View Full Version : GT300 "Fermi" Game Performance Figures Leaked?
XMAN52373
10-22-09, 02:18 PM
Even if the code is not written to be vendor specific, the source of the code has an ownership stake as it was resourced and tested by them alone. I do apologize for the confusion. Maybe the term vendor owned code. :D
Personally I think what happened here is that Nv coded an AA fix for UE3 engine, gave it to Eidos, Eidos went to AMD and said we have a fix, but would like you to come and help us test it on your software. AMD caught wind it was an Nvidia coded fix, declined, got busted out on it, then went to work, made a quick fix to the game.
Anyone who thinks ATI and Nvidia hardware do AA the same needs a head examination, they use different algorithims and because of this, ATI propably felt they didn't want to use Nvidias fix. Eidos propably doesn't want to impliment 2 codes for AA for 2 different vendors. So until AMD steps up, goes in house with Eidos to ensure it works with the code they have, AMD will propably stay locked out.
Even if the code is not written to be vendor specific, the source of the code has an ownership stake as it was resourced and tested by them alone. I do apologize for the confusion. Maybe the term vendor owned code. :D
Mayhaps. It's still wrong though :D
Personally I think what happened here is that Nv coded an AA fix for UE3 engine, gave it to Eidos, Eidos went to AMD and said we have a fix, but would like you to come and help us test it on your software. AMD caught wind it was an Nvidia coded fix, declined, got busted out on it, then went to work, made a quick fix to the game.
Anyone who thinks ATI and Nvidia hardware do AA the same needs a head examination, they use different algorithims and because of this, ATI propably felt they didn't want to use Nvidias fix. Eidos propably doesn't want to impliment 2 codes for AA for 2 different vendors. So until AMD steps up, goes in house with Eidos to ensure it works with the code they have, AMD will propably stay locked out.
Do you have proof of your hypothesis or are you just interjecting more hyperbole into an already murky situation in order to "correct" people?
The number of times you used "probably" in your statement above implies to me that my assertion is "probably" correct :bleh:
I'm not trying to justify anything. What I am trying to do is current people who are blaming Nvidia for this when it clearly is not their fault or of their doing. Although some people here seem to think AMD/ATIs PR department incablable of lieing about anything.
Actually you are CLEARLY trying to justify things. Look at your next post in response to five's quote.
That is the hallmark of fanboyism.
fivefeet8
10-22-09, 03:18 PM
Mayhaps. It's still wrong though :D
Of course it's wrong and unfair for a group of consumers to get the short end of the stick. Fairness to those from corporations is a myth to a large extent. Both IHV's are there to make money. I don't expect fairness from either of them, but I do expect them to compete for my dollars.
If you truly believe that what Nvidia is doing is anti-competitive, the only way you'll get anything to change is to make AMD believe it as well. Because if they truly believed it, we'd already have that lawsuit but not from those consumers. From AMD themselves.
Either you bring the lawsuit, or compete through DevRel with Nvidia. If you don't and have said on numerous occasions as such, then man up. Stop making the accusations that Nvidia is anti-competitive, then do nothing about it. You have a responsibility to those same group of customers to either bring it in terms of an anti-competitive lawsuit, or by competing with them on DevRel. Don't get me wrong, I'd say the same of Nvidia if the shoe was on the other foot.
Crying foul the Nth time it happens does nothing. This is not directed at you in any way Sazar. Much of it is PR from both sides.
XMAN52373
10-22-09, 04:25 PM
Actually you are CLEARLY trying to justify things. Look at your next post in response to five's quote.
That is the hallmark of fanboyism.
And just how am I trying to justify things for Nvidia here. Lets go over the facts yet again shall we
Fact 1 we know, Nvidia coded and made a fix for the UE3 engine and gave it to Eidos
Fact 2 we have Eidos saying the contacted AMD for help to ensure AA worked on their hardware to which they declined
Fact 3 a few day afterwards of being busted out, AMD goes on defensive blaming Nvidia for the mess
Fact 4 Nvidia says sorry, not us we have nothing to do with it
Fact 5 Week or so after coming out saying the didn't deny help, they have a fix
Fact 6 Eidos has been quiet thru the whole matter
Fact 7 Had AMD simply supplied the help to begin with, none of this would have accurred
Nowhere have I ever said such actions by Eidos were right, but to Blame Nvidia such as Hienz does in every post is simply wrong. Eidos is on record as saying AMD denied to help, until they retract that statement, AMD is the one lieing here, not the other way around. And it is Eidos to blame for the block not Nvidia.
Atomizer
10-22-09, 09:03 PM
/thread
And just how am I trying to justify things for Nvidia here. Lets go over the facts yet again shall we
Fact 1 we know, Nvidia coded and made a fix for the UE3 engine and gave it to Eidos
Fact 2 we have Eidos saying the contacted AMD for help to ensure AA worked on their hardware to which they declined
Fact 3 a few day afterwards of being busted out, AMD goes on defensive blaming Nvidia for the mess
Fact 4 Nvidia says sorry, not us we have nothing to do with it
Fact 5 Week or so after coming out saying the didn't deny help, they have a fix
Fact 6 Eidos has been quiet thru the whole matter
Fact 7 Had AMD simply supplied the help to begin with, none of this would have accurred
Nowhere have I ever said such actions by Eidos were right, but to Blame Nvidia such as Hienz does in every post is simply wrong. Eidos is on record as saying AMD denied to help, until they retract that statement, AMD is the one lieing here, not the other way around. And it is Eidos to blame for the block not Nvidia.
See, had you presented your thoughts in a nice, cohesive manner before, we would not be having a discussion.
On the matter of what was done and what was not done, I don't have the foggiest idea who is right and who is wrong. At the end of the day, the customer is getting the shaft and that is indeed a problem. Whether it be AMD or Nvidia or Eidos, someone is clearly at fault.
Nvidia has provided a solution, and it was implemented. AMD claims it has provided a solution also, and it is not implemented in the final version and Eidos is apparently not talking either way.
/me shrugs.
Anyways... back on the Fermi topic. :D
Anyone have an updated ETA?
Just one question. Can someone verify. Did Nvidia create the code that allowed AA to be used.
According to some sources, including Nvidia and I think Eidos, they did.
XMAN52373
10-22-09, 11:54 PM
Muppet and Sazar read the bolded part:
"In reality, I think this claim from AMD is pretty much unfounded - NVIDIA has long been accused of doing things like this but AMD has similar relationships with developers - see games like Battle Forge, DiRT 2 and Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. The truth is that both sides of the coin work as closely as possible with developers to make sure the latest titles work as well as possible on their own hardware. But without a doubt, NVIDIA's development efforts in this area are much more extensive. The developer relations team at NVIDIA is significantly larger, has a significantly larger budget and in general works with more developers than AMD's. In the case of Batman's AA support, NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos - AA didn't exist in the game engine before that. NVIDIA knew that this title was going to be a big seller on the PC and spent the money/time to get it working on their hardware."
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=791
I left off the last sentance of the paragraph as it didn't pertain to your question Muppet.
Sazar, you seem to be level headed, riddle me this. We all know ATI and Nvidia use different algorithims for their AA methods and Eidos was handed a hand coded UE3 game engine fix for AA from Nvidia that they had already verfied and tested as working on Nvidia hardware. Now if you were Eidos, wouldn't you want ATI to send even atleast one dev guy to your inhouse test center to test this fix provided for by ATIs competitor to ensure it worked well on all ATI hardware or would you release the game in a state where an AA solution is in it but untested on certain hardware and could cause issues with said hardware thus putting you in gamers crosshairs for releasing a buggy product for certain hardware users?
If you step back from the issue and look at it, no matter what Eidos decided to do with B:AA, they were going to start up a fire shiat storm anyways. Its was a damned if you and damned if you dont situation for them.
Heinz68
10-23-09, 12:06 AM
And just how am I trying to justify things for Nvidia here. Lets go over the facts yet again shall we
Fact 1 we know, Nvidia coded and made a fix for the UE3 engine and gave it to Eidos
Fact 2 we have Eidos saying the contacted AMD for help to ensure AA worked on their hardware to which they declined
Fact 3 a few day afterwards of being busted out, AMD goes on defensive blaming Nvidia for the mess
Fact 4 Nvidia says sorry, not us we have nothing to do with it
Fact 5 Week or so after coming out saying the didn't deny help, they have a fix
Fact 6 Eidos has been quiet thru the whole matter
Fact 7 Had AMD simply supplied the help to begin with, none of this would have accurred
Nowhere have I ever said such actions by Eidos were right, but to Blame Nvidia such as Hienz does in every post is simply wrong. Eidos is on record as saying AMD denied to help, until they retract that statement, AMD is the one lieing here, not the other way around. And it is Eidos to blame for the block not Nvidia.
You're just unbelievable and keep repeating the same baloney.
As I said before this is NOT about fanboyism, you like to turn this into. If you believe it's about fanboyism speak about yourself. Again as said before, I read many non-vendor specific sites every day and many people are critical about this issue.
Sure some off the remarks are by fanboys from both sides, but most comments and worries are by educated consumers. I always dismiss stupid remarks by any fanboy, doesn't matter on what side they're. I also dismiss some stupid comments like "why doesn't AMD do the same".
If AMD did the same I would also be critical about it and hope others would do the same.
About your"Fact 2 we have Eidos saying the contacted AMD for help to ensure AA worked on their hardware to which they declined".
My reply, we have NO Eidos saying anything period. What we have is, somebody saying what Eidos said in an email without producing any evidence of such email or who from Eidos said so.
Your "Fact 6 Eidos has been quiet thru the whole matter" contradicts your own "Fact 2".
In your conclusion "Eidos is on record as saying AMD denied to help" contradicts your own "Fact 6".
I wonder what did you drink when posting this and I'm not talking about Kool-Aid. :)
Anyway very strange that you take the supposed email or somebody comments about it as holy grail of truth, yet you completely dismiss what IanMcNaughton said, which is more tangible: "We provided the Dev with an AA solution-funny how that didn't make its way into the final TWIMTBP title... HUH!"
You dismiss it with comments like for example this:
"AMD is in full ****ing CYA...They are full of ****" And anybody who doesn't believe you must be drinking red Kool-Aid.
Just in about every post in this thread you claim AMD is lying, without having any evidence of such.
On the other hand not even ones I said NVIDIA or Eidos is lying, I also have no evidence about it. Specially since Eidos up to now didn't say anything period.
What I blame is TWIMTBP and IF blocking some features in the game like the AA when other vendor card detected was part of such marketing agreement I also blame Eidos agreeing with it.
Now is it possible TWIMTBP had anything to do with it. Sure it is, same like in the Assassin's Creed DX10.1 controversy, it had.
This is my LAST reply to you about this subject, it's becoming very repetitive, no sense to waste any more time on it.
PS
I also believe is about time this thread is locked.
This thread is not even about Fermi as some complain the discussion should be kept about.
The OP in this thread is about fake Fermi benchmarks. Even when josiahsuarez posted it as "GT300 "Fermi" Game Performance Figures Leaked?" linking it to XtremeSystem forum, the thread was already deleted there, that's why he needed to look for Google cache.
I suggest when some at least little more believable rumors are posted about Fermi a new thread should be opened.
This thread is sure a mess about that subject.
XMAN52373
10-23-09, 12:28 AM
You're just unbelievable and keep repeating the same baloney.
As I said before this is NOT about fanboyism, you like to turn this into. If you believe it's about fanboyism speak about yourself. Again as said before, I read many non-vendor specific sites every day and many people are critical about this issue.
Sure some off the remarks are by fanboys from both sides, but most comments and worries are by educated consumers. I always dismiss stupid remarks by any fanboy, doesn't matter on what side they're. I also dismiss some stupid comments like "why doesn't AMD do the same".
If AMD did the same I would also be critical about it and hope others would do the same.
About your"Fact 2 we have Eidos saying the contacted AMD for help to ensure AA worked on their hardware to which they declined".
My reply, we have NO Eidos saying anything period. What we have is, somebody saying what Eidos said in an email without producing any evidence of such email or who from Eidos said so.
Your "Fact 6 Eidos has been quiet thru the whole matter" contradicts your own "Fact 2".
In your conclusion "Eidos is on record as saying AMD denied to help" contradicts your own "Fact 6".
I wonder what did you drink when posting this and I'm not talking about Kool-Aid. :)
Anyway very strange that you take the supposed email or somebody comments about it as holy grail of truth, yet you completely dismiss what IanMcNaughton said, which is more tangible: "We provided the Dev with an AA solution-funny how that didn't make its way into the final TWIMTBP title... HUH!"
You dismiss it with comments like for example this:
"AMD is in full ****ing CYA...They are full of ****" And anybody who doesn't believe you must be drinking red Kool-Aid.
Just in about every post in this thread you claim AMD is lying, without having any evidence of such.
On the other hand not even ones I said NVIDIA or Eidos is lying, I also have no evidence about it. Specially since Eidos up to now didn't say anything period.
What I blame is TWIMTBP and IF blocking some features in the game like the AA when other vendor card detected was part of such marketing agreement I also blame Eidos agreeing with it.
Now is it possible TWIMTBP had anything to do with it. Sure it is, same like in the Assassin's Creed DX10.1 controversy, it had.
This is my LAST reply to you about this subject, it's becoming very repetitive, no sense to waste any more time on it.
PS
I also believe is about time this thread is locked.
This thread is not even about Fermi as some complain the discussion should be kept about.
The OP in this thread is about fake Fermi benchmarks. Even when josiahsuarez posted it as "GT300 "Fermi" Game Performance Figures Leaked?" linking it to XtremeSystem forum, the thread was already deleted there, that's why he needed to look for Google cache.
I suggest when some at least little more believable rumors are posted about Fermi a new thread should be opened.
This thread is sure a mess about that subject.
And you are ignoring the FACT IAN is the head of ADVANCED MARKETING, can you repeat that? Can you READ THAT? Do you even know what his POSITION MEANS? It means, if need be, he will LIE HIS PHUCKING ASS OFF TO SAVE FACE FOR AMD! A point to this day you refuse to ever concider him being able to do or being told to do.
Fact 6 does not contradict Fact 2. The facts read like a damn time line and anyone with half a brain can see and understand that so it would appear I know what your capable of understanding. In the time line of things, Fact 2 happened, finger pointing, denials and everything else has been happening since Fact 2 went public. During that time and even now, Eidos remains hush on the subject BECAUSE TO COME OUT AND OFFICIALLY SAY IT HAPPENED would only serve to do 2 things. 1, Make AMD look like even bigger asses than they were before and 2. Not put them in such a good light in the public eye for yet again outing AMD on the matter. Now what they can and should do and WOULD GREATLY CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE of this whole thing is come out publicly and SAY THE STATEMENT WASN'T TRUE, BUT, they need only do this if in fact it is FALSE/UNTRUE.
Again, you need to remove your red colored glasses and stop drinking your red koolaide and insisting AMD tells nothing but the truth, or you should really go find another venue where everyone thinks like you do. Rage3d come to mind.
According to some sources, including Nvidia and I think Eidos, they did.
That's interesting especially if ATI then turned down the chance to get it working and test it with there display cards. Maybe ATI should work out there own solution and forward it to Eidos who can then release a small fix.
Heinz68
10-23-09, 01:44 AM
And you are ignoring the FACT IAN is the head of ADVANCED MARKETING, can you repeat that? Can you READ THAT? Do you even know what his POSITION MEANS? It means, if need be, he will LIE HIS PHUCKING ASS OFF TO SAVE FACE FOR AMD! A point to this day you refuse to ever concider him being able to do or being told to do.
Fact 6 does not contradict Fact 2. The facts read like a damn time line and anyone with half a brain can see and understand that so it would appear I know what your capable of understanding. In the time line of things, Fact 2 happened, finger pointing, denials and everything else has been happening since Fact 2 went public. During that time and even now, Eidos remains hush on the subject BECAUSE TO COME OUT AND OFFICIALLY SAY IT HAPPENED would only serve to do 2 things. 1, Make AMD look like even bigger asses than they were before and 2. Not put them in such a good light in the public eye for yet again outing AMD on the matter. Now what they can and should do and WOULD GREATLY CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE of this whole thing is come out publicly and SAY THE STATEMENT WASN'T TRUE, BUT, they need only do this if in fact it is FALSE/UNTRUE.
Again, you need to remove your red colored glasses and stop drinking your red koolaide and insisting AMD tells nothing but the truth, or you should really go find another venue where everyone thinks like you do. Rage3d come to mind.
I promised it was my last post but this need exception
Nice language I do wonder how old are you. Your talk is full of anger. I think you should cool down before posting. Hot head talk NEVER makes much sense.
What head you're representing that you know IanMcNaughton "LIE HIS PHUCKING ASS OFF TO SAVE FACE FOR AMD"
I think if he was lying he would be at danger to loose his ass at AMD. Think logically, AMD has nothing to gain to lie about this.
There is no time line in your post since Eidos NEVER made any statement.
Why would Eidos care about this:
Eidos remains hush on the subject BECAUSE TO COME OUT AND OFFICIALLY SAY IT HAPPENED would only serve to do 2 things. 1, Make AMD look like even bigger asses than they were before and and 2. Not put them in such a good light in the public eye for yet again outing AMD on the matter.
I wonder your AMD description as above is even tolerated on NVIDIA site.
Nice talk about AMD and it's not first by you, at the same time you're accusing me about, my talk is fanboy agenda.
Very strange first Eidos blocks AMD cards from using the in game AA settings and now all of sudden they're protecting them by remaining hush to save the AMD asses.
Finally DO NOT tell me where to go or where to post it's ABSOLUTELY none of your business.
Back on topic folks. thanks
LydianKnight
10-23-09, 03:07 AM
Agree ¬¬
Heinz68: UE3 doesn't natively support AA, so nvidia helped EIDOS out by providing a solution. This is the only thing we know thus far and it wouldn't surprise me if nvidia told eidos not to include support for ati cards as the aa algorithm for the game was provided and paid for by nvidia. Either way it really doesn't matter, as the fault lies with Eidos for not providing an AA solution of their own from the beginning.
Mods please close this thread as the benchmarks provided in the first post have been proven fake and the thread has derailed quite a bit from the original topic.
i agree its turning into a stupid fight.
As for the card. i really do hope those are close to what this card can do. I would be quiet happy to dish out the extra cash just to have that power :D.
That's interesting especially if ATI then turned down the chance to get it working and test it with there display cards. Maybe ATI should work out there own solution and forward it to Eidos who can then release a small fix.
But that's the thing. AMD apparently did provide a solution which seems not to have been released with the final build.
Who knows if it will be in a patch.
But that's the thing. AMD apparently did provide a solution which seems not to have been released with the final build.
Who knows if it will be in a patch.
Ok that's cool. No one really made that clear. Unless I just missed it. If that is the case then Edios should come to the party and release it for the game.
Thread has run its course...closed
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.