Slashdot Mirror

That url again is Hardocp.

Don't forget those poor slashdotted souls over at Hardocp!

Some people don't have time to rewrite a nicely worded article, so they post a link to someone else's. I think your also forgetting about sites that provide their own content like Ars Technica and HardOCP which were smallfry's a few years back. The number of "E-zines" and blog sites are continually growing, so people will less and less quote from the Times, The New Scientist or the BBC because they'll find the news elsewhere. And more so if the big fish want to inconvenience their readership with registration.

And then you'll have content that noone has written something up for, so that gives the reader his/her chance to be famous for a day. Look!!! I just found a nice layout of a Terra V rocket. Some people might find this interesting, regardless of the credibility of me or the site. Or take someone's writeup of RoboSapien, or someone else plugging his own webblog because he received a check from the RIAA, or someone plugging their personal coverage of the CodeCon conference, etc. This notion of credibility-by-link should have been shattered as soon as you saw this troll get posted.

Your statement is analagous to the trustworthiness of proprietary code because the corporation is credible or well known. Which means on the flipside that because many open-source coders aren't "credible", then the code should not be trustworthy. Both are bad logic, and sometimes slashdot mods are like that after going through a mind-numbing XY,000+ submissions per day, but it doesnt hold true enough to call it law.

According to HardOCP's article, Roberts' resume listed his work in "[s]tructuring creative Wholesale partnerships" for WorldCom.

Now, I worked for WCOM before it went bust, and its was on the wholesale side of the business that the truly evil work went down -- in particular, the inflation of profits by swapping bandwidth between WCOM and wholesalers and recording them as sales.

This does not, of course, mean that Roberts was involved in WCOM's demise, any more than I was. But it does suggest that Roberts was proximate to that demise, and HardOCP has an arguable journalistic interest in bringing that up.

- Watchful.Babbler

Yeah, the article is a very well-crafted case against this guy's credibility. I would be shocked if they wanted to actually take this one to court. The hope on the part of Infinium must have been that this pissant little website would bow under legal threat and retract, regardless.

Oops ;-)

They have no intent to sue. They just hoped that by sending a threatening letter they might get HardOCP to take down an article that might scare away the venture capitalists that they want to extract money from.

Anyways, anybody who is trying to sell stuff to the geek community needs to realize that most geeks just get pissed off by these companies bitching about stuff like this. Making threats(bullying) and trying to censor people(notice the .sig) annoys me.

I think you meant [H]ard|OCP

I don't even want to speculate on what kind of site HardCop might be...

He typed in the name of the site and the URL and got the name wrong. Genius!

[H]ard|OCP is the correct spelling! But even if you wanted to leave off the goofy characters it would still be HardOcp...

This is very excusable... if Hemos was up late watching the superbowl. Keep up the good work guys. You are still the best geek site around!

That's a bit of revisionist history... The first "real" laptops (386 and up) that I saw with 640x480 had 10.3 inch screens... then you went up to 12 inch screens for 800x600. Any modern PC is pretty much useless in anything less than 1024x768; except special-use PCs like my PVR/MAME box, which drives my TV at 640x480. It's ugly, but it works well enough. Yes, they make 6-9 inch 640x480 LCDs, but you have to get close, which was the point of my post.

And I'm sorry that putting a PC in his old Mac case is considered "sacrilege" to all you cult worshippers still inside the Reality Distortion Field. "If it ain't a Mac, it's clearly crap!" That's the rallying cry, isn't it? Guess I shouldn't show you this!

Amateurs?

So I suppose the people who run the Transport for London web site are amateurs?

What about the folks running BlogSpot?

How about the admins of Rutgers Univesity?

Finally, how about Kyle Bennett, the creator of [H]ard|OCP?

Sure, Microsoft can say that Apache is used by amateurs. But I'm certain that for every half-assed amateur using Apache there are 100 admins who run Apache for mission-critical stuff and don't bat an eyelid.

It's obviosly fake, but what the hell: here

Ace's (Recommended)

Ars

HardOCP

Tom's

Anandtech (Recommended)

Take all benchmark results with a grain of salt. Many things can influence the results, and some sites like Tom's have long been known to be quite biased. If you read enough sites though, you tend to get a much better overall picture of how things really are.

Anandtech is generally the best place to find information on anything you're looking for and is where all the cool kids go. They go above and beyond the call of duty in all of their reviews, and their monitor reviews are unsurpassed.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTYw

Kyle of HardOCP makes a bunch of speculations as to AMD's purpose for releasing these chips, and comes to basically the same conclusions that CNet does.

He sugguests that these chips are also just the ones that only had partial working cache (a portion of the cache was working, the other portion was not) and to save money they are selling these as a "budget" chip. Seems like a good idea to me!

They saw that HardOCP pointed out the same thing today and had to get even.

You mean there's a cache in browsers? That's absolutely mindboggling. Why, I had no idea. </stewie>

I think you'll find that even with caching there's a real load from serving images. Caches aren't perfect, people force-reload all the time, etc.

Since using png is a zero-effort kind of think, it's pretty hard to argue against, especially when you factor in the actual technical benefits; like images with proper alpha (users could use some other BG color except for white) and the possibility to have actually nicer looking images.

Slashdot isn't an image-heavy site. I've done this same experiment for a review at HardOCP and the savings there were gigantic (multiple hundred kilobytes). I talked to someone on the crew about it, but as usual, nothing happens.

And how would you check that quality hasn't suffered - would you actually buy two cards and run them up side by side on two monitors to check?

Actually, that's basically what the major review sites do. When you see the IQ comparisons at a site like [H]ard|OCP, they put the screenshots output by the game side by side with those from another card at the same spot in the game. Some sites also compare this to the DX reference renderer and the game's software mode.

Many games also have features to colorize where certain known "optimization" features are being used. I don't remember where I saw this in use, but it was recently and on a major review site.

Synthetic benchmarks have their place. Just don't base a purchase decision solely on them.

The video card companies need to learn a few things:

1. Don't cheat
You WILL be discovered.

2. Marketing isn't everything
The first GFFX chips (a.k.a. "DustBuster"),
Parhelia,
Voodoo4/5

All victims of marketing, but in different ways.

The GFFX was heavily hyped and seems to have been pushed out the door to meet a release date (and because nVidia was getting creamed in the benchmarks by ATI at the time), so the nV engineers didn't have time to improve the performance some more or at least decrease the heat dissipation. Looking at the current GFFX selection proves that time can heal wounds.

Parhelia was not marketed heavily to gamers by Matrox (or at least I didn't see that much of it). The problem here was that the gaming mags and websites got wind of the triple-monitor 3D capabilities and started drooling. It was only a matter of time before people were disappointed because they had gotten their hopes up for a product that wasn't designed for what they wanted it to do.

Voodoo4/5

The problem here is that the hype pump works a lot faster than engineers. The fact that a quad chip V5-6k couldn't beat a GF2 in some games means that 3dfx was far behind on this one.
Unfortunately for 3dfx, the hype for the new product killed the last sales of the Voodoo3 (which were only being bought by 3dfx die-hards in those days).

3. Framerates aren't everything either!
Anything over 120fps is absolutely useless. Going over the refresh rate won't help you at all. Being a little slower at a better quality is almost always a better choice.

That last one is bound to get me flamed, so...
*ducks*

Uh, owning the mid-range market with the 5700? Not really, it costs $200 which competes with the $200 ATI 9600XT.

hardocp review

The 9600XT comes with a free copy of HL2. So that's $50 righty there.

They are practically neck in neck in real world performance so I guess it's your call. I know which one I would pick though. $200 and HL2 or $200 and no HL2.... hmmmm tough one.

And there's even an advertisment campaign for Gainward's line of graphics cards that specifically pokes at this concept, and doing so for quite some time ... here's just an example, and a Google search turns up many more results of this advertising campaign and the resulting products from it ...

Perhaps I'm just overly cynical, but I tend to trust reviews where the reviewer went out and purchased an off-the-shelf retail copy of X rather than those where the company sent something. Of course, this is hard to do in print publications, because of the time-lag that magazines run through (ie, two months after it's released on the shelves, they have a review of it), but I see no reason (aside from money, which is a big reason) that online reviewers can't do things such as this. I also tend to look towards user-reviews and give those a pretty good weigh-in when I'm making a purchase decision. This is the first instance that I can recall where products are blatently better when given to reviewers than those that are store-bought, but I get the feeling that it's been done in the past.

The above paragraph reflects what I do for my personal buying choices and should in no way construe that that's the optimal/correct/whatever way for large corporations/organizations/whatever to buy-in-bulk ...

As a member of the videogame industry, I have been following this new "console" quite closely. I came across this article at http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTEy and it opened my eyes to just how much more is behind this so called company and console.

This should be required reading for anyone who still believes that this console will ever be more than a greedy attempt to milk VC's for some quick cash.

This is what you are looking for.

"Infinium Labs recently signed a five-year lease on 10,000 sq. ft. of prime office space to locate its corporate offices in the Centre Pointe Building in downtown Sarasota, Florida. The Centre Pointe offices are in close proximity to many of the company's early investors, its corporate legal counsel and the industrial design firm that is developing the Phantom Game System(TM) prototypes"

Coincidence or damage control?

(By the way, the link in that article probably should have been this one.)

I remembered seeing this a couple of days ago on HardOCP's boards. I mirrored the thread about it (as /.'ing a bboard is not too nice) which has quite a few pictures and some talk:

http://andrew.cmu.edu/~pnelson/big.html

(and yes, I did just download the 4 individual pages and cat them together =P)

A couple pictures are over at [H]ardocp
Lights on
Lights Off

A couple pictures are over at [H]ardocp
Lights on
Lights Off

A couple pictures are over at [H]ardocp
Lights on
Lights Off

HardOCP
Tom's hardware
Ace's Hardware
As you would expect, no chip is dominate. though the more interesting thing for me than the nip and tuck between $800 CPUs, is the Athlon64 3200+ performs right there with the 3.2C in mosts lets. Not bad considering it retails for more than $100 less.

I mean, did you just look at a TV showing a WinXP boot screen, or what? And how on earth did they show you the workings of this -- you actually got to see the servers they're going to be tossing these games out with? Packet activity?

I suspect highly that you saw the shell, and maybe there was even a computer in it, but that's all. This is entirely a possible thing, but the guy running this show is not a dedicated family man and casual games enthusiast. The guy running this show is the king of con artists, and it's always easier to con money than to earn it. Maybe this is the one time he's decided to actually put together a working business model. I think it's unlikely, though...

So far, the only people who've flat out said "This thing is a joke, a lie to sucker stupid venture capitalists out of their money with flashy marketing for a product that doesn't exist" is Penny Arcade.

HardOCP are also pretty much calling it as a scam.

and for lazy people, Here is the money shot.

The site actually links most of its information from [H]ard|OCP. Search for "[H]ardNews 8th Edition" to find the relevent article with pictures.

Mirror Below

I have just received some more information about Corsair his new line of memory. The XMS ProSeries memory is basically the same as their XMS series memory, with a better heatsink and an integrated memory activity meter.

Corsair Memory, today announced the ProSeries, a new series of ultra-performance modules in their highly awarded XMS module family. XMS ProSeries modules offer the same extreme performance XMS modules are known for, but also incorporate two essential new features: an all-new heatsink designed for optimum thermal efficiency, and memory activity LED's.

Corsair's new high-efficiency heatsink was custom designed especially for the XMS ProSeries. It is crafted from cast aluminum to offer excellent thermal qualities. Its mini fins maximize air surface contact area to draw heat away from the memory chips and dissipate it more quickly. The heatsink, which is bonded to the memory chips with a unique thermal adhesive, is embossed with bold "XMS" lettering on both sides of the module. On the top edge of the heatsink are windows to the activity LED's.

XMS ProSeries modules feature a row of LED's on the top edge that display real-time memory activity level. Corsair is the first company to ever offer an activity meter on the module itself. Corsair invented this feature for the growing legions of enthusiasts and gamers who use windowed chassis, so they can tell at a glance the current level of memory activity. Each memory bank has a row of nine dedicated activity LED's that alight as the level of memory activity increases. 512 Mbyte XMS ProSeries modules, with two banks, have a total of 18 activity LED's in green, yellow and red.

According to Corsair President Andy Paul, "The XMS ProSeries further extends Corsair's leadership in high performance module design. We combined the most efficient and stylish heatsink in the industry with never-before-seen activity monitoring features and XMS's legendary performance to deliver what will soon become the de facto standard memory module for gamers and enthusiasts."

The following XMS Pro Series modules and module pairs are available immediately from resellers worldwide: - TwinX1024-4000PRO - matched pair of 512MB, DDR500 modules - TwinX1024-3200C2PRO - matched pair of 512MB, DDR400 modules - CMX512-4000PRO - 512MB, DDR500 module - CMX512-3200C2PRO - 512MB, DDR400 module

Looks pretty cool I think, but on the other side I do not really think that many users will really have any benefit from memory acitivity LEDs on their memory modules. But it sure looks cool..

Yeah, they disected an old ATI and found out how they were cheating on Q3 numbers so they figured they'd better join the race and start cheating.

I must say, they are doing an Excellent Job

This absolutely has to be one of the best examples of how the graphic card companies are using the ignorant "tech" sites to spread false stats.

Those guys got an offer from nVidia to do the Benchmarking along with "A new and unreleased nVidia driver" (yeah right !).

And even when the nVidia card smoked the Radeon card by a difference of 70% at a resolution of 1600x1200, these guys didn't even have a single clue about what was happening..

Raffle nets $2000

The sister site of HardOCP

Very cool of them to do this. The 12yo might come out the better for being sued.

There will actually be two lines at launch. The 940-pin Athlon64FX(1-way Opteron) will have dual channel DDR while the cheaper 754-pin Athlon64 will have single channel DDR.


Athlon64 Showing Up
Pricing for Athlon 64 leaks: 939 pin chip won't be compatible with 940 CPU

> What are you basing that conclusion on, cards from 4 years ago?

FYI:

Hardocp

Tomshardware

A relevant forum discussion

....this.

VapoChill
--------------

• 1 computer, disassembled
• 1 VapoChill cooling system
• Madness as desired

Combine the computer and cooling system in a large container. Sprinkle with madness. Refrigerate.

Serves 1 CPU.

In other news, SCO unveils their latest threats (found this editorial on HardOCP).

Over-the-top? Yes...

Or you could look at the benchmarks already out there:
DOOM 3 Benchmarks

3.0GHz-C- P4
1GB PC3200

Radeon 9800Pro 256MB with all Doom3 settings maxed gets 16.5 fps.

At 1024x768 with minimal settings it gets 70fps.

That setup you listed probably gets 60fps at 640x480 with every setting at minimum.

The first PC game I ever got into was Diablo 2, where I spent hours bulking up a Paladin named [H]olyGeekboy. (Note the 'leet [H], to symbolize my patronage of a cool hardware enthusiast website.

For some reason, it suck, and so now I am [H]olyGeekboy in Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Quake 3, and Unreal Tournament 2003. It makes no sense for those games, but it's still kind of unique, like all those soccer moms in California who spell seemingly normal names with q's and apostrophes all over the place. :)

no no no....it's a notebook ONLY available in Japan (since I don't think it was ever released here in the US or Europe).

Anyways, it has a small tiny tiny tiny tiny pump that moves the coolant (water + additives) thru VERY small tubing and dissipanting the heat energy from the back of the LCD screen. I thought it was Slashdotted. I know it was on Toms and [H]ardOCP

Lemme look for it....here: On [H]ardOCP and here: On IT World

Ok, so THG gets through this week enfuriating the enthusiast community. Posting infomercials labeled as articles, then throws the community this pat yourselves on the back editorial on Open Source? Anyone else find the timing a little suspicious?

Fortunately, the friendly folks at Hardocp have stepped in to provide some legal assistance for the guy, to make sure he is not railroaded into pulling down his editorial describing THG's media shenanigans.

More bullshit drama from HardOCP. Last week, it was accusations about Futuremark. This week it's about some supposed media blackout, and accusations that THG might be suing some other website. I mean, come on. Read THG's news page. ABC News and WHAS 840 radio even did a broadcast from the event. Does this sound like a "media blackout" to you?

"as you can see from the coverage on www.sudhian.com, any other press that came along was treated respectfully and was not hindered in any way. You can also visit the organizers at www.lanwar.com, and you will see clearly that there was no media blackout. In fact, I personally recommeded to the organizers that they get as much as press as they could. Local press such as WHAS 11 TV was there."

And what business is any of this of HardOCP? At what point did Hard|OCP stop being a hardware site, and start being a fucking soap opera? I've seen twelve year old girls that are less into gossip and rumors.

As is detailed here and here, Toms Hardware recently performed a media blackout at a Public event, the Million Man Lan Party.

They are currently threatening to sue an online journalist (who happens to be a poor college student) for libel regarding his reporting of this story. Fortunately, the friendly folks at Hardocp have stepped in to provide some legal assistance for the guy, to make sure he is not railroaded into pulling down his editorial describing THG's media shenanigans.

Do your part for Internet Free Speech. Boycott Toms Hardware Guide.

I was a regular [H] reader until today. This is ridiculous. Check out what's on the front page.

More bullshit drama and conspiracy theories. This time it's about some supposed media blackout, and accusations that THG might be suing some other website. (a completely baseless accusation)

At what point did Hard|OCP stop being a hardware site, and start being a fucking soap opera? I've seen twelve year old girls that are less into gossip and rumors than this.

If you haven't heard about the controversy with MadOnion/Futuremark/3dmark2003, check out This article. Kyle @ HardOCP suggests that if you give Futuremark more $$$, they will 'optimize' their benchmark to help out your video card's score.

Now, in this review, we see that GeForceFX 5900 clearly dominates the hardware side of things: .13 vs .15 micron process, 450/850 vs. 380/340 (GPU/Core), 27.2 GB/sec vs. 21.8 GB/sec memory bandwidth, etc. Yet when we start looking at real-world scores, the 9800 keeps up pretty well & even beats the faster GeForceFX 5900 in most tests.

The big exception is the 3DMark2003 score - the GeForceFX 5900 wins 3477 to 2837!!! (!!!).

This can be attributed to one of three things;
1.Speed isn't everything (e.g., AMD vs. Intel CPU's). But of course, the slower Radeon 9800 *is* faster even though it's slower in all the real-world tests.
2.The GeForceFX used WHQL drivers... But despite these 'superior' drivers, the Radeon 9800 still reigned in all the real world tests!
3.3DMark2003 added unfair optimizations to their program to make the nvidia card seem better than ATi's

Yup I was thinking of that exact motherboard when I posted, read about it on [H] this morning, but its one of the very few I've seen so I'm generalising.

[H]ardOCP has repeatedly stated that synthetic benchmarks are crap and benchmarks should be based on real-world performance.

[H]ardOCP has repeatedly stated that synthetic benchmarks are crap and benchmarks should be based on real-world performance.

[H]ardOCP has repeatedly stated that synthetic benchmarks are crap and benchmarks should be based on real-world performance.