well not read the review , but there are lots of factors when one low performing cards is rated higher than a better performaing card when compared performance.

mainly there is the "price factor", reviewers always rate good priced cards higher and if they are bundled with good games also then some points are added.

but when a any Ultra card is reviewed , then the game bundle is mentioned as added unwanted luggage for price justification and the score is lowered even though it was performing good compared to lower card.

But agreed if the reviewer doesnt mention this factors and they dont exists .. then U smell Nvidia fishy (sorry for the pun).

Kyro.

Although I can see that point of view in relation to the dollar factor,it seems an unfair way to rate a video card to me because not all areas that sell both cards market the card at the same price.Just because one may be cheaper than the next doesnt justify to me giving one card a 1 pt advantage over the other that seems to kick it's butt.What good is a card if you get it cheaper than the other one from a retailer that provides horrible service to it's customers?
The very first benchmark presented in the review given yesterday and the Ati card has to wait till the very highest resolution to gain a better mark than the Ultra and the way it's written you'd have thought the world was ending reading between the lines in his remarks once it does score better.Makes you wonder what the look on his face was when he first got the results.It sounds to me like he couldnt wait to see the first one just to make light of this fact so he could pull out all the bias adjectives to use against it.
That loses credibility in the review pretty darn fast to me.

Price does mean alot in a review,

Not only did I read the review on HotHardware, I wrote it. With all due respect (I hate to lose any readers), let me explain why you are totally incorrect...

First of all, the Ultra won 56% of the tests I ran, not the 75-80% you quite. The 9800 Pro won 44%, some of which because the Ultra wasn't even capable of running them. A 56% to 44% win / loss ratio is essentially equal. So, rating one product versus another on performance alone is impossible in this case. A simple driver update would change these results. In fact, the Catalyst 3.8s give UT2003 a decent performance boost. Had they been released in time for this review, the 9800 Pro would have won the majority of benchmarks. And with benchmarking in its current state, with all of the "cheating / application specific optimizing" going on, rating a product on it benchmark scores alone is ridiculous. The days of blindly following benchmarks are gone.

So, during the course of a review, you've got to consider quite a few other factors. Price, Image Quality, User Friendliness, Bundles and Overclockability being some of them. Let's see how an Ultra fares against a 9800 Pro in these areas:

1) Price. The Ultra in the review you´re questioning was far more expensive than the 9800 Pro.

2) Image Quality. In my opinion (and many others), the Radeon 9800 Pro has better image quality, especially with AA enabled. And if you're buying a top-of-the-line video card to NOT run AA, what's the point? Save the money and by a mainstream card.

3) User Friendliness. Both cards installed and ran perfectly and I like both sets of drivers. - Tie.

4) Bundles. Depends on the manufacturer. To use this review as an example, Asus' bundle is better than ATi's, but not better then say Gigabyte's R9800 Pro.

5) Overclocking. Both cards offer something to the overclocking crowd. Tie.

So, you've got one card that's cheaper, offers better image quality, similar features and similar performance (9800 Pro). And another card that's got inferior image quality and although it costs significantly more, it doesn't offer any compelling reason to spend the extra money (Ultra).

The best argument I can make is this. I've got access to every high-end video card on the market. I've extensively tested them on multiple platforms, through multiple driver revisions, and at the moment I run a Radeon 9800 Pro in my personal system. When something better comes along, the 9800 Pro will surely get replaced, but at the moment, based on my knowledge and experience, the 9800 Pro is superior.

We're not biased on HotHardware.Com. Whatever hardware is best is what we recommend. All of the writers on our site have years of experience in the PC, software, consumer electronics and semiconductor industries, and using what we've learned over the years, we try to write the best reviews we can. We try to help the less savvy consumers out there make educated buying decisions. And I think we do a great job. :)

I hate those damn ATI driver control panels,
Image Quality it too close to compare for me, both cards look amazing.
With AA / AF they both look good, it all depends on how well the cards hold a high FPS when enabled. ATI has a higher rate of AA / AF tho.


Bottom End, Seriously you guys. NO ONE should have a bias anymore. Every top selling company ATI and NVIDIA, both have a flagship card. Both of there cards are so close in performance it shouldnt matter. Personally, I pay for a card based on manufacturer. If MSI made ATI's id sure as hell buy one. So far my experience with MSI products has been outstanding, same with asus. In most cases, id probably invest in an ASUS ATI card just to see how it performs (when they produce them) but till then, ill die a happy man with an MSI card in my box.

Dont hate. The cards are all good.

nice post BigWop.

Im biased towards ati, not because i think nvidia does poor graphics cards(PS 2.0 aside ) but because of the way nvidia apperantly treats its costumers, and tries to sell its products on a wrong foundation (optimisations). my bias began around when nvidia glorified gf4 as 'full directx 8.1 products' - yet they seemed to forget that the ATi developed PS 1.4 was a part of microsofts specifications, and as such the geforce WASNT a DX 8,1 product but only a direct 8.0 prodict. I might not have been that important, but lies is lies and thats unacceptable. and it hasnt really gotten better whith the various benchmark fiascos

Well I used to be biased towards NVidia a bit until the Catalyst 3 drivers came and ended the "Nvidia makes good drivers" trend for good.

Thanks for the compliment El_Coyote, I appreciate it...

KillerKebab makes a great point. ATi released a new driver set that changed his mind about NVIDIA. It just goes to show how quickly the tides can change. These companies are a driver set away from losing market share...

And NIKEMARINE, I don't hate. I'm a geek, not a fighter!

Well I thought I made a mistake buying this R9700 Pro (it shipped with Cat 2.4's) and I did NOT like it. Until somebody pointed me to www.omegacorner.com and ATi's new driver set, then I really enjoyed my card :D

MIcrosoft invited both ATi and Nvidia to join in the development of thier DX api but the catch was that in time BIG MEAN Microsoft would gain legal rights to all the code and in essence leave your input in thier monetary grubby little monopoly spinning hands.Nvidia chose not to participate and now the time comes when games are reaching the market where we see this decision showing it's true quality.
Oh yea...I forgot to mention also that Microsoft failed to mention that in the beginning when the proposal was made to both.It wasnt till later after both companies agreed to develop it along with MS that Nvidia got wind of this sleazy typical business practice and dropped out of the project.
This and the news later that certain companies are beginning to look on the gaming business as a digital farmyard or even worse...a sports franchise...and we are now in the beginning stages of a new era in gaming where the video card makers will get top game makers to only make games that thier cards run exclusively better using thier technology
than thier competition.........a fact that the gaming community seems to not realize.Or if they do;arent doing much about it to stop it;only post benchmarks that start wars between the gaming fans in hardware forums
rather than letting the entire industry know that in 5 years they dont really want to own 2 cards because the industry has been split in half----one game running better on a Radeon and the other game running better on an Nvidia.And thats exactly whats starting to happen in the industry.
Not many people can have the luxury of owning both and if this is what free enterprise is all about it sure makes me yearn for the old days when any game ran fine on any system.

Isnt a bit too early to be making statements that "these companies are a driver set away from losing market share" especially since the DET50's are so close to being released?

And what is going to happen to ATi's market share when thier owners are sitting in jail....found guilty of stock manipulation? IN light of the question you posed I think this is more than a fair question to ask.

Beep says, "Isnt a bit too early to be making statements that "these companies are a driver set away from losing market share" especially since the DET50's are so close to being released?"

Of course not, I didn't say NVIDIA will lost marketshare, I said, "These companies". If the Det50's are great, then ATi will lose some marketshare...if the Cat3.8s rock, NVIDIA will lose some marketshare. This is common sense. (Although, the lost marketshare will only be amongst the harcore enthusiasts, which is a small percentage of the population)

Beep says, "And what is going to happen to ATi's market share when thier owners are sitting in jail....found guilty of stock manipulation? IN light of the question you posed I think this is more than a fair question to ask."

Then ATi's managament will take a big hit, and they'll no doubt lose respect among consumers, peers, the press and OEMs. If ATi's management if found guilty of wrong doing, lock 'em up. You break the law, you pay the price.