nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   Feedback Forum (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Still no update from Pelly (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4212)

Joe Cool 11-19-02 04:25 AM

Still no update from Pelly
 
...About the rumor that he posted on the main news page that ATI had faked their demonstration of using DDR-II memory.

If you may recall, there was a thread here (literally gone now) where it was pointed out to him that an ATI engineer at Rage3d.com had clarified that the demo had indeed been genuine.

I asked when an update might occur to show this new information, and now the entire thread is gone (not locked - gone), with no reply from Pelly.

Pelly, when will we see that update from you? And what happened to that thread? Just a glitch in the database? :(

Joe Cool 11-19-02 04:29 AM

Ah I found it now - it was MOVED without warning to "Website Related -> Feedback." Where nobody ever looks, of course. :(

Still no reply or update from pelly about what I wrote above though. :(

Lezmaka 11-19-02 04:47 AM

Why are you posting this here instead of emailing Pelly himself. Seems to me all you want to do is create a bitch-fest.

Joe Cool 11-19-02 05:32 AM

He posted mere speculation in order to criticize ATI but won't do a correction, even though there's proof that speculation was incorrect. Certainly more solid proof that way than what the initial criticism had.

Note the fact it was just speculation means it *does* fit here....

StealthHawk 11-19-02 06:01 AM

and did ATI give an official response? or did an ATI representative do that on his own in a specific forum? if ATI wants to clear up the mess they should do so officially by talking to EE Times, or some other publication, sending an email to someone, etc.

Joe Cool 11-19-02 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by StealthHawk
and did ATI give an official response? or did an ATI representative do that on his own in a specific forum? if ATI wants to clear up the mess they should do so officially by talking to EE Times, or some other publication, sending an email to someone, etc.
Except the original information was itself based on an unknown source - even pelly admitted it was just speculation.

If pelly's willing to post such stuff on the main news page, and then criticize ATI for it, then a denial from an actual ATI engineer should at least get the same coverage. But there's been no acknowledgement of this at all.

Fair is fair, after all....

Evildeus 11-19-02 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Cool
Except the original information was itself based on an unknown source - even pelly admitted it was just speculation.

If pelly's willing to post such stuff on the main news page, and then criticize ATI for it, then a denial from an actual ATI engineer should at least get the same coverage. But there's been no acknowledgement of this at all.

Fair is fair, after all....

Well, ATI can make a clear statement, an ingineer statement is just his words, not the company's one, which is different ;)

thcdru2k 11-19-02 08:20 AM

shoot..who cares it old news, you know its not true, you don't gotta read it to know that right?

FastM 11-19-02 08:35 AM

You just answered your own question Joe Cool, "Note the fact it was just speculation means it *does* fit here...."

what more do you want?

jbirney 11-19-02 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by StealthHawk
and did ATI give an official response? or did an ATI representative do that on his own in a specific forum? if ATI wants to clear up the mess they should do so officially by talking to EE Times, or some other publication, sending an email to someone, etc.
Yes they did. See B3D or Rage3D for a reply from ATI.

tieros 11-19-02 10:25 AM

Maybe this little blurb from nVidia yesterday was a not-so-subtle response:


Quote:

Tamasi went on to explain how nVidia takes advantage of DDR2:

"There are fundamental differences between DDR1 and DDR2, and if you want to make good use of DDR2, you have to design around longer burst lengths on the memory, because that's how they're going faster. So the entire memory subsystem has to be designed to handle that. You might be able to hook up a chip that's built for DDR1memory to DDR2 memory, and even run it at a high frequency, but you get horrible utilization out of the memory, because that DDR1 memory subsystem is all built around Burst-Length 2 accesses. So you'll get a half the efficiency accessing the Burst-Length 4 memory device."

pelly 11-19-02 11:45 AM

I am here...sitting on the sidelines chuckling to myself...

How ridiculous this whole thing truly is...

:D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.