Hmm... Well I'm definitely looking forward to the upcomming Parhelia review @ [H]OCP

[seether]

I was just browsing through the forums at Beyond3D and came across some quotes from kyle and a link to shacknews.com . . . . . . .

I spent a long time on the phone with the Matrox rep and he explained why they did not want us testing their card. I then tell them via email that I will be doing an article on this issue. THEN I get a call back saying that what we discussed previously was all a misunderstanding. It was NOT a misunderstanding, Matrox was very aware of what they were saying and what they meant.

So when they find out we are going to go public, they suddenly find cards we can test and have no issues with it. All a big mistake?

At this point I simply think we were going to get shipped a "cherry picked" card that would perform under our testing circumstances and very likely not show us the true potential of the card.

Simply put the only silly mistake Matrox made was telling the truth about why they were not sending a card.

Matrox really shot themselves in the foot for trying to avoid sending a card for review to such an excellent, unbiased sitewith such a large following of "Highend Users".

Any bets about the inevitable backlash from kyle's ensuing review?

I can see it now --- "We can't really recommend this card because not only does Matrox not give you a choice of several different awful perty PCB colors to match your windowed case, but the card showed no significant increase in performance over any of the geforces on our specially chosen Cyrix PR166 platform testbed in either quake3 or any of the other nvidia tech demos, so we saw no need to waste our reader's valuable time with pointless comparisons at high resolutions with unnecessary features enabled. As far as their much touted image quality is concerned, I saw no noticable difference in any of the cards at 16bit bilinear @800X600 with no antiailiasing (editors note: I chose not to run any AA because I wanted to keep these tests as fair as possible and saw no reason to further embarrass Matrox with what I'm sure would put the 4600 well ahead). In conclusion, I have to say that Matrox really dropped the ball on this one."

[Kruzin]

Originally posted by vwdrivrco
Matrox really shot themselves in the foot for trying to avoid sending a card for review to such an excellent, unbiased sitewith such a large following of "Highend Users".

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kyle is just a whiney little geek.
He didn't get what he wanted, so he threw a tantrum till he got it.
Now he will take it out on his review.
Unbiased my arse.
If he was unbiased he would have been on the short list to start with.

[Helevitia]

lol, thanks for the early review from Kyle

Dave

[seether]

Anytime

And Kruzin... are you sure you're not being too harsh on kyle with that whole "Unbiased my arse" thing? I see nothing wrong with using an underclocked Radeon LE to test against overclocked 4600s, or at least no more wrong than posting graphs showing us what a huge discrepancy an average of 1 1/2 frames per second really does mean ... http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?...OXBx7YcoJk_3_6

The Voodoo owners oughta love this

[Jake]

Originally posted by vwdrivrco
Anytime

And Kruzin... are you sure you're not being too harsh on kyle with that whole "Unbiased my arse" thing? I see nothing wrong with using an underclocked Radeon LE to test against overclocked 4600s, or at least no more wrong than posting graphs showing us what a huge discrepancy an average of 1 1/2 frames per second really does mean ... http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?...OXBx7YcoJk_3_6

The Voodoo owners oughta love this

No offense, but did you read the article you are linking to? I think the graphs in the article are intentionally shown make fun of the fact that there was no real difference in the speed of the two cars tested. Kyle states that in several places in the article.

"While the graph shows a big gap, the actual frame difference in ONLY 3 frames. Hell, you guys know as well as I do that 3 frames at this point in the game means really nothing."

I think you got the completely worng picture here. go read the article again.

Jake

[seether]

Of course I read it. The first time through I picked up on the blatant nvidia fanboy tone of the article

"For bragging rights nVidia kicks ass in our round two of testing but not by the landslide we saw at low resolution. "As we always do, we are gonna shoot straight with you. We are 3dfx fans, as well as nVidia fans, and I saw 3dfx becoming the serious underdog in the 3D wars. I already had it in my mind that the GeForce2 would summarily hand 3dfx their own ass till the next round of silicon hit the shelves in 6 to 12 months from now."

That's why I took the making fun of the charts as inconsequential, since odds are he knows half of his readers probably only look at the graphs anyway.

But after reading it a second time, it's just ambiguous to me. Could've meant it either way is the way I read it, but my inferences aren't perfect either.

So I stand corrected

[Ant]

If Matrox intitally had a policy regarding HardOCP then they should have had the balls to stick to it and not cave in after a little grief from Kyle.They have made themselves look foolish by doing so and have given Kyle much more material to work with to blast them at every opportunity.

[Dogbert]

I tend to agree with Ant here.

IMHO, if [M]atrox are happy with Aceshardware, AnandTech and some others, they don't really need Kyle.
On the other hand, changing their mind this way, puts Kyle in a (unfairly) higher stand than the other reviewers around there. Kinds of telling the people that Kyle is some kind of "super reviewer" who puts the card in tests above all the others around.

To be honest, I usually read the reviews at Aceshardware and Firingsquad. Once in a (long) while I check [H], Sharky's and Anand's.
The one I count on the most is Aces.

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

Read Beyond3D for 3D
Acehardware for CPU
FiringSquad for games
Storage Review for Hard Drivers
3D Sound Surge for Sound

Reading those "all in one" websites like Tom and Anand just shows how much they lack in comparison to the "specialist" websites.

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

Dammit ant, I still haven't gotten over your avatar. It's too damn cool. Looks like a Terminator from HELL. An Ant T-1000.

[Fenrir(AVA)]

Kyle, is an idiot, all he cares about is FPS. Everyone in my clan and my LAN all think he is acting like a 4-year old who wants something before anyone else can have it! Steve is the man over at [H], Kyle= village idiot/FPS whore.

I agree with ANT that Matrox shouldn't have caved in and called back saying oh we will you send you a card right away mister kyle sir. Kyle seems like the person that, when Matrox did that just added more fuel to the fire. I think he is going to be real harsh on the card if he reviews it. Hopefully he won't crush the card, and actually state the good points, and what the card is aiming for, and post the biologoy section that you can't see a diffrence after 90FPS and that is only if you have blue eyes. [H]=FPS whores.

[GT98]

Oh well I know theres a few MURC'ers registered over at the Hardforums so we can just point out all the flaws in the review come tuesday

[thop]

vwdrivrco, you should © that review or kyle will steal it

[magog]

Originally posted by GT98
Oh well I know theres a few MURC'ers registered over at the Hardforums so we can just point out all the flaws in the review come tuesday

What a nice idea! <g>

[seether]

Oh well I know theres a few MURC'ers registered over at the Hardforums so we can just point out all the flaws in the review come tuesday

Some MURCers have been debunking flawed theories about why it will suck already. Try explaining to the "[H]" that aside from just great gaming performance, you can actually see benefits in things *OTHER* than games as well - the rsponses are usually the written equivalent of