Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-04-03, 07:29 AM   #301
Hanners
Elite Bastard
 
Hanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 984
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
How is it different if Futuremark still alledged nvidia was cheating? nvidia could still find ways to cheat around 3dmark03 patches. nvidia had a suprising amount of support aroudn here through this whole debacle. Do you honestly think that more people would care if nvidia did it repeatedly? Of course, they already have.
It's different because if nVidia does cheat or 'optimise' again for the new patched version of 3DMark 2003, are FutureMark going to have the guts (or the inclination) to step up to the plate and announce to the community that they are cheating/'optimising' again? After what we have seen over the last few weeks, I'm not sure that they will - We just have to hope that the likes of Beyond3D will keep on checking for such 'optimisations'.
__________________
Owner / Editor-in-Chief - Elite Bastards
Hanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-03, 09:51 AM   #302
TheFrnchTickler
Registered User
 
TheFrnchTickler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisRay

Just because someone owns an ATI card does. Not make them an ATI zealot.

we all people here
As a radeon 9700 owner, I thank you.
TheFrnchTickler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-03, 10:43 AM   #303
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
In case you guys didn't know, this thread was linked from within rage3d forums found here...

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthr...20&pagenumber=1

PS
Had a good laugh reading that thread btw. Rage3d is the biggest joke of a forum on the Net in my opinion or in other words waste of time. Sites like that give ATI a bad name...
Being that Rage3d is the only real ATi site of any merrit I dont think i will agree with you. It more than a little irritates me that you would print something like that while you hang out here and apparently have no problem with the Nvidia Zealotry and such that goes on.

You apparently have never really payed much attention to what goes on at Rage3d. Because there are one hell of a lot more knowledgable people that hang there than almost anywhere else. Further they have a membership of hundreds of thousnads of people.
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-03, 10:59 AM   #304
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Imaginary Fiend
Quote:
you would discover that every one I cited had entirely Nvidia employees as inventors.
First of all no they didnt. and No you didn't

Secondly I can see that all you do every time this discussion continues is do a Quick Google search To try to back up one of your rediculously wild statements. Like the ones in your origional post that you keep toning down, qualifying and changing with every reply. Now *imagine* that.

It also appears that you get your information from what ammounts to Nvidia fansites. Which does not suprise me at all.

An example of information that you just looked up to *try* and make you apprear like you know what your talking about. In fact a good portion of this is flat out *PLAGERISM*. AS you did nothing but copy and paste lage portions of it.
Quote:
First, we need to distinguish between T&L and programmable vertex processing. Both have existed for decades. Jim Clark, founder of SGI, had a 1984 Siggraph paper on a T&L engine. SGI and other graphics hardware has had it forever. Some of them were even programmable, but only in microcode by the manufacturer.

In the PC graphics era, several companies have had T&L on the same card as the rasterizer. 3D Labs might have been the first. Diamond was early also, with the FireGL 5000. Rendition was also in there, as you say. However, these need to be distinguished from what is currently done - having T&L on the same chip as the rasterizer, not just the same card. This was first done for PC graphics by Nvidia with the Geforce 256, hence its name (Ge for geometry). Nvidia patented having it on the same chip and all the inventors listed are Nvidia employees. Again, this was nine months before the Radeon. The S3 Savage 2000 was introduced between the Geforce 256 and the Radeon.
The next bit is nothimg more than a bunch more partially correct information that you copy and pasted from the internet with a comment or teo of your own thrown in for good measure...
Quote:
You have Nvidia to thank for several graphics technologies and your gaming life is better because of Nvidia. That doesn't mean they can do no wrong but I think it means that they will be worthy of respect in the future as they have been in the past.
Wich brings us to the above statement. Based nearly COMPLETELY on partially correct, wrong, or confused statements you already made. I would go about and drag this out even longer by some Plagerism of my own but I dont have the time at the moment.

Why dont you actually try to read some of those White papers you Whiped out... Heck the Guy who invented the F-Buffer works for Nvidia now to so they get the credit for that as well eh???


I'll get more into this later but i dont have the time at the moment. Work and all.
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-03, 11:05 AM   #305
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hanners
It's different because if nVidia does cheat or 'optimise' again for the new patched version of 3DMark 2003, are FutureMark going to have the guts (or the inclination) to step up to the plate and announce to the community that they are cheating/'optimising' again? After what we have seen over the last few weeks, I'm not sure that they will - We just have to hope that the likes of Beyond3D will keep on checking for such 'optimisations'.
next audit report can use "unacceptable optimization found" instead of "cheats". Just dont use the word "cheat" i guess
Behemoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-03, 11:18 AM   #306
DivotMaker
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by solofly
PS
Had a good laugh reading that thread btw. Rage3d is the biggest joke of a forum on the Net in my opinion or in other words waste of time. Sites like that give ATI a bad name...
Um, I hate to disagree with you there. As someone who owns hardware from both nVidia and ATI and visits this site and Rage 3D on a daily basis, I think you are wrong. Granted there is alot of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing going on over there, but don't tell me it hasn't been going on over here too lately.

I have met some really good people over there such as Terry (aka Catalyst Maker) and Steve (aka GI Bro). They are good people and like ANY forum today, you have people who troll and cause problems, but they are very good about controlling undesirable behavior.
DivotMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-03, 11:20 AM   #307
TheFrnchTickler
Registered User
 
TheFrnchTickler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 40
Default

Hmm... This seems to be the meat of the Imaginaryfiend/Hillbender discussion so far:

Imaginaryfiend: Well, this is what happened, how it happened, and here's some links to support that.

Hellbinder: YOUR A STUPIDHEAD

Imaginaryfiend: I think you mean "You're", but here's some more links if you need more proof.

Hellbender: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, ALL YOU DO IS POST UP LINKS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.

Does it seem this way to everyone else, as well?
TheFrnchTickler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-03, 11:41 AM   #308
ImaginaryFiend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Imaginary Fiend

First of all no they didnt. and No you didn't

Secondly I can see that all you do every time this discussion continues is do a Quick Google search To try to back up one of your rediculously wild statements. Like the ones in your origional post that you keep toning down, qualifying and changing with every reply. Now *imagine* that.

It also appears that you get your information from what ammounts to Nvidia fansites. Which does not suprise me at all.

An example of information that you just looked up to *try* and make you apprear like you know what your talking about. In fact a good portion of this is flat out *PLAGERISM*. AS you did nothing but copy and paste lage portions of it.

The next bit is nothimg more than a bunch more partially correct information that you copy and pasted from the internet with a comment or teo of your own thrown in for good measure...

Wich brings us to the above statement. Based nearly COMPLETELY on partially correct, wrong, or confused statements you already made. I would go about and drag this out even longer by some Plagerism of my own but I dont have the time at the moment.

Why dont you actually try to read some of those White papers you Whiped out... Heck the Guy who invented the F-Buffer works for Nvidia now to so they get the credit for that as well eh???


I'll get more into this later but i dont have the time at the moment. Work and all.
Regarding the F-Buffer, the paper was by Bill Mark, et al., at Stanford. After that, Bill went to Nvidia for one year, where he architected Cg. He's now an assistant professor at the Computer Science Department at UT Austin. By the way, he has an upcoming Siggraph paper about Cg.

I'm starting to think you don't really believe what you're saying and you're just jabbing me for the fun of it, which is ok with me. Either that or you're just a rabid ATI fanboy. Based on that theory, I'm not going to reply any more, regardless of what you say. I know this will give you the last word, but your words so far haven't been very pursuasive, so I'm not concerned.

However, if you're really interested in this topic, feel free to email me at imaginaryfiend (at) hotmail com and we can talk in more detail.

Cheers, fanboy.

Last edited by ImaginaryFiend; 06-04-03 at 12:16 PM.
ImaginaryFiend is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-03, 11:47 AM   #309
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
Hmm... This seems to be the meat of the Imaginaryfiend/Hillbender discussion so far:

Imaginaryfiend: Well, this is what happened, how it happened, and here's some links to support that.

Hellbinder: YOUR A STUPIDHEAD

Imaginaryfiend: I think you mean "You're", but here's some more links if you need more proof.

Hellbender: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, ALL YOU DO IS POST UP LINKS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.

Does it seem this way to everyone else, as well?
You only think that because I choose not not need to do a google search every time I post. Why dont you try looking a little more carefully at what he posted, what his origional claims were etc. eh???

Or do you actually think that i just learned the difference between T&L and programable Vertex Shaders becuase this guy copy and pasted some quick links???? Perhaps, just perhaps you should look at his origional statements in his origional thread and then look at the progression of the thread. I posted in information about Rendition, powervr etc just as Simple examples. Not to try and *supposedly* educate everyone about the Difference between T&L and Vertex shaders which his information came from a Google search and the Cut and Paste function.

However, i see your point. I will have some time shortly and Will make a more official resposnce.
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-03, 11:56 AM   #310
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
Regarding the F-Buffer, the paper was by Bill Mark, et al., at Stanford. After that, Bill went to Nvidia for one year, where he architected Cg. He's now an assistant professor at the Computer Science Department at UT Austin. By the way, he has an upcoming Siggraph paper about Cg.

Your uneducated stubbornness is absolutely astonishing. I quote patents. I list their inventors and the positions those inventors hold at Nvidia. I cite research papers I've read (which are peer reviewed, unlike white papers). I give specific details of what graphics hardware systems did what and when. You wave your hands, shout, and make sweeping statements with no attempt to point to evidence. Let the other readers choose for themselves which of us is more credible.

I'm starting to think you don't really believe what you're saying and you're just jabbing me for the fun of it. Either that or you're just a rabid ATI fanboy. Based on that theory, I'm not going to reply any more, regardless of what you say. I know this will give you the last word, but your words so far haven't been very pursuasive, so I'm not concerned.

However, if you're really interested in this topic, feel free to email me at imaginaryfiend (at) hotmail com and we can talk in more detail.

Cheers, fanboy.
Wow, now thats the spirit.

No where did i assert that ATi was responsible for anything. I was only stating that your origional outlandish post about Nvidia and ATi was filled with partial truths and misinformation. In fact I am now begining to suspect that we have a real Nvidia PR department employee here. For the record David Kirk is the man. It is openly clear that he has done some great work that formwarded the industry.

I'll get back to this shortly...
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-03, 12:12 PM   #311
ImaginaryFiend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Zenikase
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they called "pixel shaders" for their programmability? The major differences between PS1.4- and PS2.0/3.0-type shaders is that the latter is capable of floating-point precision and branching/conditional code support. Essentially, that's it. The pixel shader found in NV2x isn't fixed function (like register combiners), but it doesn't offer the flexibility of its successor.
This is a good question because it's been kind of confusing to everyone ever since DX 8 came out.

Register combiners can be considered either as fixed function or as programmable. Think of them as a bunch of black boxes that do math - dot products, component multiplies, subtracts, muxes, etc. Each box is a fixed function. However, you configure (program) how these boxes are wired together. By wiring them in different ways you can make them compute different mathematical expressions to get different shading effects in the rendered result.

In OpenGL, each wire connecting one box to another was described by a function call that ended up being about four lines long. This was very painful. I'm not sure how register combiners were programmed in DirectX 7 - something similar, I think.

However, for DX 8, Microsoft came up with a different way of expressing how the wires are hooked together. It's a much shorter syntax that looks like a very simple assembly language. They called it "Pixel Shaders 1.0". Then they modified it for the Geforce 4 and called it "PS 1.3" and they modified it for the Radeon 8500 and called it "PS 1.4".

So PS 1.X is still for register combiner hardware, but MS made game programmers' lives easier by defining a much nicer way to "program" them.
ImaginaryFiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-03, 12:30 PM   #312
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

hi imaginaryfiend, may i trouble you by asking your knowledgeable opinion on nv3x vs r3xx shader performance
Behemoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
User Response : PR Response to Linus Torvald's Inflammatory Comments Blackcrack NVIDIA Linux 16 06-29-12 05:57 AM
PR Response to Linus Torvald's Inflammatory Comments News Archived News Items 0 06-19-12 01:00 AM
PR Response to Linus Torvald's Inflammatory Comments MikeC NVIDIA Linux 0 06-18-12 11:14 PM
NV30 name poll sancheuz NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 72 10-19-05 02:23 AM
Any details on Nvidia's failed NV2 for SEGA? suburbanguy Rumor Mill 1 08-21-02 11:30 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41 AM.


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