Is NVIDIA cheating to sell graphic cards?

[Blomman00]

Originally posted by Hanners
Because I'm a moderator at Rage3D I'm not allowed to have any interest in any other companies and their products? Damn, I wish someone had told me.... :rolleyes:
Just because I'm a moderator at an ATi-related site doesn't mean I can't or don't have opinions on a wide range of other matters.
Wow, a Rage3D moderator in favor of freedom of speech,
you must be the first :D

[ZoinKs!]

Originally posted by Behemoth
ati and futuremark are not "innocent" too :D Do you have any hard evidence to back that up? :afro2:

Hehe, I couldn't resist... :angel:

[jjjayb]

The fact is that ATI has since early 4th quarter to work on their drivers and such. nVidia has been scrambling to get everything together. The FX delays kind of messed up their motion. nVidia has a good product, but is behind on shelf time. Developers have had more time with the Radeon 9700 Pro. ATI is ahead for now. Just accept it everyone. nVidia has good performance right now, just give them time to get the drivers up to par. BTW, isn't that what ATI fanboys were saying before ATI was even good at anything.

One problem with this. How long has nv30 been out? They showed working silicone 6 months ago. How long do you think it takes them to write decent drivers?

The nv35 doesn't have the problems the nv30 has with dx9 pixel shader 2 stuff. The nv30 pixel shader 2 performance is not going to get boosted with drivers. Not enough to make up for the difference between it and the nv35 and 9700. It has less than half the performance than the above mentioned products and it is going to stay that way.

If you bought an nv30 you got screwed. You will really see how screwed you got when dx9 games make their way to the public. Even Nvidia has said it was a failure. They new it was a failure the whole time they were trying to get you to buy it. Boy did they hype the card though. Now that the nv35 is out just a few months later, they admit that the nv30 isn't what they hyped it up to be.

I don't know how anyone can defend that. I'd be pissed if I bought one.

I know I'd be pissed if my 9700 didn't work as advertised. If the speed tanked when the quality was turned up. Which they tried to hide by having reviewers run benchmarks with performance settings. Sorry, but the nv30 looks like ass with performance settings. I'd be pissed if I bought the 9700 expecting drivers to fix low performance in dx9 shaders only for ATI to come out a couple months later and say the 9700 was a failure and all of its issues would be fixed in the 9800. I don't care how much loyalty I have, I wouldn't put up with it. If ATI did this I would jump ship in a heartbeat. Being loyal is one thing, but being mislead like that would completely destroy any loyalty I have.

I don't put up with being mislead anywhere else in life, I'm certainly not going to accept it from a video card company. Be it ATI, Matrox, Nvidia, Trident. No way. Especially when the deceipt costs $400.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by Blomman00
Wow, a Rage3D moderator in favor of freedom of speech,
you must be the first :D


Hey-hey! The Rage3D mods are actually pretty cool, they just got a WHOLE lot more to put up with than you folks do around here.

(Well, at least before I came along...) ;)

[Im0n©]

I just love these threads, you take a rumor and make it a true thing in a few hours ?, just how do you do it.

If 1 guy says something and the rest belives him, are they all right or are they all fooled ?.

Here a rumor is a true story in a matter of seconds, and then starts the flame war, keep it up i love good stories :p

[CybrSage]

If it is not a deliberate act of cheating, then why is the [H] defending them? Since the [H] is defending them we must know it to be truth...credibility has not been the [H]'s strong point when it comes to nVidia...

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by Im0n©
I just love these threads, you take a rumor and make it a true thing in a few hours ?

Methinks you have that a bit backwards. We have a true thing and everyone seems to be trying to make it INTO a rumor or discredit it just as quickly as possible.

Good try at trivializing it though. :)

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by jjjayb
Behemoth, it's obvious you've read Nvidia's whitepaper on 3dmark and believed every word. How about some more reading. Maybe broaden your horizon's a little:

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dmark03/post/


A nice little technical analysis of Nvidia's claims.
honestly i didnt read the whitepaper, i am not going to, i am just waiting to see how nvidia is proven to cheat 3DMark yet, even extremetech said it was guess that the clip plane was hardcoded.
there are 2 things i dont want to blindly believe in so fast:
1. it must not be a bug.
2. it must be a cheat.
i know it looks like a cheat, but i am patient enough to wait the facts coming out. Also 3DMark definately looks like a cheating benchmark to me, so its absolutely no problem for everyone cheat this benchmark, an eye for an eye, i am not saying who has cheated who has not i say no problem. NV30 path is real, 3DMark totally ignore its existance, doom3 is gonna use it, as is every other doom3 engine based games in the future, 3DMark does nothing but marketing video cards for its members by interpreting non-members video card capablities in an non-practical way. if any company cheat 3DMark, i appreciate it, its evil, it only advocates members cheating.
futuremark has yet to make a competitive game engine, doom3 use of nv30 path tell me its the way to go, 3DMark vision is wrong, its way to interpret 3D capability is naive.
but thanks for the link :)

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Behemoth
but its not a member anymore, this benchmark is just as valid as nvidia prepared Doom3 benchmark show, closed door things.

No, these situations are not comparable. ATI had no warning that Doom3 would be tested. On the other hand, nvidia left the Beta Program of their own free will. I am sure that nothing is stopping them from becoming a member again either.

i actually believe nvidia was trying to screw up 3DMark, countering this unfair benchmark for non-members. coz it is so obvious nvidia doesnt want to play this 3DMark game anymore but have to do something to stop this benchmark that trying to make only members' cards look good.

Cheating is still cheating.

I still don't get this last sentence of yours. nvidia was a member for a long time, while 3dmark03 was still being designed. Obviously they felt that 3dmark03 wasn't making their cards look good and left. These two things are pretty contradictory. How can 3dmark03 make member's cards look good, if nvidia cards didn't look good in the benchmark, but they were a member during the benchmark's development?

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by jjjayb
I know I'd be pissed if my 9700 didn't work as advertised. If the speed tanked when the quality was turned up. Which they tried to hide by having reviewers run benchmarks with performance settings. Sorry, but the nv30 looks like ass with performance settings. I'd be pissed if I bought the 9700 expecting drivers to fix low performance in dx9 shaders only for ATI to come out a couple months later and say the 9700 was a failure and all of its issues would be fixed in the 9800. I don't care how much loyalty I have, I wouldn't put up with it. If ATI did this I would jump ship in a heartbeat. Being loyal is one thing, but being mislead like that would completely destroy any loyalty I have.

ATI promised super sampling FSAA....and you're not going to get it. Are you pissed?

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by AnteP
floating point texture formats are certainly very basic for having DX9 compliance at least
as usual I suspect that nvidia has enabeld in this functionality in their drivers through their own nV extentions

Hmm, if they are a basic part of DX9, then how did nvidia get not one, but TWO drivers WHQL'ed when they do not provide the proper support?

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by ChrisW
Sure, you can clear buffers but what does that have to do with this discussion. This discussion involved the possibility of the drivers accidently detecting when 3DMark03 is running, accidently detecting one specific scene, then accidently not clearing the frame buffer to gain a bunch of fps. Here is my example if this 'accidental' code:

//oops, we are 'accidently' using a program detection engine!
if (3DMark03==TRUE)

//oops, we are 'accidently' detecting a special scene!
_____if (certain scene==TRUE)

//oops, we are 'accidently' forgeting to clear the frame buffer on this one scene! (funny how this is the one place where this 'accident' would work?)
__________AccidentlyForgetToClearFrameBuffer(TRUE) ;
let me explain, that one line of code i showed i was trying to give you an idea what one line of code could do, it could have HUGE effect, now if the nvidia implemenation has bug, that is triggered by codes that switch from on rail to off rail mode in a specific way, anything could happen. or even if the codes that switch from on rail to off rail doesnt like nvidia implementation, look at humus glow.exe, he had a hard time making it work on FX card but it worked on his 9700pro no problem.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Behemoth
honestly i didnt read the whitepaper, i am not going to, i am just waiting to see how nvidia is proven to cheat 3DMark yet, even extremetech said it was guess that the clip plane was hardcoded.
there are 2 things i dont want to blindly believe in so fast:
1. it must not be a bug.
2. it must be a cheat.
i know it looks like a cheat, but i am patient enough to wait the facts coming out. Also 3DMark definately looks like a cheating benchmark to me, so its absolutely no problem for everyone cheat this benchmark, an eye for an eye, i am not saying who has cheated who has not i say no problem. NV30 path is real, 3DMark totally ignore its existance, doom3 is gonna use it, as is every other doom3 engine based games in the future, 3DMark does nothing but marketing video cards for its members by interpreting non-members video card capablities in an non-practical way. if any company cheat 3DMark, i appreciate it, its evil, it only advocates members cheating.
futuremark has yet to make a competitive game engine, doom3 use of nv30 path tell me its the way to go, 3DMark vision is wrong, its way to interpret 3D capability is naive.
but thanks for the link :)

futuremark has made a BENCHMARK... whether or not it uses a game engine is irrelevant IMO if it does the job it sets out to do... which is testing a graphics card for various things...

btw how can you objectively state that 3dmark DEFINITELY LOOKS LIKE A CHEATING BENCHMARK if you won't even bother to read the whitepaper released bt futuremark concerning the benchmark ?

3dMark is a dx9 benchmark... doom3 == openGL hence it is not the same situation... dx9 is a standard... openGL has proprietary extensions...

(I made a mistake thinking doom3 was a dx game for some reason... but that moment of insanity was cleared up thankfully a while back :D )

nothing ever makes cheating right... saying a benchmark sucks hence it is fine to cheat is never right since the CONSUMERS are getting decieved...

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
No, these situations are not comparable. ATI had no warning that Doom3 would be tested. On the other hand, nvidia left the Beta Program of their own free will. I am sure that nothing is stopping them from becoming a member again either.

they are comparable in that they are not respresenting actual performance, when doom3 is out ati can do better by doing proper optimization, and nvidia can do better if it is a member.
there is something stopping nvidia becoming a member, because nvidia must benchmark its cards in futuremark bias ways which dictated by futuremark.


Cheating is still cheating.

right, that is how i feel about the whole 3DMark members things


I still don't get this last sentence of yours. nvidia was a member for a long time, while 3dmark03 was still being designed. Obviously they felt that 3dmark03 wasn't making their cards look good and left. These two things are pretty contradictory. How can 3dmark03 make member's cards look good, if nvidia cards didn't look good in the benchmark, but they were a member during the benchmark's development?
geforce 1/2/3/4 cards look good in 3DMark, but FX cards dont, so nvidia left.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Behemoth
they are comparable in that they are not respresenting actual performance, when doom3 is out ati can do better by doing proper optimization, and nvidia can do better if it is a member.
there is something stopping nvidia becoming a member, because nvidia must benchmark its cards in futuremark bias ways which dictated by futuremark.

As has been said before, nvidia was a member for a long time. Long enough to know most of the intracacies of 3dmark03 and properly optimize for them. You say it yourself later, they left because the gfFX looks bad when running 3dmark03(note that I don't agree with what you said. I'm just using your argument against you here). How would they know it performs poorly though, if the benchmark wasn't in a finished state and if they had not tried optimizing their drivers for it? You see where my argument is going, right? Either the benchmark was sufficiently finished(which is surely was, nvidia left about a month before it was released), or nvidia already knew that the gfFX architecture was not good for 3dmark03.

right, that is how i feel about the whole 3DMark members things

But they had no GOOD reason to leave! See below.

geforce 1/2/3/4 cards look good in 3DMark, but FX cards dont, so nvidia left.

Not enitrely true at all. gf3 and gf4 cards don't look good compared to r9500 or r9700 cards. In fact, one of the reasons nvidia said the benchmark is bad was that it didn't use PS1.1 as the baseline, it used PS1.4 if it existed. Now, this does not affect gfFX cards, since PS1.4 should be faster than PS1.1, even on nvidia gfFX cards. Clearly nvidia is more mad that the gf4 looks poorer compared to the R300.

But again, you are putting a spin on things. First you say that 3dmark03 is unfair because it is biased toward beta members. nvidia USED to be a beta member. But obviously the benchmark was not favorable to them(as many had predicted it would be), so they quit. The argument that the benchmark will only run well on beta member cards is non-sequitter for this reason. Because nvidia quit after the fact.

You're saying that nvidia's benchmark scores are lower because they are not a beta member. And that beta member's scores are higher. Why then did nvidia leave, if this puts them at a disadvantage?

You are trying to put the blame on Futuremark when the blame clearly lies with nvidia for leaving of their own accord. Your argument could make more sense if you just came out and said "Futuremark is biased towards nvidia," because that is what you are implying, and that is also the ony situation that is valid. You are implying that, from the beginning, Futuremark made the benchmark to screw nvidia, even when nvidia was a partner with Futuremark.

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by Sazar
futuremark has made a BENCHMARK... whether or not it uses a game engine is irrelevant IMO if it does the job it sets out to do... which is testing a graphics card for various things...

i mentioned it has yet to make a competitive game engine because i was trying to say its better to follow the most knowledgeable leaders in the field to do things and to do benchmarks, not the other way round, coz its the leaders who are pushing the technology limits, they should not be limited by futuremark vision of ways of benchmarking coz 3DMark doesnt show how good FX is, it doesnt show how doom3 was coded, it only encourages people buying strict dx9 microsoft envisioned video cards.


btw how can you objectively state that 3dmark DEFINITELY LOOKS LIKE A CHEATING BENCHMARK if you won't even bother to read the whitepaper released bt futuremark concerning the benchmark ?

the members privileged access to source code is what makes it look like a cheating benchmark to me, and i am not totally objective all the time. :)


3dMark is a dx9 benchmark... doom3 == openGL hence it is not the same situation... dx9 is a standard... openGL has proprietary extensions...

to me, 3DMark never represents true game performance, dx9 is not an exception too.


(I made a mistake thinking doom3 was a dx game for some reason... but that moment of insanity was cleared up thankfully a while back :D )

nothing ever makes cheating right... saying a benchmark sucks hence it is fine to cheat is never right since the CONSUMERS are getting decieved...
sometimes you are forced to self defense, i would do anything just to protect my family if necessary.
i would wait to see how its proven as a cheat, that is more objective, what good does it do if i believe its a cheat right now? what bad does it do if i wait for things getting proved? :)

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
As has been said before, nvidia was a member for a long time. Long enough to know most of the intracacies of 3dmark03 and properly optimize for them. You say it yourself later, they left because the gfFX looks bad when running 3dmark03(note that I don't agree with what you said. I'm just using your argument against you here). How would they know it performs poorly though, if the benchmark wasn't in a finished state and if they had not tried optimizing their drivers for it? You see where my argument is going, right? Either the benchmark was sufficiently finished(which is surely was, nvidia left about a month before it was released), or nvidia already knew that the gfFX architecture was not good for 3dmark03.

nvidia didnt like the ways they benchmark its cards so they left, yes you can think that it might be the truth that FX was actually inferior in every way and futuremark reflected truthfully what FX was capable of and there was no way futuremark could make FX look good. but after hearing JC said nv30 path was fastest, i believe in nvidia side of story more, and 3DMark have never been a good indicator of real game performance to me anyway.



But they had no GOOD reason to leave! See below.

one reason is to get rid of 3DMark optimization code from the driver so it does better in every other actual games.



Not enitrely true at all. gf3 and gf4 cards don't look good compared to r9500 or r9700 cards. In fact, one of the reasons nvidia said the benchmark is bad was that it didn't use PS1.1 as the baseline, it used PS1.4 if it existed. Now, this does not affect gfFX cards, since PS1.4 should be faster than PS1.1, even on nvidia gfFX cards. Clearly nvidia is more mad that the gf4 looks poorer compared to the R300.

its ok for r9500 and r9700 beating gf4, coz r9500/9700 is newer generation cards, if nvidia left 3DMark coz of that, there was nothing to blame but nvidia.



But again, you are putting a spin on things. First you say that 3dmark03 is unfair because it is biased toward beta members. nvidia USED to be a beta member. But obviously the benchmark was not favorable to them(as many had predicted it would be), so they quit. The argument that the benchmark will only run well on beta member cards is non-sequitter for this reason. Because nvidia quit after the fact.

You're saying that nvidia's benchmark scores are lower because they are not a beta member. And that beta member's scores are higher. Why then did nvidia leave, if this puts them at a disadvantage?

not only is 3DMark not fair to non-members, there was unfair things happening in the members side as well, such as how futuremark treated FX badly.



You are trying to put the blame on Futuremark when the blame clearly lies with nvidia for leaving of their own accord. Your argument could make more sense if you just came out and said "Futuremark is biased towards nvidia," because that is what you are implying, and that is also the ony situation that is valid. You are implying that, from the beginning, Futuremark made the benchmark to screw nvidia, even when nvidia was a partner with Futuremark.
yep i am blaming 3DMark, it is a cheating benchmark in my humble opinion. it provides better opportunity to members to cheat as well as fails to indicate certain cards actual performance, members or not.
even though futuremark is trying to make members cards look better than they actually are, its failure of truthfully benchmarking the nv30 real performance left nvidia no choice but leave.

[ChrisW]

What is comes down to is there are two ways to look at 3DMark03. 3dMark03 would probably be an accurate measure for future games on nVidia cards provided the games were not optimized for nVidia cards. NVidia's argument was that game developers would optimize for their cards and therefore 3DMark03 would not reflect real world game performance. Both of these would be correct. As long as game developers optimize for nVidia cards, it will not correctly reflect on future games. But should a game developer make a game that is not optimized for nVidia's cards, 3DMark03 may very well reflect their game performance. Doom 3 is a good example of this. With their special optimized NV30 path, the card is much faster than the standard path.

[muzz]

Originally posted by Behemoth
honestly i didnt read the whitepaper, i am not going to, i am just waiting to see how nvidia is proven to cheat 3DMark yet, even extremetech said it was guess that the clip plane was hardcoded.
there are 2 things i dont want to blindly believe in so fast:
1. it must not be a bug.
2. it must be a cheat.
i know it looks like a cheat, but i am patient enough to wait the facts coming out. Also 3DMark definately looks like a cheating benchmark to me, so its absolutely no problem for everyone cheat this benchmark, an eye for an eye, i am not saying who has cheated who has not i say no problem. NV30 path is real, 3DMark totally ignore its existance, doom3 is gonna use it, as is every other doom3 engine based games in the future, 3DMark does nothing but marketing video cards for its members by interpreting non-members video card capablities in an non-practical way. if any company cheat 3DMark, i appreciate it, its evil, it only advocates members cheating.
futuremark has yet to make a competitive game engine, doom3 use of nv30 path tell me its the way to go, 3DMark vision is wrong, its way to interpret 3D capability is naive.
but thanks for the link :)

What?
This is some of the worst stuff I have seen from you. and tbo honest I have seen alot.
3DMark totally ignore it's existanse ( your wording)? lmao where do you get this stuff?
Non -Practical way? Do you mean by the DX9 specs? PLEASE CLARIFY as that is total rubbish, and you know it.
Non- Members? Do you mean the fact that NV KNEW it would not be able to compete, and it pulled out crying foul?
Gimme a break with this crap.... you know what you are spewing is bs, yet you have the audacity to try and play us for fools.
Get over it man, that is bs and YOU KNOW IT!!

You appreciate cheats? Well you are in the right crowd I believe then( fanboy behavior as usual.....).
If ya gonna be a fanboy you should be pizzed that they are pulling this crap (on YOU AS WELL) instead of sticking up for them.

Edited for clarity. reword.

[JAV]

Clearly nvidia is more mad that the gf4 looks poorer compared to the R300.


Umm, the R200's use PS1.4 > now the 8500's are pretty even w/the GF4 Ti's in the bench. ;)

This isn't the 1st nVidia driver that is a "Cheat" in 3DM03 (which is only 3months old) according to the "Requirements" set forth for a "Default" benchmark score by FM. Read the "Help" file > it's all right there.

My favorite nVidia lie: http://www.nvidia.com/docs/lo/1468/SUPP/PO_GeForce4_MX_92502.pdf

GF4 MX cards "Fully support DX8" :rolleyes: We all know how true that is. Even the Ti's (which they claim the same) don't > PS 1.4, 1.3, 1.2 & 1.1 are all part of DX8 & the cards do NOT support the use of PS1.4 ... fully or otherwise.

[reever2]

Behemoth, you make 0 sense

yep i am blaming 3DMark, it is a cheating benchmark in my humble opinion. it provides better opportunity to members to cheat as well as fails to indicate certain cards actual performance, members or not.
even though futuremark is trying to make members cards look better than they actually are, its failure of truthfully benchmarking the nv30 real performance left nvidia no choice but leave.

The only person cheating here is Nvidia, and they are NOT members, if youre going to say Ati is cheating at 3dmark atleast try to back it up.

not only is 3DMark not fair to non-members, there was unfair things happening in the members side as well, such as how futuremark treated FX badly.

How did it treat FX badly? Is it because of the rejection of non-whql driver scores? Thats not futuremarks fault, thats nvidias fault for making the Nv30 run as fast as it did because it used lower precision, precision not up to Directx specifcations and 3dmark is a directx benchmark so they kicked out non-whql scores

one reason is to get rid of 3DMark optimization code from the driver so it does better in every other actual games.

WTF are you talking about?

nvidia didnt like the ways they benchmark its cards so they left, yes you can think that it might be the truth that FX was actually inferior in every way and futuremark reflected truthfully what FX was capable of and there was no way futuremark could make FX look good. but after hearing JC said nv30 path was fastest, i believe in nvidia side of story more, and 3DMark have never been a good indicator of real game performance to me anyway.


You have no idea what the words "Nv30 path" mean do you? Go read what John Carmack said again, he said on the Fx the Nv30 path was fastest and on Ati cards Arb2 or R300 paths were fastest for Ati cards.

3dmark is NOT OPENGL, therefore it contains no proprietary driver paths to optimize performance for certain cards and uses a unified standard on which to test both sides

to me, 3DMark never represents true game performance, dx9 is not an exception too.

You make no sense, im guessing you dont even know what dx9 is either?

geforce 1/2/3/4 cards look good in 3DMark, but FX cards dont, so nvidia left.

You know why FX cards dont look good? Because your company which seems to own you decided to screw you by lower its precision below dx9 standards. Luckily for the consumer Nvidia managed to fix this in Nv35, only took them 2 tries and at the expense of the consumer

NV30 path is real, 3DMark totally ignore its existance, doom3 is gonna use it, as is every other doom3 engine based games in the future

Once again you have no idea what "Nv30 path" means and are just spounting random things to make you look smart

Also 3DMark definately looks like a cheating benchmark to me, so its absolutely no problem for everyone cheat this benchmark, an eye for an eye, i am not saying who has cheated who has not i say no problem

Please show me where Ati has ever cheated in 3dmark, please, i beg of you

[digitalwanderer]

...even I start getting tired of hearing the same arguments repeated endlessly in a 22 odd page long thread. :rolleyes:

I agree with the points you raised, but you're not going to be changing anyone's mind here any time soon. Everyone seems pretty well entrenched in their positions, and there just ain't anything we can hope to accomplish here by repeating the same arguments over and over except to start flame wars & bitterness.

Enough, please.

I think we can ALL agree that we'll have a better idea of what the impact/ramifications/possible outcomes of this are going to be in a few days, and that there probably ain't going to be a whole lot happening on it until at least Monday.

Can we please just call a truce?

The truth will be out in the fullness of time, or else we can all start up arguing in another thread later.

Methinks it's time to move on from this one for a bit.

I'd like to request this thread be closed, anyone wanna second it? :eek2:

[JAV]

Since Kyle closed the thread & AJ is waiting (what? You think you're the only one that gets around?) > I'll second that motion & raise ya 2 posts @ DH! :p

If every site used Omega Drivers for nVidia & ATI > we wouldn't have this problem.

I'm done. :angel:

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by JAV
(what? You think you're the only one that gets around?)

Hell no! Where would the fun be in that? ;)

The fun bit about being a wanderer is you never know who you're gonna bump into where...but it always seems like you come across a friendly face or two wherever you go.

That's why it's a bit like a social life to me, I reckon. (My big question is WHY do I type with such a weird goofy accent? I do NOT usually speak like that, I got a generic midwestern accent...Chicagoan/RegionRat. "Me thinks", "y'all", and what the hell does "pagh" mean anyways? :eek2: ;) :lol: )

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by muzz
What?
This is some of the worst stuff I have seen from you. and tbo honest I have seen alot.
3DMark totally ignore it's existanse ( your wording)? lmao where do you get this stuff?
Non -Practical way? Do you mean by the DX9 specs? PLEASE CLARIFY as that is total rubbish, and you know it.
Non- Members? Do you mean the fact that NV KNEW it would not be able to compete, and it pulled out crying foul?
Gimme a break with this crap.... you know what you are spewing is bs, yet you have the audacity to try and play us for fools.
Get over it man, that is bs and YOU KNOW IT!!

You appreciate cheats? Well you are in the right crowd I believe then( fanboy behavior as usual.....).
If ya gonna be a fanboy you should be pizzed that they are pulling this crap (on YOU AS WELL) instead of sticking up for them.

Edited for clarity. reword.
you got it i am not replying your post, i will give you a break :p