PDA

View Full Version : Tech TV's "coverage" of the cheating drivers fiasco


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

digitalwanderer
05-29-03, 01:22 AM
First off to all ATi enthusiasts, this is a GOOD THING(tm) for ATi so please spare the freaking out until you finish reading me entire post!

I didn't see the bit in question, but from the discussion about it here on TechTV's forums (http://cgi.techtv.com/messageboards?action=whole_thread_view&board_id=17&topic_id=3&thread_id=1108829) it looks like they basically said that ATi cheated and then showed the nVidia pictures highlighting the cheats image degradation and either said or implied that it was ATi's drivers in the image...

...and they made NO mention of nVidia's 24% boost!

I know it's insane, I know it's over the top, and I know you're so pissed you can't see straight; it's cool, relax.

This is a GOOD THING(tm), remember?

I'm tired and should be sleeping but this damn story has got me addicted, and this is the straw that will FINALLY break the back of it and bring it the attention I feel it deserves.

It's too much, it's too blatant, it's just too over the top and with too much exposure; people are going to notice this one. :cool:

Please don't explode on THIS board about it, we all know how screwed up it is. Feel free to go and make your opinions known over there, me thinks that thread is going to be getting a WHOLE lot of attention tomorrow.

I gotta sleep, but this is great news to me. nVidia FINALLY pushed it just a little too far trying to control it and made it all too obvious. :)

bkswaney
05-29-03, 01:34 AM
Thescreensavers covered it also.
They said both compaines cheated.
But they also said nvidia did it right.

If your going to cheat do it right. :D hahaha
In other words run the score up as high as possible. :angel:

Skynet
05-29-03, 02:01 AM
this is great news to me. nVidia FINALLY pushed it just a little too far trying to control it and made it all too obvious.
I have to disagree and say I doubt it will make any difference. Nvidia has a magic cloak of blind confidence draped all over so many hardware and news sources that it amazes me more than their low-down dirty tactics. Money speaks louder than the truth.

I really hope you are right and I am wrong.

mikechai
05-29-03, 02:25 AM
I think we already have enough discussions about the cheating issue...
:o

bkswaney
05-29-03, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by mikechai
I think we already have enough discussions about the cheating issue...
:o

amen brother :D

DaveM
05-29-03, 03:01 AM
You FX users are so blinded.

I've owned the 5900 Ultra 256mb card which i'm now selling to replace it with a much better operating card (9800Pro 256mb).

This card is a major disappointment from the start and then come the nVidia driver issues.

Like I said my 9700pro worked perfect always running 350/700 speeds.

In 3dmark2001se (not the hated 03 now b/c nvidia scores really low) I got 16601 on the FX 5900 and the radeon 9700pro came out with 16737. Now talk about disappointment.

As I don't believe in benchmarks like this of course I played games with 4xAA/8xAF like most reviews compared. Only to further be disappointed at the much lower performance, with AA and AF features the radeon beat it almost with double frame rates in some instances @ 1024 and 1280.

Also the whole driver cheat issue is old and I still feel people are acting like nvidia did nothing wrong and accusing ati of it more. I know both people cheated and yes its wrong no matter how much but once I get over the fact of them both cheating I look at the actually percentage they cheated and am breathless. I see 1.9% on ATI then 24% on FX nvidia cards. Oh thats cool see ATI cheated to, lets take away the fact that we really fudged our scores.

Also if you guys cared to read Xbits article on ATI not cheating, but actual fair optimizations. When nVidia still stands as a cheater.

You guys need to get your nose outta nvidia's butt and look at who really is the bad guy here. Need some kinda non-bias vision or something.

Also check out the xbit article here (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030528101933.html)

EDIT: Also both benchs done with fresh windows install and driver installs for each card with fresh install of 3dmark2001se, so no driver mess ups and I ran the test 3 times for consistency.

EDIT AGAIN: If It was ATI doing the cheating and stuff like they did with the quake 3 quality settings before I would be all over thier but like I was back then, same applies to nVidia in my book. A wrongs a wrong.

EDIT 3: Ok also before anybody asks I have a top of the line system and I'm a computer repair service person and I've been doing this for 5 years now. I'm no n00b to it, it was ran on a 3200xp and nforce 2 board. Neither had any problems or crashes. And If I did get those I would either, format if it was that bad figuring it might be drivers. If that doesn't work RMA it and get a new one, problem solved. User is the problem in 90% cases here.

DaveM

ADDED EDIT: Just a example of bias I bet half of you would buy a half the performance card from nvidia when ati had much faster one and even pay more b/c its nvidia. This bias needs to stop. Get your nose outta nvidias ass and see the real world of 3d graphics cards.

DaveM again.

mikechai
05-29-03, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by DaveM
You FX users are so blinded.

I've owned the 5900 Ultra 256mb card which i'm now selling to replace it with a much better operating card (9800Pro 256mb).

This card is a major disappointment from the start and then come the nVidia driver issues.

Like I said my 9700pro worked perfect always running 350/700 speeds.

In 3dmark2001se (not the hated 03 now b/c nvidia scores really low) I got 16601 on the FX 5900 and the radeon 9700pro came out with 16737. Now talk about disappointment.

As I don't believe in benchmarks like this of course I played games with 4xAA/8xAF like most reviews compared. Only to further be disappointed at the much lower performance, with AA and AF features the radeon beat it almost with double frame rates in some instances @ 1024 and 1280.


I simply don't believe that your 5900 ultra got beaten by radeon by almost double frame rates.

micron
05-29-03, 03:17 AM
I was gunna post something, but I think Dave pretty much stole the show here.....

DaveM
05-29-03, 04:27 AM
Well maybe not double but pretty close, also talking 6xAA and 16AF compared to 8AA and 8AF. You have seen the 9800 Pro compared to 5900 Ultra, the 9800 Pro tore it up and mine being o/c so high helps the more even comparision here. Trust me compare and its not hard to see what one is better here. nVidia (http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA1MjY1OTc3OGJRaTJVSURadEJfN18xM V9sLmpwZw==) or ATI (http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA1MjY1OTc3OGJRaTJVSURadEJfN18xM l9sLmpwZw==). Well it also depends on if you like lower image quality and frames or not. Also the whole AA thing, I don't care who does what right, I care on frames and seeable results, by these 2 shots I know what I would choose.

I'm just saying nvidia is shooting out poor excuse cards and we are of course buying them.

If we buy them no matter performance they are gonna make minimal changes and boosts.

Look at ATI, year back nVidia was speedier, better drivers, faster in all software.

Tables have turned but nVidia is gonna do everything they can to pay to get thier cards sold no matter what.

I'm in all seriousness. I've had this card 2 weeks and so disappointed. I've done every kinda test on it. Also my Radeon 9700 Pro was also o/c to 350/700 so that made some differnce from the default speeds also.

Like I do for everybody, I would recommend a cheaper or same priced 9800 Pro (256mb version now).

You know nVidia has there nose in John Carmacks ass as we speak trying to get optimized paths for thier line of cards.

Trust me don't think about 3 years ago and stay on your opinion. Look now at all the review sites, read some articles, you'll see where true performance is.

I was reading those Doom 3 benchs of the newer build. 1) brought to you by nVidia and id. 2) notice all the nvidia cards (5800, 5900) beat the 9800 256mb version (even the 5800) easy, of course you have no clue what path or extensions used on both wether regular or propriatory.

I guess valve sees the light, notice they showed off and also tagged Half Life 2 with the 9800 Pro 256mb. Sure they might have payed for the tag but it comes in choice with big companys with whos hardware runs the game better. Remember Doom 3, radeon 9700pro ran? I do.

Wake up nVidiots. Don't let nVidia get away with medicore graphics cards. We won't see cards like the ti4200 (great o/c performance/price ratio) or other great values anymore. If you keep buying them no matter what they are gonna shuvle more crap at you.

Just me 3 cents :).

Well I'm gonna get some sleep, I'll probably have to fix some when I wake up considering I'm about to fall asleep writing.

Night.

DaveM

EDIT2: Also to mikechai check out those screen comparisons, If they are getting triple the frames I'm sure my double or even more is fully true with a o/c'd card.

DaveM again

StealthHawk
05-29-03, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by DaveM
Well maybe not double but pretty close, also talking 6xAA and 16AF compared to 8AA and 8AF.

Why would any sane person use 8x FSAA when it's not better than 6xS? I also question the benefits using using 6xS over 4xS. I think 4xS looks better than 6xS overall.

Grrrpoop
05-29-03, 05:23 AM
There are so many nVidia apologists and ppl trying to cover up any negative PR for nVidia ..

I think ppl claiming they're "tired" with the cheating issue can be included in the above group as contributing to the coverup.

Denying they've done anything wrong and sponsoring programs which smear the competition, using their own damning evidence and redirecting the blame is completely reprehensible.

<OT>
DaveM's got a really good point about nVidia users blindly purchasing products.

After reading all the pro-comments about the new FX5600U I was starting to think "hey.. might stick with nVidia!" but reading Brent's [H] review it's obvious that it's barely better than the old 9500Pro.

The difference being the 9500Pro costs 135 and to get a 5600U is at least 185. So what sane person would choose the latter?
</OT>

I'm finding the behaviour of the gfx card industry and associated media to be pretty depressing atm.. I've been trying to upgrade my gfx card for 18months ffs..

mikechai
05-29-03, 05:39 AM
Isn't it misleading if I'm as a reviewer benchmark at only 1280x1024 using 8xAA 8xAF on the FX5900 ultra against Radeon 9800 Pro using 6xAA 16xAF and summarized as Radeon 9800 Pro beats the hell out of FX 5900 Pro because it scores almost double the frame rates ?

Futhermore telling everybody that how disappointed is he because the FX 5900 ultra did badly at that settings which nobody would actually use it in daily gaming.

We should know that > 4xAA with NV3x has a huge performance hit.

However, if you really need more than 4xAA then Radeon R3x0 series is definitely the card of choice.

Grrrpoop
05-29-03, 05:57 AM
mikechai: I think daveM's point is that even at those settings the 9800 is still making the game playable and doing a lot better at removing jaggies.

Be interesting to see 6xS AA on the FX vs 6xAA on the R3x0 ..

Actually, 4xS is supposed to be really good, even a FX 4xS vs 6xAA R3x0 would be interesting to see :) with screenies at the same point as shown in [H] so we can see those horizontal jaggies (if any). ;)

And of course the FPS count :D

Uttar
05-29-03, 05:58 AM
4xS & 8x Quality AF should look great on a NV35, though. And I'm sure that at 1280x1024, it should be very playable in 99% of games. And for the other ones, there's always 2x AA ( I personally hate nVidia's 4x AA, it's just too expensive compared to how little to delivers compared to their 2x AA )

Obviously, if you REALLY care about AA, then the card of choice is the R3xx. If you care about AF, then both are as good. If you care about pure speed or workstation-class flexibility, then the NV3x is the card of choice.


Uttar

zakelwe
05-29-03, 06:50 AM
You can get a FX5600 Ultra for 165 in the UK, not at least 185, it is still more expenisve though.

DaveM, you would have been better going to an Intel 800FSB processor and 865/875 than going to a FX5900 from a 9700Pro in my opinion.

Regards

Andy

EMunEeE
05-29-03, 08:55 AM
I'll put this thread back on track...

If you are a fan of TSS (The Screensavers) sorry but has to be said...I liken the producers of that show to the CEO/management at nVIDIA. They look out only for the bottom line. Personaly I stopped watching TSS long ago cause I grew to old for it. (TSS is a computer show for children). They also have a commercial every five minutes. This just shows how easy it is for people to be bought off. Leo and PAtrick are some of the most uninformed people I see in technology. I can answer some of the questions they get stumped on :p . The only person who I'd give a shout out too is Yoshi, his mods are the shiznit. ATi needs to put TSS and its garbage nVIDIA sponsored LAN Party out of its misery.:mad:

CapsLock
05-29-03, 10:05 AM
hi, first post! (notice the lack of caps, ironic, huh?)

I've been a lurker here for a while and it's going to be fun to participate for a change. re the current topic:

its very hard for me to believe that they could possibly get the story this wrong if they had done any research, which they must have. this is tv. revealing cheating, aka making a serious accusation against a large corp is serious business. they could be sued. on the other hand, ET and x-bit have both had to make corrections to this story already. therefore it is my inescapeable conclusion that there is a LOT of terrible journalism going on. (nevermind the [H], kyle thing, which is yet another fiasco, they are favorites>deleted, too much pure cr*p there, too bad about Brent)

its not a nvidia vs. ati thing, or a nvidia vs. futuremark thing, its a nvidia vs. ati. vs. futuremark vs. media (web, print and tv) vs. the people (consumers, enthusiasts) thing.

(with nvidiots and fanatics caught imbetween).

in other words, its just getting crazy. as my stomache churns...

caps

Sazar
05-29-03, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
First off to all ATi enthusiasts, this is a GOOD THING(tm) for ATi so please spare the freaking out until you finish reading me entire post!

I didn't see the bit in question, but from the discussion about it here on TechTV's forums (http://cgi.techtv.com/messageboards?action=whole_thread_view&board_id=17&topic_id=3&thread_id=1108829) it looks like they basically said that ATi cheated and then showed the nVidia pictures highlighting the cheats image degradation and either said or implied that it was ATi's drivers in the image...

...and they made NO mention of nVidia's 24% boost!

I know it's insane, I know it's over the top, and I know you're so pissed you can't see straight; it's cool, relax.

This is a GOOD THING(tm), remember?

I'm tired and should be sleeping but this damn story has got me addicted, and this is the straw that will FINALLY break the back of it and bring it the attention I feel it deserves.

It's too much, it's too blatant, it's just too over the top and with too much exposure; people are going to notice this one. :cool:

Please don't explode on THIS board about it, we all know how screwed up it is. Feel free to go and make your opinions known over there, me thinks that thread is going to be getting a WHOLE lot of attention tomorrow.

I gotta sleep, but this is great news to me. nVidia FINALLY pushed it just a little too far trying to control it and made it all too obvious. :)

http://cgi.techtv.com/messageboards?action=whole_thread_view&board_id=17&topic_id=3&thread_id=1108829

here's part of the thread for whoever is interested...

illustrates 2 points...

lots of people a bit nutted off bout the issue...

the guy who should be dealing with TECHNICAL info... considering this is after all TECH TV... took @ face value the info he was given and aired it as such ? sounds a bit daft to me... but then again... I never imagined all journalists to check their facts or post accurate info all the time :)

/me still waits for the <sarcasm> to be cleaned up from front page news posts from a coupla days ago...

bkswaney
05-29-03, 01:12 PM
Dave.... how much do u want for your 5900?
I'll buy it today. :)

Nv40
05-29-03, 01:39 PM
DAVE...
Like I said my 9700pro worked perfect always running 350/700 speeds.


Originally posted by bkswaney
Dave.... how much do u want for your 5900?
I'll buy it today. :)

he is happy with the R300 /but dissapointed with the nv35 ..
when clearly tha later is from 40%-50% an even more.. faster in many
situations.. i think he is the one who needs to wake up... :)

buy him the Nv35 card for $400.. :)

then sell later him the card for $600 ,when he discover that even the r350
(cough) performance is not good enough in doom3 ,to use AA/AF at all. :)

DaveM
05-29-03, 02:02 PM
Do I have to take pictures to show you the performance diff. here man.

I've benched both, get your nose outta nVidias ass lol. Niether of these probably will be playable in Doom 3 with AA/AF settings. The later is no 50% faster.

Do you have a 5900 Ultra in your computer right now? no
Have you ever had to one to mess with and run test over and over wondering why it isn't faster. no

Then you should have no reason to say its faster since you haven't actually used one and seen with your own eyes. You guys will see when they go retail, big disappointment really.

DaveM

Sazar
05-29-03, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Nv40
he is happy with the R300 /but dissapointed with the nv35 ..
when clearly tha later is from 40%-50% an even more.. faster in many
situations.. i think he is the one who needs to wake up... :)

buy him the Nv35 card for $400.. :)

then sell later him the card for $600 ,when he discover that even the r350
(cough) performance is not good enough in doom3 ,to use AA/AF at all. :)

have you ever owned or worked with a gf FX gpu ?

from what you continue to say I have to wonder..

Eymar
05-29-03, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Nv40
he is happy with the R300 /but dissapointed with the nv35 ..
when clearly tha later is from 40%-50% an even more.. faster in many
situations.. i think he is the one who needs to wake up... :)


Ok he has own the card and has first hand experience with in game perfomance. I'm guessing your basing your statements off benchmark scores from review sites. NV35 benchmarks are really trustworthy right now. I owned a 5800Ultra and while performance was good if I turned up the IQ it's performance tanked in comparison with the 9700Pro. This is not me benchmarking, but playing the games like DaveM was doing and noticing smoother performance. I was hoping that the nv3x IQ perfomance issues were due to bandwith, but it's becoming more apparent that is not the case.

DaveM
05-29-03, 02:19 PM
Even I can go read reviews and see.

What frame rate do you prefer.

ATI (http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA1MjY1OTc3OGJRaTJVSURadEJfNl8yN F9sLmpwZw==) or nVidia (http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA1MjY1OTc3OGJRaTJVSURadEJfNl8yM 19sLmpwZw==).

Again ATI (http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA1MjY1OTc3OGJRaTJVSURadEJfN18xN F9sLmpwZw==) or nVidia (http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA1MjY1OTc3OGJRaTJVSURadEJfN18xM 19sLmpwZw==).

Some people should read more before they speak. Also its much faster without anything turned on also.

DaveM

Uttar
05-29-03, 02:30 PM
DaveM: Let's face it. AA IQ is complete crap in the NV3x. There's nothing more to it, really.
The speed boost provided in the 5900 makes it *faster* when only MSAA is used, and you trying to contest that is ridiculous. Comparing SSAA to MSAA is insane. It's like comparing nearest point filtering to trilinear! Okay, maybe not, but you get the point.

Saying it's slower is just plain unfair IMO. Saying it looks a awful lot worse is acceptable, though, also IMO. All just IMO, obviously :)

Uttar