|
|
#37 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 137
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at." -R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 | |
|
Wey aye man!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 162
|
OICAspork:
I located the original news post made on [H] which annoyed so many ppl : Quote:
Maybe this is something to do with "Memorial day" .. I don't even know what that is tbh ![]() 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.. Last edited by Grrrpoop; 05-24-03 at 06:38 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 | |
|
Registered User
|
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.
__________________
Athlon64 3000+ "Venice" @2.48Ghz Asrock Dual Sata2 939 1GB Corsair DDR 400 HIS X1900GT IceQ 3 @700/1600 1.45v |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 | |
|
Wey aye man!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 162
|
Quote:
![]() 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. ![]() Not biting the hand that feeds etc and we all know the ad revenue from the Doom3 hits must have been sweet ![]() 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 :-\ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
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). |
|
|
|
|
#43 | |
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dallas,TX
Posts: 352
|
Quote:
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. 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... ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
|
|
|
#45 | |
|
Registered User
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Athlon64 3000+ "Venice" @2.48Ghz Asrock Dual Sata2 939 1GB Corsair DDR 400 HIS X1900GT IceQ 3 @700/1600 1.45v |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 | |
|
radeon 9800 pro
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 | |
|
Registered User
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 | |
|
Registered User
|
Quote:
__________________
Athlon64 3000+ "Venice" @2.48Ghz Asrock Dual Sata2 939 1GB Corsair DDR 400 HIS X1900GT IceQ 3 @700/1600 1.45v |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| "GPU has fallen off the bus" error on 650M unless a CUDA program run first | amonakov | NVIDIA Linux | 0 | 06-18-12 06:34 PM |
| Getting the proprietary nvidia driver to run with Debian 3.0 r0 (woody) | Katchina404 | NVIDIA Linux | 9 | 01-12-03 08:49 AM |
| On The 333 Boards Does Anyone Run At 166fsb | john19055 | CPUs, Motherboards And Memory | 22 | 07-30-02 07:39 PM |