Nemo Posted December 3, 2007 Posted December 3, 2007 Check it out - http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/po..._radeon_x1550_/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cchalogamer Posted December 3, 2007 Posted December 3, 2007 Not trying to be too harsh here....but why in the hell was the card tested with 4x AA? It's a budgetcard and I would expect to see benchmarks setup to compare what gamers on a very strict and limited budget might expect to be playing at. Heck I dont know if it's capable of actually playing many of these games on the lowest settings at the end of the day. Some people using such a card in a HTPC might not care that it cant run any AA as they plan to use it on an older standard def TV also were lower than 1024x768 doesnt really look any different. Sre thee benchmarks tell most of OCC that they should stay way for anything short of a family PC where integrated video would be the better choice anyway, but I'm sure a few would like to know how choosing a better OCing motherboard now with this card vs one with onboard video might change things for them if they possibly plan on adding a better card later or something else. Idk...it just seems silly to run all the tests at settings where the card cant even function properly and call it a review. It's not a 7600GT, don't expect it to run the same settings as one is how i personally see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted December 3, 2007 Posted December 3, 2007 Not trying to be too harsh here....but why in the hell was the card tested with 4x AA? It's a budgetcard and I would expect to see benchmarks setup to compare what gamers on a very strict and limited budget might expect to be playing at. Heck I dont know if it's capable of actually playing many of these games on the lowest settings at the end of the day. Some people using such a card in a HTPC might not care that it cant run any AA as they plan to use it on an older standard def TV also were lower than 1024x768 doesnt really look any different. Sre thee benchmarks tell most of OCC that they should stay way for anything short of a family PC where integrated video would be the better choice anyway, but I'm sure a few would like to know how choosing a better OCing motherboard now with this card vs one with onboard video might change things for them if they possibly plan on adding a better card later or something else. Idk...it just seems silly to run all the tests at settings where the card cant even function properly and call it a review. It's not a 7600GT, don't expect it to run the same settings as one is how i personally see it. It was tested for gaming benchmarks not for how well it will do as a HTPC. If we decide to do a roundup of HTPC cards this one will be in it, but like I said this was gaming tested. Why should be change settings because the card cannot handle it? We base our testing on strict guidelines and we do not modify that for any card period. This goes to show that a card like this is not suited for gaming so don't bother buying it for that reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow47 Posted December 3, 2007 Posted December 3, 2007 It was tested for gaming benchmarks not for how well it will do as a HTPC. If we decide to do a roundup of HTPC cards this one will be in it, but like I said this was gaming tested. Why should be change settings because the card cannot handle it? We base our testing on strict guidelines and we do not modify that for any card period. This goes to show that a card like this is not suited for gaming so don't bother buying it for that reason. But you have to take into account how this card is meant to perform. It was never meant to hang with the 8600gt or anything else of that quality. To think that it would perform at those qualities is nothing short of foolish. It would be nice to see how this card would perform without the AA. Someone who might be looking for a budget card would really benefit from seeing that. Now all he/she knows is that it is horrible when compared to the 8600gt and other comparable cards. Overall this review tells me nothing. I knew from the beginning that it wouldn't do well with AA, and all you did is prove that. This review could benefit heavily with tests ran without AA. Then we could really see how this card performs in its intended range. It was tested for gaming benchmarks not for how well it will do as a HTPC. If we decide to do a roundup of HTPC cards this one will be in it, but like I said this was gaming tested. Why should be change settings because the card cannot handle it? We base our testing on strict guidelines and we do not modify that for any card period. This goes to show that a card like this is not suited for gaming so don't bother buying it for that reason. But you have to take into account how this card is meant to perform. It was never meant to hang with the 8600gt or anything else of that quality. To think that it would perform at those qualities is nothing short of foolish. It would be nice to see how this card would perform without the AA. Someone who might be looking for a budget card would really benefit from seeing that. Now all he/she knows is that it is horrible when compared to the 8600gt and other comparable cards. Overall this review tells me nothing. I knew from the beginning that it wouldn't do well with AA, and all you did is prove that. This review could benefit heavily with tests ran without AA. Then we could really see how this card performs in its intended range. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted December 3, 2007 Posted December 3, 2007 Ya thats fine and dandy and I understand that but when we have to go threw tons of emails requesting that lowerend cards be reviewed against highend stuff we try and go with demand. So if we changed the benchmarks for a lowerend card we would have to match the other cards the same way to give accurate results. You have no idea how long it takes to benchmark a video card let alone multiple ones so again read what I said. This card was never ment to go against the big boys well duh <_ it was to give you a general idea where stands when comes real style gaming and does not do that just like the scores show. now if we decided review all lowend cards ya would look at changing testing methods but are going for one card.> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewr05 Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Something I was thinking.... Maybe we should have "TIERS", such as Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 or something of that nature. A card could be tested at "Tier 3" settings and if it does not perform to certain requirements (gets below a certain acceptable FPS in the benchmark) it could then be dropped down to the "Tier 2" benchmark thus allowing the comparison of like cards... Card "X" tested @ "Tier 3" settings--unacceptable fps returned--drop to "Tier 2" and of course if the card did not work well at "Tier 2" it could then be dropped to "Tier 1" Tier 3 would consist of the "average" HIGH END card resolutions with the appropriate settings (AA blah blah etc) Tier 2 would consist of the "average" MID RANGE card resolutions with the appropriate settings (AA blah blah etc) Tier 1 would consist of the "average" BUDGET card resolutions with the appropriate settings (AA blah blah etc) Probably too much work, but in the end all cards could be separated in the REVIEW section into their "Tiers" and you could easily see whether or not a certain card performed well against another card if it was/wasn't in the same list. meh... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Well that could work except the fact that we don't really do alot of really low end stuff that is compareable to each other. But I understand stand what you guys are saying but again changing the review settings for a card is not a good idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeble Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Well that could work except the fact that we don't really do alot of really low end stuff that is compareable to each other. But I understand stand what you guys are saying but again changing the review settings for a card is not a good idea. I'm going to have to agree with bosco here. It's aggravating not being able to find comparable benchmarks for two cards, CPUs, etc. If OCC uses consistent testing methods, all the reviews can be compared with one another. This is in contrast to other sites, where the benchmark numbers are no good beyond a single review. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccokeman Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 This card is meant for the kids and wifes out there that do e-mail and runescape and not much more. We set our testing up to purposely stress components to see what level they actually perform at. We could do tiered testing but what does that accomplish. Sure it does well against an X800 or a 6800 but how does it hold up when the rubber meets the road. Say you want a gaming card and hey its a 1550 its not to bad but.... You get the point. Its not for hardcore gaming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts