Help
geekextreme.com just posted a review on the new Sigma Designs REALmagic Xcard. You can find it at:
http://www.geekextreme.com/modules.php?nam...owcontent&id=45
Page 1 of 1
REALmagic Xcard
#1
n0_cArR1eR 
- Junior Member
-
- Group: Registered
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 23-June 02
Posted 23 June 2002 - 03:03 AM
#2 Guest_Magic_*
Posted 23 June 2002 - 12:45 PM
Nice review! This card really kicks @ss.
And for all the German folks out there:
Bestellung ist auch unter www.sigmadesigns.de für €150.- möglich.
There also is a button for English language so maybe ordering is possible in the whole EU.
And for all the German folks out there:
Bestellung ist auch unter www.sigmadesigns.de für €150.- möglich.
There also is a button for English language so maybe ordering is possible in the whole EU.
#3 Guest_Anon_*
Posted 23 June 2002 - 02:39 PM
Sorry guys, but as far as I'm concerned this is a poor review. You cover some "neat" technical info but you failed to actually review the card.
Put it this way, were this a graphics card would you post the review WITHOUT performance info? No. Would you post the review WITHOUT comparing to other such products? No.
There's performance comparison (CPU/memory usage) with software decoders. No image quality comparisons either - heck not even a single screenshot of it playing anything.
Heck, as regards DVD playback you don't even consider the question - If I own a hollywood plus is this worth getting? Similarly, if you already have powerdvd/windvd is it worth getting?
For these reasons this review fails. Better luck next time.
Put it this way, were this a graphics card would you post the review WITHOUT performance info? No. Would you post the review WITHOUT comparing to other such products? No.
There's performance comparison (CPU/memory usage) with software decoders. No image quality comparisons either - heck not even a single screenshot of it playing anything.
Heck, as regards DVD playback you don't even consider the question - If I own a hollywood plus is this worth getting? Similarly, if you already have powerdvd/windvd is it worth getting?
For these reasons this review fails. Better luck next time.
#4 Guest_Anon_*
Posted 23 June 2002 - 02:40 PM
(Anon)
There's performance comparison (CPU/memory usage) with software decoders.
Ooops, typo that should be - there's NO performance comparisons.
#5 Guest_Anon_*
Posted 23 June 2002 - 03:37 PM
Aww, the poor baby doesn't like that I pointed out errors in the review. Perhaps I should rewrite my comments - Wow, that review was great, besides the fact you didn't actually review the product at all & gave absolutely zero reason as to why one should buy it.
#6 Guest_Magic_*
Posted 23 June 2002 - 08:04 PM
You want some information? Here you go!
Allow me to bring up one question first. Have you ever tried to play a dvd without a hardware-decoder on a 200mhz pc? This is only possible (100% smooth) on a machine with 500mhz+ so any performance-comparison would be rubbish.
Secondly any software decoder has poor image quality (which includes most stand alone players) compared to hardware decoding! Screenshots would have shown that.
Last not least if you own a hollywood+/dxr3 you only need the xcard if you want for divx4/5 what your old card does for dvd. How fast can you say "clean and smooth playback without any artifacts and (almost) no cpu usage plus an ir control"?
Allow me to bring up one question first. Have you ever tried to play a dvd without a hardware-decoder on a 200mhz pc? This is only possible (100% smooth) on a machine with 500mhz+ so any performance-comparison would be rubbish.
Secondly any software decoder has poor image quality (which includes most stand alone players) compared to hardware decoding! Screenshots would have shown that.
Last not least if you own a hollywood+/dxr3 you only need the xcard if you want for divx4/5 what your old card does for dvd. How fast can you say "clean and smooth playback without any artifacts and (almost) no cpu usage plus an ir control"?
#7 Guest_Anon_*
Posted 23 June 2002 - 08:21 PM
Magic, I HAVE the Xcard (& Hollywood Plus & PowerDVD XP), that's why I'm complaining about this terrible "review".
& for what its worth there are MANY who prefer the image quality of software decoders, i.e. WinDVD when playing back on a monitor to what hardware decoders offer. If you want TV output then the Xcard & Hollywood Plus were fantastic, more so because their TV output was better than that of most graphics cards.
You shouldn't bother pointing these out as its not "your" poor review
As regards your "why" you need the xcard over hollywood plus I'd strongly disagree, though I'll be pointing out why its better when I've finished by review (which unlike this one does cover DVD playback performance V Win DVD & PowerDVD & DivX playback V windows media player/power dvd).
& for what its worth there are MANY who prefer the image quality of software decoders, i.e. WinDVD when playing back on a monitor to what hardware decoders offer. If you want TV output then the Xcard & Hollywood Plus were fantastic, more so because their TV output was better than that of most graphics cards.
You shouldn't bother pointing these out as its not "your" poor review
As regards your "why" you need the xcard over hollywood plus I'd strongly disagree, though I'll be pointing out why its better when I've finished by review (which unlike this one does cover DVD playback performance V Win DVD & PowerDVD & DivX playback V windows media player/power dvd).
#8 Guest_Anon_*
Posted 23 June 2002 - 08:32 PM
(Magic)
This is only possible (100% smooth) on a machine with 500mhz+ so any performance-comparison would be rubbish.
You fail to understand what I mean. By performance I mean how much resources is it using to do it. Saying a performance comparison is rubbish is well, stupid. Thats like saying that "I have a 1Ghz CPU I'll not bother comparing performance of my geforce 3 to geforce 4 as all my games run ok". That's no excuse.
Besides, your point there assumes you're doing nothing else in the background, which won't be the case for most. For what it's worth a 1.2Ghz PC Xcard uses effectively 0% CPU when playing a DVD, while WinDVD 4 uses up to 50%, not to mention almost 30MB more page file. You stil think comparisons are useless if you have 500Mhz plus? Yeah, right
#9
n0_cArR1eR
- Junior Member
-
- Group: Registered
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 23-June 02
Posted 23 June 2002 - 09:35 PM
Ok, for the record, I wasn't the lameass who posted that "I own yer ass" crap, I'm well over the age of 12.
I'm sorry you've taken my "poor" review so personal, to the point you not only diss it here, but on Geek Extreme. If I had been doing reviews for the past couple of years then MAYBE there'd be a legitimate gripe about how it was written, but the fact is I've only reviewed software up to this point. I don't mind some ADVICE, but it really pissed me off when someone comes out and says "It sucks, it needed ......". Really starts to show your level of maturity. I also get a kick out of how you hide behind "Anonymous" everywhere you post, why not say who you are? We're not going to come find you and beat the crap out of you. Also, we'll be more than happy to host your review of it when you complete it.
I'm sorry you've taken my "poor" review so personal, to the point you not only diss it here, but on Geek Extreme. If I had been doing reviews for the past couple of years then MAYBE there'd be a legitimate gripe about how it was written, but the fact is I've only reviewed software up to this point. I don't mind some ADVICE, but it really pissed me off when someone comes out and says "It sucks, it needed ......". Really starts to show your level of maturity. I also get a kick out of how you hide behind "Anonymous" everywhere you post, why not say who you are? We're not going to come find you and beat the crap out of you. Also, we'll be more than happy to host your review of it when you complete it.
#10 Guest_Anon_*
Posted 23 June 2002 - 10:22 PM
(n0_cArR1eR)
If I had been doing reviews for the past couple of years then MAYBE there'd be a legitimate gripe about how it was written, but the fact is I've only reviewed software up to this point.
Sorry, but inexperience doesn't make it any better. The faults listed are, as dicussed all perfectly valid & seem fairly obvious - if you review a MPEG decoder then you should consider performance discuss image quality as compared to other hardware decoders if possible, or seeing as its a pc card, to other software decoders.
Then compare performance, etc. features of both. seems obvious to me. As for "hiding" behind anon, what's your point, its just a "handle", is "n0_cArR1eR" somehow greatly more identifiable?
#11 Guest_Magic_*
Posted 24 June 2002 - 12:16 AM
@ Anon
OK smartass (excuse my bad English).
To compare the xcard with software-decoders still IS stupid. Try to use WinDVD on a 200mhz machine and you'll see my point.
You prefer a Software-decoder? Are you blind? Need glases?
Learn to read!
clean and smooth... no cpu usage...
Why would I say something like that if I wouldn't be well aware (and using my cpu-power otherwise while I'm watching a movie) of the benefit it gives me.
Your turn
OK smartass (excuse my bad English).
To compare the xcard with software-decoders still IS stupid. Try to use WinDVD on a 200mhz machine and you'll see my point.
You prefer a Software-decoder? Are you blind? Need glases?
Learn to read!
clean and smooth... no cpu usage...
Why would I say something like that if I wouldn't be well aware (and using my cpu-power otherwise while I'm watching a movie) of the benefit it gives me.
Your turn
#12 Guest_Kenn Baynard_*
Posted 24 June 2002 - 03:08 AM
As for "hiding" behind anon, what's your point, its just a "handle", is "n0_cArR1eR" somehow greatly more identifiable?
Actually, yes. People who have visited Geek Extreme know the name, know I work for it, and know it's that same person who's here defending his review, and taking flack from someone who can't even give a name of some kind with opinions that from what I've seen in this forum, are not shared with others. Just because it didn't live up to your expectations doesn't mean others give a shit if it had that stuff in it. I don't hide behind "Anon" or "Anonymous". If I have something to say about something, I'll say it, and people will know WHO it came from.
As you can see, I used my REAL name this time.... No handles, just the name I was born with.
#13 Guest_Eric Huff_*
Posted 24 June 2002 - 03:16 AM
You seem to be the only guy here who doesn't like that review. I've been a fan of GeekExtreme for a while now. Those guys work hard over there. They've had their bad moments. Until recently the site kinda sucked but lately it's been good. Just because you don't agree with the review doesn't mean you have to slam it.
Keep up the good work guys.
Keep up the good work guys.
#14
triplehelix
- Junior Member
-
- Group: Registered
- Posts: 13
- Joined: 20-June 02
Posted 24 June 2002 - 03:16 AM
its all about how you say it. ex. baby can you get me a glass of kool aid? or Bitch, maove ur ass in side and get me a f*ckin glass of juice!
Anon makes some good points, but comes across very hard for what reason i don't know. some pointers or requests as to what info could be benificial would have been alot more productive.
i personlly feel that comparisons are THE most important part of a review. all the tech stuff is great (and often makes me drool) but in the end what i want to to see how a product stacks up to ALL available solutions. and if they blow away a different solution, the only way i might know is if you compare them.
lets all take a deep breath, and realize that alot of these posts (from both sides) sound a bit 12ish.
Anon makes some good points, but comes across very hard for what reason i don't know. some pointers or requests as to what info could be benificial would have been alot more productive.
i personlly feel that comparisons are THE most important part of a review. all the tech stuff is great (and often makes me drool) but in the end what i want to to see how a product stacks up to ALL available solutions. and if they blow away a different solution, the only way i might know is if you compare them.
lets all take a deep breath, and realize that alot of these posts (from both sides) sound a bit 12ish.
#15 Guest_Kenn Baynard_*
Posted 24 June 2002 - 05:27 AM
Thank you.. See, constructive critisism.. Goes over a lot better than "What a poor review", and doesn't upset anyone. Now I know what to keep in mind the next time I review a piece of hardware.
#16 Guest_Anon_*
Posted 24 June 2002 - 12:22 PM
(Magic)
To compare the xcard with software-decoders still IS stupid. Try to use WinDVD on a 200mhz machine and you'll see my point.
You prefer a Software-decoder? Are you blind? Need glases?
Learn to read!
clean and smooth... no cpu usage...
Why would I say something like that if I wouldn't be well aware (and using my cpu-power otherwise while I'm watching a movie) of the benefit it gives me.
Your turn
You prefer a Software-decoder? Are you blind? Need glases?
Learn to read!
clean and smooth... no cpu usage...
Why would I say something like that if I wouldn't be well aware (and using my cpu-power otherwise while I'm watching a movie) of the benefit it gives me.
Your turn
If you read what I wrote (which you didn't obviously) I said "& for what its worth there are MANY who prefer the image quality of software decoders".
Did "I" say "I" preferred software DVD decoders image there at all?
No.
Perhaps *you* need to get your eyes retested again as nowhere did I state *I* preferred software decoders, in fact the only thing I prefer about software decoders are the far better audio options. I'm still bugged the Xcard can't send an AC-3/DTS stream to your soundcard, this would be of great use with the Live! 5.1 & Audigy soundcards as they have software AC-3 decoding in their drivers & thus could do up to 6 channel analog output - but thats not occured to you.
As for the comment about 200Mhz CPU, try to move into the real world. Hardly anyone uses or still has a CPU that slow now & certainly none of those systems came with a DVD drive. Most visitors of this site have a system that would be well capable of software MPEG/DivX playback I'd be willing to bet. Mentioning nothing on software decoders as such is just silly.
#17 Guest_Anon_*
Posted 24 June 2002 - 11:16 PM
Oh well, figures no-one (i.e. magic) would bother replying after being pointed out there "helpful" advice wasn't being taken by themselves eve. pfff
#18 Guest_Gawd_*
Posted 29 June 2002 - 04:19 PM
Or maybe everyone is just tired of listening to your whining, and stopped responding!
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1