Will Tom's, Anand, [H], etc., run with this story?

[micron]

Originally posted by OICAspork
Heh, I came back here to post that link (^_- you'll notice I was one of the first... :confused: and unfortunately currently few... to post in that thread), but you beat me too it.

Also... replying to an earlier entry... Kyle doesn't have to apologize... but he damned well should... his post wasn't merely an opinion, it was mud-slinging that lacked any journalistic integrity. Dont worry, I was posting right there with you, my screeny is geneticweapon over there, I was the guy you almost jumped in defence of Brent:cool:

[micron]

Originally posted by Nv40
you already know the answer ;) NV40 doesnt post unless he's taking a shot at, or saying something smug about ATi.....grow up.....

[OICAspork]

Originally posted by micron
NV40 doesnt post unless he's taking a shot at, or saying something smug about ATi.....grow up.....

^_- That's not going to happen... my advice... add Nv40 to your ignore list... it makes NVNews much more enjoyable.

[Rogozhin]

I believe i will do that ;)

rogo

[OICAspork]

Originally posted by micron
Dont worry, I was posting right there with you, my screeny is geneticweapon over there, I was the guy you almost jumped in defence of Brent:cool:

Heh... you came to my defence... as the last poster in my first thread over at Tom's too... though I didn't notice until I looked back at it today... so a belated thanks. ^_- Here is a link to refresh your memory:

http://www.community.tomshardware.com/forum/showflat.m?Cat=&Board=comp_graphics&Number=482833&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&part=all&vc=1

[bloodbob]

Anyone who wants to say that what ati did in the 3dmark was a cheat I won't say are wrong BUT if they do the exact completely same thing in a game I won't. On the other hand I say nvidia cheated in 3dmark and if they do it in a game I'll say they are cheating there to because this is the same as the quake issue if not worse because I say quake issue is the same as using fp 16 on sky and water but what nvidia did was a step more and changed the sky and water.

[Hanners]

Originally posted by vampireuk
I'm kind of curious as to why Rage have not posted about the ati "cheating" bit...

http://www.rage3d.com/#1053749037

[Sazar]

Originally posted by 5150 Joker
I don't understand why ANYONE even takes HardOCP seriously anymore. They've been caught with the whole intel lie, accusing other sites of having ulterior motives and now defending nVidia's cheats. The site is complete sell-out garbage.

:(

but...

I still like Sean P.'s reviews :(

/me refuses to take [H] off his bookmarks just coz of Sean...

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by Hellbinder

Becuase what ATi did, was not Cheating.


Pixel shaders are functions, taking textures, constants, and texture coordinates as inputs, and producing colors as outputs. Computer scientists have this notion of extensional equality that says, if you have two functions, and they return the same results for all combinations of parameters, then they represent the same function -- even if their implementaions differ, for example in instruction usage or performance.

obviously, instead of putting this "shuffle instructions" optimization into PS2 shaders, ati chose to remove it in the next driver, which makes me believe the "shuffle instructions" optimization only works in GT4 scenario, it does not work for all combinations of parameters hence, they are not fully PS2 compliant shaders, hence i believe they also are cheats :)

[druga runda]

Originally posted by 5150 Joker
I don't understand why ANYONE even takes HardOCP seriously anymore. They've been caught with the whole intel lie, accusing other sites of having ulterior motives and now defending nVidia's cheats. The site is complete sell-out garbage.

:b:

they deserve a

:nutkick:

together with Toms

- the only one that was not straight out making cheap shots or posting obviously invalid reviews out of the three is Anand ( at least I haven't seen yet) .

;)

edit : OK I have to give Pelly credit as he is :cool: but one reviewer does not make the whole site right when the owners are selling :bs: every once in a while.

[micron]

Originally posted by OICAspork
Heh... you came to my defence... as the last poster in my first thread over at Tom's too... though I didn't notice until I looked back at it today... so a belated thanks. ^_- Here is a link to refresh your memory:

http://www.community.tomshardware.com/forum/showflat.m?Cat=&Board=comp_graphics&Number=482833&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&part=all&vc=1 Lol...that seems like ages ago. I really liked that post....You kinda disapeared after that!

[DenverBuc]

Look at this quote from Anandtech mentioning the Nvidia "cheat":

"This is not to say the 5900 cards are perfect, either. Although the 5900 (NV35) chipset is not completely finalize, a slew of reviews have accused the video card giant of purposely inflating benchmarks by hard coding some acceleration into the chipset that inaccurately takes advantage of weaknesses in benchmark suites. While the evidence looks compelling, we cannot speculate this early on what is going on. We will most likely see a different “final” product and driver set that does not contain the same problems."

Sounds like they are withholding judgement for more concrete evidence. Very prudent if you ask me.

I thought that Futuremark's outright statement that Nvidia was cheating was irresponsible and they should hope they do not see some kind of legal action.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by DenverBuc
I thought that Futuremark's outright statement that Nvidia was cheating was irresponsible and they should hope they do not see some kind of legal action.

I think Futuremark is kind of hoping nVidia DOES take legal action, because Futuremark did run that by their legal department and nVidia ain't got a legal leg to stand on! :p

[Grrrpoop]

OICAspork:

I located the original news post made on [H] which annoyed so many ppl :

Steve @ [H]
Futuremark has released a patch for 3DMark 2003 that eliminates “artificially high scores” for people using NVIDIA Detonator FX drivers. This is in response to the news item we posted last week ( as did several sites ). To us, things like this just solidify our belief that 3DMark03 overall score is useless as a real world benchmark. Thanks to everyone who sent this one in.

[H] still haven't updated their news with ATI's impressively honest statement.

Maybe this is something to do with "Memorial day" .. I don't even know what that is tbh :o
Edit: Checked, seems like a nice respectable day of remembrance. guess a little patience may be in order :)

But pushing that aside, the only guy at [H] who's making any positive noises about ATI's response and showing any real disapproval of nVidia's actions is Brent. I guess since all news would be vetted by Kyle that there's no point him posting anything on the front page? :(

[H] is so weird, sometimes they're very eager to reveal difficiencies in hardware or IHV behaviour (e.g. Quack, or IQ of nVidia's past drivers), but something as major as this and they're sitting on the fence..

[micron]

They arent sitting on the fence. [H] was quick to choose sides.
I visited their forums for a second, I didnt want to stay long.
They mostly take Kyle's word as gospel.....It was the worst forum I've ever seen.

[Grrrpoop]

Originally posted by micron
They arent sitting on the fence. [H] was quick to choose sides.
I visited their forums for a second, I didnt want to stay long.
They mostly take Kyle's word as gospel.....It was the worst forum I've ever seen.
haha well.. I was trying to be tactful ;)

Personally I think Kyle was so overwhelmed at being included in the Doom3 exclusive that he's discovered a new love for nVidia and wants to keep getting those exclusives. http://www.harlow.nildram.co.uk/img/smiley/bowdown.gif

Not biting the hand that feeds etc and we all know the ad revenue from the Doom3 hits must have been sweet :D

Keeping your site at the forefront of news and reviews is very important, but morals and integrity will have to make an appearance at some point, otherwise you've got no credibility.

Reporting only the news you like is pretty crap :-\

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Behemoth
obviously, instead of putting this "shuffle instructions" optimization into PS2 shaders, ati chose to remove it in the next driver, which makes me believe the "shuffle instructions" optimization only works in GT4 scenario, it does not work for all combinations of parameters hence, they are not fully PS2 compliant shaders, hence i believe they also are cheats :)

I'm not understanding how you reached that conclusion. Perhaps you could explain it in more detail? What exactly constitutes a "fully PS2 compliant shader?"

My understanding is that as long as you run all the calls a DX9 shader asks for, it is still compliant. nvidia obviously lowered precision, and rewrote the shader code. ATI is not doing less work, as you seem to imply in another thread. They are doing the exact same amount of work they are supposed to do, with the exact same output.

Now, the question is whether this is cheating. In a benchmark, it could be. Just because your claim may be correct(that ATI is cheating), doesn't mean that you reasoning is(they are somehow not running PS2 compliant shaders).

[Spotch]

Originally posted by Grrrpoop
haha well.. I was trying to be tactful ;)

Personally I think Kyle was so overwhelmed at being included in the Doom3 exclusive that he's discovered a new love for nVidia and wants to keep getting those exclusives. http://www.harlow.nildram.co.uk/img/smiley/bowdown.gif

Not biting the hand that feeds etc and we all know the ad revenue from the Doom3 hits must have been sweet :D

Keeping your site at the forefront of news and reviews is very important, but morals and integrity will have to make an appearance at some point, otherwise you've got no credibility.

Reporting only the news you like is pretty crap :-\

Bull cookies... he is lining his pockets with dirty NVIDIA money. He is a sell-out and there is no question about it.

Have you seen the springdale mobo review article? If not go take a look. The NFORCE 2 solution is omitted from all the benchmarks that it would do poorly on compared to the 865 chipset. It is absolutely revolting to show such bias. How can anyone possible take the advice of a hardware sight who behaves in this manner? It makes as much sense to pick the biggest yankee fan on the planet to umpire a Yankees vs Braves world series.

:rolleyes:

In fact I wrote to him asking about the article:

------Original Message-----
From: Mama_Leoni@Pasta.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 8:44 AM
To: morry@hardocp.com; kyle@hardocp.com
Subject: Whats Going On?


Why is it that you show the NForce 2 solution in the results of only selected tests? Is it because you do not want to show the AMD platform in a bad light? It seems very unprofessional and biased to vary the results included in your comparisons and you should be ashamed both as an author and editor.


His Reply:

Yes, you obviously found us out.

______________________________

Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief @ HardOCP.com
Proprietor @ Ratpadz.com
______________________________

I am not sure what type of guy he is in person but, based on this, he is either a wreckless arrogant bastard or he has a sarcastic streak in him.

You be the judge...

:confused:

[The Baron]

It was the worst forum I've ever seen.
And you post at Rage3D, do you not? ;)

[micron]

Originally posted by The Baron
And you post at Rage3D, do you not? ;)
Rage3D?...........whatever gave you that idea?:super:

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
I'm not understanding how you reached that conclusion. Perhaps you could explain it in more detail? What exactly constitutes a "fully PS2 compliant shader?"

My understanding is that as long as you run all the calls a DX9 shader asks for, it is still compliant. nvidia obviously lowered precision, and rewrote the shader code. ATI is not doing less work, as you seem to imply in another thread. They are doing the exact same amount of work they are supposed to do, with the exact same output.

Now, the question is whether this is cheating. In a benchmark, it could be. Just because your claim may be correct(that ATI is cheating), doesn't mean that you reasoning is(they are somehow not running PS2 compliant shaders).
ok i try to explain, but its just my opinion.
if ati shuttle shader instructions, the shader may not work properly in siturations other than sky and water in GT4, the shader have been altered, they are not strict PS2 shaders that work in every situration, the reason why i think it does not work in all situations is that ati remove it from next driver revision, i just cant believe why ati would not incorporate this "valid optimization" in its PS2 shader instead of just use them in GT4, it just doesnt make sense to me, if this optimization only works in GT4, they are not fully PS2 compliant shaders, they are just PS2 precison water shader and PS2 precison sky shader or PS2 precison GT4 shaders and i am sure futuremark is measuring strict PS2 shader performance that works in every case, not measuring a particular water shader performance, not measuring a particular sky shader performance, not measuring a particular PS2 variant shader performance. futuremark is just measuring strict PS2 shader performance that works in all cases. well of course i have assumed this "shuffle instruction" does not work in all situration. they are just sky shader and water shader with PS2 visual quality in my eyes.

[OICAspork]

Originally posted by micron
Lol...that seems like ages ago. I really liked that post....You kinda disapeared after that!

I don't have time to keep up with too many forums... I like Rage3d and Beyond3d... and NvNews seems to be a pretty nice place when you filter out the losers. The only reason I bothered to sign up at Tom's was to rail on Lars... and I only go back there when I have something to contribute. I came here initially to clear up misconceptions, but liked it so I hung around.

[micron]

Originally posted by OICAspork
I don't have time to keep up with too many forums... I like Rage3d and Beyond3d... and NvNews seems to be a pretty nice place when you filter out the losers. The only reason I bothered to sign up at Tom's was to rail on Lars... and I only go back there when I have something to contribute. I came here initially to clear up misconceptions, but liked it so I hung around. Well, here's my rundown on forums. I have real life friends at the THG forums, so I'm there alot. I am constantly at Beyond 3D because they are so freakin' smart, but I rarely post there, because they are so freakin' smart. Rage 3D is my home base, but it gets a little monotonous(lots of the same questions/answers) when the "railgate" scandal broke, I was at Rage 3D reading one of Digitalwanderer's post's, where he was talking about having lots of fun over here at NV News, trying to convert the sinners(just j/k Digital), so I signed up here. I've been bouncing around ever since. Where are you at mostly OICA?

[Behemoth]

the "shuffle instruction" optimization is just like having external help from ati, ati tells the shaders "dont do this dont do that skip this skip that, just listen!! coz we know it doesnt matter on GT4 water and sky". in a way, they are just partially pre-calculated siturational shaders.
otherwise, i cant understand why ati wont use this shuffle instruction optimiztion if it works in every case just like a normal PS2 shader.

[Uttar]

Your understanding of shuffle instruction is not correct.

The tradtional ( read: NV20, NV25, NV30, ... ) architectures work on Vec4s. The R300 works on Vec3s and on Scalars at the same time.

This results in improved performance if you can run both of them in parallel.

All they're doing is saying "Do this before that instead of after that" - nothing more. This will result in no IQ difference, and the shader will still work in all cases.

IMO, this is a perfectly valid optimization, and ATI is really only removing it to make sure people who don't know what they're talking about don't spread BS about them cheating.


Uttar