this seems like a worst case scenario, but it can happen.lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
The worst case has already happened.450 review: Anandtech shows factory overclocked cards for nvidia exclusively.
460 review: Anandtech shows factory overclocked cards for nvidia exclusively.
6800 review: Anandtech shows factory overclocked cards for nvidia exclusively.
This is what some people call being biased.
AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
There are virtually no 6870 and 6850 factory OC'd cards to review.For 5870 I see they come as high as 900MHz instead of 850MHz (5.9%).
For 5850 I see they come as high as 765MHz instead of 725MHz (5.5%).
Nvidia's cards are sold with significant OC's, with many being 17-26%, so it's more significant to look at.
lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Significant OC? That never stopped Anand from his bias.Look at the GTS 450 review, the Calibre X450G is only overclocked with 8.6%...
Yet it was allowed in the main reference review of the 450, even with that tiny little difference. Don't even start to pretend you need significant OC to be allowed, you only need to be made by nvidia.
If you're made by nvidia and factory overclocked by their partners, you're allowed to be in Anandtech.
If you're made by ATI, you're not allowed to be in Anantech reviews.
Look at the main 450 review, again, no ATI factory overclocked cards.
lordmetroid - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
When testing new cards, I don't find anything valuable in having anything other than references to compare to. Any extra data is simply noise to me and frankly irritates me that it makes the diagrams harder to read as one has to search for the references.darkfoon - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Personally, I thought the inclusion of the overclocked GTX 460 was acceptable given all the caveats and warnings placed throughout the article whenever discussing the results of that card.In the future, assuming there is availability like in this instance, I would continue to find acceptable the occasional inclusion of an outstanding factory-overclocked card (key words: occasional, and outstanding) in reviews as long as they are accompanied by the same caveats.
I prefer, in general, the reviews of stock parts to get an idea of what to buy. But if an overclocked card is something special and not another run-of-the-mill, 5% overclocked card, netting 1fps better times and costing $30 more than a stock card, I wouldn't mind it being added to the review.
Furthermore, I appreciate the separate post to address the issues brought up by this first-time inclusion of an overclocked card.
lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
This isn't the first time it happened. The 450 review had factory overclocked nvidia cards, and only nvidia cards. No ATI cards.The 460 review, only nvidia cards was factory overclocked as well.
The 6800 review, only nvidia cards was factory overclocked as well.
...Do you see a pattern here?
"outstanding"
Here's the problem, using that super super overclocked version is misleading since it doesn't represent the vast majority of 460 cards. It 1 specific card from 1 specific vendor, no one else has frequencies that high. People who don't know better will be mislead to believe that all 460s perform that much.
Belard - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
And many of the 460s sold will still end up being the $160 768mb versions anyway.I think were nearing 500
ckryan - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Its not like the fact that the EVGA was over clocked was obfuscated in the review. I don't think that most people are surprised that video cards can be overclocked. If the EVGA card was just referenced with a generic moniker, say "1024mb 460", that wouldn't be kosher. People doth protest too much about bias. While I wish they'd tone it down... but if no one was complaining, I'd be concerned.lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
You want kosher? How about the fact that the 6850 got pushed out of its own review?No 6850 on the graph for Crysis 2560x1600
No 6850 on the graph for BattleForge 2560x1600
No 6850 on the graph for Metro 2033 2560x1600
No 6850 on the graph for Hawx 2560x1600
No 6850 on the graph for Civ5 2560x1600
No 6850 on the graph for Battlefield BC2 2560x1600
No 6850 on the graph for Stalker 2560x1600
No 6850 on the graph for Dirt2 2560x1600
No 6850 on the graph for Mass effect2 2560x1600
No 6850 on the graph for Wolfenstein 2560x1600
In Starcraft 2 2560x1600, we finally see the 6850...
And I actually am a bit worried that no one has mentioned this yet...
The 6850 review was hijacked by evga, can you still look at me in honesty and say that Anand isn't biased?
MOBAJOBG - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
"Do note that due to the amount of time it takes to run this benchmark we had to cut our testing short. We’ll have our full results in Bench next week." as quoted from the "AMD’s Radeon HD 6870 & 6850: Renewing Competition in the Mid-Range Market" review, (see page 10 under STARCRAFT II ).Therefore, I don't see any kind of deliberate attempt or conspiracy to exclude 6850s "vital statistics" to the masses consumption though it'll be slightly delayed.
Take Care,
Ong
lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Yes, they didn't have enough time to test their beloved evga card in Starcraft 2. That's what it means.Why was that message written specifically in page 10? Because it is only in page 10 that thir beloved evga card is missing.
travbrad - Saturday, October 30, 2010 - link
Other reviews do show the one resolution where the 6850 has the clear advantage is 2560x1600. However very few people have a monitor that can do that resolution (especially people buying mid-range graphics cards).It's good for those who want to use Eyefinity, that the 6850 seems to do particularly well at high resolutions.
7Enigma - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Hopefully some people actually make it to this comment but it's unlikely after 50+ pages. I do not think including the GTX460 FTW was necessarily a bad move, but I think it does bring to light an issue that has plagued reviews for quite a while now. A reviewer typically receives a card from the manufacturer, and very likely this card has been picked to show the product in the best light. Unfortunately this should be seen as a best case scenario and not the typical product that you or I could purchase.Now, as long as a product such as the 460 FTW has a set performance level (ie set speed on gpu and ram), you can be sure unless the company pulls a switch-a-roo that the product you/I buy will match strictly in performance.
What I don't like (and why I mentioned this has been going on for years) is the N=1 problem of reviewing these cards. The pressure to get the review of at/near the release date to get page hits makes for a likely inaccurate review of cards from a power/heat/noise standpoint. This is compounded by Nvidia's current policy of having different load voltages for each individual card (at least with ATI/AMD's cards the load voltages are static throughout a particular model at reference clocks). You mentioned in the review that this particular 460 FTW had the lowest load voltage of all tested 460's. This is not unexpected as you would assume NVIDIA wants to give you the best product they have, but this is also likely not the norm. But maybe it is....
So here's my recommendation:
At an initial review of a new product line feel free to give the performance specs at Day 1. Compare it in games, non-game benchmarks, whatever. But I'd ask that variable information such as power draw, temp, and noise level be given a greater than N=1 before putting that number out to the general public. Just like you do multiple runs for the game/non-game benchmarks due to testing variability, it is vital that you have multiple data points for the power draw, temp, and noise. If you have another 460 FTW bought off the street that draws 25-50w more at load, thereby also increasing the noise level, I think your review would have sung a different tune in the conclusions. Or maybe *all* of the FTW's are this good at power/heat/noise level. How you go about getting this additional data is up for debate (and ultimately your decision), but it would make sense not to ask NVIDIA and AMD for 10 of the same cards, as you'll just get 10 best-case examples.
Ideally what you need is a trusted source of a couple cards/people to do a proper sampling. And just like with journalists protect your sources. Neither NVIDIA nor AMD should ever know who these people/suppliers are to avoid conflict of interest issues. A core group of your friends that will purchase cards at release to test and then keep, or even better, use these cards as give-aways to your loyal readers!
Even easier (but more prone to influence from companies) I could see having a close relationship with a large e-tailer such as Newegg/ZZF/Tiger Direct (since they receive a tremendous amount of business from you), shipping you a handful of cards solely for power/heat/noise testing. This would have to be done on the up and up to prevent cherry-picking, but even having 2-3 extra data points from independent sources would bolster your reputation and give a great article on a particular model's variability (ie GTX480 having very large variability between cards or vice-versa).
Anyways, keep up the great work and hopefully you can implement even a small amount of my comment in the future articles!
AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
The power/heat[/noise] issue also crossed my mind...whereas performance should be the same across cards.SprDg - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
I specifically came to the AnandTech just today through a reference on a Steam forum that was discussing the 6870 vs. the 470. I specifically registered to reply to this debate as an IMO.Background: I have built my own gamer but have yet to own a high level AMD. My mobo can handle either as well as overclocking. I have owned several Nvidia's including three 260s and two 295s. One of the 295s is an EVGA. I do not favor one brand/product over another. My Nvidia's are more of a 'recommended at the time' for my particular system/monitor/games than a bias or preference. I would have no problem buying whichever brand best suited my needs. In fact I am leaning toward AMD and my personal preference is to get a card that can be OC'd later if needed.
The Sides: First off, I know there are fans of one company over another. I see it in articles, forums, and by sales people. Since I have a good education that includes statistics, logic and scientific method, I'm not influenced by them and will ignore their opinions if they seem emotionally weighted.
The article: My overall impression of the original article was one of appreciation. The author took time to give meaningful information before, during and after each test and a well balanced summary and conclusion at the end. As a result I will be including this site more in the future for my pre-purchase evaluations.
IMO: I considered the 470's inclusion to be appropriate since it is part of the competition in the market. If this card had been an OC'd AMD competitor, it would have been just as appropriate. I consider any strong reactions against its inclusion to simply be an extension of the fan based fervor of one product over another. Such protests simply don't matter to me. I want to know the options and be able to trust the review.
lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
"I want to know the options and be able to trust the review"You should check out Anandtech's gts 450 review.
A lot of factory overclocked nvidia cards. But no overclocked ATI cards allowed.
And check out the gtx 460 review. Again we have factory overclocked nvidia cards. But no overclocked ATI cards allowed.
This is clearly suspicious, why do you trust Anand so much when Nvidia has clearly bought him?
Belard - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
or Close to it?Belard - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Okay!Got it - 500!!!
Do I get a Prize?
ppeterka - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
You get an OC'd EVGA 460 card :)Belard - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
I'd rather have an ATI 6950... :)Or even a 6870...
Hemi345 - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Isn't it a little odd that the BENCH section shows a picture of EVGA cards for the GPU bench section?Obviously two video cards fit in that little image... so why not use a Palit or XFX or maybe to keep things unbiased, a reference design nVidia card and a reference design ATI/AMD card ? Oh that's right, nevermind... i get it now.
quickbunnie - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
If it's on the market, with warranty, and the user doesn't have to OC anything themself, its fair game for comparison. It's hard NOT to find an OC version of the 460, with many different OC SKU's. This was a completely valid review, and it was NEVER hidden that the 460 in the review was a reference clocked card. Even at OC speeds, the power consumption is still within the ballpark of the barts' cards, so its a fair comparison.So what if Nvidia asked to have it put in the review? It's their chip, and their partner is confident enough to back up those speeds with a warranty. By the time the warranty runs out, the card will be obsolete anyways.
Anand, keep up the great work. Your reviews may take a day or two longer, but they are way more informative than other sites. This is a classic case of haters gonna hate. You are absolutely correct in assuming that if you did NOT include the OC card, people would accuse you of ATI favoritism.
The only thing I would say is that if you are going to include OC cards from nVidia, you should probably see how well barts overclocks as well. Now, if the ATI cards are difficult to overclock, well that's a valid point too. It's easy to get OC nvidia cards, or perhaps OC them yourselves, but hard to OC ATI cards. This should be discussed if possible
In the end, reviews are most useful to consumers, the people who actually want to spend their money on a product. They should know what they can buy with their money, including factory OC cards. To reinforce my previous point, they should also know what their cards are capable of with some user modification - even if that involves more risk.
quickbunnie - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
I meant it was never hidden in the review that it wasn't a reference clocked card (1st paragraph).lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
I can agree with you, but Anand clearly doesn't agree with you.Look at the gtx 460review and the gts 450 review and the hd 6800 review. They have one thing in common, lots of factory overclocked nvidia cards, but NO factory overclocked ATI card.
This isn't fair game, this is heavy bias towards nvidia. Deception.
crazzeto - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Personally I like the position expressed here by Anand, if there is a publically available OCed part, then I think including it in a review is fair game. After all, part of the point is to make a purchasing decission, if there is a factory OCed part with full warrentee available then I think it's fair game.lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
That's fine. But for some reason, Anand only wants to show factory overclocked nvidia cards.Is it fair game to only show nvidia's overclocks?
Next time when nvidia's high end launches, I want to see some ATI based factory overclocked XFX black edition cards.
RagingDragon - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
I would've been upset if you included the overclocked card whithout also including a factory clocked model. As it is, I think you made the right call in including both a stock clocked 460 and the (or at least close) fastest available factory overclocked 460, and making it very clear that the overclocked model was overclocked. In doing so you clearly demonstrated the range of performance 460 options currently available.lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
The only problem is that the 450 review had no factory overclocked 5770 or 5750 cards from ATI. Only factory overclocked gts 450 nvidia cards. That doesn't upset you?Anand is biased toward Nvidia.
geniekid - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
You had the numbers for the stock 460. The OCed 460 was labeled as such on graphs and there was sufficient disclosure about its inclusion. I think anyone who read the entire article and even those that read it in the future will have an accurate picture of the graphics card market right now.Even if I did think it was misleading, based on the history of the site and just having open articles such as these, I'm inclined to believe that any sort of misleading article coming from AnandTech would be a result of oversight, rather than a result of any bias/greed. My trust with AT remains intact.
lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
This article would have never seen the light of the day if not for the uproar in the HD 6800 review.Anand got away with his bias in the 460 review 3 months ago. Only factory overclocked nvidia cards, none for ATI.
He continued being biased in the 450 review. Again only factory overclocked nvidia cards, none for ATI.
No admission came from him until now. Isn't that rather suspicious?
Teizo - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
How many overclocked boards from those manufacturers did he have in his hands that they sent him to test to put in the review? Is he supposed to go out and buy them himself or something?lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
That's what some reviewers do actually. Anand shouldn't be above that.The 1st time it happened was the 460 launch. We could forgive that.
But he made two articles for the 460, there was no hurry for the 2nd, why didn't the second 460 article contain factory overclocked ATI cards?
Then the 450 launch. He has by now come to accept nvidia's pressure. There was no excuse for him to not call ATI's vendors to have them send some factory overclocked cards. He should have been prepared, this is his new policy after all.
And then this review happen, and he gets busted by too many people and has to confess.
No matter how you look at it, if he was fair, he would have had factory overclocked ATI cards for the 2nd 460 review, and for the 1st 450 review. But he didn't, Anandtech isn't fair towards ATI.
lakrids - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Also, read the article by Anand Lal Shimpi on 7/11/2008 12:00:00 AMPosted in Smartphones
He personally went and bought some stuff to be reviewed. Sometimes it's really done this way.
Hot Rod - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
1. Anand, Plz give us a reason why you have not OC'ed the new AMD cards and include the data in the review.. dont say "Time Constraint". After all this im kinda surprised ur still not out with a new OC article for the 6850 & 6870..!2. How could u even recommend the GTX470 even with the new pricing, we all know its power consumption is way off..i know u stated "if performance is ur only concern" then go for it, but really Anand u'v gotta to be kidding
3. Anand tech is for all kinds of readers, but i believe most people who come here know Overclocking quite well and can do it safely..and if ur talking "money" tell me why i should pay even $10 more for some thing that i can do my self? (Dont say custom cooling and volt mod switch's)
Anand besides awesomely explaining the architecture, its time u overhaul the way u present ur test suite. it doesn't matter if ur one day late with ur review, people are gonna read it..! X-bit labs has one of the best test suite's in my opinion. We all believe ur the tech site for the people, and by the people to a great extent, but plz don't be too diplomatic in ur conclusions. Good luck :)
kmccaughey - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Dear Anand,I would suggest you watch the episode of South Park about their flag for further guidance on this matter.
Kevin
stm1185 - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Any review of a new graphics card should have a comparison to what consumers are currently purchasing. As such I think the inclusion of the GTX460 FTW was not only correct but necessary to provide the reader with a realistic view of the competition at that price price level.I think most of the complaining about this is happening to mask fanboy disappointment at the new cards not being the fastest at their price range.
Parhel - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
There are a lot of non-fanboys upset about this, myself included. I haven't owned an ATI card since the 9700 Pro. ATI fans have nothing to be upset about for this release. The 6850 at $180 beats the stock 460 1GB at $20 more, and will likely be a good OC'er. The 6870 at stock beats the GTX 460 more often than not, even OC'ed to 850Mhz.Today, it would be a tossup for me as to which card to purchase. If I only cared about performance at the sub $200 price range, I'd go with the 6850, and OC it. In the end, I'd probably go with the MSI model 460. It's under $200 shipped, and comes with a nice custom cooler, and it offers PhysX. Both companies have compelling products.
But the issue here is having standards for testing, and sticking by them. Anandtech has long had a policy NOT to test OC'ed cards for many reasons which they themselves spelled out in the article. In a month, when all the FTW edition cards have dried up off the market, and the average user is looking at paying $220 for a 460 that will only clock to 800Mhz, this article will still be looked to, and will be a disservice to the readers, especially the less tech-savvy ones. What NVidia did amounts to a transparent PR stunt, and Anandtech caved under their pressure.
mapesdhs - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
"The 6850 at $180 beats the stock 460 1GB at $20 more ..."
In terms of making a purchasing decision, that fact is completely
irrelevant. Nobody in their right mind would buy a stock-clock 460
with 675 GPU.
Using Scan UK as an example, their cheapest 1GB 460 _is_ an oc'd
card (700MHz Palit Sonic). Indeed, the 800MHz Palit Platinum is
cheaper than a couple of brands with stock 675 cores! (Zotac and PNY)
"... and the average user is looking at paying $220 for a 460 that will
only clock to 800Mhz..."
Wrong. Just buy a Platinum which is already at 800.
Simple fact is, the entire 460 landscape is now overwhelmingly an oc'd
product range. For this reason, including the FTW was absolutely the
right thing to do since showing how it performs truthfully represents
what is available to buy, even if the brand in question isn't specifically
the FTW (Scan has _nine_ different brands with core clocks of 800 or
higher, the Platinum merely being the best priced given its 800 clock).
If wanting FTW-level 460 performance is a problem because the FTW isn't
available from your favourite supplier, then just get a Platinum and oc
it with Afterburner, which will cost less anyway, and the Platinum is
easy to obtain; review sites typically reached 850 core without a voltage
increase, 890 to 900+ with a voltage increase.
IMO the earlier poster stm1185 was correct when he said much of the
moaning is down to people being peeved that the 6850/6870 aren't as
fast as they'd hoped, ie. slower than the 58xx equivalents (how quiet
they are about AMD's naming scheme con, yet happy to complain about the
FTW). But they shouldn't be worried, I'm sure the 6900 cards will give
solid competition against the 470/480.
To me the graphs make it very obvious that a 460 with 800+ core can
match or beat a 6870 at much lower cost, at least for the game(s) I
care about (Stalker); the FTW sits right inbetween the 6870 and the
470, so I've no doubt that two FTWs (or two Platinum's oc'd) would
perform really well, matching 6870 CF and yet costing significantly
less. Surely if Anand was being _deliberately_ biased (as many have
claimed), they would have asked for a 2nd FTW so they could include SLI
numbers - which, I've no doubt, would put the 6870 even more to shame. :D
I just don't get this mindset that one should not be able to see the big
picture, just because a new card from one vendor can't match an older
card that's available factory oc'd. Tough cookies, AMD should have made
a faster product then.
Ian.
lakrids - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
I'm afraid you are the one missing the larger picture here. Anand is who one who has become an nvidia fanboy if anything.Just count the articles over the past 3 months:
460 review
450 review
6800 review
Percentage of factory overclocked nvidia cards: 100%
Percentage of factory overclocked ATI cards: 0%
This is pretty damning evidence, I don't see how you can argue this.
And to bench the best of the best of the best 460 card is still misleading as heck, since it doesn't represent the majority of overclocked 460 by far.
He chose the maximum overclock to make nshit look as good as possible. Look at toms Hardware, they took the average overclocked 460 to represent most 460 cards.
Notice the difference in intentions. Anand argues he wants nvidia's market represented fully by including that one card, but that's not what he's doing, or he would have been on a more fair approach like Tom's hardware.
Couple that with the 100% and 0% statistics, Anand is the big fanboy here.
Parhel - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
"To me the graphs make it very obvious that a 460 with 800+ core canmatch or beat a 6870 at much lower cost, at least for the game(s) I
care about (Stalker)"
Maybe we read different reviews. I game at 2560x1600, and at that resolution, the 6870 beat the FTW edition in 6 out 9 tests, and likely would have beaten it in Starcraft as well but wasn't tested. That means it won 66% of the time against the 850Mhz card.
mapesdhs - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
I game at normal HD (very few will be using 2560x1600, sorry).
I found plenty of reviews where the FTW beat the 6870. Found
another one today - FTW faster in every case except one.
But like I say, your argument fails anyway since the 6870 is more
expensive.
The next poster must be blind, there are several others clocked
over 850, or as I said just oc a Platinum.
Looks to me like a lot of choose are choosing to believe a lie
(that Anand is biased) because you want to believe it's true.
I proved that if Anad was being deliberately biased, they could
have mentioned simply oc'ing the Palit which would give FTW
performance at MUCH lower cost than the 6870, with two of
them SLI making 6870 CF look insanely overpriced.
Ian.
Parhel - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
"The next poster must be blind, there are several others clocked over 850"No there aren't. If you're so sure, please provide a link. AFAIK the FTW edition is the highest clocked card on the market by quite a bit.
"or as I said just oc a Platinum"
Manually OC'ed cards aren't applicable to this review. It's done at your own risk, it will void the warranty, and is simply something most non-technical consumers shouldn't attempt. Not a fair comparison at all, especially now, when it's too soon to know how the 6000 series OCs.
lakrids - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
There are various degrees of bias. So Anand might not be at the ultimate nvidia fanboy level like you, but once again, if you observe his actions and methodology over these past few months, you will see:Percentage of factory overclocked nshit cards: 100%
Percentage of factory overclocked ATI cards: 0%
THAT, is bias. You have not attempted to argue this because you know you cannot.
As far as me being blind, the burden of proof is on you if you want to claim higher factory core overclock than 850mhz. There are none on newegg.
Also, Anand's cherry picked low voltage 460 chip already use more power than a standard HD5870 and 850mhz. Using any crappier chip will net you far worse power consumption at best, and at worst you won't even reach that clockspeed. Overall, I would conclude the 6870 is superior. Just my opinion of course.
vedye - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
RE: Questions on Nvidia's suggestions by Quizzical on Saturday, October 23, 2010How available to buy is it, again?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
Out of stock at New Egg.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtool...
Out of stock at Tiger Direct.
http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-External-PCI-Express-Gr...
Out of stock at Amazon--and $261 even if it were in stock.
http://www.avadirect.com/product_details_parts.asp...
Oh hey, I found one in "low stock"--for $291. Not such a competitor to the Radeon HD 6870 at that price, now is it?
It's probably mostly a fake card (i.e., extremely limited quantities). New Egg has 43 GTX 460s listed. Eight of them are clocked at 800-815 MHz. EVGA is the only company that has one clocked above 815 MHz, and they clock it at a whopping 850 MHz. If so many GPUs could clock that high, don't you think Zotac, Palit, Gigabyte, Galaxy, or MSI (all of which have a GTX 460 clocked at 800 MHz or higher) would have one clocked above 815 MHz?
And this is the day after Nvidia's big PR stunt. If availability is this short now on a card that launched three months ago, do you think it's going to improve in the future? Not at that price, it won't.
vedye - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
Did nVidia called and requested Anandtech to test with OC'ed 460?Yes.
Did Anandtech did it?
Yes. And it happens to be the FTW -- the 26% OC'ed version.
What's in between?
Lots of explanations and points from every where. Kind of like the tribal council in Survivor. People give explanations why they want to vote off someone is for the tribe's good. But everyone knows it's because of the alliances.
BusyBeaverHP - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
"We were honestly afraid that if we didn't include at least a representative of the factory overclocked GTX 460s that we would get accused of being too favorable to AMD. " - AnandBut this goes against your policy of benchmarking overclocked cards, especially against a reference card at launch. If you're going to include overclocked cards in the review, do it apple-to-apple with both sides OC'ed.
Another thing I don't understand: if you included NVidia overclocked parts in the past, why haven't you ever included overclocked AMD parts? GTS 450 vs OC'ed 5770 for example. Something is wrong here...
I'd like to believe that you were doing a fair and honest review of the 68XX series, but the 6850 was NOT included in many of the benchmarks... virtually cut off from its own review! What's even more appalling is that you don't have time to benchmark the 6850, yet had time to bench the GTX 460 FTW??? Example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987/amds-radeon-687...
I think the inclusion of the 460 FTW was another case of AnandTech caving in to NVidia pressure, and the integrity of the review is once again compromised. I don't believe for a second that AnandTech's decision to include the 460 FTW was independent of the NVidia coercion.
43n1m4 - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
If you test a non-overclocked launch card, test it against a non-overclocked card from the competition.Seeing as the EVGA 460 GTX FTW isn't available in my country at all (the best I could find was a "superclocked version" at 763 Mhz, far from the 850 Mhz version you had), and the regular non-OC version almost flood our webshops, your review automatically seems biased.
Add to this your charts - look at them. Then remove the EVGA card. Does it look different? Doesn't the HD6850/6870 GPUs look like a much better deal? Yes, they do - and they are available in every country.
Another point against OC card is they differ from one company to another, some specifically go for the 'golden samples', some make minor overclocks at no extra cost to give the AIB a little edge, but making factory cards that actually cannibalizes on the next GPU in your lineup - like the 470 GTX - is rare, and usually not something Nvidia would approve. But at this release, suddenly we see a 460 GTX OC card that does exactly that.
You did cave in. Talking about it won't change that fact that the results on your chart, to the layman, presents Nvidia in an extraordinarily good light, and unfairly so.
Iger - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
I, personally, definitely think, that having more information to base a buying decision on is a nice thing; and the separation between stock and OC'ed 460 it was absolutely clear from the text of the article. I had absolutely no problem with this inclusion and think that it brought value.By the way, it would be easier for you to accumulate results by including a poll (I remember you were testing a few of these some time ago)
Touche - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
Any poll on a subject like this would be worthless. It would be too easy to vote multiple times and skew the results, and in this case there would be many who would do that.It seems to me, though, that this discussion is worthless as it doesn't look like Anandtech will do anything different or even respond to all the points that were made here. It's business as usual for them. At least now I know to stop reading Anandtech's articles after architecture and features details pages, before benchmarks. Even the former was below Anandtech's standars (hmm, that one sounds funny now) in this article.
GinandTonic - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
1. A good review and a good editorial decision that only burnishes your rep in my eyes2. If you back away from it now under pressure from trolls/fanboyz/wannabe ignorant masses I will be seriously disappointed in you (and I'll bet that I am not the only one)
3. Keep your reviews as they are and keep your focus on providing as much relevant information as possible to your readers
Most of the negative comments I have read regarding this are clearly by people who either did not read the review, were not capable of understanding a simple, clearly written and informative article, bear manifest animus against Nvidia, or are unable to reason critically.
Your only mistake so far has been to take them at all seriously. I for one, am mortally tired of seeing people accepting public humiliation/forced mea culpas for speaking a truth some vocal pressure group finds offensive.
I feel compelled to address some of their more obvious errors of thought.
- The entirely artificial distinction between "stock" and"factory overclocked" cards. This is truly a distinction without a difference. All that should really matter is performance, reliability, price and warranty. Reference clocks represent a lowest common denominator for the chipset maker. If a card maker can improve on that (no matter how they accomplish it) and will guarantee the results, good for them and better for me.
- The idea that somehow the results of individually overclocking any one specific card are/would be relevant to this discussion. Individual samples may well vary in the amount of headroom they have. It's fun to read about individual feats and learn how they were acheived. But I do not find them relevant to my purchase decision, as they do not inform me what my results will be for the card I purchase. A statistically valid sampling would be impracticable for a website,and besides makers of factory overclocked cards essentially already provide that service.
- The idea that you must always follow guidelines you wrote to the letter, or forfeit all credibility. I am still astonished by that mental leap. Anyone who grows and learns will evolve their internal guidelines. Failure to do so is what creates stultified, inflexible, and ultimately dysfunctional bureaucracies.
- The idea that every occurrence is the result of an evil, greedy conspiracy. Paranoid much? How to break this to them.... This phenonomen is called "projection" and actually says more about them than it says about objective reality.
I could go on, but it is time for my - wait for it - Gin and Tonic. Keep up the good work Anand.
lakrids - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
No one has yet attempted to explain this following strange statistic:Articles spanning to 3 months ago :
460 reference card review
450 reference card review
6800 reference card review
Percentage of factory overclocked nshit cards: 100% (7 cards)
Percentage of factory overclocked ATI cards: 0%
Even if you personally don't distinct between "stock" and "factory overclocked", how else would you explain these statistics, other than simply realize that Anand is biased?
Guidelines are broken to make nvidia cards look good, but these same guidelines are restricting ATI cards...
It's astonishing that you cannot see this.
GinandTonic - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
Mmmmm....... OK, here's the explanation.Are you familiar with the "arrow of time?"
How about that notorious Rumsfeld (never liked the guy, but he was right this one time) quote, "you don't go to war with the army you want, but the army you've got."
Check Newegg and tell me as of now, how many 6850/6870oc cards you find vs 460 oc cards. Based on that data (and bearing in mind nda restrictions on things not yet released), how many 6850/6870oc do you extrapolate are available for review? I know, I know Newegg is part of the conspiracy.
It is a matter of timing. I anticipate that in a few months there will be some (if the cards have any headroom), but there are none now.
So should Anandtech have withheld the info on an available competitor from us? For several months?
What if I needed a card now?
Note: The last two videocards I bought have been ATI, a 3850agp and a 5870 mobile. Both were the very best choice available to me at the time I bought them and have proven more than satisfactory.
Unlike the Gin and Tonic which was outstanding.
lakrids - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
Look, the 6800 review isn't the first time this happen.I would suggest you to look back at the GTS 450 launch review.
FOUR factory overclocked nvidia cards.
NONE of the factory overclocked cards are from ATI.
Even back then, we had lots of factory overclocked 5770 cards, as well as factory overclocked 5750 cards.
What excuse are you going to use this time?
mapesdhs - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
Thanks for that post!! (and your 2nd one) By far the best comments I've read so far.
Ian.
GTVic - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
To summarize your comment, most of the people who disagree with you are idiots.The people on both sides of this issue, and that includes you, seem to be highly inflexible and incapable of understanding the other person's point of view.
The point people are trying to make is that NVIDIA went out of their way to encourage the use of a particular card that features dramatic over-clocking. 25% on a factory video card is extremely rare and availability seems to bear that out. So they may be comparing a pie in the sky to real cards.
NVIDIA is counting on the fact that a lot of people skim the reviews and are not particular about filtering out biased sites so if they see that one card is beating all the others, that generates an impression. It may not sway you, but globally it makes a difference. And if AnandTech bows even a little to tactics like this, they are seen to be caving in to companies that profit on how well they can "spin" their wares rather than relying on actual product quality.
Touche - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
You failed to address most of the issues that were mentioned in the comments, and your third point is...funny...or sad.More tonic and less gin and it'll be ok.
vedye - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
To summaries your comments:1. anyone disagrees with you are fanboyz/trolls. Despite the availability of the included FTW card is extremely limited, there are people like you that loves seeing it comparing to the 6800. Love the bars.
2. You love anandtech this way and if they do less like this, you'd be disappointed.
Well, one thing for sure is that Anandtech had been famous NOT for being a biased, or just another review sites. I for one was attracted to this site for its in-depth knowledge and fairness position. For the past few reviews of Anandtech caving in to Nvidia's pressure? Yes it will attract people like you, but it surely has lost my respect, and probably many more like me.
mapesdhs - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
Yesterday, in response to one of my posts, someone insisted that site reviews were not finding
the FTW to be as good or better than the 6870 (which is nonsense of course). I mentioned that
I'd found another such review, so feel free to have a look - it's on techradar (just add the dot com),
search for 6870, check page 2. Out of seven gaming tests, the 6870 is faster for only one of them,
and for half the other six tests the FTW's margin over the 6870 is substantial.
Ian.
Touche - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
Techradar? LOL! And their game selection is awesome. What a joke.You can check some of the more reputable sites, maybe Overclockersclub, and see how FTW looses in most 1920x1200 bencmarks and even more in 2560x1600.
kc77 - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
I commented about this on another site and I'll try to be a precise as possible with the problem of allowing Manufacturer A to slipstream cards into Manufacturer B's hardware launch.In and of itself providing more data points is not a problem within a review. People complaining about that are really missing the REAL problem of doing this.
The first problem is that when you allow a manufacturer to change your test matrix by inflating the number of data points within a hardware launch it deliberately takes away resources from an article that would otherwise included more information. While you were able to include CF results, many other sites which did the same thing as Anand did (and included more Fact OC'd cards) were not. Many were not able to include info on new AA modes, even when their reviews were late. Many sites barely went into the display configuration changes on these new models, or if they included information it was brief ...really brief. I don't think ANYONE covered Eyefinity changes or improvements or benchmark data. Considering this was a key feature of Radeons it should have been covered ..... in detail. Many sites gave almost equal billing to cards which were on the market for at least 3 months or more to the point that reading this "launch review" almost seems like a GPU shoot out review rather than providing in-depth information on new hardware, which is what launch articles are for.
The second problem is as I mentioned before. It is odd, rare and not normal for a GPU shoot out review to appear within a launch review. By doing this it left NO ROOM for Fact OC'd cards to appear from ATI within the review because that wasn't the point of launching new models. Fact OC'd cards are likely to appear, actually they have of 6870 cards...yet considering a shoot out review was already done with 460 models, will another Fact OC review appear from ATI so we can see those data points? You may, but lesser sites might not as they might not have the same access to the 460 cards as they did on date of the launch of 6870/6850 which DOES NOT give us more information to make informed choices, it gives a less or a distorted view of what is out there.
The third and final point is that this just stinks from a ethical or journalistic point of view. Not because I like ATI over Nvidia, but because it creates a precedent that NO SITE IS LIKELY TO REPLICATE GOING FORWARD. Meaning will you or other sites include Fact OC'd cards when the 580 launches? How about the next review? Or the one after that? The moment you don't it breaks the farce that "we did this to bring you more information" because you won't be able to explain the reason to include more information in one review, while not doing it the next.
As a reader of tech sites I should be able to come to Anandtech, TR, Hard, etc and not question the validity of the results. I should be able to look at the numbers and say " well they are what they are" knowing and believing that every effort was taken to provide a review that is of the sites making. Not Nvidia's or ATI's. When you allow manufacturers to change your test matrix how are we to know that the 480 wasn't a cherry picked model, or the 5870 wasn't cherry picked? By doing this it opens up a pandora's box that would have remained closed if we knew that your standards were upheld and were free from being tainted. Now we have to question results when we wouldn't have before. That's the problem with doing this.
Nate007 - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
This whole controversy could have been avoided by AnandTech by doing a stock comparison of all the cards and then a ANOTHER time later on they should have done another article on the cards OC.Simple.
Hardware Canucks decided to do just that and only reviewed and benched STOCK cards as is there policy NO Matter what AMD or NVIDIA wants. They also stated that they will follow up with a review of the cards OCed on the next follow up.
Simple.
I don't want a review of the product OCed if I did then I would ask for it and or make it a point to let your Manufacture know about it.
It;s the same way that I wouldn't want a review on a product (ex :.. Iphone ) Oced and then compared to another smart phone of equivalent value /features and what not. Just wouldn't tell me the truth of the product as sold my the Manufacture.
The problem here is when you cross the line and start doing reviews of products that are not in STOCK reference state then you run into many other issues with regards to credibility , simply because that is the World we live in.
Stick to stock designs and avoid all the neg feed back next time. Besides no one said you couldnt do a separate OC review later.
kc77 - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
Exactly and that's my point. NO MANUFACTURER SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE TEST MATRIX. It left no room for rebuttal and alot of it could have been avoided by simply posting a second review after the launch date which would have ensured that a full review was done on new hardware. The 460's were 3 months old and could have been reviewed before.GinandTonic - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
OK, I can't resist. Both of us must have way too much time on our hands, lol.I'll summarize what I hear (metaphorically) you saying about the "problem" of one manufacturer slipstreaming into another's launch.
1. Including that data takes away from the resources/space available for the review of the launch manufacturer's product.
2. It's not "normal" and isn't fair to the launch manufacturer who hasn't yet provided/developed oc cards, therefore we actually have less/distorted information.
3. It sets a precedent that will be hard to replicate going forward, (conceptual leap coming up) and if they can't that will prove that providing us data on the 460oc this time was a "farce."
4. This all makes you question the actual validity of the hard numbers/data reported in the review.
I may be overanalyzing this, but I think that I'm also hearing a subtext of not fair to the launch manufacturer.
I agree with point 1. It is obviously true, though I would suggest not very relevent. It is not enough for me to know every detail of a specific product without some context. I want to know the important features, and the actual performance/value compared to other products that are also competing for my not unlimited dollars. I think as a consumer that any review (launch or otherwise) should always be a little bit of a shoot out or else it becomes meaningless.
I can't agree with any part of point 2. I place no value on "normal," or on how anyone else does something. I also think that it's unfair to me to withold data from me on an available product until other manufacturers have a chance to catch up. I don't see how I have less information by having more information on what is available at the time of the review. That less is more thing may apply to Bauhaus architecture, but in most areas of life, less is less and more is more. A review site should have no interest in being fair to a manufacturer at the expense of the people they actually work for -- their readers.
Point 3... I hope that Anandtech and others will always provide me some context/comparisons of similar (performance/price) available products to help me judge the relative value of the launch product. I don't think it will really be all that hard to do.
Point 4, ok. If that's how you feel, though you lost me on the connection.
There seems to be a pervasive feeling in some of the comments that Nvidia did something bad by trying to get reviewers to promote their product and by trying to create a competitive product to ATI's latest launch cards.
Apropos dealing with the press, someone once told me that there were no inappropriate questions, only inappropriate replies. Both Nvidia and ATI try to influence reviewers, and good reviewers resist those efforts. Resisting means writing straight-up reviews from the standpoint of their readers. It does not mean refusing to review a product their readers are interested in because OMG, the manufacturer also wanted it reviewed.
Second, I am not going to be angry at either manufacturer for trying to make a better product for me at a better price. I actually think that's a good thing and I would like to encourage both of them to continue working hard for my dollars.
Finally (for you brave/bored souls who stuck with me) I want to reply to the comment suggesting less gin and more tonic. Less is less and more gin is more of a good thing. Cheers
lakrids - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
What happened to you? Was my last question too hard for you?Why was nvidia allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the 6800 review, when ATI wasn't allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the gts 450 review?
6800 review: Nvidia was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't.
450 review: Nvidia was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't.
460 review: Nvidia was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't.
Do I need to reiterate that we had access to lots of factory overclocked 5770 cards, as well as factory overclocked 5750 cards up to the 450 review?
kc77 - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
It's OK if you can't resist neither could I. :)1. It looks like you got this point. However, there were many things that were key features of the card that were not addressed that people WILL use. Eyefinity benchmarking / review to name one, considering these cards now support an additional monitor. How does it perform? How does it perform compared to the 460? You can't answer it and neither can I but it would have been nice to know don't ya think?
2. Number 2 actually does withhold data because there ARE FACT OC 6870's. Some substantially overclocked. If you didn't know this well..... I guess the review didn't include enough data points. The point of "fairness" that your extrapolating has really nothing to do with treating either manufacturer with kid gloves. It's about making sure that the review is giving an accurate diverse representation of what's available. So when you see Fact OC cards from one manufacturer and not the other that's not necessarily an accurate snapshot. In fact that's the opposite, which is why you don't have GPU Shootouts slipstreamed into a GPU launch articles. Those would normally be two separate review articles.
3. Point number 3 is no kind of conceptual leap at all. You are either providing additional data points to hopefully provide a better picture to your readers or you're not. Including the 460 FTW in and of itself isn't a bad thing. However, doing it one time only basically says it's only important one time only. If that's the case then the obvious question is, "why is that?"
4. The feeling isn't pervasive it's pretty front and center. A hardware journalist allowed a manufacturer to directly change/alter their test matrix. To be honest AT didn't cave to the point that others did. Some provided so many OC'd 460's that you could barely tell it was a launch article. That being said, stealing one cookie from the cookie jar while others took eight doesn't mean you get off.
Now as far as this.....
"Both Nvidia and ATI try to influence reviewers, and good reviewers resist those efforts. Resisting means writing straight-up reviews from the standpoint of their readers. It does not mean refusing to review a product their readers are interested in because OMG, the manufacturer also wanted it reviewed."
This really is a straw man argument. No one is saying that AT should NOT review Fact OC'd cards. There's a place for these cards and for years they always appeared in a "shoot out" type of article or a straight up review on the Fact OC'd card itself.
Nate0007 - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
I understand and you do make valid points with your post.I totally agree with you especially your 3rd point.
Like I said it creates way to much " what if's " and in the end it is not a Apples to Apples comparison.
I know why ATI or NVidia would not have an issue with it so long as it is there product that is put in a better frame of light so to speak, but for a Review sight such as AnandTechs I just don't see the point.
There are already too many review sites are starting to do this and this is what is causing all the uncertainty. I used to frequent Toms H allot in the past but personally I feel they are also now creating reviews that are confusing and not providing the same reviews that they were in the past.
This causes people to start questioning what is going on and why it is done that way.
Reviewers MUST be neutral and just supply the facts as is. Just provide the data A to A , B to B
Then let the public decide.
Lets hope it doesn't happen here too.
bhougha10 - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
I apprectiate this response, but in this case it's pure AMD fanboy pandering. These AMD/ATI fanboys are just bandwangin jumpers and don't like the fact that what you showed is the exact information everyone wants to see and needs to see . Very interesting artical it was and very informative.In this case, the ftw was a perfect comparison since the overclock is so much higher then standard overclocks on other GPUs.
I wish the fanboys would all just go away, so we could get the real story so we all know what to buy for the money we have.
bhougha10 - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
BTW, if you were to cave to the fanboys and not do the logical test like you did here. Then I would consider that being unobjective from a different point of view.lakrids - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
Fanboys should go away? You want Anand to disappear from his own site?If you don't think Anand is a fanboy, perhaps you can be the one to finally solve our little funny statistic:
Articles spanning to 3 months ago :
460 reference card review
450 reference card review
6800 reference card review
Percentage of factory overclocked nshit cards: 100% (7 cards)
Percentage of factory overclocked ATI cards: 0%
6800 review: nshit was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't.
450 review: nshit was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't.
460 review: nshit was allowed factory overclock, but ATI wasn't.
Can't you see that this is suspicious and fishy as hell?
mars777 - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
Spending 1 second of time by measuring a card that is not the main subject of reviewing without having first truly reviewed the main subject (and that includes overcloking data) is a definition of bias.PS. I prefer nVidia. But doing this, you shed a bad light on them too..
kc77 - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link
Exactly. I actually have a 460 in my main comp now. However, I really would have liked to know that the reviewers spent most of their time on the new product because I buy new cards quite often. By allowing Nvidia to directly affect the test matrix I don't know if the whole review can be believed and this is the point. It's not fanboyism. Including the cards in and of itself isn't the problem. The problem is that they normally either wouldn't have been or would have been included in another review. By them placing focus on the 460 cards which have been reviewed already it places doubt on the validity of the test/review.jscottyh - Friday, October 29, 2010 - link
I have come to this site a lot for reviews. That's how I base most of my purchases. I read the review and I see nothing wrong with the review. I felt that it was unbiased. So really don't change a thing with what your doing Anand.The only problem I'm seeing is that the manufactures (AMD/Nvida) are going off half-cocked and leaving reviewers, like Anand, struggling to keep some kind balance in comparison of the products across the board (Price/performance/ value, etc).
If you took the OC card out of the data in the review, it would not be even and it would have more wayside to ATI. A direct competitor to the stock 6870 is a heavily OC'ed GTX 460 that EVGA has offered retail. That's it and that's what the review is all about.... Whats awesome about the latest from ATI and where does the 6870 & 6850 stand in today's market right now. I don't think that its fair to ask Anand to start pulling OC'ed ATI/Nvidia cards to show the 0.1~2.5 FPS difference on data. That's just not possible as a reviewer and you, the customer, can OC these cards yourself to get in-between the lines on your own time.
Again, Don't change a thing Anand! You write the best reviews and by far the most unbiased reviewer on the net! KEEP THE BALANCE! :)
lakrids - Friday, October 29, 2010 - link
Only a nvidia fanboy would look at these reviews and call them balanced.Ask yourself this:
Why was nshit allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the 6800 review, when ATI wasn't allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the gts 450 review?
Even back then, we had lots of factory overclocked 5770 cards, as well as factory overclocked 5750 cards in the same price range as the 450.
Even the irrational nvidia fanboys haven't been able to answer.
jscottyh - Friday, October 29, 2010 - link
It's really easy actually. It's called politics. Which Anand left out or each review would be 50+ pages. I guess that's something that you don't understand. So let me explain it to you...I like both company's a lot. They both have something awesome and unique to bring to the table when it comes to graphics handling. Between both company's it's a healthy competition for the most part. But from what I have seen over the years is that ATI is relaxed. They don't push like Nvidia does about new products. ATI has their loyal customer base and they are cocky about it. Whereas Nvidia would like to have their cards in everyone's PC/MAC. Nvidia is consistently trying to prove across the board that their product rocks from the entry level user to the enthusiast. What you see with ATI? "Meh, Let Nvidia do their thing. We are not worried about it. Oh and we just made Eyefinity. Its support for more than one monitor setup. Cool huh?"
ATI does not push the envelope when it comes to the reviews. They only ask to review the stock reference cards and that's where they stop. Running OC'ed cards is your business, not ATI's or the reviewers. Plain and simple. But you may still not get the picture lakrids, so I'll stop here.
lakrids - Friday, October 29, 2010 - link
I think you lack reading comprehension.I'll ask you again:
Why was nvidia allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the 6800 review, when ATI wasn't allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the gts 450 review?
"ATI wasn't allowed to have factory overclocked cards in the gts 450 review."
Do you understand this?
Do you understand what that sentence says?
Look at the 4gts 450 review and see for yourself.
lakrids - Friday, October 29, 2010 - link
"Running OC'ed cards is your business"And this is where you go completely off track. I wasn't even talking about user overclock, I was talk about Factory Overclock.
It's Anand's job to have factory overclocked cards from both sides. You can't argue your way around this. It's Anand's job to stay fair, balanced and objective.
It was HIS job to make sure those factory overclocked gts 450 cards are compared to factory overclocked HD5750 and HD5770 cards.
He failed at this.
It was HIS job to make sure that XFX or someone else would send him a sample of a factory overclocked HD6870, if he intended to use a factory overclocked 460.
He failed this as well.
He has failed his users by becoming biased.
mapesdhs - Friday, October 29, 2010 - link
FWIW, Newegg has the FTW in stock now. Are their stock levels accurate? Doesn't look like
they have that many.
Scan UK has them now aswell (I asked, they obtained 50), so I've bought two, plus a Platinum
for my brother's system.
Ian.
lakrids - Friday, October 29, 2010 - link
There are factory overclocked HD6800 cards on newegg too now, from various vendors.It's such a shame that Anand was too biased to even bother to ask XFX for an early sample of their Black Edition series.
krumme - Friday, October 29, 2010 - link
Congrats, you are in for some good gaming :) - i have a 320M in this laptop. But what the heck, i dont have time for gaming, because i am hammering on this comment section together with Lakrids. ROFL.The problem is that we dont know what the stock will be, and neither did anand.
Looking at the market, its come and go, in small drops. That have been the strategy always. It sells the lower clock version, that is the purpose - its just about maximizing buttom line. So its a smart way of binning and selling your cards if you have yield and variability issues, if you have a strong consumer brand like NV.
Anand knows must know that issue, but perhaps it was not - say obvious - enough, in the minor details that gone into their arguements.
Anand was lost in trees
mapesdhs - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
The cards should arrive today. I have to benchmark a couple of Quadro
FX5500s first though. Some early results from a friend of mine are interesting
though, comparing to 8800GT SLI and 4890 CF:
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/pctests.html
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/stalkercopbench.txt
(we've started benching with Unigine and X3TC aswell, data not yet added)
I thought Scan would run out of the FTWs pretty quick, but they still have
them in stock. Oh, I noticed 10 on eBay BIN, but they were of course
grossly overpriced (a massive 30 UKP more than from Scan; who uses eBay
to buy a new gfx card??).
Ian.
mindless1 - Saturday, October 30, 2010 - link
So long as it is tested at stock speed as sold, and as warranted, IMO it is fair game to consider it a separate product regardless of having same GPU on it... because ultimately for the purposes of the consumer pubic, while available they have the chocie of buying one.It is not a race where it only matters who wins, it is about which products one can buy which will potentially fit their needs. However at the same time, if you include a factory o'c card and it costs more, it would make the article all the more value added if you also tested the max "reasonable" o'c for that card and the same for the factor stock speed card so for those who don't mind running above initial nVidia spec, they know if spending more money gets them anything in particular besides a firmware with a few bits flipped.
Something else I and some others would like to see is the fastest a card can run and the benchmarks for that speed, even if it requires underclocking, to keep the fan at some low noise level threshold instead of increasing enough in RPM to notice much if left on auto/thermal control instead of locked at a fixed speed. It has been many years since I bought a card with thermally controlled fan where I would accept hearing it ramped up to high RPM. I should add I would find that info most useful if the card remains below 70C GPU temp, knowing how far it might need underclocked to achieve both simultaneously.
lakrids - Saturday, October 30, 2010 - link
It's not fair game when nvidia are the only ones allowed to show off factory overclocked cards.Look at the gts 450 review, there should have been factory overclocked 5770 and 5750 cards. but there are none.
This isn't fair game, it's bias.
Ramon Zarat - Saturday, October 30, 2010 - link
1- The EVGA card should have came from retail, NOT from Nvidia. The credibility of the review is negatively affected, no matter what counterargument you might come up with. Overclocking beyond 850Mhz and power consumption figures are both inevitably favorably affected by cheery picking a GPU. You even go as far as alluding to this very fact, but buried this very important information in the middle of the last page, as if to protect yourself from not mentioning it at all: ''...GPUs capable of running at this voltage are likely coming from the cream of the crop for NVIDIA.'' This very critical information should have been in the very first sentence of the review and in BOLD characters. That might have helped with the credibility.2- You should, at the very least, have provided overclocking figures for both the 6870 and 6850 in a separate ''overclocking results'' page. What would have been far better is to include those results in every benchmark. We all know overclocked version of both AMD cards are coming anyway. In fact XFX have already released an overclocked 6850 black edition. And guess what? Kitguru ( /www.kitguru dot net ) already report overclock beyond 1Ghz @ 1.3V with this first batch of silicon!!! We also know that 850Mhz for the 460 is very near the practical limit with air cooling. Then why not push the 6870 and 6850 to their practical limit too? This is where all other arguments fail and suspicions arise...
I will conclude by saying that price/performance/power ratio is pretty much the absolute rule by which a GPU should be judged. From that perspective, AMD rule absolutely, period. Just overclock the hell out of a cherry picked 6850 and pit it against this infamous EVGA 460 you have in your hand. Then benchmark in SLI and Crossfire for a good measure. We all know who will win the price/performance/power crown, don't we? Yeah, I thought so...
In the end, all this sound way too much like a not-subtle-enough attempt to damper the launch of the 6850 and 6870. Some kind of smoke screen or diversion to steal AMD's thunder. This cherry picked, overclocked to death EVGA 460 with incredible thermal and power figures had no business in this review without balancing the facts with an overclocked AMD card. Fundamental and very basic journalistic ethic principles have been neglected and I don't like that at all.
What can we expect from your upcoming Cayman review? Results from cheery picked overclokecked 480 provided by Nvidia?
Ramon
Matrices - Sunday, October 31, 2010 - link
While I don't doubt the credibility of the site - very professional and clear and high quality material here - I am baffled by the sheer naivete illustrated by accepting a product sample directly from a vendor for inclusion in a review, no less a review of a competing part.When you review video cards, you should really use off the shelf parts when possible. I know it's not always possible when you're reviewing the newest thing out there, but for something like this? Yeah, it should be common sense.
the_elvino - Sunday, October 31, 2010 - link
For years I have come to Anandtech to read about new technology and products. After the 6800 Series review, I don't trust the site anymore, even if other sections of the site are not biased. After all, how should I know when the money talks and when to expect a proper review? It's impossible, it just became too obvious now in the case of nVidia but has been going on for a while.Which other sites do you recommend for unbiased, balanced reviews (not just graphics cards) which also have the resources to cover a vast amount of products and news/previews and have a presentable layout?
Thanks!
Bates777 - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
[HARD]OCP.Always thourough, always legitimate.
They did the 6xxx review a week ago and made a note about what NVIDIA was trying to pull on them too, except they wouldn't go for it unlike AT.
vedye - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
Thanks mate!First of all the_elvino said exactly what I feel about Anandtech. I was firstly attracted to this site because it's professional and always gives deeper explanation for the new technology and deeper inside news from the industry point of view. Now what, Anand bent to nVidia's pressure. The independent point of view is gone. He might still have the great knowledge base, but that might help him better at hiding things for certain party's interests.
Second of all thanks Bates777 for recommending the [HARD]OCP. Sounds like a good place to go from now on. I guess the reality is you can never trust anyone that is *in* the industry. Independent reviews from normal gamers might be the better solution (have to filter out the fanboys though).
Cheers
Nate007 - Sunday, October 31, 2010 - link
Um where is the review comparing the New 6870 and 6850 OC cards from XFX to the Nvidia OC cards ?I'm thinking this is going to change Anands initial review he did when he compared 460 FTW to Stock AMD cards. The right thing for ANADTECH to do is put out a NEW review now on a level playing field and see where things stand now.
Wonder if that will ever happen ?
vedye - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
Apparently it will never happen. nVidia PR will be pissed. So Anand just can't do that.Trisped - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
It is perfectly legitimate to include a sample of all commonly available hardware with which the subject competes.The EVGA card is a good example of competing hardware and should be included.
I always thought the overclocked cards were included to give a complete picture, not to further any one marketing strategy.
While I am a big fan of AMD video cards and love to see them win, I also know that it is only a matter of time before over clocked 6000 cards hit the market.
I think AnandTech does a great job of indicating which cards are overclocked and listing the advantages/disadvantages of the cards when including them in comparisons.
kc77 - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
That's just it though there were and are 6850's / 6870's that are Fact OCd. They just weren't included which is why it typically isn't done. You would have to go back a ways to find Fact Oc'd cards appearing in a GPU launch review. Usually that's a separate review.mapesdhs - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
So do any of you have the 6850 or 6870 now in use? Or oc'd versions? What results do you get?
3DMark06, Vantage, Stalker COP, Unigine, X3TC, Cinebench 10/11.5, etc.
Ian.
Nate0007 - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
I purchased a 6870. I did manage to OC it using ATI's OC tool but it is not as good as Saphhires Trixx tool of which I have not been able to get it to work so for now I am just experimenting.Right now It is back running at STOCK and every game I run on it seems great.
I had a chance to slip in a second card for an hour ( My friend got one too) and I was blown away at how great this cards scales in crossfire. I'm definitely getting a 2nd card , even though 1 was more then cutting it for me , guess I'm just never happy. :)
Blue Ray playback was also amazing!
All in all I'm happy with it and the price , and honestly I don't see a need to OC this CARD if you Crossfire them as the Performance is mind blowing. I'd rather have stock cards then OC ones just because the longevity is more stable on components.
That said if I could just that Trixx OC program figured out I'm still curious to see what this 6870 can do.
mapesdhs - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
Sounds good! If you can post some benchmarks somewhere, eg. in a new
thread, that would be good.
I've just received my two FTws, will build the system during this week.
Ian.
Touche - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
6870 overclocking:http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1455/12/
1045 / 1200
1055 / 1235
1025 / 1240
17% overclock resulted in 17% performance increase in 3DMark and AvP.
Antah Berantah - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
GTX 460 Hawk Overclockinghttp://www.tweaktown.com/articles/3496/msi_geforce...
988 / 1976 / 4480 with X9404 3DMark Vantage result.
and this one is not an evga card.
mapesdhs - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
A 988 core?? Wow! 8)
Ian.
Antah Berantah - Wednesday, November 3, 2010 - link
I already push the memory to 1050 without voltage tweaking.Wonder if I can get that high too or even higher as 1000 mhz core and 1150 mhz memory. :D
Touche - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
It's still one vendor specific."while on the other hand you kind of have to wonder, why buy an MSI card when you can buy a cheaper one and overclock it yourself?
So what do MSI do to combat this? They release stuff like the Lightning and HAWK series which lets even more abilities open up with in MSI."
Not only that, that particular sample was even a special edition of a special edition:
"MSI actually told us that each GTX 460 has a bit of fluctuation when it comes to the default core clock. The particular one we had came at 1.062v which was on the higher side of things, so +200mv gave us 1.262v; much higher than the standard 1.087v limit that we're used to seeing."
So, it's even more limited than EVGA FTW. And power consumption is abnormal: more than a 480 and almost the same as 460 SLI!
Antah Berantah - Wednesday, November 3, 2010 - link
You don't get the point.The point is, all GTX 460 out there have extra ordinary overclocking capability, so the used of EVGA FTW in Ryan's review is fair as a representation of what a GTX 460 can do.
I point out this MSI specific to describe that EVGA FTW is not a limited edition because any other vendor has their own overclocked GTX 460. So when you can't find an evga card, just pick up any other available gtx 460 and you can overclocking it by yourself higher than the evga card.
Touche - Wednesday, November 3, 2010 - link
I don't think you get the point. There is a big difference between manual overclocking and low stock, worldwide unavailable special edition factory OC'd card.If you say that "use of EVGA FTW in Ryan's review is fair as a representation of what a GTX 460 can do" because one can overclock any 460, then he sould have overclocked 6850/6870 too. Both of them can be overclocked, you see, and then it would be a fair representation of what they can do. And they can do a lot, e.g. both be faster than OC'd 460 (according to Overclockersclub review).
Antah Berantah - Wednesday, November 3, 2010 - link
"... worldwide unavailable special edition factory OC'd card"I live here in Papua, a place maybe you'll never find on the map, but I already buy two special edition overclocked GTX 460 (platinum and hawk), so these cards worldwide available.
GTX 460 is made for overclocking because it can be overclocked more than 300 mhz higher than its reference clock (988 mhz is the highest clock this far). So, any comparation with gtx 460 without point out its overclocking capability is unfair.
6850/6870 can be overclocked too, but not as much as gtx 460, the highest clock for 6850 is 975 (200 mhz higher) and 1055 mhz for 6870 ( just 155 mhz higher)
Please visit these links to see how a gtx 460 at its highest clock compared to 6850 and 6870 at their highest clock too
http://techreport.com/articles.x/19894
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3610/sapphire_rad...
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/3496/msi_geforce...
Touche - Wednesday, November 3, 2010 - link
Just because it's available in your country doesn't mean it's available everywhere, or even in most countries. HAWK and FTW are special edition cards with limited distribution.What does it matter by how much MHz a card can be overclocked? What matters is the resulting performance.
"http://techreport.com/articles.x/19894"
That article is useless. Only one game is shown.
Your tweaktown links show that even the ultraoverclocked HAWK card is slower than overclocked 6870.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/msi_n460gt...
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_6800se...
OC'd 6850 is usually faster than OC'd 460, even the HAWK edition. 6850!
So, OC'd 460 is still slower, but power consumption is enormous.
Antah Berantah - Thursday, November 4, 2010 - link
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3610/sapphire_rad...http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/3496/msi_geforce...
What part of these two articles shows that Hawk at 988, yield to HD 6870 at 1035?
Hawk edition at 988 core reach X9404 while HD 6870 at 1035 core reach X8540 at 3DMark Vantage, who's faster?
Uniqine Heaven V2 at 1920 X 1080:
Hawk; 1101, 6870 ;977 the faster is?
please compare the rest by yourself.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_6800se...
This link shows that evga ftw at 850 (its default clock) is little slower than HD 6870, but does not show what will it does when overclocked to the highest clock.
At the same time time, this link shows that 6870 overclocking capability is not good
"What I found was that each one of the HD 6870 cards reached a limit at 1000Mhz or below. So really all I was able to realize was a maximum of about 100Mhz on the core and just over that on the memory on each of the HD 6870 cards"
Touche - Thursday, November 4, 2010 - link
I tend to compare gaming performance when talking about gaming cards, not synthetic benchmarks. Strange, I know.Those Tweaktown articles don't have many common games to compare. Most of those few are games that are known to favor Nvidia's cards and even in them the lead of ultraoc'd HAWK is minimal, a few FPS at best.
Power consumption results are funny, though. Check them.
921/1022 is pretty high overclock for a 460 and it still doesn't help it beat those 6870 cards whose "overclocking capability is not good" as you put it. Oh, btw, that same site wasn't able to reach those ultra high oc clock for HAWK, in case you missed that link.
Overclockersclub has two articles comparing overclocked 460 (HAWK and FTW) and overclocked 6850/6870, and a much bigger selection of games to choose from. Their results are clear.
I have no interest in repeating this yet another time, we're running in circles. EOD for me.
Touche - Thursday, November 4, 2010 - link
68xx overclocking results:http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...
>=1000 MHz overclocks with stock voltage, higher with adder voltage
Those are stock reference cards.
owbert - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
everything regarding the review is fine.Bates777 - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
@owbertPeople like you make America easy to fleece.
softdrinkviking - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
i have no problem with the OC card being in the review.this is because... 1. you were very upfront about the inclusion of this special card and 2. you explained why it was relevant to include it in this situation.
this also means i think you should keep the OC inclusion on a special basis, and you should probably make all OC cards a special color in the performance charts, like bright green or something that stands out so we know it's not a normal card.
Antah Berantah - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
I love competition and I love best price performance, so I always try to find the best cards from both company.Before GTX 460, I agree that reference cards must be compared with reference cards only since I thought that all cards is indifferent in overclocking capability with exception not more than 50 mhz.
Then came GTX 460 that can be easily overclocked 300 mhz higher than its reference clock, and I change my mind. With this overclocking capability, GTX 460 not just compete with its rivals from AMD but also compete with its older brother GTX 470, furthermore almost all the GTX 460 in store now (at least in Jakarta) is factory overclocked with names like hawk, cyclone, sonic, platinum, OC, SOC, etc, and its hard to find one with reference clock.
Base on these facts, I agree that any reviews of the cards between $180 - $270 must also including GTX 460 and its overclocking capability to give a comprehensive description about best price performance available on the market.
So Ryan, you've just done a great review and I appreciate that you still down to earth by saying it as an incomplete review.
mapesdhs - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 - link
"... furthermore almost all the GTX 460 in store now (at least in Jakarta) is factory overclocked ..."
That is indeed the irony, 460 cards with the original 675 core are more expensive
than a readily available card with an 800 core. :D
I found a couple of sellers which were only selling factory oc variants.
Ian.
BigDUSA - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - link
As long as you make it known that the card is factory O/C. I see no problem.TheHolyLancer - Monday, November 29, 2010 - link
Seriously, can anyone find them now? I see 6870 and 6850s are in supply (with inflated prices gg), but there are NO 850 Mhz 460s around period at this time.Where is that market availability quoted in the 6870/50 review?
ComputerNovice22 - Sunday, December 5, 2010 - link
Honestly I have loved this site from the first day I visited it for one main reason. The reason is simple, basically I have always felt that this site gave some of the best reviews of products (tech related products) that I have ever read in my entire life. Overall every review on this site has always been very in depth (in my opinion) and on top of the fact I have felt every review has always been great as far as overall content is concerned. I have always felt that the fairness displayed in the articles on this site is simply second to none. Sadly when you visit most review sites it's almost always instantly clear that their opinions are biased towards certain products.Even though it's very understandable that it could have come across like they might have been being influenced by NVIDIA if you look at all the articles on this site and compare the quality of every review on this site you would quickly come to the conclusion that they have always taken the "high road" and showed a much higher level of integrity in their reviews on this site than what is standard in this day and age.
So even though its obvious where I stand on the issue of anandtech being fair in their reviews I am just going to go ahead and say that I fully support any decisions that anandtech makes when making decisions on what products to compare with each other and or how they chose to test the products they review. For one simple reason, because from what I've seen they have always maintained some level of fairness in every review I've personally ever read threw on this site.
greycoyote - Monday, December 6, 2010 - link
I have lost a lot of respect for your site over this particular review .To me it seems you allowed a company to push you into doing something against your avowed policy. In this case I think it was a poor choice.mapesdhs - Tuesday, September 14, 2021 - link
Hello all from late 2021! Reading again the comments in this old thread (including my own) has been quite the rabbit hole. It's extraordinary just how much time and effort we all spent raging about this issue, which for many boiled down to pricing and hence perceived value. Other issues aside, how much we argued back in 2010 about differences of mere tens of $ is amazing, given what has happened to the market since 2018. In 2010 I remember feeling slightly guilty at spending 350 UKP on two EVGA FTWs, oh the expense! Now I look on Scan and see an RTX 3090 for 2500, while the modern x60 card (3060) has jumped by more than 3x compared to the final generation of 460s (I later bought a couple of new GTX 460 v2 cards for 115 UKP each, which btw oc to well over 1GHz, leaving the FTW far behind).If the gamers of 2021 could have told us back in 2010 what was coming, nobody would have believed it. :D
FWIW I used my FTW SLI setup for quite some time, also across a platform change from P55 (i7 870) to Z68 (5GHz 2700K), then several GPU upgrades from the 2nd hand market (560 Ti SLI, 580 3GB SLI), then switching to a single new GTX 980 (I sold the 580s for a profit, bought by a movie company for CUDA, so the 980 upgrade only cost 100). That alas is when the pricing really started to climb, especially with Turing. Finally I bought a used 1080 Ti for 450 UKP and two years on it remains solid, no modern product yet makes any sense as a replacement (anything usefully faster costs far too much). I wouldn't mind a drop in stock power consumption and noise, but not when something at least as fast (3060 or 6600 XT) costs more than what I paid for the 1080 Ti.
In the meantime I've adopted a different approach, and in 2021 it may be suitable for many: stick to 60Hz, downlock your card, play older games. I'm using a 48" 1080p TV, currently playing games that are not that complex, such as Subnautica BZ and ETS2 (not been impressed by newer game launches in ages), so much so that a hefty downclock still allows the games to run at max settings with 60Hz locked, which of course means it's much more efficient, cooler, etc. Ah well, until some GPU market sanity returns, it's a thing one can do, and at least I gain from 200fps h264 encoding with NVEnc when I need it (2x faster than any Turing/Ampere gamer SKU).
I wonder how the rest of you have faired since the heady days of 2010 sensible pricing. Gaming tech product costs in 2021 have gone quite bonkers (obviously made worse by several external factors, especially crypto, but SKU upselling was already well underway by 2018), and who back in 2010 could have imagined what would happen with AMD 7 years later with Ryzen? Funny old world...
Ian.