Originally posted by s1203372


What caused the review discrepancy is that Tom's used 2x AA vs. 2x AA, etc, whereas Anand tested the FX vs. 9700 visual quality first to determine equivalent settings, then tested both cards at the resolutions that produced similar visual results. The FX had to use higher settings to achieve similar output, so it took a higher fps hit. Personally, I find Anands method to be the more accurate.
That makes good sense, and I agree with you. Anands would seem to be more of an "apples to apples" comparison.

Thanks for the reply!

-Ryan