PDA

View Full Version : What the heck has happened to nVIDIA?


Pages : [1] 2

Dazz
06-03-03, 01:35 PM
Has there been a change in managment or something since after the GeForce 4 range nVIDIA are now destroying their companies reputation, be it with their drivers, cheats, lies WTF has happened!?!?!?!?!?!

Matthyahuw
06-03-03, 01:35 PM
here we go again :rolleyes:

pgn.inertia
06-03-03, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Matthyahuw
here we go again :rolleyes:

Indeed...

-sigh-

saturnotaku
06-03-03, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by pgn.inertia
Indeed...

-sigh-

Ditto. You don't like what NVIDIA is doing? Buy something else. Vote with your dollars. It's the only way companies will learn. They understand nothing but their bottom line, and that's where we as consumers will do the most damage.

Moose
06-03-03, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
WTF has happened!?!?!?!?!?!

ATI has better hardware now, so they are trying to stay competitive any way they can including a massive PR campaign, IQ fudging, benchmark cheating, paying off developers for special code and bullying those that don't agree with them.


Heh, sounds like business as usual for them actually. Nothing has changed, you just can see it better now. :D

Dazz
06-03-03, 01:52 PM
Donít you not find it strange that Futuremark has changed itís story in under a week to say no to optimisations allowed, to optimisations can be use?. ATi was found cheating as was nVIDIA so ATi said fine we will remove them but then all of a sudden hey nVIDIA can use them, there has been no word on if ATi if they can keep theirs? As great as a programmable GPU is itís not ideal if people deviate from the standards it will only increase the programmers workload and delay games even further. SIS & Trident are said to bring their own DX9 GPUís which will only make it that more difficult for developers to get games running stable. *Cough* Genrals which pretty much only support ATi & nVIDIA cards.

Moose
06-03-03, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
Donít you not find it strange that Futuremark has changed itís story in under a week to say no to optimisations allowed, to optimisations can be use?.

ever had a billion dollar company threaten you with a lawsuit????

Matthyahuw
06-03-03, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Moose
ever had a billion dollar company threaten you with a lawsuit???? That's just someone's speculation, no one knows what happend but nV and FM...

digitalwanderer
06-03-03, 02:16 PM
Well, How-Hung sold his soul to the Dark Lord in exchange for success with the FX series.... ;)

Moose
06-03-03, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Matthyahuw
That's just someone's speculation, no one knows what happend but nV and FM...

FutureMark's Patric Ojala responds
AT Beyond3D:

"First I must admit that there is very little I can comment about the joint statement between Futuremark and Nvidia due to legal aspects. What I can do is answer some frequently asked questions about this and quote some parts of the statement.

Please read the statement well and do not post hasty conclusion after reading only the first two paragraphs of the statement.

Q: Does this mean what you called originally as "cheats" actually were acceptable "optimizations", and that you made a wrong decicion in releasing Patch 330 and the Audit Report?
A: By the definition of our benchmark and process, the optimizations are not acceptable. 3DMark scores are only comparable if drivers perform exactly the work 3DMark instructs them to do.

The statement also says: Quote:
Because all modifications that change the workload in 3DMark03 are forbidden, we were obliged to update the product to eliminate the effect of optimizations identified in different drivers so that 3DMark03 continued to produce comparable results.


As earlier stated, we recommend using the latest build 330 of 3DMark03, with the 44.03 (or 43.51 WHQL) Nvidia drivers, or the Catalyst 3.4 ATI drivers. This way obtained 3DMark03 results are genuinely comparable as far as we know.

Q: What is the reasoning behind this statement?
A: Both companies want to end the public dispute that has been going on since we launched 3DMark03 in mid-February this year.

Q: Did NVIDIA pay you any money to make this statement?
A: No, they did not. Our companies had a mutual desire to end this dispute, and we are very pleased that we reached this agreement.

Q: Does this mean that in the future you will not make patches for 3DMark03 (or 3DMark2001) in order to reveal cheating?
A: We might release further patches to 3DMark03, if a need for preventing driver optimizations appear in the future.
_________________
Patric Ojala - 3DMark Producer"
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6230


The bolded part says it all.

He can't comment for legal reasons. hmmm That sure sounds like something one would say if one were threatened with legal action or had succumbed to an out of court settlement doesn't it???

What other "legal" reason would there be at this point????

StealthHawk
06-03-03, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
Donít you not find it strange that Futuremark has changed itís story in under a week to say no to optimisations allowed, to optimisations can be use?. ATi was found cheating as was nVIDIA so ATi said fine we will remove them but then all of a sudden hey nVIDIA can use them, there has been no word on if ATi if they can keep theirs? As great as a programmable GPU is itís not ideal if people deviate from the standards it will only increase the programmers workload and delay games even further. SIS & Trident are said to bring their own DX9 GPUís which will only make it that more difficult for developers to get games running stable. *Cough* Genrals which pretty much only support ATi & nVIDIA cards.

I think this says it all:Q: Does this mean what you called originally as "cheats" actually were acceptable "optimizations", and that you made a wrong decicion in releasing Patch 330 and the Audit Report?
A: By the definition of our benchmark and process, the optimizations are not acceptable. 3DMark scores are only comparable if drivers perform exactly the work 3DMark instructs them to do.

nvidia's "optimizations" are still not valid. Futuremark is just not calling nvidia a cheater anymore.

Ady
06-03-03, 08:21 PM
yeah, that's exactly it. There is a bunch of people in on this that know what really happened and they have already leaked enough information for who pays enough attention to pick up on.

FM's big mistake was using the word "CHEAT" in their audit. This is something that can obviously be contested in court. They really should have used any word equalling "cheat", but not "cheat".

This is what they have really been pulled back on. FM have been made to state publicly that, they are not cheats but optimizations. They still state that these optimizations are not acceptable.

Calling an optimization unacceptable still equates it to being a cheat.

azanon
06-03-03, 08:46 PM
Perhaps some trained in law can help here, but what's the legal obligation for one company publically calling another, a cheater. The 1st amendment protects everyone's entitlement to an opinion was my understanding and afaik, companies arn't excluded from this right.

My guess was nvidia suggested that futuremark consider an alternative opinion with a million dollar check, or something similar. Public Relations isn't free for a company the size of nvidia, and this definitely isn't something nvidia needed at the time. I would have made it go away and it looks like they did just that.

Azanon

ChrisW
06-03-03, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by azanon
Perhaps some trained in law can help here, but what's the legal obligation for one company publically calling another, a cheater. The 1st amendment protects everyone's entitlement to an opinion was my understanding and afaik, companies arn't excluded from this right.

My guess was nvidia suggested that futuremark consider an alternative opinion with a million dollar check, or something similar. Public Relations isn't free for a company the size of nvidia, and this definitely isn't something nvidia needed at the time. I would have made it go away and it looks like they did just that.

Azanon
They can call them a cheater as long as they can prove they did cheat. If they can't then it is slander. The written agreement is now legal 'proof' that nVidia did not cheat. This means anyone that claims from now on that nVidia cheated in 3DMark03 can be sued by nVidia for slander. This was a brilliant move by nVidia. Now, no website or magazine can print that nVidia cheated in 3DMark03. Now ATI will be labeled a cheater and nVidia can not.

azanon
06-03-03, 09:20 PM
Slander is an aweful generic word. What good is freedom of speech if you cant publically make accusations (you prefer slander). People.. and companies, do it all the time. I'm aware of no burden of proof, liablity for companies or people just because they make accusations.

But you're right... it was a good move on nvidia's part. Well worth the money they paid futuremark.

muzz
06-04-03, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Moose
ATI has better hardware now, so they are trying to stay competitive any way they can including a massive PR campaign, IQ fudging, benchmark cheating, paying off developers for special code and bullying those that don't agree with them.


Heh, sounds like business as usual for them actually. Nothing has changed, you just can see it better now. :D

Sounds reasonable to me..

Staus quo.

swanlee
06-04-03, 10:15 AM
So what is it actually going to take for some of you to actually see what nvidia is doing? How can any of you defend them now? Any company in almost any field that did this kind of stuff would have the feds on them pretty quickly for completely manipulating there market in their favor by very unethical business practices. They better be carefull and they better just shut-up or nvidia is gonna start to get the attention of the feds like Microsoft has done.

No one can defend what Nvidia has done and to try simply makes yourself look lke a sheep. Can they go more than 2 weeks without strong arming companies, cheating in any way possible or completely making fools out of there customers like pulling the 5800, and replacing it so quickly.

SurfMonkey
06-04-03, 10:23 AM
Hey, I asked the same question moons ago and the thread ended up getting locked!! In these emotionally charged times questions like this are likely to result in blood shed and nasty bruises.

See here (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=291).

Dazz
06-04-03, 11:29 AM
So long as people share their insights and not their abuse it should be alright.

Behemoth
06-04-03, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
Ditto. You don't like what NVIDIA is doing? Buy something else. Vote with your dollars. It's the only way companies will learn. They understand nothing but their bottom line, and that's where we as consumers will do the most damage.
my money have gone to help nv40 development :D

R.Carter
06-04-03, 12:04 PM
Quoting from ExtremeTech article Nvidia Won't Reenter FutureMark Program, For Now (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1116490,00.asp) (I added the bolding)

But "cheat" does convey a specific connotation, the Nvidia spokesman said. "Whenever you call someone a 'cheat' it's not one of George Carlin's seven dirty words, but still," he said. The Nvidia spokesman said he also believed that the Finnish executives of FutureMark might not have understood the ramifications of the English-language word "cheat".

R.Carter
06-04-03, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by azanon
Slander is an aweful generic word. What good is freedom of speech if you cant publically make accusations (you prefer slander). People.. and companies, do it all the time. I'm aware of no burden of proof, liablity for companies or people just because they make accusations.

But you're right... it was a good move on nvidia's part. Well worth the money they paid futuremark.

FISRT I'M NOT A LAWYER!

You have to be able to prove any statement of fact you make otherwise it is possibly slader or libel. If you don't know it is a fact then you have to make sure that it's an opinion.

The First Amendment does not protect defamation.

Stolen from the Libel Defense Resource Center (http://www.ldrc.com) FAQ
Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of facts about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others.

Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to verbal statments or gestures.

The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel or slander.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be "of and concerning" the plantiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plantiff.

That statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.

The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of fault depends primarily on the status of the plantiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known indivuduals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statements were false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statements
Myself, I don't think Nvidia could prove malice if the jury had enough technical people on it. I suspect that the best Nvidia could do was try and use the fact that they dropped out of the 3DMark program and so 3DMark was trying to get back at them.

Most companies can't afford to fight nusiance lawsuits and so settle out of court.

Solomon
06-04-03, 12:32 PM
I'm curious... Was PowerVR able to do anything legally against those documents that got leaked bagging on PowerVR? Because if I'm mistaken those documents were internal used for "marketing" purposes towards vendors. Anything every happened out of that legally or in courts or what not?

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

Skuzzy
06-04-03, 01:24 PM
Futuremark handled this whole situation badly. Hindsight is a great thing, ain't it.

They should have never said a word, and just quietly released the 330 patch with the statement, "We intend to randomly change sequences to make sure no video card maker can circumvent the overall design goal of the benchmark."

This would have avoided this mess. Futuremark has basically put themselves out of business with the action they agreed to take in regards to NVidia's snafu.
NVidia has successfully removed all credibility with any product Furturemark has now or in the future.

Hopefully Aquamark(??) will step up to the plate and deliver a solid benchmark tool and learn from Futuremark's misguided handling of this.

Dazz
06-04-03, 02:53 PM
Yeah they should but it was the public that found out about it not Futuremark.