View Full Version : [H] Benchmarking Future Ed.
[H] Benchmarking Future
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDkx
Yikes. :cry:
Mariner
23-Jun-2003, 14:08
Editor's Note: In an effort to simplify the key point behind all of this, let us examine the following scenario. Consider a situation where an editor is reviewing two graphics cards. Using a popular synthetic benchmark suite, the editor discovers that Card A has twice the Pixel Shader performance of Card B. As a result, the editor writes a blurb in the conclusion of the review, which outlines the apparent fact, that Card A will perform better than Card B in upcoming titles that rely upon that Pixel Shader. Roughly a month or so after the review is posted, Doom3 arrives on the market. The editor fires up the game on his testbed and begins benchmarking the cards once more. Imagine his surprise when he finds that Card B now has the sizeable performance advantage!
But the question is, does Doom3 even use pixel shaders at all? Not as far as I'm aware!
Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the ability of [H] to clearly define what they are talking about.
3dfx made the frame rate comparison the de facto method for evaluating video cards. It seems ironic that some of 3dfx?s technology in the GeForceFX would hammer one of the first nails into the frame rate coffin.
What technology is this? :?
But the question is, does Doom3 even use pixel shaders at all? Not as far as I'm aware!
Pretty sure it does, yeah. At least in the R200, NV30, and ARB2 codepaths. Not sure about the bottom-end codepath.
What technology is this? :?
Ummm, massive delays? :)
Dave Baumann
23-Jun-2003, 14:35
Doom3 is not a shader targetted title - its feture arget was DX7 style graphics chips (NV1x/R100). AFAIK there is only one shader in use and that is to collapse the number of passes required for the lighting model.
Doomtrooper
23-Jun-2003, 16:03
Garbage, as usual :!:
K.I.L.E.R
23-Jun-2003, 16:21
Surprise! Surprise! :roll:
Did he get $50,00 for this one? ;) :lol:
Editor's Note: In an effort to simplify the key point behind all of this, let us examine the following scenario. Consider a situation where an editor is reviewing two graphics cards. Using a popular synthetic benchmark suite, the editor discovers that Card A has twice the Pixel Shader performance of Card B. As a result, the editor writes a blurb in the conclusion of the review, which outlines the apparent fact, that Card A will perform better than Card B in upcoming titles that rely upon that Pixel Shader. Roughly a month or so after the review is posted, Doom3 arrives on the market. The editor fires up the game on his testbed and begins benchmarking the cards once more. Imagine his surprise when he finds that Card B now has the sizeable performance advantage!
The problem with all of this convoluted "logic" is that running a game which employs an optimized code path for certain hardware and comparing the results to other hardware running the same game without such an optimized code path in no way invalidates the benchmark which offers a comparison of both products, neither of which is supported through vendor-specific code paths.
Why? Because despite what Kyle believes, the vast majority of 3D games sold do not offer "optimized code paths" for anybody's hardware. Therefore, the benchmark which offers no vendor-specific code paths is actually more accurate generally in assessing likely performance than the single game which offers vendor-specific pathing for one product but not any others. Isn't this fairly obvious?
I think Kyle's entire 3D software world can be boiled down to 3D Mark and D3, only one of which is currently shipping...;) Hey, Kyle, it's a GIGANTIC 3D software world out there.... :!: (And besides, it's way too soon to hypothesize D3 performance comparisons. Why you think your nv35 D3 demo has any meaning apart from a nVidia-sponored nV35 PR campaign beats me.)
3dfx made the frame rate comparison the de facto method for evaluating video cards. It seems ironic that some of 3dfx?s technology in the GeForceFX would hammer one of the first nails into the frame rate coffin.
Hopefully, Kyle is not so twisted by all of this that he imagines that people are going to stop looking at frame-rate/IQ comparisons simply because nVidia no longer deems it convenient... I think Kyle is smokin' the same stuff they're passing around at nVidia these days....;)
The real danger to Kyle with all of the nonsense he's spouting here is that people will begin to see how little he apparently understands about the very topics on which he opines... :idea:
Kyle, I really think you need to substantially expand your 3D software environment. Man does not live on D3 previews/3D benchmarks alone, you know... The entire situation can be boiled down to this:
Q: Why, after all these years, is nVidia seeking to discredit frame-rate benchmarks?
A: Because nVidia's competitors currently run them faster with better IQ.
Simple as that.
That dood either need to stop doing drugs or start doing drugs because something is wrong with his brain. Let me get this straight he's claiming a DX9 synthetic benchmark Pixel Shader results do not tell you how well a Doom3 (OpenGL with little Pixel Shader usage at all) will perform so it is useless.
The drivel divergence of technology is mind boggling. Nvidia is purposefully causing the divergence. The whole article is poop.
digitalwanderer
23-Jun-2003, 16:33
I'm just disapointed in myself for even reading the first page of that editorialmercial and giving that tool Kyle even 1 hit from me. :(
HOW can he keep basing the entire industry on a game that is not only not out yet but hasn't even had an announced shipping date yet?!?
I can't think of a whole lot of games out there that have optimized paths for different cards, I really can't. How can he be passing this off as accurate?
More importantly, how the hell could Pelly have his name in the byline and how can Brent live with himself working for such a schmuck? :(
[T]ardOCP sucks, but they win a capital 'T' out of me for this one at least. ;)
Kristof
23-Jun-2003, 16:36
Editor's Note: In an effort to simplify the key point behind all of this, let us examine the following scenario. Consider a situation where an editor is reviewing two graphics cards. Using a popular synthetic benchmark suite, the editor discovers that Card A has twice the Pixel Shader performance of Card B. As a result, the editor writes a blurb in the conclusion of the review, which outlines the apparent fact, that Card A will perform better than Card B in upcoming titles that rely upon that Pixel Shader. Roughly a month or so after the review is posted, Doom3 arrives on the market. The editor fires up the game on his testbed and begins benchmarking the cards once more. Imagine his surprise when he finds that Card B now has the sizeable performance advantage!
I think we have always said that its essential that, when using synthetic benchmarks, the reviewer has to know what he is doing and what conclusions can and can not be made. If your sysnthetic benchmark shows that pixel shader performance of board A is much better than board B then no game out there will change that fact. The only thing that can happen is that a different feature gets stress (for example stencil fillrate rather than pixel shader capability) or that a very different code path is implemented and used.
Skimping through the article I get the distinct impression that [H] thinks its going to be fine to compare apples to pears since thats how you play games. While its correct that people play games completely different (all effects on with crap fps, all effects off with top fps, some where in the middle, etc its all in the players personal prefference) this is actually completely irrelevant when judging game hardware. You need to make a choice when judging hardware : apples with apples, or pears with pears, etc depending on what game settings and paths you use. When you want to judge games and game playaibility then you can change settings for different boards but... if there is a clear visual difference or clear code difference then you can no longer compare performance at this stage. All you can fairly say in this case is that card X and Y both deliver (or not) a playble and acceptable visual experience in game Z, you can not say that X is faster or better than Y since they will be different.
Just IMHO of course...
K-
Joe DeFuria
23-Jun-2003, 16:38
Well, I will not visit the site so I can't read the whole article. But based on the blurb that was copied, here is my translation:
******
"Here at [H], we already have our pre-conceived notion of how cards A and B should run pixel shading games and applications, or future titles in general. We won't tell you where this preconceived idea came from, or provide you with any relevant data which supports our preconceived notion. You aren't smart enough to understand it.
In a nutshell, any tests that don't agree with our preconceived notion of performance, simply will not be shown by us here at [H]. That would just be counter productive and confusing, wouldn't it? We basically believe that you, our readership, are a bunch of mindless idiots. You cannot possibly be trusted with being given ALL the information, and making up your own mind and drawing your own conclusions.
Our mission at [H] is not to give you all the information possible to make an informed assesment. Our mission is to only give you whatever information there is that agrees with our unsupported yet preconceived idea of how things should turn out, and forget the rest.
Here at [H] we've done the thinking for you!"
digitalwanderer
23-Jun-2003, 16:50
Well, I will not visit the site so I can't read the whole article. But based on the blurb that was copied, here is my translation:
******
"Here at [H], we already have our pre-conceived notion of how cards A and B should run pixel shading games and applications, or future titles in general. We won't tell you where this preconceived idea came from, or provide you with any relevant data which supports our preconceived notion. You aren't smart enough to understand it.
In a nutshell, any tests that don't agree with our preconceived notion of performance, simply will not be shown by us here at [H]. That would just be counter productive and confusing, wouldn't it? We basically believe that you, our readership, are a bunch of mindless idiots. You cannot possibly be trusted with being given ALL the information, and making up their own mind and drawing your own conclusions.
Our mission at [H] is not to give you all the information possible to make an informed assesment. Our mission is to only give you whatever information there is that agrees with our unsupported yet preconceived idea of how things should turn out, and forget the rest.
Here at [H] we've done the thinking for you!"
Actually that's pretty bang-on right from the page I read, but much more honest.
Well, I will not visit the site so I can't read the whole article. But based on the blurb that was copied, here is my translation:
Heh-Heh...Pretty funny...;) I couldn't resist adding my enlargements in brackets:
******
"Here at [H], we already have our pre-conceived notion of how cards A and B should run pixel shading games and applications, or future titles in general. We won't tell you where this preconceived idea came from, or provide you with any relevant data which supports our preconceived notion. You aren't smart enough to understand it. [And we know this because if we at [H] aren't smart enough to understand it there's no way you are.]
In a nutshell, any tests that don't agree with our preconceived notion of performance, simply will not be shown by us here at [H]. That would just be counter productive and confusing, wouldn't it? We basically believe that you, our readership, are a bunch of mindless idiots. You cannot possibly be trusted with being given ALL the information, and making up their own mind and drawing your own conclusions. [We at [H] want to ensure that we remain as mindless and idiotic as our audience and so we work hard to stay that way--all for you.]
Our mission at [H] is not to give you all the information possible to make an informed assesment. Our mission is to only give you whatever information there is that agrees with our unsupported yet preconceived idea of how things should turn out, and forget the rest. [Well-considered information is at best a burden we at [H] want to lift from your shoulders, and we're proud of how we reinterpret and reorder, "optimize" if you will, information so that it is suitable for the digestion of the common man.]
Here at [H] we've done the thinking for you! [To that end we have decided to publish a Mac-centered, Apple-oriented web site in addition to our current pages, for we share many philosophical values with the Apple corporation.]"
That is how we think NVIDIA skated on their 3DMark 03 “optimizations” with a pack of lawyers clearing the way. NVIDIA is optimizing for benchmarks quite clearly and that is something we will have to deal with. It seems certain that they are not alone in doing that, but from what information we have been privy to in the last month it certainly seems to us that NVIDIA is doing a bit more optimizing than their competition.The above quote is something I wasnt expecting him to say.
That is how we think NVIDIA skated on their 3DMark 03 “optimizations” with a pack of lawyers clearing the way. NVIDIA is optimizing for benchmarks quite clearly and that is something we will have to deal with. It seems certain that they are not alone in doing that, but from what information we have been privy to in the last month it certainly seems to us that NVIDIA is doing a bit more optimizing than their competition.The above quote is something I wasnt expecting him to say.
It sounds like exactly what I'd expect him to say...He doesn't call some of what nVidia did "cheating" because he doesn't understand it well enough to see the glaring differences between what they did and what ATi did except to say that nVidia did "more of it." That's an inaccurate summation as ATi did nothing like some of the things nVidia did relative to 3DMark 03. Notice he says "we will have to deal with it" while categorically refusing to deal with it. It's the kind of "half-truth" attitude that so aptly characterizes the bulk of nVidia's PR. He's clearly been engulfed by it.
That is how we think NVIDIA skated on their 3DMark 03 “optimizations” with a pack of lawyers clearing the way. NVIDIA is optimizing for benchmarks quite clearly and that is something we will have to deal with. It seems certain that they are not alone in doing that, but from what information we have been privy to in the last month it certainly seems to us that NVIDIA is doing a bit more optimizing than their competition.The above quote is something I wasnt expecting him to say.
It sounds like exactly what I'd expect him to say...He doesn't call some of what nVidia did "cheating" because he doesn't understand it well enough to see the glaring differences between what they did and what ATi did except to say that nVidia did "more of it." That's an inaccurate summation as ATi did nothing like some of the things nVidia did relative to 3DMark 03. Notice he says "we will have to deal with it" while categorically refusing to deal with it. It's the kind of "half-truth" attitude that so aptly characterizes the bulk of nVidia's PR. He's clearly been engulfed by it.if he would have actually used the word "cheat", would it have made a difference in your eyes? I think it's a step in the right direction for him.
They don't deserve that much attention IMO.
Simply ignore them.
They don't deserve that much attention IMO.
Simply ignore them.I dont "simply ignore" anything.
I can solve the problem add this line to your HOSTS file
127.0.0.1 www.hardocp.com
I can solve the problem add this line to your HOSTS file
127.0.0.1 www.hardocp.comI dont get it.
MrGaribaldi
23-Jun-2003, 17:52
if he would have actually used the word "cheat", would it have made a difference in your eyes? I think it's a step in the right direction for him.
I hope you are right, and that he really is coming around, though it is plausible that he added that part to sound more objective than he really is...
They don't deserve that much attention IMO.
Simply ignore them.
That is one way of dealing with it...
But how many people do you think will/is ignoring them?
IMO, it would be better if any/all inconsistencies of that (and other) editorials were (for lack of better word) uncovered....
By doing that, more people will become aware of the "problem", and will get a better understand of what is really going on...
And even if such a discussion won't take place on many forums, that it happens here will at least give us somewhere to point people should they take everything at face value...
if he would have actually used the word "cheat", would it have made a difference in your eyes? I think it's a step in the right direction for him.
Yes, of course it would have, because "cheat" is accurate--"optimization" is not. Some of the things nVidia did relative to shader performance *might be* considered legitimate optimizations. The things it did with respect to unrendered frame segments, clip planes, and buffer overruns could never be considered as legitimate optimizations as they were deliberate attempts to scale back the default workload the benchmark mandates merely to inflate performance scores. That's cheating.
Kyle can take all the steps in the right direction he wants to--until he *arrives* he's still in the same place, IMO....;) His defense of nVidia on this point is indefensible. Here's the distinction for me:
optimization: reordering the workload for more efficiency on your hardware
cheating: eliminating a portion of the workload so that your hardware appears to run faster than it actually can when running the default workload
My e-dictionary defines the two thusly:
optimize: make as perfect, effective, or fundamental as possible
cheat: act of deceiving
You can see why one term should never be confused with the other.
if he would have actually used the word "cheat", would it have made a difference in your eyes? I think it's a step in the right direction for him.
Yes, of course it would have, because "cheat" is accurate--"optimization" is not. Some of the things nVidia did relative to shader performance *might be* considered legitimate optimizations. The things it did with respect to unrendered frame segments, clip planes, and buffer overruns could never be considered as legitimate optimizations as they were deliberate attempts to scale back the default workload the benchmark mandates merely to inflate performance scores. That's cheating.
Kyle can take all the steps in the right direction he wants to--until he *arrives* he's still in the same place, IMO....;) His defense of nVidia on this point is indefensible. Here's the distinction for me:
optimization: reordering the workload for more efficiency on your hardware
cheating: eliminating a portion of the workload so that your hardware appears to run faster than it actually can when running the default workload
My e-dictionary defines the two thusly:
optimize: make as perfect, effective, or fundamental as possible
cheat: act of deceiving
You can see why one term should never be confused with the other.I agree 100% with everything you just said.
I agree 100% with everything you just said.
Come on..."everything"....? (Nah, just kidding...;))
Kyle can take all the steps in the right direction he wants to--until he *arrives* he's still in the same place, IMO....;)
I agree with even that part. I have the oppinion personally though, that I do hope Kyle and his site return to being at least semi respected.
John Reynolds
23-Jun-2003, 18:30
I can solve the problem add this line to your HOSTS file
127.0.0.1 www.hardocp.comI dont get it.
Hosts files deal with DNS name resolution (and LMHOSTS are for WINS). That line won't allow your system to ever resolve Hardocp's IP address since 127.0.0.1 is your own loopback addy.
So we're now going to grade graphics card not on performance but how fancy the cooling system is according to NV/[T]ardocp (well common, what's the use writing them in two seperate words. Their the same thing anyway, almost)
Reverend
23-Jun-2003, 18:33
Kyle like games, so does Beyond3D. Kyle likes 3D, so does Beyond3D.
The difference is in the knowledge of using games and knowledge of 3D to write reviews that are more informative than reviews with just charts. Anyone can do the latter. Not everyone has the focus and interest to do the former.
The "trend", as Kyle correctly reads it in his piece, is that readers are becoming more demanding... because there are websites out there providing the additional info... info beyond just charts and "CardA runs GameX better than CardB (duh)". He doesn't like this trend for a reason, which isn't mentioned in his piece (and of which I won't mention here as well because if I do, then he may take exceptio to it, but it is my honest opinion). Suffice to say it has to do with availability of 3D technology expertise.
I will never dispute the fact that currently available games will be the primary criteria for the success of a video card, because that's all a reviewer can use most of the time. But the real "issue" here is one of focus and interest -- I truly believe that if Beyond3D never uses games and only synthetic benchmarks to investigate a piece of hardware, that B3D's content will have a niche audience. Whether this niche audience is as large as the "gamers audience" may not actually be important to Beyond3D, if such is the scenario.
In summary, I do not find any interest at all in Kyle's piece -- he's just basically telling you that different websites have different interests. It is up to you to see which website provides you with the information you seek.
it tells your network connection Hardocp is located at 127.0.0.1 which is your computer effectively blocking the URL .
RussSchultz
23-Jun-2003, 18:38
it tells your network connection Hardocp is located at 127.0.0.1 which is your computer effectively blocking the URL .
I just do it on his ad server. ;)
So we're now going to grade graphics card not on performance but how fancy the cooling system is according to NV/[T]ardocp?????.....huh?
Well i just read it. And i don't get the point he is trying to make. Except the obvious that he knows as little or less than me about 3d. The cold hard facts part was just ridicoulus like this one
If these synthetic benchmarks are as valuable as some might have you to believe, then why can’t those people use those utilities to conclusively tell me what is going to be the best card to play Half Life 2 or DOOM3?
He must be hallucinating or something. Noone has told him that any synthetic benchmark is the all and be all. Then he goes on to assume that synthetic benchmarks are supposed to tell future performance of future (not made yet) game engines.
Honestly i know very little in this world of 3d. But that guy seems to know less. If people take what he says to brain then there are indeed lots of sheep to hurdle
digitalwanderer
23-Jun-2003, 18:51
Well, I will not visit the site so I can't read the whole article. But based on the blurb that was copied, here is my translation:
Heh-Heh...Pretty funny...;) I couldn't resist adding my enlargements in brackets:
******
"Here at [H], we already have our pre-conceived notion of how cards A and B should run pixel shading games and applications, or future titles in general. We won't tell you where this preconceived idea came from, or provide you with any relevant data which supports our preconceived notion. You aren't smart enough to understand it. [And we know this because if we at [H] aren't smart enough to understand it there's no way you are.]
In a nutshell, any tests that don't agree with our preconceived notion of performance, simply will not be shown by us here at [H]. That would just be counter productive and confusing, wouldn't it? We basically believe that you, our readership, are a bunch of mindless idiots. You cannot possibly be trusted with being given ALL the information, and making up their own mind and drawing your own conclusions. [We at [H] want to ensure that we remain as mindless and idiotic as our audience and so we work hard to stay that way--all for you.]
Our mission at [H] is not to give you all the information possible to make an informed assesment. Our mission is to only give you whatever information there is that agrees with our unsupported yet preconceived idea of how things should turn out, and forget the rest. [Well-considered information is at best a burden we at [H] want to lift from your shoulders, and we're proud of how we reinterpret and reorder, "optimize" if you will, information so that it is suitable for the digestion of the common man.]
Here at [H] we've done the thinking for you! [To that end we have decided to publish a Mac-centered, Apple-oriented web site in addition to our current pages, for we share many philosophical values with the Apple corporation.]"
Thanks, your bracketed translations DID add another level of humor to it that I got a good coffee spitting belly laugh off of. :lol:
John Reynolds
23-Jun-2003, 19:22
In summary, I do not find any interest at all in Kyle's piece -- he's just basically telling you that different websites have different interests. It is up to you to see which website provides you with the information you seek.
That's a nice way of putting it, but even with a gamer-oriented perspective Kyle is using an illogical piece of thinking (because a synthetic's DX9 shader performance fails to equate with an OGL game scores using vendor specific code paths it must be trash) to promote a blatantly obvious anti-Futuremark agenda.
I also find it distasteful how it's never mentioned that those Doom 3 scores were derived from workstations supplied/built by Nvidia. So he's not only using a very illogical argument but he's also building it on a potential house of cards.
I sincerely hope that PowerVr will release a card that compete's with ATI's R3XX series and that it is based on the same ISA as that of ATI's. Then reviewers could compare apples to apples to lemons. Game dev's could spend more time developing games a apposed to creating code paths and could just ignore the lemons. Somehow I get the feeling that Nvidia likes the idea of dividing the development community. The divide and conquer tactics (if successful) would allow them to wrestle the future of ISA's away from Microsoft.
martrox
23-Jun-2003, 20:33
And, this, children, is an example of just why drugs are bad for you........ :wink:
EDIT: where's that damn spelling checker.........
Evildeus
23-Jun-2003, 20:42
LOL :lol:
Himself
23-Jun-2003, 20:47
All this foolishness reminds me of professional wrestling. :)
CorwinB
23-Jun-2003, 22:24
If [K]yle thinks he's going to keep his readers with that kind of editorials, he obviously has smoken something hallucinogenic too. It seems to be becoming something quite usual in this industry...
An [H] forum member wrote...
Beyond 3D
You'll find many more informed opinions over at that site than you will anywhere.
Kyle wrote
Actually I think you can find more informed opinions in a Yahoo chatroom.
I like how your "experts" resort to name calling, conspiracy theories, picking apart hypothetical example, and simply discussing how they refuse to read the whole thing, but continue to comment on it like they know what the article states.
Here are some great quotes from your experts.
"Surprise! Surprise! Did he get $50,00 for this one? "
"Garbage, as usual "
"The real danger to Kyle with all of the nonsense he's spouting here is that people will begin to see how little he apparently understands about the very topics on which he opines... "
"That dood either need to stop doing drugs or start doing drugs because something is wrong with his brain."
"I'm just disapointed in myself for even reading the first page of that editorialmercial and giving that tool Kyle even 1 hit from me. "
"Well, I will not visit the site so I can't read the whole article. But based on the blurb that was copied, here is my translation: "
"He must be hallucinating or something. "
"And, this, children, is an example of just why drugs are bad for you........ "
I somehow am not as impressed by their expert opinions as you are. Sounds like fanboys riding their little radio flyer bandwagon around looking for someone to actually give them attention. But that is just my opinion.
Though Kyle doesnt post here anymore, he deffinately remains here with us. Hi Kyle :wink:
RussSchultz
23-Jun-2003, 22:43
He did cherry pick the more emotional statements (though this particular thread is rife with them), but still, these things were said here.
Of course, that doesn't prove that you'll find more expert opinion in a yahoo forum (which was his contention).
He did cherry pick the more emtional statements (though this particular thread is rife with them), but still, these things were said here.
Of course, that doesn't prove that you'll find more expert opinion in a yahoo forum (which was his contention).
Agreed. Something tells me things are finally getting to Kyle. I sincerely don't envy his position, but it is one he made himself.
[Joke mode ON]
Maybe Beyond3D and the forums should challenge him to a duel? Our 3D experts against his? That would definitely determine who knows what in the hell they're talking about! :D
[Joke mode OFF]
Sorry Kyle, but you have to agree this whole thing is humorous.
Tommy McClain
lol can you say infinite delta? :D
that would be the gap between beyond3d and [H] in 3d knowledge.
digitalwanderer
23-Jun-2003, 23:43
An [H] forum member wrote...
Beyond 3D
You'll find many more informed opinions over at that site than you will anywhere.
Kyle wrote
Actually I think you can find more informed opinions in a Yahoo chatroom.
I like how your "experts" resort to name calling, conspiracy theories, picking apart hypothetical example, and simply discussing how they refuse to read the whole thing, but continue to comment on it like they know what the article states.
Here are some great quotes from your experts.
"Surprise! Surprise! Did he get $50,00 for this one? "
"Garbage, as usual "
"The real danger to Kyle with all of the nonsense he's spouting here is that people will begin to see how little he apparently understands about the very topics on which he opines... "
"That dood either need to stop doing drugs or start doing drugs because something is wrong with his brain."
"I'm just disapointed in myself for even reading the first page of that editorialmercial and giving that tool Kyle even 1 hit from me. "
"Well, I will not visit the site so I can't read the whole article. But based on the blurb that was copied, here is my translation: "
"He must be hallucinating or something. "
"And, this, children, is an example of just why drugs are bad for you........ "
I somehow am not as impressed by their expert opinions as you are. Sounds like fanboys riding their little radio flyer bandwagon around looking for someone to actually give them attention. But that is just my opinion.
Though Kyle doesnt post here anymore, he deffinately remains here with us. Hi Kyle :wink:
OMG, I was quoted as a B3D expert! :lol: I think I can die happy now. ;)
And here I thought that Kyle had forgotten all about me, it's re-assuring to know you still keep abreast of the real-world at least Kyle. :)
(BTW-Brent posted over at Rage3D about it, but totally NOT about it and evasive to even answer what he thought about it. :( )
lol can you say infinite delta? :D
that would be the gap between beyond3d and [H] in 3d knowledge.There are some really smart posters over at [H], just as there are here. This is getting a little stupid.
lol can you say infinite delta? :D
that would be the gap between beyond3d and [H] in 3d knowledge.
Easy there. You shouldn't make the mistake Kyle==[H]. In fact, some of their recent reviews (Especially those of Brent) where among the best you could find for the reviewed product.
It is just all the same flamers posting there and other places now. I have better things to do than get in line for their verbal abuse. I have asked admins at other boards to get rid of the obvious flaming, but they will not do it.
My community interaction will stay in the [H]F for the most part. I like moving around but lately I like it here much better. Sensible folks with sensible thoughts that can share a difference in opinion is really what makes the interaction fun anyway.
__________________
Doomtrooper
23-Jun-2003, 23:53
Who cares ?? What is the infatuation with Kyle Micron...he likes it in his forums because he can ban and delete or lock threads he can't answer..I know ..been there.
I'm doing my part, avoiding the site and the drivel that spews from it, and that is the only way to make change.
I'm doing my part, avoiding the site and the drivel that spews from it, and that is the only way to make change.Then why are you in this thread Doomtrooper?...why are you reading it?
You claim not to care about Kyle or [H] but your always joining in on the discussions concerning him or his site. Your actions speak louder then words.
*edit*
spelling
Doomtrooper
24-Jun-2003, 00:09
I replied once to the copied article, four words...garbage.
I then replied to your infatuation with [H], if you like it so much there...go there.
I replied once to the copied article, four words...garbage.
I then replied to your infatuation with [H], if you like it so much there...go there.I do go there.
And yes, you did reply to the article, but still, here you are in a thread devoted to Kyles words, making claims that you avoid everything about Kyle, it just doesnt make sense, your contradicting yourself.
Doomtrooper
24-Jun-2003, 00:32
Kyle and I go way back, I don't like him..and hard not to show my enthusiasm for hatred :lol:
Doomtrooper
24-Jun-2003, 00:34
Ahhh the movies are back up...sweet.
http://www.fanta.dk/showmovie.asp?mid=BA1FAC31-745C-4402-B915-C60FFB63E35C
That is honest and completely acceptable to me.
digitalwanderer
24-Jun-2003, 00:35
I post about Kyle and read about him and [T]ardOCP's adventures whenever I see a thread about 'em in a forum I'm at. It's sort of like slowing down when you go past a car accident to see if you can see anything. You don't really want to see, but you can't help but look.
In Kyle's case I think it's a good idea to waste a little time and energy to post up just how detached from reality Kyle's view is just to act as a counter-point of sanity to his widely read tripe.
That and it's now me personal crusade to stalk Brent until he talks one way or another, I wanna hear his take on this and he ain't safe on any board anywhere until he responds to it. :twisted:
Doomtrooper
24-Jun-2003, 00:39
It's sort of like slowing down when you go past a car accident to see if you can see anything. You don't really want to see, but you can't help but look.
Remember the old talk shows like Oprah on 'sweeps week' when they would have crazy subjects like "I married a transexual" or Trash TV, Kyle uses the same antics :D
It reads to me more nuanced than what I would have thot from the reaction here. Possibly wrong-headed, but I think he is reaching for something here that could be of value. It seems to me that he has a a key idea here that most of his edifice is built on:
"We are going to see D3D games that behave differently within the same API. As the video card companies move forward with developing tighter bonds with game developers and publishing houses, there is no doubt we are going to see more hardware specific effects in games. Depending on your hardware, your game experience may differ. To what extent is yet to be seen, but we think that this alone will show that the days of apples to apples is coming to a close as the proprietary hardware technologies diverge. While this is just speculation, we think that NVIDIA moving some of their high-end business to IBM will facilitate this happening more rapidly as each faction of the video wars becomes a bit more shielded from each other’s technology." Later on, he adds: "Also, we do think we will see a hardware specific title in the next 24 months if not sooner. While we hope we are wrong on this, it does look that a console-type business model will be tested out in the PC gaming arena."
If he's right on that (which with my extremely limited understanding of things I thought that was what DirectX had put an end to, more or less) he may have a point.
A couple other interesting points:
I've edited a chunk below together that seems to me connected, but I warn you in advance that this is my editing. I find them connected, others might call it selective editing. You don't like it; go read for yourself:
"Quite simply, NVIDIA has changed the rules of synthetic benchmarking. Synthetics were understood to be free standing utilities that were not optimized for. We think that is how the hardware community saw these tools. . .NVIDIA is optimizing for benchmarks quite clearly and that is something we will have to deal with. It seems certain that they are not alone in doing that, but from what information we have been privy to in the last month it certainly seems to us that NVIDIA is doing a bit more optimizing than their competition. . .When 3DMark03 recently fell from grace, we knew there were sure to be others. This is far from over in my opinion. "
And finally the payoff: "We have an idea that the gaming and hardware communities need to come together and form a not-for-profit organization to work on this issue as a team. Benchmarking for money is simply out of the question as FutureMark has proven that business model to be full of holes to say the least. Our communities need to self-regulate and decide how to best facilitate the needs of the consumer that ultimately pay all our bills."
What's wrong with that? Will an IHV dare to cheat a test that is backed by, say, the 10 largest review websites, when the agreement also states that a finding of c/h/e/a/t/i/n/g/ "inappropriate optimization" will ban them from coverage on ALL of those sites for a period of, say, 6 months?
Okay, rip me a new one now. :D
kemosabe
24-Jun-2003, 02:17
Well, while Kyle may be having some difficulty with the basic principles underlying this benchmarking controversy, Rich Huddy at ATI certainly isn't holding anything back: http://slike.slo-tech.com/masses/index.html
Is being a former NVIDIA employee a prerequisite for being so "outspoken"? :lol:
Well, while Kyle may be having some difficulty with the basic principles underlying this benchmarking controversy, Rich Huddy at ATI certainly isn't holding anything back: http://slike.slo-tech.com/masses/index.html
Is being a former NVIDIA employee a prerequisite for being so "outspoken"? :lol:Excellent read!
almost every games developer I know drinks too much caffeine and works too many hours in the ordinary working day. We need to work smarter not harder. Using the high level shading languages are a major part of this, but generally the life of a games developer is pretty tough.
Kyle wrote
Actually I think you can find more informed opinions in a Yahoo chatroom.
I like how your "experts" resort to name calling, conspiracy theories, picking apart hypothetical example, and simply discussing how they refuse to read the whole thing, but continue to comment on it like they know what the article states.
Here are some great quotes from your experts.
"Surprise! Surprise! Did he get $50,00 for this one? "
"Garbage, as usual "
"The real danger to Kyle with all of the nonsense he's spouting here is that people will begin to see how little he apparently understands about the very topics on which he opines... "
"That dood either need to stop doing drugs or start doing drugs because something is wrong with his brain."
"I'm just disapointed in myself for even reading the first page of that editorialmercial and giving that tool Kyle even 1 hit from me. "
"Well, I will not visit the site so I can't read the whole article. But based on the blurb that was copied, here is my translation: "
"He must be hallucinating or something. "
"And, this, children, is an example of just why drugs are bad for you........ "
I somehow am not as impressed by their expert opinions as you are. Sounds like fanboys riding their little radio flyer bandwagon around looking for someone to actually give them attention. But that is just my opinion.
You know, it seems miraculous to me that Kyle would view these quotes as "comments"...what about all of the substantive comments disputing his assertions and conclusions? There are far more words written to that than there are jabs of the nature he quotes. Isn't he just as guilty as those he accuses of refusing "...to read the whole thing, but continue to comment on it like they know what the article states." He obviously isn't reading the considered criticism he's getting.
Kyle, I think those of us who have commented know what your opinions are as you have stated them for the past several weeks. Why won't you debate your positions in a neutral forum like B3d where everyone, including you, is free to state his opinions without fear of censure? Do yourself a favor and quit hiding behind your editorial pages--you might be surprised at the support you'd pick up if you could defend your positions. But if you can't defend them, or won't defend them, don't be surprised to see such support as you have erode.
That's a nice way of putting it, but even with a gamer-oriented perspective Kyle is using an illogical piece of thinking (because a synthetic's DX9 shader performance fails to equate with an OGL game scores using vendor specific code paths it must be trash) to promote a blatantly obvious anti-Futuremark agenda.
I agree with your general thrust, and agree that it is tantamount to being anti-FutureMark (if we can use such a phrase without laughing at how ridiculous it is...;))
However, I think the anti-FutureMark stance is merely a sideline to the real agenda which is to help nVidia promote itself by way of discrediting any software which nVidia finds inconvenient from a commercial perspective. Note that the latest nVidia attack is on "fraps" (for goodness' sake) and that certain [H] staffers have taken to adding perplexing and baffling signatures such as "The Benchmark Slayer" to their posts....;) So, FutureMark is just one of many demons nVidia feels it must attempt to slay because it views such software as diametrically opposed to the ends of selling its hardware.
I think the chances of nVidia's success in this endeavor is roughly equivalent to the probability of us seeing a manned mission to Mars set foot on the Red Planet by this Christmas...;) For that reason it is odd indeed to see [H] staking the entire credibility of the site, something it has taken years to build, on such a silly set of notions like "frame-rate benchmarks are dead" and so on. [H] is likely to share whatever lack of success comes to nVidia by way of this campaign. It surely will not succeed.
Instead, what has clearly transpired is that the nature of benchmarks is definitely changing, but the change has nothing to do with eliminating frame-rates; rather, it has to do with adding as much emphasis on IQ as heretofore has been placed mainly on frame-rate counts alone. Yes, benchmarks are changing, but they are evolving into "frame-rate & IQ" benchmarks instead of being mere frame-rate counters. And that's what I see that is troubling nVidia--they'd just as soon everything revert to frame-rates only or else no one run any benhmarks at all. I can't see any difference between the position nVidia has taken and [H]'s position, unfortunately. Both are equally illogical, and equally improbable.
I also find it distasteful how it's never mentioned that those Doom 3 scores were derived from workstations supplied/built by Nvidia. So he's not only using a very illogical argument but he's also building it on a potential house of cards.
By far the site most impressed with the "Doom 3 preview" is [H.] It comes up in Kyle's editorial comments again and again. Most everyone else understood it for what it was: a contrived, carefully controlled PR event the main purpose of which was to promote nVidia's nv35 hardware. It was neither open nor fair nor objective in any sense of the word, and Kyle's pretensions otherwise have not taken root in sites other than [H.] His position that a pre-release game *demo* utilizing a vendor-specific path (and therefore itself not representative of the bulk of 3D games) is "A-OK", but a benchmark using generic DX9 shader code is an abomination, is really too bizarre to understand.
But so is nVidia's anti-benchmark crusade, which is just dumb. If nVidia's hardware was as it is represented by nVidia then the company would have nothing to fear from people using such software. IMO, nVidia is simply afraid of people using that type of software to discredit its marketing efforts. Either Kyle doesn't see that he's being used as a dupe, or else he intends it deliberately. What on earth would make anyone imagine that the only thing people are interested in, and should be interested in is how well a piece of hardware runs a pre-release Doom 3 preview demo that few people on earth have had any access to. If he thinks that this is the only avenue of interest people have in looking at 3D chips he is of course very much mistaken.
I also find it distasteful how it's never mentioned that those Doom 3 scores were derived from workstations supplied/built by Nvidia. So he's not only using a very illogical argument but he's also building it on a potential house of cards.Actually, IIRC, [H] was the only site to use their own machine with nV's HD, b/c nV's machine either never reached them or was damaged in transit.
Still, the demo was provided and sponsored by nV at its request, and it seems ATi was not given equal warning about the test. So the results aren't fully valid, IMO, especially now that I know there's a difference between app-requested and driver-forced AF, which is the difference between D3's MQ and HQ modes.
I agree with Kyle's assessment of this forum as overly vicious. Sure, we may know more than other forums, but who gives a flying Dutchman when all you read is how someone was paid off or spewing garbage, etc. A little more civility would suit this forum well. I'd rather have Kyle in here to debate with, even if I disagree with him. Chasing him out with rather rude remarks (like he was so easily able to find) isn't really doing anyone a service.
Kyle has hit rock bottem, and he's taking Brent with him :( .
K.I.L.E.R
24-Jun-2003, 07:27
An [H] forum member wrote...
Beyond 3D
You'll find many more informed opinions over at that site than you will anywhere.
Kyle wrote
Actually I think you can find more informed opinions in a Yahoo chatroom.
I like how your "experts" resort to name calling, conspiracy theories, picking apart hypothetical example, and simply discussing how they refuse to read the whole thing, but continue to comment on it like they know what the article states.
Here are some great quotes from your experts.
"Surprise! Surprise! Did he get $50,00 for this one? "
"Garbage, as usual "
"The real danger to Kyle with all of the nonsense he's spouting here is that people will begin to see how little he apparently understands about the very topics on which he opines... "
"That dood either need to stop doing drugs or start doing drugs because something is wrong with his brain."
"I'm just disapointed in myself for even reading the first page of that editorialmercial and giving that tool Kyle even 1 hit from me. "
"Well, I will not visit the site so I can't read the whole article. But based on the blurb that was copied, here is my translation: "
"He must be hallucinating or something. "
"And, this, children, is an example of just why drugs are bad for you........ "
I somehow am not as impressed by their expert opinions as you are. Sounds like fanboys riding their little radio flyer bandwagon around looking for someone to actually give them attention. But that is just my opinion.
Though Kyle doesnt post here anymore, he deffinately remains here with us. Hi Kyle :wink:
YAY! He quoted me. :lol:
How exactly are we fanboys? nVIDIA cheated and I am simply disgusted by it. When Ati cheated with the Quack thing I was equally disgusted.
Seems to me, f-an.bo.y = someone who doesn't agree with Kyle.
I don't agree with his article because the majority of points he makes are the points that nV have made. They are just re-worded to make them sound like it comes from him.
If the person reading the article is literate, they will be able to see that.
It seems to me that he is a copy-cat PR machine made by NV with the $$$ offered to him.
Dave Baumann
24-Jun-2003, 09:16
IMO, I think Kyles views in this article are slightly myopic and one of capitualation rather questioning whats actually good for the industry.
He correctly points out that games are coming along with different code paths, and he even suggests that there may be hardware specific titles – which will be an absolutely horrific situation for the PC gaming industry as it will end up in 4 (and fifth) place in the console race, and eventually drop off entirely.
Instead of capitulation to the situation shouldn’t we be singling out what we feel is for the better for the industry as a whole?
I’ve had a number of phone conversations with NVIDIA since this 3DMark issue started and their point of view is that demo’s and benchmarks such as 3DMark and Shadermark are not representative of games because they weren’t coded specifically with NVIDIA shaders in mind, but games on the other hand will be – by either the developer doing it off their own back or games that go through the TWMTBP campaign. This is the issue that is key to the approach to ‘Application Specific optimisation’ in benchmarks they appear to feel they have the right to change the shaders from those that were coded because this will actually reflect game code more. As I see it there’s two issues with this point of view.
First, what about those games that are not on the TWMTBP campaign? Do we really feel that every game will be on it? There are also a number of software houses that have been using 9700 as their DX9 development platform – what will happen when they attempt to put their code on GeForce FX hardware? I’m hearing talk of one AAA title that is having these very issues at the moment.
The second issue is whether creating an architecture that requires lots of app specific tweaking is a good thing or not. For instance, had Doom3 not required five different code paths you might ask if the game were not here now? If developers are spending time tweaking shaders for NVIDIA’s hardware could this time not be better spent elsewhere – is it stifling creativity not having two generalised shading architectures? You may ask if that is an issue for those games going through TWMTBP as NVIDIA would be doing the work themselves, but if that’s the case would the resources at NVIDIA, that were paid for by you, not be better spent up front in creating a generalised shader hardware architecture such that it doesn’t need a large set of resource at the backend making software work well with the hardware?
These are the two points that actually need addressing IMO. Synthetic benchmarks are just there showing where there are obvious deficiencies in hardware and at the very least they are highlighting the areas that developers need to code around in order to gain acceptable performance on the NV3x architecture in comparison to the R3x0 architecture.
Of course, Kyle has now taken a stance, and his stance seems to be one that NVIDIA’s PR has been talking about since the introduction of the FX series. The danger for Kyle is that PR is only out for the good of the company at that time – we all know that PR sentiments flip-flop according to what their hardware does at any one point in time in relation to their competition. Should NV40 (or NV50) turn up and suddenly have a much more generalised, high performance shader architecture that doesn’t need lots of tweaking and mixing of precisions to get good performance what’s the betting that the noise about synthetic benchmarks will die down again?
K.I.L.E.R
24-Jun-2003, 09:35
These are the two points that actually need addressing IMO. Synthetic benchmarks are just there showing where there are obvious deficiencies in hardware and at the very least they are highlighting the areas that developers need to code around in order to gain acceptable performance on the NV3x architecture in comparison to the R3x0 architecture.
Dave, synthetic benchmarks can not only be used to detect deficiencies but to compare raw performance of different architectures. Optimising, and changing the way the synthetic benchmark operates/runs/etc... is manipulative and sneaky.
Kyle and nVIDIA say that more and more games will come out having shaders specifically optimised for the NVxx line of cards but we don't even have a massive number of games coming out using shaders. Give me a large list of all the games coming out using shaders to render above DirectX 7 style graphics?
Don't say Doom 3 either. ;) :)
That is also another reason why nV's/Kyle's point is rubbish.
Reverend
24-Jun-2003, 10:00
The issue I have wrt Kyle specifically has to do with the fact that his opinion of Beyond3D is based on non-Beyond3D staff (i.e. open foum participants') expression of opinion. He is saying, basically, that "I have no respect for Beyond3D because their forum particpants are flaming me".
If he could address what Beyond3D -- the site, its staff, its partners -- are doing wrong, I wouldn't have a problem with him. But he is treating B3D's forum participants' opinions as officially representative of Beyond3D. That is wrong.
He has been "in the business" a long time -- forum participants != represent Beyond staff.
Lastly, NVIDIA wants to be a monopoly. I don't blame them... I'd try to do the same... it's business.... it's about making money. What Kyle doesn't appear to understand is exactly as dave stated above -- he has failed (or appear to, based on his numerous expressions of opinions) to take into consideration the potential of a company out to dominate and monopolize.
K.I.L.E.R
24-Jun-2003, 10:06
The issue I have wrt Kyle specifically has to do with the fact that his opinion of Beyond3D is based on non-Beyond3D staff (i.e. open foum participants') expression of opinion. He is saying, basically, that "I have no respect for Beyond3D because their forum particpants are flaming me".
If he could address what Beyond3D -- the site, its staff, its partners -- are doing wrong, I wouldn't have a problem with him. But he is treating B3D's forum participants' opinions as officially representative of Beyond3D. That is wrong.
He has been "in the business" a long time -- forum participants != represent Beyond staff.
Kyle must have been real angry when he made his statement. People make wrong choices when they are angry. I do as well.
Just ask John Reynolds about one of my PMs about Sage. I was threatening legal action that's how angry I was. Of course I retracted what I said after I calmed down.
Lastly, NVIDIA wants to be a monopoly. I don't blame them... I'd try to do the same... it's business.... it's about making money. What Kyle doesn't appear to understand is exactly as dave stated above -- he has failed (or appear to, based on his numerous expressions of opinions) to take into consideration the potential of a company out to dominate and monopolize.
You bastard. :lol: ;) :D
--------------------------
On a more personal note, I have nothing against Kyle. He can only do damage to himself.
Mariner
24-Jun-2003, 11:21
The second issue is whether creating an architecture that requires lots of app specific tweaking is a good thing or not.
The bizarre thing here is that it is not so long ago that NV were hyping the XBox because it was easy to develop on in comparison to PS2.
Now, it appears almost as if the new NV3X chips are the "PS2" of the PC graphics world as they are more convoluted to program for than other chips.
I would have thought that very few game developers are happy with the current state of affairs as regards the need to program for multiple-precision due to NV's design decisions. Just think how much easier it would be if NV had gone for high-performance at a single precision (whether 16fp, 24fp or 32fp) - it would just be a case of write the shader and let the hardware do the rest as opposed to all the hullabaloo about Cg etc.
CorwinB
24-Jun-2003, 12:29
we all know that PR sentiments flip-flop according to what their hardware does at any one point in time in relation to their competition
For example hyping 32-bits and image quality at one time, then one generation later pushing the power of T&L and framerates at 640x480x16 ? :P
Very nice summary, Dave.
TWIMTBP program is one of the worst things that could happen to PC gaming... Crappy XBox ports only running on NV hardware for lack of testing being another one.
Hanners
24-Jun-2003, 12:46
First, what about those games that are not on the TWMTBP campaign? Do we really feel that every game will be on it? There are also a number of software houses that have been using 9700 as their DX9 development platform – what will happen when they attempt to put their code on GeForce FX hardware? I’m hearing talk of one AAA title that is having these very issues at the moment.
The second issue is whether creating an architecture that requires lots of app specific tweaking is a good thing or not. For instance, had Doom3 not required five different code paths you might ask if the game were not here now? If developers are spending time tweaking shaders for NVIDIA’s hardware could this time not be better spent elsewhere – is it stifling creativity not having two generalised shading architectures? You may ask if that is an issue for those games going through TWMTBP as NVIDIA would be doing the work themselves, but if that’s the case would the resources at NVIDIA, that were paid for by you, not be better spent up front in creating a generalised shader hardware architecture such that it doesn’t need a large set of resource at the backend making software work well with the hardware?
On top of that, the thing that bothers me about optimising for a specific architecture is what happens when the next generation of cards comes around and the architecture changes again?
Say you own an NV30/35 now, and everything is great because developers of most games are encouraged to write shaders with the architecture of your card in mind.
Sin months later, NV40 is released and developers are suddenly required to change the way they write shaders and start optimising for NV40. NV3x cards are left forgotten, and you find that your state-of-the-art card which should last you a couple of years has become obsolete in six months, not because games have suddenly become more complex but because your card isn't being optimised for any more.
Of course, this scenario is another win for the IHVs, because it means buying a new card ever more frequently, but it leaves room for a lot of unhappy customers.
K.I.L.E.R
24-Jun-2003, 13:34
...ten, and you find that your state-of-the-art card which should last you a couple of years has become obsolete in six months, not because games have suddenly become more complex but because your card isn't being optimised for any more.
That's why we have the ARB path. :)
Game devs should write for a standard codepath and IHV should optimise for that code path.
If the NV3x line was twice as fast on the ARB/2 path than the R3xx line, do you really think nVIDIA would be asking for optimisations? Gamedevs wouldn't bother, nVIDIA would optimise their drivers and start touting "we have the industry standard bleh bleh bleh...".
Currently they are touting, we have future games optimised for our cards.
If you take a close look at it, the NV3x line of cards NEED an optimised code path otherwise they will be falling behind in performance and more so in quality. IE: Doom 3 ARB2 path on NV3x vs R3xx.
Which will drain consumer confidence and shake the company well and truly into a large "oh oh". :lol:
The sad thing is, the R3xx line of cards compete (when NV3x uses optimised path vs R3xx using ARB path) and even triumph over the NV3x line in performance (when both line of cards are on equal ground) and decimate in terms of IQ (regardless). :)
If he could address what Beyond3D -- the site, its staff, its partners -- are doing wrong, I wouldn't have a problem with him. But he is treating B3D's forum participants' opinions as officially representative of Beyond3D. That is wrong.
Heh, I think he did that here Rev:
Anthony Tan came to me a couple of months ago and asked for the lead VidCard reviewer’s job here at HardOCP. He was turned down. I think that has lead to some of his recent animosity towards us.
First it was Extremetech that was pissed cause they didn't get to bench doom3 like he did. Now you disagree with him because you didn't get the Lead VidCard reviewers job. The guys got an ego a mile wide. And you wonder why he gets dumped on here Russ?
martrox
24-Jun-2003, 13:50
Kyle is a total ass.... The more I hear from him, the more I realize just what an ass he is..... It's one thing to disagree with someones point of view, it's another to use ones position to abuse others.....
K.I.L.E.R
24-Jun-2003, 13:53
Why would Anthony even consider working at [H]?
He must have been drunk at the time. :lol:
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
24-Jun-2003, 14:00
I think where Nvidia (and Kyle in their wake) have gone wrong is that they have forgotten their history. When 3D cards were first arriving, every chip manufacturer had their own API, and a programmer had no choice but to hit the metal. Even then, there was no guarentee that your content would look the same from card to card. Developers hated that, and Direct X eventually became the PC gaming API of choice because it meant there was one basic API where content looked pretty much the same everywhere. This was only possible via the massive power of the Microsoft desire to take over everything and provide a basis for their X-Box development.
OpenGL only survived as a gaming API on the PC through the Mighty Power of Carmack, and his insisitence on cross platform development, but with standardisation, we are left with these two main APIs where if everyone sticks to the rules, we should see developers with one of these two main codepaths, and content that looks pretty consistent on any piece of hardware.
Now along comes Nvidia (trailing PR extensions like HardOCP) with it's inferior NV3x range, that can only compete with customised paths, low precision shaders, etc, and tells us that Nvidia is such a driving force, that all developers are going to rush back to the old model of coding a customised path for every bit of hardware out there. Unlikely.
There is a reason that the old model went by the wayside, and that is because developers and publishers hated it. Developers hated the hassle, publishers hated the increased cost and development time. That's why it was replaced by DirectX and OpenGL. Even Nvidia realise this, as they are still pushing CG as a way of hiding their attempt to introduce an "NVGLide" API.
Nvidia think (despite being the best part of a year behind by the time they get any true DX9 hardware to customers) that they are big enough to pull the developers back towards custom codepaths in order to make NV3x palatable. Either this is more PR spin that even Nvidia doesn't believe will happen, or that (even worse) Nvidia really believe they can convince developers to go backwards.
This indicates to me that Nvidia still cannot admit their problems to themselves, and until they do so, they have no chance of fixing these issues. They simply do not perceive these things as in need of fixing. They are compeltely out of touch, as shown by thinking things like FXFlow would be a good idea, and would be accepted by the market. Nvidia are in complete denial, their PR running out-of-control (as that is all they have at the moment) and people like Kyle are simply seen (by both Nvidia PR and the more savvy technical users) as an extension of that marketing campaign, and continued state of denial from Nvidia.
I feel sorry for Kyle. He's been taken for a ride by Nvidia. IMNSHO, he's been completely used. One day he might wake up and realise that, but to be honest, I think it will take a very big man to admit to himself the corner he has painted himself into. Unless he really is just a PR bunny and thinks that there is nothing more important than marketing and website hits, he's going to feel very disappointed one day.
John Reynolds
24-Jun-2003, 14:21
Heh, I think he did that here Rev:
Anthony Tan came to me a couple of months ago and asked for the lead VidCard reviewer’s job here at HardOCP. He was turned down. I think that has lead to some of his recent animosity towards us.
First it was Extremetech that was pissed cause they didn't get to bench doom3 like he did. Now you disagree with him because you didn't get the Lead VidCard reviewers job. The guys got an ego a mile wide. And you wonder why he gets dumped on here Russ?
LOL Kyle offered me that position in the spring of '01. I turned him down. The funny thing, at least to me, is that Anthony would've done a helluva better job than I would've.
Some time ago, Britney Spears approached Kyle about being his lead love monkey boy toy sex kitten. But Kyle knew that over the next 24 months that Nvidia was moving the industry away from the open Britney love monkey boy toy sex kitten model, and towards a more proprietary one. Kyle felt that while having Britney as his lead love monkey boy toy sex kitten might be nice in the short-term, it would not serve you, the consumer, well in the long-term. That's why Britney does Pepsi commercials now, when she knows that Kyle is solely a Jolt man.
However, I think the anti-FutureMark stance is merely a sideline to the real agenda which is to help nVidia promote itself by way of discrediting any software which nVidia finds inconvenient from a commercial perspective. Note that the latest nVidia attack is on "fraps" (for goodness' sake) and that certain [H] staffers have taken to adding perplexing and baffling signatures such as "The Benchmark Slayer" to their posts....;) So, FutureMark is just one of many demons nVidia feels it must attempt to slay because it views such software as diametrically opposed to the ends of selling its hardware.
I've had that in my Sig since before all this stuff started
I'm a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and thats the best thing I could think of that fit that tag line, even though it really doesn't make much sense, heh
it doesn't relate to any of this
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1024948932#post1024948932
digitalwanderer
24-Jun-2003, 14:58
However, I think the anti-FutureMark stance is merely a sideline to the real agenda which is to help nVidia promote itself by way of discrediting any software which nVidia finds inconvenient from a commercial perspective. Note that the latest nVidia attack is on "fraps" (for goodness' sake) and that certain [H] staffers have taken to adding perplexing and baffling signatures such as "The Benchmark Slayer" to their posts....;) So, FutureMark is just one of many demons nVidia feels it must attempt to slay because it views such software as diametrically opposed to the ends of selling its hardware.
I've had that in my Sig since before all this stuff started
I'm a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and thats the best thing I could think of that fit that tag line, even though it really doesn't make much sense, heh
it doesn't relate to any of this
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1024948932#post1024948932
I'll vouch for Brent on that one, he has had that sig for a long time before this whole thing came out. It has nothing to do with the recent benchmarking fiascos, although I must admit that I almost fell over laughing when I realized the irony of it yesterday. :lol:
Brent, how? I mean, you KNOW better. :( I might just be a simple enthusiast/fanboy, but even the bigbrains around here are against what [T]ardOCP is doing!
It's going to stop and it's going to end, houses of cards always seem to fall; what happens then? And if it doesn't fall/fail, are you going to be proud for the part you had in bringing in the bad old "4 different codepaths for a game" days again?
I like you Brent, I really do and I've admired/respected the work you have done at [T]ardOCP and was hoping that you'd influence them to improve their standards...instead it seems your own are slipping.
Best of luck with whatever happens Brent, but I'm currently quite disappointed. :(
Mariner
24-Jun-2003, 15:12
Very good posts from BrainPimp over on that forum. It looks as though he must have been a poster there for quite some time and he doesn't appear to have any axe to grind.
I'll keep an eye on that particular thread to see if Kyle does respond to any of his points.
The problem is that Kyle is not just "defending the indefensible", he's "not even mentioning the indefensible!" - especially on his own web site.
LeStoffer
24-Jun-2003, 15:26
I’ve had a number of phone conversations with NVIDIA since this 3DMark issue started and their point of view is that demo’s and benchmarks such as 3DMark and Shadermark are not representative of games because they weren’t coded specifically with NVIDIA shaders in mind, but games on the other hand will be – by either the developer doing it off their own back or games that go through the TWMTBP campaign. This is the issue that is key to the approach to ‘Application Specific optimisation’ in benchmarks they appear to feel they have the right to change the shaders from those that were coded because this will actually reflect game code more.
Thanks for the insight. This tells a lot about the level of arrogance that their marketleader status have brought them. :(
The issue I have wrt Kyle specifically has to do with the fact that his opinion of Beyond3D is based on non-Beyond3D staff (i.e. open foum participants') expression of opinion. He is saying, basically, that "I have no respect for Beyond3D because their forum particpants are flaming me".
If he could address what Beyond3D -- the site, its staff, its partners -- are doing wrong, I wouldn't have a problem with him. But he is treating B3D's forum participants' opinions as officially representative of Beyond3D. That is wrong.
I have yet to see Kyle quote a substantive comment made in open B3d forums and respond or engage in dialogue on the substantive points made in the open forums wrt his opinions. I'd say the ratio of substantive remarks to non-substantive emotional expressions is on the order of 10-1, at least. Kyle is not only mischaracterizing the official B3d positions, he is also mischaracterizing open forum opinions as well.
I've had that in my Sig since before all this stuff started
I'm a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and thats the best thing I could think of that fit that tag line, even though it really doesn't make much sense, heh
it doesn't relate to any of this
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1024948932#post1024948932
Brent, thanks for shedding some light on that for me...;) I guess I never noticed it until now. You have to admit, though, that under the circumstances this is a sig that will be easily misunderstood, and so I'd think you'd want to change it. I mean, whether they are timedemo benches or synthetic benches or whatever, I'll wager your reviews will contain benches of some sort--so you might want to consider the tag from a fresh perspective based on the opinions as served up by [H.]
Why not "the Benchmark Cheater Slayer," instead.... :?:
Has there been a situation like this before. Where with a pervious generation of hardware was there a time when two competing products performed similar to on another but some synthetic test showed that one of the cards may be better suited for future games ? If so what was the outcome ? Were the synthetic test correct in their prediction that one of them would be better suited for future games?
...
I agree with Kyle's assessment of this forum as overly vicious. Sure, we may know more than other forums, but who gives a flying Dutchman when all you read is how someone was paid off or spewing garbage, etc. A little more civility would suit this forum well. I'd rather have Kyle in here to debate with, even if I disagree with him. Chasing him out with rather rude remarks (like he was so easily able to find) isn't really doing anyone a service.
According to the testimony I've read from several people who post here, Kyle is no stranger to such remarks in the [H] forums. The difference seems to be (according to these people) that Kyle is less threatened in his own forums because he can delete posts and ban members who do not agree with him. He can not do so here, and that seems to be why he doesn't post anymore--if you want to overlook the very germane fact that his opinions on these matters would be exceedingly difficult to justify.
Also, I think you are viewing some of the more "colorful" comments here out of the context of Kyle's "colorful" editorials as presented at [H.] I doubt I will ever forget his "Two days after the Doom 3 preview..." slander of the ET site. Then there is his official "policy" on FutureMark's software, which coincidentally seemed to gel only after nVidia withdrew from the 3DMark program and made negative comments about the software. Then you have the "If you can't see the cheating it's not cheating remarks," which applied to web sites who could not only see the cheating, but published *screen shots* of the cheating (which apparently Kyle was unable to see.) The list in this sad story just goes on and on, but overall I find the occasional emotional remarks people make not to be vicious at all, but actually quite understandable given Kyle's reluctance to engage in a dialogue here about his editorial opinion. Most people have little tolerance for being told that black is white and that up is down, and that kind of thing. Most people have little tolerance for being told that benchmark software is bad, but that companies who cheat the benchmarks are blameless. I know I do...;) Certainly. It's insulting.
I've had that in my Sig since before all this stuff started
I'm a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and thats the best thing I could think of that fit that tag line, even though it really doesn't make much sense, heh
it doesn't relate to any of this
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1024948932#post1024948932
Brent, thanks for shedding some light on that for me...;) I guess I never noticed it until now. You have to admit, though, that under the circumstances this is a sig that will be easily misunderstood, and so I'd think you'd want to change it. I mean, whether they are timedemo benches or synthetic benches or whatever, I'll wager your reviews will contain benches of some sort--so you might want to consider the tag from a fresh perspective based on the opinions as served up by [H.]
Why not "the Benchmark Cheater Slayer," instead.... :?:
:)
Has there been a situation like this before. Where with a pervious generation of hardware was there a time when two competing products performed similar to on another but some synthetic test showed that one of the cards may be better suited for future games ? If so what was the outcome ? Were the synthetic test correct in their prediction that one of them would be better suited for future games?
I can't think of a single instance in which an IHV in the past has said, "Don't believe the benchmarks, they're all wrong." It's tantamount to saying, "Don't believe what you can see, believe instead what we tell you." That is a tactic guaranteed to fail and to backfire on the company employing it.
I can think of instances where IHV's complained about this or that aspect of a particular benchmark, but that's a far cry from telling people to discard them in toto, as we're seeing now. When 3DMk01 routinely spit out scores showing nVidia products ahead, did nVidia withdraw from the program and seek to discredit the benchmark at that time? Obviously not.
Did [H] publish editorials declaring that "the frame-rate benchmark is dead"? Of course not.
So what's changed? All that I can see that's changed is that nVidia is no longer ahead, and nVidia doesn't much care to be in that position, so the company is enlisting whomsoever will to aid it in a vain attempt to stamp out all software that doesn't portray nVidia's hardware as nVidia prefers. This is the new wrinkle to the 3D competitive story as I've seen it unfold over the past several years. When ATi was behind 3dfx and nVidia a few years ago did ATi suggest that benchmarks were wrong and that people should therefore abandon them? Heh--they'd have been laughed to scorn had they done so. Indeed, nVidia itself had nothing whatever against frame-rate benchmarks whenever it could use them to one-up 3dfx back then. The difference is that ATi endured the benchmarks until it could produce products which ran better than the competition's. nVidia's attitude is much different--they want to convince people to throw out any software which demonstrates their products are second rate compared to the competition's. Heh--nVidia has struck the motherlode--of pyrite...;) nVidia doesn't need luck so I won't wish them that--it needs better products, instead. If and when that happens for nVidia, all of this anti-benchmark talk will fade into nothingness...
Hanners
24-Jun-2003, 17:25
Why not "the Benchmark Cheater Slayer," instead.... :?:
:)
[nVidia lawyer] Excuse me Sir, that should say 'the Benchmark Valid Optimisation Slayer'. Thank you for your co-operation. [/nVidia lawyer]
:wink:
Reverend
24-Jun-2003, 17:26
If he could address what Beyond3D -- the site, its staff, its partners -- are doing wrong, I wouldn't have a problem with him. But he is treating B3D's forum participants' opinions as officially representative of Beyond3D. That is wrong.
Heh, I think he did that here Rev:
Anthony Tan came to me a couple of months ago and asked for the lead VidCard reviewer’s job here at HardOCP. He was turned down. I think that has lead to some of his recent animosity towards us.
First it was Extremetech that was pissed cause they didn't get to bench doom3 like he did. Now you disagree with him because you didn't get the Lead VidCard reviewers job. The guys got an ego a mile wide. And you wonder why he gets dumped on here Russ?
Kyle's reasoning is wrong -- I have no animosity towards him for the reason he gave. Shit, I didn't want to bring this up but since Kyle saw fit to bring this up, here goes :
Yes, I did ask to write reviews for [H] but I wanted the Top Job (so to speak), he said no because he didn't want to piss off Sean and Brent (bu letting me/someone "leap frog" them) and he thinks they're both doing a good job. Actually, when I wrote him in my email asking for such a position, I clearly stated that I understand this may be difficult for him to do because I know both Sean and Brent has been doing good stuff for his site. So, anyway... he turned me down and I wrote the following :
Like I said in my original email, I understand the situation and the difficulty you may face.
He'd also asked to talk to me on the phone about this but I said I'm in Malaysia and that it may be too expensive for either of us. It ended there and then.
It is worth noting that back when I first left B3D (circa March 2002) and told some folks (which included Kyle) about this (because I didn't want any problems upon leaving B3D), Kyle immediately wrote me asking me if I would consider writing tech articles (not reviews) for [H]. I declined, becasue I was trying to set things up at Voodooextreme.
Anyway... Kyle is wrong if he thinks I have any "animosity" towards him. Since he brought this rather private correspondence subject up in public, then I would now feel no hesitance in quoting here what I wrote him a little while back - I won't quote ad-verbatim his email replies to me though as I will respect his wish that I don't post his emails in public. Here's the entire correspondence on a subject I wrote him about, which was titled "Reviewing video cards according to you" in early June (which was prompted by his almost-condemnation of Futuremark/3DMark03) :
Bro,
I agree with your assertion that using games as benchmarks for evaluating video cards is important.
But by doing so, you are probably also saying, in a hidden way, that the latest features and technologies in the newest video cards should be ignored, or at the very least, taken in with only passing notice. Why? Because there will never be any games available that will show off the latest features/tech in the latest video cards at the time of such latest-and-greatest video card review.
So, while I agree with your stance/opinion that using games is the most important basis of a video card review, I hope I never see any of your future video card reviews containing any mention of the latest features and technologies of that video card. Example, in case you don't understand :
When we get DX9-extended (i.e. VS and PS 3.0) video cards, in your review of such video cards, you should NOT mention at all about the DX9-extended features/technologies of such video cards, because it will serve absolutely no purpose since you will be using existing games, which will never feature DX9-extended features. You should focus, and devote the entire content of the review, on the performance of the card using available games/game demos.
Thanks for reading, hope you'll have a good weekend.
His reply (paraphrased of course) was that (he actually started by saying thanks for my thoughts) he thinks I'm one that listens to what people say he says, and thathe has never stated synthetic benchmarks should not be used. He said that I'm simply being an ass and that it shows. That I should not waste his time with such "drivel" wher he says should better belong to flaming and personal attacks in the forums I attend. He said he has lost all respect for me.
I replied :
Well then, everyone shows he's an ass, at one time or another.
Actually, I haven't been reading too many forums about what people think of you or what they say you say. In fact, the only forums I've been reading are my own for the longest time that I can remember (and just for today, I started at 3DGPU).
Anyway, what are your thoughts on 3DMark03's pure feature tests? Forget the four Game Tests -- what about its feature tests? I'm a little confused -- you've been saying bad things about 3DMark03 as a whole. But 3DMark03 contains *very* relevant and important synthetic feature tests.
Here's a link for you where I express my honest thoughts about what and how I think of 3DMark03 :
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6225&start=20
Please read my two posts on that page, and pay special attention to my second one. I don't think 3DMark03 is a "Gamers Benchmark". I don't think it, or future 3DMarkXX iterations, will ever correctly approximate what games in the future will be coded or even look like. I take 3DMark03 for what it's worth *in and of itself, nothing more*. But by doing so, I can gain useful information about the performance of current hardware vis-a-vis the very features it advertises, which we will never see in games this year or perhaps the next, and certainly NEVER looking like 3DMark03's various Game Tests nor coded the way of the Game Tests in 3DMark03.
I know where you stand Kyle. When I ran my own personal "3DPulpit" site, I never used 3DMarkXX -- in fact, I made it a point to mention that I don't use 3DMarkXX. The site of mine was focussed on using the latest gee-whiz video cards running available games. Hell, I never even tested forward-looking synthetic tests.
Now, as I said I don't visit forums other than my own, so I don't really know what you say in those forums. I only read what you say on your own site's front page and your articles. Such news posts and articles by you indicate that you are entirely writing off 3DMark03. I cannot understand why, because you have just said that synthetic tests can be used (in your email below) and 3DMark03's feature tests are as good a synthetic test as you'll find anywhere.
I have no stocks in Futuremark, nor do I particularly care if 3DMark03 is a succesful and popular application or not -- I just use some of its tests suites because I find them correctly indicating advanced features usage and performance.
Personally, I think you are simply just refusing to back down from your condemnation of 3DMark03 entirely because, well, you've gone too far down this road.
I hope you appreciate my frankness. I found your "Benchmarking For Gamers" pdf an extremely commendable endeavour.
Perhaps we both don't quite understand each other as well as we like. For that, I have to apologize if my below email is negatively presumptious. I mean well, and I know you mean well too. It's probably just that we seem to have very different takes on what the 3D industry is, or will be, and as we go along expressing our opinions on our sites or in various forums, we seem to be overlooking a variety of valid opinions in this matter.
I have learned that while I always seem to be convinced that I am always correct, I am also never far away from being wrong. It's a fine line, and it takes acceptance of opinions (while being calm!) for that fine line to go one way or the other.
Completely writing off 3DMark03 is not right because it has many useful features. The advertising of 3DMark03 by Futuremark is incorrect in my books but that does not dilute the fact that it is a useful gauge of things to come in certain aspects.
Sorry if you think I'm an ass. If I can't write you personally, and honestly, like I did below to express my thoughts on matters I think is better left in private correspondences, I will STFU rather than post in forums. Your "Please do not waste my time with such drivel again as it is much better suited for the flaming and personal attacks in the forums you attend." is out of line since I did not attack you in my email. I was just curious about your view on this matter. I do not ask for your respect, just your thoughts about what you want your site to offer to the public.
... to which he never replied.
I am not happy that Kyle chosed to publicly mention I approached him for a "job". More than anything else, this certainly should remain private.
:)
_______________
the Benchmark Cheater Slayer
:D ...:D
K.I.L.E.R
24-Jun-2003, 17:45
More than anything else, this certainly should remain private.
It was a blatent attack, which he will obviously deny, nonetheless it is an attack.
I written up a short, and concise article myself stating "Attacking the Beyond3D staff is also low as they have done nothing to him.".
Doomtrooper
24-Jun-2003, 18:00
Open forums are meant to discuss peoples opinions, not everyone has the same opinion but that is what makes the world go around.
My problem is and has always been that he feels that once you make a decision, even if it is wrong (and this case is very wrong) if you stick to your guns it shows integrity. That couldn't be farther from the truth, admitting you were wrong is the 1st step in getting integrity back.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what has influenced his opinion, and it is his little trips down to Nvidia HQ that did it.
It is also about qualificatons to be doing such editorials, such as 3D programming or working in the chipset industry, then you have knowledge to wade through the PR to see the truth.
This site does that as the staff and members have that knowledge.
I've have debated with him for years on forums, his opinions mean little to me as 'integrity and Kyle' can't be said in the same sentence.
Taking a application from a competing IHV and using it to get hits and try and corrupt another companies premier card launch, then totally ignore the FiringSquad findings in time demos, 3Dmark, IQ issues.
Journalists report journalism, and [H] only posts what it wants to, not what it should post.
He certainly shouldn't be as popular as he is, as a review site the only thing that makes the site somewhat worthwhile is Brent, and even that is not worth giving a hit from this PC and many aquaintances I have.
Bolloxoid
24-Jun-2003, 18:03
I agree with Kyle's assessment of this forum as overly vicious. Sure, we may know more than other forums, but who gives a flying Dutchman when all you read is how someone was paid off or spewing garbage, etc. A little more civility would suit this forum well. I'd rather have Kyle in here to debate with, even if I disagree with him. Chasing him out with rather rude remarks (like he was so easily able to find) isn't really doing anyone a service.
This viciousness is fully warranted. Kyle is an ass and he is suffering the normal social consequences for that. He has shown time and time and time again that he will always resort to completely inane and undue attacks and while bashing him might not be the best thing this forum has offered I think it is actually a good thing he is not posting here. You have much too great faith in his ability to "debate" things.
Dave Baumann
24-Jun-2003, 18:05
A little more civility would suit this forum well.
The level of vitriol is fairly irksome. I'd certainly hope that we could maintian a higher degreee of converstation about the points at hand here without resorting to the less constructive comments (Martox's last reply springs to mind as one example).
Come on guys, you know we operate a fairly open house, but that doesn't mean that you should abuse it. Lets try and be constructive in our critisism please.
Dave Baumann
24-Jun-2003, 18:08
Kyle is an *ss....
Sigh. Just as I was posting.
Again, these type of plain attacks are not welcome here - present you grievances more constructively please.
Doomtrooper
24-Jun-2003, 18:16
Dave I think the issue is this has been self inflicted upon Kyle, email exchanges between members and him including myself are always rude.
I was a member on the their forums, but quickly realized debating with Kyle there was useless as if you posted a reply he couldn't answer the thread was locked or deleted.
I wouldn't worry too much about the site image from this, mature people realize who is in the wrong here, and the forum members participants don't reflect the site.
Dave Baumann
24-Jun-2003, 18:26
Dave I think the issue is this has been self inflicted upon Kyle, email exchanges between members and him including myself are always rude.
Whether or not you or other feel he has brought this on himself is beside the point, you are being rude to B3D by bringing these types of attacks into this forum.
True enough, these newer forums are here to bring some of the less technical disccusion that some of our newer members wish to participate in out of the tech forums, but that doesn't mean they should devolve into flaming. I've got no issues with people discussing the points, or even speculating the motives but lets do without the attacks eh? Those that do are doing a diservice to the rest of the B3D posters that can generally behave themselves. Again, just because we operate a fairly open house don't take advantage of it - lets set the example.
K.I.L.E.R
24-Jun-2003, 18:27
Regardless, Dave wants a professional image for this site.
martrox
24-Jun-2003, 18:32
[(Martox's last reply springs to mind as one example).
Dave, while I understand what you are saying, I have to say that was said because Kyle saw fit to bring up something that was obviously said in private, for no reason except to be hurtful, period. Remember, it was Kyle himself that got personal to begin with (his attack on ET). The major reason that many have become abusive toward him is do directly to his abuse..... in other words, he has reaped what he has sowed. While I have disagreed with many(including Rev - just ask him!), I have never felt compelled to say anythig like this...... It just made me see red to see Kyle out Rev the way he did. If you feel I was wrong with what I said, then I beg you forgiveness, however, I still stand by my reasons for saying it.
Doomtrooper
24-Jun-2003, 18:39
Whether or not you or other feel he has brought this on himself is beside the point, you are being rude to B3D by bringing these types of attacks into this forum.
I have not posted anything rude in this post, I stated quite clearly what the issue was, in fact you point me where I did and I will edit it.
Funny how Extremetech or Beyond3D or any other site like AMDMB.com that has a different opinion than [H] gets labelled as low credability.
Dave Baumann
24-Jun-2003, 18:46
Dt, I wasn't specifically singling out anything you've said - I've not actually read this entire thread yet, however in the last few pages I just noted that two people have the responce "Kyle is an *ss..." which I feel isn't particularily constructive. Your responce that "he did it so we can" is also not really the type of attitude that should be taken here.
digitalwanderer
24-Jun-2003, 18:53
A little more civility would suit this forum well.
The level of vitriol is fairly irksome. I'd certainly hope that we could maintian a higher degreee of converstation about the points at hand here without resorting to the less constructive comments.
Sorry, it's just the frustration...but I shouldn't waste bandwidth on it here. :(
My apologies, I will stop such behavoir and conduct meself accordingly.
demalion
24-Jun-2003, 18:59
Once upon a time I had a thread here with a detailed discussion of my opinions on criticism. I don't know what happened to it, and my inability to reference it has irked me on many occassions in the past few months. :(
What I feel is relevant to this thread is the part of the discussion when I mentioned evaluating whether your criticism is worthwhile to post. In this context, you should know a few things about where I'm coming from on the matter:
I have an extremely negative opinion of some of the things Kyle has said.
I've expressed that opinion (hopefully while avoiding using words like "ass") in the forums.
I try to avoid expressing that opinion just for the sake of expressing that opinion, and try to reserve commentary for when I'm discussing something to do with the forum topic (which isn't Kyle Bennet, but 3D technology EDIT: pardon me, Kyle is on topic for "3D industry"...that should be "isn't calling Kyle Bennet an 'ass', but 3D industry related discussion" :oops:).
How does this relate to what I'm trying to say? In short, my view is that: the problems with what Kyle says are directly related to 3D technology and the discussion of the industry, but Kyle being an "ass" or "egomaniacal", or whatever label you prefer, is not.
Perhaps thinking of things in that perspective will shed some light on what might possibly be wrong with some posts (not people, not opinions, but the posts the people made and the method of expressing their opinions it represents). Namely, don't confuse calling him an "ass" with discussing the problems with what he has stated....though they might be closely related factors in your thoughts about him, one doesn't hold water as a continued discussion thread in this particular forum.
Also, please don't equate Kyle's selective quotes and criticism with this request do to superficial resemblence....consider my words independently, whatever they end up being worth to you.
...
Yes, this post breaks the "on topic" rule :-?, but, believe it or not, I covered that in the missing thread as well....basically, I'm hopeful it will be food for thought for some, and help in further support achieving what (I think) Wavey is asking for.
Doomtrooper
24-Jun-2003, 19:01
Dt, I wasn't specifically singling out anything you've said - I've not actually read this entire thread yet, however in the last few pages I just noted that two people have the responce "Kyle is an *ss..." which I feel isn't particularily constructive. Your responce that "he did it so we can" is also not really the type of attitude that should be taken here.
My apologies, my paranoid tendencies are getting the better of me :lol:
Dt, I wasn't specifically singling out anything you've said - I've not actually read this entire thread yet, however in the last few pages I just noted that two people have the responce "Kyle is an *ss..." which I feel isn't particularily constructive. Your responce that "he did it so we can" is also not really the type of attitude that should be taken here.
My apologies, my paranoid tendencies are getting the better of me :lol:
I'd like to see what you think after reading this> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030624/sftu011_1.html
:twisted:
I am beginning to think that Nvidia's PR department is doing this just to piss us off. :evil:
In the vein of Dave's request my wife always says separate the deed from the doer.
digitalwanderer
24-Jun-2003, 19:40
I'd like to see what you think after reading this> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030624/sftu011_1.html
:twisted:
Does anyone else get just a tiny bit physically ill when they read that? I can't BELIEVE the stuff they're putting out.
No point in ranting, I just wanted to mention me outrage. :)
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
24-Jun-2003, 19:41
I'd like to see what you think after reading this> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030624/sftu011_1.html
:twisted:
I can hear blood vessels popping all over the forum. This is just a PR blurb put out by Nvidia, using selective quotes from the websites that are being used as an extenstion of that same PR department.
Look at the qualfication statment at the bottom. "Based on a biased test from a biased website, using an unreleased game on unreleased hardware, in our own specially prepared test against an unprepared competing product with faulty drivers." FACT!
It's no wonder Nvidia are so good at that Marketing Spin - it's the only product they've been offering for the last year. They can put it alongside the award for "Best GPU of 2002" for the NV30. How about we get some products rather than marketing blurbs, eh, Nvidia? :lol:
1) It's obvious my magnanimous mood was mistimed in light of Kyle's recently re-exposed egomania in lumping Rev in with the vast Radeon-wing consipiracy against him. Well done, Kyle, for kicking the legs out from under those who would extend you courtesy over cuts.
2) That nVidia PR is almost nauseating. Curious how they didn't use THG's Doom 3 numbers at the same settings, which showed the opposite picture: the 9800P beating the 5900U. Either way nV explains it looks bad for them: drivers mucking up AF disproves their faultless driver mumbo-jumbo, and faulty testing pretty much disproves all scores. I await ATi's response quoting GamePC's entire eVGA 5900U review (in which the OC'ed eVGA 5900U loses to the 9800P basically across the board), as well as some of FS's and UKGamer's recent 5900/U reviews. Kyle faults FM for being all about tha Benjamins, and yet it's painfully obvious nVidia and ATi are after those same dead Presidents (or, if you're in Europe, nondenominational landmarks ;)). nV's IQ pronouncements are particularly irksome, though. I'll grant them their card has the raw horsepower to bench at the top, but it certainly has not been proven to have the IQ to match. I like how careful they are: "In addition to stunning performance, the GeForce FX 5900 GPU features...." Note that a literal interpretation puts those "features" in a separate category from nV's "stunning performance." :)
3) And Lars has posted his take on the matter over at THG (http://www17.tomshardware.com/column/20030624/index.html). It's an even-handed editorial touching on every recent battle in the war against marketspeak. He makes two interesting points. One, that ATi ("A 3D chipmaker who prefers to remain unnamed") was responsible for the first (ExtremeTech, B3D, eventually FM) investigation into 3DM03 cheating (clip planes, etc.)--the same "unnamed" IHV who tipped TR off to the nV 3DM03 aniso iregularities. Two, that nV's "adaptive" aniso is, according to nV's own replies, only "adaptive" if nV spends time "adapting" it to an application (paging radar1200gs ;)). Worth reading, IMO.
LeStoffer
24-Jun-2003, 20:00
Goddammit Crystal! Now you guys made me read the [H]ard essay! :wink:
Anyway, all I read is a number of different ways of stating that they now 'think' that synthetic benchmarks are useless, like:
We have already seen the world of synthetic benchmarks crumble around us leaving a bunch of useless data that one might argue was worthless to begin with.
... and a little later:
If these synthetic benchmarks are as valuable as some might have you to believe, then why can’t those people use those utilities to conclusively tell me what is going to be the best card to play Half Life 2 or DOOM3?
Reality call: Everybody know/knew that we have to be careful about what you conclude from a benchmark - synthetic or not. Those synthetic benchmark can be quite usefull to meassure specific parts of performance (and I assume Hardocp is talking shaders here).
If the reviewer doesn't understand the data results - or think that they represent the performance of a whole engine - I can see why one would claim them to be "useless". But I would hazard the guess that Kyle have been in the business long enough to understand that the quotes above are really bollox for all but the ignorant.
BTW: For those who few think that Kyle is totally pro-nVidia I suggest that you read some of the reviews at [H]ardocp. I seem to remember the NV3X line getting some pretty harsh word on the CineFX/DX9 shader performance. Just another hint to my point. [/quote]
Heathen
24-Jun-2003, 20:14
Can we all wave to Kyle to show we still *love* him really? :wink:
Well I gotta admit, I'm generally a fan of the 'eveyones' entitled to his own opinion'. If that's his opinion, that's his opinion. A lot of the posters may not feel it's justifiable, but that's besides the point. It's Kyle's opinion and more power to him for putting it up on the world wide web.
Following that chain of thought it's my opinion that Kyle's editorial (what I've read of it) is incorrect. Sure Synthetic Benchies aren't perfect but what testing methodology is?
I have no problem games being benched on custom code paths as long as it's clearly stated and/or they tested without reference to a competitors card.
that yahoo article is just plain weird though.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
24-Jun-2003, 20:23
Can we all wave to Kyle to show we still *love* him really? :wink:
Well I gotta admit, I'm generally a fan of the 'eveyones' entitled to his own opinion'. If that's his opinion, that's his opinion. A lot of the posters may not feel it's justifiable, but that's besides the point. It's Kyle's opinion and more power to him for putting it up on the world wide web.
Following that chain of thought it's my opinion that Kyle's editorial (what I've read of it) is incorrect. Sure Synthetic Benchies aren't perfect but what testing methodology is?
Everyone can have an opinion, but a lot of them will be incorrect, often due to ignorance of the facts. I can have the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't mean it is.
that yahoo article is just plain weird though.
It's not an article - it's a press release. The source is listed as Nvidia.
beyondhelp
24-Jun-2003, 20:46
Quote from Brents missive...
" Lastly, the timedemo stuff. Yeah, it’s not perfect. The evidence points to some foul play in timedemos, can’t deny that. And we know it’s not perfect either. In fact we have already been discussing the fact of using private timedemo’s made by us and only used by us. We have some thought going that we will probably make 2 timedemo’s per game. One that is private, and one that is public, therefore the private one acts as our control. We will be able to see if any foul play happens. There are many things we are considering, and believe me we are working to get better honest and fair benchmarking. "
Found your post as a whole enlightening and interesting. I do have a couple of observations about the above.
On the face of this, It sounds like a good idea, and that it might be made to work with one caveat. I would have to be able to trust the Website and it's editors to not leak the Private Demo to any IHV's and my "A" list of those trusted Web sites is quite short at this time. I am not particularly trusting when it comes to People who may have a vested interest in how things transpire. This is not directed at you personally. What may happen without your knowledge is something else though, that you have no control over.
Trust must be earned, and once having been earned , if broken, becomes even harder to garner. I am quite saddened by this whole affair as the trust I had for a certain Hardhitting, raw, (and believed to hold unbiased content) Web site has been broken. There have been some very good questions asked here by the serious posters as to the motives of a certain web editor, and an explanation and some substantiation for his stance in a reasoned manner has not been forthcoming. Instead he chooses to single out the one liners that suit his purpose as he slams and catergorizes this web site based on those few chosen remarks that are ignored here by the serious minded just as he supposedly does. He still avoids the valid issues raised here by a few, with rebuttals like that instead.
Now as I read it, the [H] stance is to change the way benchmarking will be done, which on the surface seems good, but I have to wonder who is directing this endeavor. It sounds like Nvidia PR speak almost from word one. [K] prognosticates about the future of 3D programming, (Divergent Code Paths and all game developers aligning themselves with a specific IHV) as if it is a given, but this sounds exactly like Nvidia speaking. This is how Nvidia would like to see things go. It just seems like more of the Nv party line.
Some editorial excerpts:
" Quite simply, NVIDIA has changed the rules of synthetic benchmarking. Synthetics were understood to be free standing utilities that were not optimized for. We think that is how the hardware community saw these tools. But let’s look at the facts and legalities. As in the case of 3DMark03, we don't think there was anywhere in their EULA that specified you could not “optimize” for the benchmark. We don’t think “cheating” was defined. Like many other synthetic benchmarks, everyone understood the rules of the game, but no one defined them, as they possibly should have been."
This sounds like pure justification for Nvidia cheating... And now he's a Legal Expert too! but He's right! "everyone understood the rules of the game" It's a matter of having the integrity to play by those rules Fairly that have come into question and the integrity of Web sites who ignore the real issues.
"NVIDIA is optimizing for benchmarks quite clearly and that is something we will have to deal with"
Why do we HAVE to deal with this? Why do we HAVE TO put up with cheating? Why are they above the law. Has Nvidia ever heard of the word Ethics? How about [K]?
" Apples to apples benchmarking is becoming more difficult. "
Only more difficult because Nvidia is making it so.
"The fact of the matter is that benchmarking the same code path on competitive video cards will not give us an accurate representation of gameplay on one of the two major cards out there.""
Because Nvidia chose not to follow DX9 standards? So where Nvidia leads the sheep should follow? Sorry, but they screwed themselves by believing that they held more power in the industry than they thought. To hear them talk, 9 out of 10 Games are being developed on Nvidia platforms with it soon to be 10 out of 10, implying that the Developers are Only using Nvidia Hardware. and if you don't own an Nvidia card, no future games will run for you?
" What we mention above with DOOM3 is only going to become more widespread and not necessarily in such a cut and dried fashion. We are going to see D3D games that behave differently within the same API."
Silly me, I thought the Game/API told the hardware what to do, not the other way around? I guess not in Nvidia's world.
"As the video card companies move forward with developing tighter bonds with game developers and publishing houses, there is no doubt we are going to see more hardware specific effects in games. Depending on your hardware, your game experience may differ. To what extent is yet to be seen, but we think that this alone will show that the days of apples to apples is coming to a close as the proprietary hardware technologies diverge."
The world according to Nvidia... But I thought that DX9 was the standard, Not Nvidias interpretation of it via non-standard code paths using sub-standard precision?
"While this is just speculation, we think that NVIDIA moving some of their high-end business to IBM will facilitate this happening more rapidly as each faction of the video wars becomes a bit more shielded from each other’s technology.
"
Most definately speculation, and why would hiring IBM to Fab promote divergence of Video technology? More thinly veiled Nv PR to justify divergence?
Kyle continues to aide and abet Nvidia in it's long term goal to dominate the Video card market through Proprietary means. His stance that divergent engines is a given, and that that is Ok is scary. Splitting the Game developers into ATI or Nvidia camps hurts the industry and especially the Gamer. I want the Game developers to code to a standard that will run well with good IQ on any capable piece of harware I see fit to use.
Proprietary API's= bad
Standard API's =Good!
All I have to to do to remember this is recall getting a Diamond Stealth S220 with the Rendition 2100 chip some years back. Worked pretty good, But it didn't look very good on any number of games because They either ran in software mode, or used Glide. The one I remember best was Janes Longbow Gold. Glide only or 640X480 software mode. yuck! Luckily I had a few Rendition "Optimized" games too, like Nascar Racing. And when coded for, The Rendition card was no slouch, and looked pretty good too.
anyway... The point being that I didn't like seeing cool games out there that didn't take advantage of my Hardware. Playing a game at reduced settings and or with poorer IQ because My hardware wasn't supported generally made me pissed. Why not code for both? Ding! the light goes on! duh! because it is more work!
I believe in the K.I.S.S. principle. Keep it Simple Stupid! Lets keep it simple and straightforward with one or 2 Standards, say DX9/OGL, and build our Hardware to run those fast without resorting to special Codepaths etc. Seems simple enough. That way all the games run on all the Hardware. Why regress back to Glide days... wait, didn't the 3Dfx crowd migrate to Nvidia. Has 3Dfx conquered from within and are now running Nvidia "The Way it's meant to be Run"? :shock:
These are my opinions and mine alone. They do not represent in any way the Opinion of any B3D staff. :wink:
In my attempt to get a dialog going between Kyle and B3D (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=629987&perpage=15&pagenumber=6#post1024948547), I may have inadvertantly started more problems that I had hoped to solve (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=629987&perpage=15&pagenumber=8#post1024950273). For that, I apologize.
Heathen
24-Jun-2003, 21:13
It's not an article - it's a press release. The source is listed as Nvidia.
As the song goes "you say tomato and I say tomato" :wink: (admittedly it loses a bit when down in text)
Himself
24-Jun-2003, 21:17
:lol:
Doomtrooper
24-Jun-2003, 22:15
In my attempt to get a dialog going between Kyle and B3D (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=629987&perpage=15&pagen umber=6#post1024948547), I may have inadvertantly started more problems that I had hoped to solve (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=629987&perpage=15&pagen umber=8#post1024950273). For that, I apologize.
Reading that thread...a couple of times as usual the 'threat' is used:
Keep your posts on topic or you will lose the ability to post.
:lol:
Ya ya..blah blah..
And Lars has posted his take on the matter over at THG. It's an even-handed editorial touching on every recent battle in the war against marketspeak. He makes two interesting points. One, that ATi ("A 3D chipmaker who prefers to remain unnamed") was responsible for the first (ExtremeTech, B3D, eventually FM) investigation into 3DM03 cheating (clip planes, etc.)--the same "unnamed" IHV who tipped TR off to the nV 3DM03 aniso iregularities. Two, that nV's "adaptive" aniso is, according to nV's own replies, only "adaptive" if nV spends time "adapting" it to an application (paging radar1200gs ). Worth reading, IMO.
Pretty good read Pete. Thanks for pointing it out. I really liked the end of his article. Where he talks about reveiwers being pawns for the IHV's PR machine, by publishing spoonfed stories without adequately researching them, in order to be the first to publish a story. (Man, that was one heck of a run on sentence.)
RuslanK
24-Jun-2003, 22:31
http://pdownload.mii.instacontent.net/ati/drivers/Catalyst_35_Release_Notes.html#165485
The 3DMark2003 shader optimizations found in previous CATALYST™ releases have been removed
CorwinB
24-Jun-2003, 22:44
3) And Lars has posted his take on the matter over at THG (http://www17.tomshardware.com/column/20030624/index.html). It's an even-handed editorial touching on every recent battle in the war against marketspeak. He makes two interesting points. One, that ATi ("A 3D chipmaker who prefers to remain unnamed") was responsible for the first (ExtremeTech, B3D, eventually FM) investigation into 3DM03 cheating (clip planes, etc.)--the same "unnamed" IHV who tipped TR off to the nV 3DM03 aniso iregularities. Two, that nV's "adaptive" aniso is, according to nV's own replies, only "adaptive" if nV spends time "adapting" it to an application (paging radar1200gs ;)). Worth reading, IMO.
Very interesting article by Lars, and one of the best reads I had at THG since... well, a damn long time. No name-calling, and very deep and thought-provoking. Thumbs up on this one !
I love this part in Lars article at THG
We also have some information which holds that ATi is keeping a list of all of NVIDIA's "sins." Apparently, ATi is happily distributing this list among the press. So don't be surprised to find some sensationalist stories of the "NVIDIA's Dirty Tactics Revealed!" variety in the near future. Probably, the race is already on behind the scenes to see who publishes the next story first... That's not to say that NVIDIA doesn't keep a similar list. At present, the company is not planning to publish it, though, since such mud-slinging battles tend to end up damaging the entire industry.
Well bless their hearts. Those little Nvidia angels do not want to damage the entire industry :roll: . What could be on Nvidia's list ? I know, the chairman of ATI's mother is a "HO". :wink:
demalion
24-Jun-2003, 23:02
And Lars has posted his take on the matter over at THG. It's an even-handed editorial touching on every recent battle in the war against marketspeak. He makes two interesting points. One, that ATi ("A 3D chipmaker who prefers to remain unnamed") was responsible for the first (ExtremeTech, B3D, eventually FM) investigation into 3DM03 cheating (clip planes, etc.)--the same "unnamed" IHV who tipped TR off to the nV 3DM03 aniso iregularities. Two, that nV's "adaptive" aniso is, according to nV's own replies, only "adaptive" if nV spends time "adapting" it to an application (paging radar1200gs ). Worth reading, IMO.
Pretty good read Pete. Thanks for pointing it out. I really liked the end of his article. Where he talks about reveiwers being pawns for the IHV's PR machine, by publishing spoonfed stories without adequately researching them, in order to be the first to publish a story. (Man, that was one heck of a run on sentence.)
I think you should be a bit more careful with praise. :-? What the article looks to me is an excellent example of fact use for agenda support.
What agenda? In this case, I think it is the agenda of stating facts to maintain readership trust. Is that an "unacceptable" agenda? Actually, no, and that's a refreshing change...in an imperfect world, I wish this was an "average" article. What is bad is that the agenda does not necessarily equate to reporting without bias...and the statements aside from the facts have some issues (IMO) with that criteria.
For instance, there are a lot of substantiated and useful unique tidbits about ATI and nVidia, but there are also statements that stand out for a lack of substantiation and their incongruous fit with the facts surrounding them.
To be brief, I'll post one example of what disturbed me:
We also have some information which holds that ATi is keeping a list of all of NVIDIA's "sins." Apparently, ATi is happily distributing this list among the press. So don't be surprised to find some sensationalist stories of the "NVIDIA's Dirty Tactics Revealed!" variety in the near future. Probably, the race is already on behind the scenes to see who publishes the next story first... That's not to say that NVIDIA doesn't keep a similar list. At present, the company is not planning to publish it, though, since such mud-slinging battles tend to end up damaging the entire industry.
So, nVidia isn't slinging mud because they are "looking out for the industry", and not because of a lack of mud to throw or their already established decision not to call this cheating and minimize the impact on consumer awareness concerning it? Note the implications about what ATI is "happily" not "looking out for". This isn't exactly subtle. :-?
Is that interjection logical at all? If you don't mind paying Tom, et al, some more money, read through the article again and look at the comments between the (admittedly thorough) collection of facts. If you work on the assumption that providing facts are a baseline and minimum for decent journalism, instead of comparing to examples of journalism completely devoid of facts, do you still think it is a "good article"?
Or maybe your standards for "good" depend more on the availability of information for you to evaluate, and you care less about whether there is an apparent attempt for lacing fact listing with spin that might not be supported by those facts? I guess I can see that, and in fact I don't feel too bad for giving them hits for sharing all the useful things they seem to have supported. My problem is with calling it "good article", I guess.
My problem is with calling it "good article", I guess.
Who said it was a good article? I never said it was good. I never said it was factual. I said it was "a pretty good read". Meaning it was entertaining. A Stephen King novel is hardly factual, but it is still a pretty good read. I did notice the things you pointed out. He even contradicts pretty heavily what I quoted above by giving all these "insider scoops" in the article itself.
I still stand by my statement of it being a pretty good read though. It kept me entertained for a few minutes. And although it wan't completely throrough or factual, I was still able to read it without wanting to throw my monitor out the window. :wink:
digitalwanderer
24-Jun-2003, 23:29
I'd like to see what you think after reading this> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030624/sftu011_1.html
:twisted:
Someone made a GREAT parody of that nVidia press release, you can read it over here (http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/sftu011_1.html). (I leave the author annonymous, if they want the credit I know they read this board so they can post up...I'm not sure they want nVidia knowing who they are... ;) )
Heh, his name in the url might give it away. :wink:
digitalwanderer
24-Jun-2003, 23:39
Heh, his name in the url might give it away. :wink:
Shhhhhhh! That's 'sposed to be secret... :lol:
Doomtrooper
24-Jun-2003, 23:47
I find that article amusing considering Lars was one of the few sites that claimed the cancelled '5800 Ultra' the new King.
I also find it pathetic that at the end of the day that site in question is all part of the big controversy, I mean they are one of the high traffic sites and also the site that has been 'played'.
Considering they used Bilinear filtering modes in the 5800 Ultra review vs setting it to application which is now name to quality when he was the one harping about the 8500's anisotropic filtering being bilinear is very contradictory :twisted:
...
It's no wonder Nvidia are so good at that Marketing Spin - it's the only product they've been offering for the last year. They can put it alongside the award for "Best GPU of 2002" for the NV30. How about we get some products rather than marketing blurbs, eh, Nvidia? :lol:
Precisely...;) When you can't ship competitive silicon you ship PR hot air instead, until such time as you either take your marbles and go home or you get back in the game again with a competitive product line you can actually ship in a timely fashion.
I would dearly love to be a fly on the wall in Brian B.'s office these days... I can picture him, head down and cradled between his hands, sobbing and moaning, "It can't be happening to me again--not again! Oh, no!" I am no stranger to such unwelcome deja vu myself.
Writing PR spin for a company when PR spin is all it has to ship has got to be one of the most depressing moments in a PR career.
Someone made a GREAT parody of that nVidia press release, you can read it over here (http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/sftu011_1.html). (I leave the author annonymous, if they want the credit I know they read this board so they can post up...I'm not sure they want nVidia knowing who they are... ;) )
Really, funny...;) And a much more informative and entertaining read than the original...! A "must read" for anyone whose humor quotient for the day is lacking...
I think this is the type of thing that make people suspicious of Kyle’s motives. He list the press release as a business story.
GeForce FX Getting Props:
Biz Yahoo has a write up on NVIDIA’s latest. The GeForce FX 5900 Ultra is getting the accolades that the 5800 Ultra didn’t get because let’s face it, the 5900 Ultra is a better / quieter card. You can see our review here for a refresher.
Coming on the heels of a successful launch of the GeForce FX 5900 series, top hardware editors worldwide have praised the new NVIDIA® GeForce FX 5900 Ultra graphics processing unit (GPU) as the undisputed leader in performance, image quality and compatibility for the enthusiast PC gaming market
my bold.
that is a joke. I am nearly speechless. they wouldn't do that at a high school newspaper.
Sabastian
25-Jun-2003, 03:41
I think that there is a bit more truth in this PR (http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/sftu011_1.html). ;)
Ichneumon
25-Jun-2003, 05:25
I only had a chance to skim the nvidia press release, but this was just too good to pass up...
In the footnote about the doom3 bench:
(1) Based on testing preformed by HardOCP in the article titled Doom 3 Benchmarks on May 12, 2003, testing Doom 3 Timedemo Test2 at 1600x1200x4XAAx8XAF on the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra (27.6 fps) and the Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB (16.5 fps).
Bold added by me...
lol :lol: all I can say is that is a choice placed typo in a press release from Nvidia on this subject :lol: :lol:
The Nvidia press release on [H]'s front page has been fixed, now it is actually called a press release.....
Someone made a GREAT parody of that nVidia press release, you can read it over here (http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/sftu011_1.html). (I leave the author annonymous, if they want the credit I know they read this board so they can post up...I'm not sure they want nVidia knowing who they are... ;) )
Hehe, good start for the morning :lol:
3) And Lars has posted his take on the matter over at THG (http://www17.tomshardware.com/column/20030624/index.html). It's an even-handed editorial touching on every recent battle in the war against marketspeak. He makes two interesting points. One, that ATi ("A 3D chipmaker who prefers to remain unnamed") was responsible for the first (ExtremeTech, B3D, eventually FM) investigation into 3DM03 cheating (clip planes, etc.)--the same "unnamed" IHV who tipped TR off to the nV 3DM03 aniso iregularities. Two, that nV's "adaptive" aniso is, according to nV's own replies, only "adaptive" if nV spends time "adapting" it to an application (paging radar1200gs ;)). Worth reading, IMO.
Very interesting article by Lars, and one of the best reads I had at THG since... well, a damn long time. No name-calling, and very deep and thought-provoking. Thumbs up on this one !
certainly an interesting article.. no doubt :)
parts of it are a little off... specially about the whole keeping of tabs on each other.. but other than that lars has done a good job of keeping things reasonably balanced while @ the same time putting things in perspective by commenting from the POV of the ihv's and benchmark devs...
a decent read for the most part... in contrast to many elements of [H]s article...
considering that both the editorials address the same situation... it is interesting to see the differences in opinion concerning the SAME topic on various websites... I wonder if anand/sudhian and others will come up with their own editorials...
perhaps anand will do his right after he addresses the splinter cell conclusion that he had in his 5900ultra review and no longer has.. :)
Hanners
25-Jun-2003, 11:10
I'd like to see what you think after reading this> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030624/sftu011_1.html
:twisted:
Someone made a GREAT parody of that nVidia press release, you can read it over here (http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/sftu011_1.html). (I leave the author annonymous, if they want the credit I know they read this board so they can post up...I'm not sure they want nVidia knowing who they are... ;) )
No need for anonimity, I have nothing to hide - As I mentioned on another forum, this isn't a parody, I simply optimised the text of the article. :P
martrox
25-Jun-2003, 12:18
I simply optimised the text of the article. :P
Isn't THAT the truth! :wink:
And this from Kyle on the Yahoo "article":
Editor's Note: Actually this is not a Yahoo story at all but rather an NVIDIA Press Release written by NVIDIA. I don't remember a lot of press releases in the past to the likes of this one. It is apparent that NVIDIA's products are not flying off the shelves and selling themselves as we have seen in the past. Or at least that is what I would think with this sort of self-pimpage going on. I have an idea that NVIDIA desktop products sales are way down compared to 12 or 24 months ago. - Kyle
Does anyone else detect a bit of desperation in everything nVidia has done in the last year?
I'll admit I was debating between calling it an editorial or an article. And I agree with demalion and sazar that it wasn't perfect. It had the usual THG "inside details but above the fray" slant, with some seemingly thin reporting and speculation, and the conclusion kind of left us where we started. But it was a fairly good read for an editorial, IMO.
digitalwanderer
25-Jun-2003, 15:36
I'll admit I was debating between calling it an editorial or an article. And I agree with demalion and sazar that it wasn't perfect. It had the usual THG "inside details but above the fray" slant, with some seemingly thin reporting and speculation, and the conclusion kind of left us where we started.
I got that from it too, like it was just a primary or summary of the situation to date as a set-up for the real story.
I just had a feeling there was an unwritten, "To be continued..." on the end of it and that it might just be a set-up piece for some new news that they might have. ;)
While I don't usually read tomshardware, I did sit down and read this whole editorial from Lars to see what they had to say. I was actually impressed, he covered most of the issues in a very objective manner, simply reporting what is going on out there. It is a good summary of events for those that are not in the know and want to get informed.
CorwinB
25-Jun-2003, 15:45
The NV press release is damage control at his finest (or at its worst, depending on what side you are on). This myopic compendium of the NV cheerleaders (the "guys with webpages") is not the kind of thing you do when you want to get people to buy your hardware : people generally don't care about press releases for hardware upgrade decisions (well, unless those press releases are thinly disguised as objective reviews, of course). I think the PR is mostly aimed at shareholders...
Does anyone else detect a bit of desperation in everything nVidia has done in the last year?
yes, except for the "a bit" part :)
The NV press release is damage control at his finest (or at its worst, depending on what side you are on). This myopic compendium of the NV cheerleaders (the "guys with webpages") is not the kind of thing you do when you want to get people to buy your hardware : people generally don't care about press releases for hardware upgrade decisions (well, unless those press releases are thinly disguised as objective reviews, of course). I think the PR is mostly aimed at shareholders...
I agree--Yahoo-placed press releases are generally things you hope non-technical people will see--like investors, for instance.
I found it somewhat humorous that after Kyle attempted to belittle the B3d forums by contrasting them to "something on Yahoo" he then turns around and brazenly copies a Yahoo press release to his front page--without ever even realizing the source of the press release....;) (And then adds a note correcting himself.) Who does Kyle imagine, other than nVidia, might ever be the source of such a press release?
Just goes to show how easily people can be manipulated, unfortunately.
I found it somewhat humorous that after Kyle attempted to belittle the B3d forums by contrasting them to "something on Yahoo" he then turns around and brazenly copies a Yahoo press release to his front page--without ever even realizing the source of the press release....;) (And then adds a note correcting himself.) Who does Kyle imagine, other than nVidia, might ever be the source of such a press release?
Just goes to show how easily people can be manipulated, unfortunately.
Actually, Steve originally posted the link to the yahoo article on the front page (notice the byline: Posted by Steve 5:11 PM (CDT)). Kyle was correcting Steve, not himself.
K.I.L.E.R
25-Jun-2003, 17:06
The NV press release is damage control at his finest (or at its worst, depending on what side you are on). This myopic compendium of the NV cheerleaders (the "guys with webpages") is not the kind of thing you do when you want to get people to buy your hardware : people generally don't care about press releases for hardware upgrade decisions (well, unless those press releases are thinly disguised as objective reviews, of course). I think the PR is mostly aimed at shareholders...
I agree--Yahoo-placed press releases are generally things you hope non-technical people will see--like investors, for instance.
I found it somewhat humorous that after Kyle attempted to belittle the B3d forums by contrasting them to "something on Yahoo" he then turns around and brazenly copies a Yahoo press release to his front page--without ever even realizing the source of the press release....;) (And then adds a note correcting himself.) Who does Kyle imagine, other than nVidia, might ever be the source of such a press release?
Just goes to show how easily people can be manipulated, unfortunately.
We call that hypocrisy. ;) :lol:
To be brief, I'll post one example of what disturbed me:
We also have some information which holds that ATi is keeping a list of all of NVIDIA's "sins." Apparently, ATi is happily distributing this list among the press. So don't be surprised to find some sensationalist stories of the "NVIDIA's Dirty Tactics Revealed!" variety in the near future. Probably, the race is already on behind the scenes to see who publishes the next story first... That's not to say that NVIDIA doesn't keep a similar list. At present, the company is not planning to publish it, though, since such mud-slinging battles tend to end up damaging the entire industry.
I agree. Why would anyone think the source of the information was relevant?
Reviewing the facts: what ATi discovered it did not publish. Instead, ATi turned over what it found to web sites which then independently were able to exactly duplicate those results themselves. The web sites then published their information--not because ATi revealed it--but because they were able to independently verify ATi's own internal findings.
Lars apparently has completely (deliberately?) missed the point that ATi's initial discovery of these facts is not germane to what nVidia did in its Detonators relative to 3DMk03. It's what nVidia did that is the meat of the story--who initially discovered what nVidia did is irrelevant.
But what nVidia did in the Detonators only fit a very obvious pattern of behavior: first they quit the FM program, then they publicly disparaged the benchmark, and finally they grossly cheated it. ATi has virtually nothing to do with the real story here. (But there is an interesting sidebar here that had ATi ever believed itself guilty of the same thing nVidia did it would never have revealed such information about nVidia--and thus itself--to anybody. The story as to why what ATi did wasn't a cheat while nVidia's coding was is one not fully developed by anybody yet that I can see.)
Then there are also nVidia's multiple responses to being caught:
(1) It's a driver bug
(2) FM is deliberately attacking us unfairly
(3) They were legitimate application optimizations
How Lars might ever surmise that the source of the information was of more importance than the information itself is baffling. One can only view this statement as an attempt to paint both companies with the same brush when what they did was very, very different. I also got a good laugh at his fabrication of "nVidia's little black book" which nVidia is (out of a sense of renewed integrity after being caught cheating and lying to cover up) deliberately choosing not to reveal. Heh...;) that was pretty funny...;)
It's like a guy standing before a judge about to sentence him to the gallows and saying something pithy like, "You know judge, I know you are going to sentence me to die in a moment, but I just want you to know this: I've got the goods on you--yessiree, Bob! But I'm such a decent fellow I'm not going to spill the beans. You should thank me for that!" *chuckle* I doubt that would win him points...;) Why do people fabricate such nonsense?
Kyle deserves some credit for making the correction although considering the nature of the press release, its mention should be removed completely. I would be intrested to to know his feelings on the Nvidia's use of his DOOMIII tests :?: I would go to [H]ard and ask myself but I don't feel like getting banned. :wink:
The NV press release is damage control at his finest (or at its worst, depending on what side you are on). This myopic compendium of the NV cheerleaders (the "guys with webpages") is not the kind of thing you do when you want to get people to buy your hardware : people generally don't care about press releases for hardware upgrade decisions (well, unless those press releases are thinly disguised as objective reviews, of course). I think the PR is mostly aimed at shareholders...
I agree--Yahoo-placed press releases are generally things you hope non-technical people will see--like investors, for instance.
I found it somewhat humorous that after Kyle attempted to belittle the B3d forums by contrasting them to "something on Yahoo" he then turns around and brazenly copies a Yahoo press release to his front page--without ever even realizing the source of the press release....;) (And then adds a note correcting himself.) Who does Kyle imagine, other than nVidia, might ever be the source of such a press release?
Just goes to show how easily people can be manipulated, unfortunately.
We call that hypocrisy. ;) :lol:
More like the pot calling the kettle black. You people are criticizing Kyle for referencing an article and quoting the wrong source. When in fact you are doing the exact same thing. Again, Steve originally posted the link on the front page, not Kyle. Steve is the one who didn't realize the source of the press release. And you are the ones who aren't realizing the source of the post on hardocp.
K.I.L.E.R
25-Jun-2003, 17:23
Just having some fun there gb25. :D
Try not to take it personally Kyl... err gb25. :lol: ;)
It's not like I'm prodding Kyle with a WMD. :)
Actually, Steve originally posted the link to the yahoo article on the front page (notice the byline: Posted by Steve 5:11 PM (CDT)). Kyle was correcting Steve, not himself.
Well, I guess this means that unlike Kyle, Steve believes in the credibility of Yahoo? It really doesn't matter. I just thought it was kind of funny based on Kyle's stated opinions as to the likely veracity of Yahoo--irony has a way of coming back at you from the most unexpected places, sometimes...;)
Joe DeFuria
25-Jun-2003, 17:26
More like the pot calling the kettle black. You people are criticizing Kyle for referencing an article and quoting the wrong source. When in fact you are doing the exact same thing. Again, Steve originally posted the link on the front page, not Kyle. Steve is the one who didn't realize the source of the press release. And you are the ones who aren't realizing the source of the post on hardocp.
Big difference being, we don't run a web site, and as the editor in chief of the web site have not criticized Yahoo as a source. The buck stops with Kyle. Why would he allow his staff to use yahoo releases as news sources, if he thinks they are laughable?
We think Kyle is laughable.
The correct word that is being sought is is actually irony. It's quite IRONIC that Kyle's Web Site would have a post that ultimately comes from a source he gives no credibility to.
Big difference being, we don't run a web site, and as the editor in chief of the web site have not criticized Yahoo as a source. The buck stops with Kyle. Why would he allow his staff to use yahoo releases as news sources, if he thinks they are laughable?
I think Kyle pretty much gives Steve total freedom to what he posts on the front page. This isn't the first time that one of Steve's posts has needed to be either edited or removed.
We think Kyle is laughable.
I know... I've been reading here for a while, and it is pretty obvious how the general consensus over here feels about Kyle. For the most part, I agree. I just think that you should at least get your facts straight before criticizing.
K.I.L.E.R
25-Jun-2003, 18:04
The correct word that is being sought is is actually irony. It's quite IRONIC that Kyle's Web Site would have a post that ultimately comes from a source he gives no credibility to.
hypocrite
n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold
Walt said it was Kyle, if it was Kyle it would be hypocritical.
gb25 cleared it up.
[quote]
Walt said it was Kyle, if it was Kyle it would be hypocritical.
gb25 cleared it up.
For Kyle it is merely ironical...;)
CorwinB
25-Jun-2003, 21:30
Let's give credit when it's due, it's good from Kyle to have corrected the source, regardless of passed or current "mistakes". If you continue bashing people even when they do something correctly, they will never bother to improve.
digitalwanderer
25-Jun-2003, 23:35
Let's give credit when it's due, it's good from Kyle to have corrected the source, regardless of passed or current "mistakes". If you continue bashing people even when they do something correctly, they will never bother to improve.
I dunno, making the mistake that it was a real news story in the first place is pretty sad and should set off some warning bells in and of itself. :(
CorwinB
25-Jun-2003, 23:56
I dunno, making the mistake that it was a real news story in the first place is pretty sad and should set off some warning bells in and of itself. :(
Actually, it seems Kyle didn't make the mistake.
digitalwanderer
26-Jun-2003, 00:13
I never said he did nor did I mean to imply it, I was referring to it being a warning about the site's quality or lack of being indicated by the mistake. :)
Very good posts from BrainPimp over on that forum. It looks as though he must have been a poster there for quite some time and he doesn't appear to have any axe to grind.
I'll keep an eye on that particular thread to see if Kyle does respond to any of his points.
The problem is that Kyle is not just "defending the indefensible", he's "not even mentioning the indefensible!" - especially on his own web site.
Hello everyone at B3d. Very astute observation Mariner. I am, in fact, a long time reader of [H] . I also have no axe to grind. I own equipment from both companies. This will probably get me banned over there in spite of the fact this is all totally correct and factual and on topic.
I do not understand nor condone the apparent blatant onesided "lack" of reporting going on. I like Kyle very much. I have admired and responded to his style of the tell it like it is in the hardware industry for several years. I read multiple sites and have never failed to get a straight answer for any question that has arisen. That makes this incident all the more confusing. This is my opinion and mine alone. The actions of the ownership of [H] are bordering on ridiculous. The blatant refusal to address direct specific questions is most telling in my mind. On several threads the "gauntlet was thrown down to just ask, nothing is being avoided." Nothing was addressed. So I finally just asked. I was told I was free to read other sites. The total and complete avoidance of any direct specific relevant questions was avoided. I tried to be open minded and posted new specific questions relating directly to a post by Kyle himself.
My response.......................................... ......................silence.
The total, utter, and complete avoidance of any of the pointed direct questions.
My post: with quotes from his post:
Kyle ..Why?
quote:
Originally posted by FrgMstr
I have said it before and I will state it again, this situation is not as simple as Quack was a couple years ago. The game is totally different and quite honestly, all the bitching and complaining in the world is not going to change NVIDIA's actions. It is a DONE DEAL.
Why is it a done deal? What is it about nvidia that makes them unable to be approached with this information?
Why would bringing this information public not have an impact?
When did you know this information?
What do you know Nvidia is doing?
These are some of the questions I would liketo see addressed by [H].
quote:
Originally posted by FrgMstr
Exposing Quack changed things, I knew months ago exposing what NVIDIA is doing would not change the way they are doing anything. At that point, I decided to move forward and not waste our energy spinning our wheels. I can only wish, as much energy would have been put into solving the problem as there has been about griping about it and exposing it.
How could readers spend the same amount of energy solving the problem?
This is the part that blows me away. Here you state you knew what Nvidia was doing months ago. What? You knew about his months ago and said nothing to us? If this is true I am stunned. How could you possibly know this and not post it on your front page and seriously look into re-evaluate at the very least the most recent reviews?
You continued to post flawed benchmarks?
I want to make sure I got this right. That is huge news.
quote:
Originally posted by FrgMstr
Exposing Quack changed things, I knew months ago exposing what NVIDIA is doing would not change the way they are doing anything. At that point, I decided to move forward and not waste our energy spinning our wheels.
How could you know about this for months, Kyle and not tell us? Whether it would change a damn thing with Nvidia is irrelevant. We your readers would have known. :(
I am very interested in this story. I think what s good for the goose is good for the gander. I agree ATI should have been called on the carpet. I also think Nvidai should be called ont he carpet just as harshly. For whatever reason [H] does not want to do it. Kyle's excuse of it will not do any good so I won't say anything is one of the weirdest excuses I have ever heard for the owner/author of a hardware review site.
Honestly, I am confused. Unless something is going on that we don't know about the blatant actions defy logic and explanation and the silence leads one to some very unpleasant conclusions.
Sorry to bomb your thread but I just don't feel like this is going to get discussed over there.
digitalwanderer
26-Jun-2003, 04:56
Very good posts from BrainPimp over on that forum. It looks as though he must have been a poster there for quite some time and he doesn't appear to have any axe to grind.
I'll keep an eye on that particular thread to see if Kyle does respond to any of his points.
The problem is that Kyle is not just "defending the indefensible", he's "not even mentioning the indefensible!" - especially on his own web site.
Hello everyone at B3d. Very astute observation Mariner. I am, in fact, a long time reader of [H] . I also have no axe to grind. I own equipment from both companies. This will probably get me banned over there in spite of the fact this is all totally correct and factual and on topic.
I do not understand nor condone the apparent blatant onesided "lack" of reporting going on. I like Kyle very much. I have admired and responded to his style of the tell it like it is in the hardware industry for several years. I read multiple sites and have never failed to get a straight answer for any question that has arisen. That makes this incident all the more confusing. This is my opinion and mine alone. The actions of the ownership of [H] are bordering on ridiculous. The blatant refusal to address direct specific questions is most telling in my mind. On several threads the "gauntlet was thrown down to just ask, nothing is being avoided." Nothing was addressed. So I finally just asked. I was told I was free to read other sites. The total and complete avoidance of any direct specific relevant questions was avoided. I tried to be open minded and posted new specific questions relating directly to a post by Kyle himself.
My response.......................................... ......................silence.
The total, utter, and complete avoidance of any of the pointed direct questions.
My post: with quotes from his post:
Kyle ..Why?
quote:
Originally posted by FrgMstr
I have said it before and I will state it again, this situation is not as simple as Quack was a couple years ago. The game is totally different and quite honestly, all the bitching and complaining in the world is not going to change NVIDIA's actions. It is a DONE DEAL.
Why is it a done deal? What is it about nvidia that makes them unable to be approached with this information?
Why would bringing this information public not have an impact?
When did you know this information?
What do you know Nvidia is doing?
These are some of the questions I would liketo see addressed by [H].
quote:
Originally posted by FrgMstr
Exposing Quack changed things, I knew months ago exposing what NVIDIA is doing would not change the way they are doing anything. At that point, I decided to move forward and not waste our energy spinning our wheels. I can only wish, as much energy would have been put into solving the problem as there has been about griping about it and exposing it.
How could readers spend the same amount of energy solving the problem?
This is the part that blows me away. Here you state you knew what Nvidia was doing months ago. What? You knew about his months ago and said nothing to us? If this is true I am stunned. How could you possibly know this and not post it on your front page and seriously look into re-evaluate at the very least the most recent reviews?
You continued to post flawed benchmarks?
I want to make sure I got this right. That is huge news.
quote:
Originally posted by FrgMstr
Exposing Quack changed things, I knew months ago exposing what NVIDIA is doing would not change the way they are doing anything. At that point, I decided to move forward and not waste our energy spinning our wheels.
How could you know about this for months, Kyle and not tell us? Whether it would change a damn thing with Nvidia is irrelevant. We your readers would have known. :(
I am very interested in this story. I think what s good for the goose is good for the gander. I agree ATI should have been called on the carpet. I also think Nvidai should be called ont he carpet just as harshly. For whatever reason [H] does not want to do it. Kyle's excuse of it will not do any good so I won't say anything is one of the weirdest excuses I have ever heard for the owner/author of a hardware review site.
Honestly, I am confused. Unless something is going on that we don't know about the blatant actions defy logic and explanation and the silence leads one to some very unpleasant conclusions.
Sorry to bomb your thread but I just don't feel like this is going to get discussed over there.
You're not bombing this thread, I found your post most informative. The bit about "Kyle's excuse of it will not do any good so I won't say anything is one of the weirdest excuses I have ever heard for the owner/author of a hardware review site." sort of sums up my whole problem with taking any of his other stances on benchmarking very seriously.
I truly don't get it, how do they expect this to end?
Hi Yonex. Has anyone at [H] asked Kyle what has changed.....
have said it before and I will state it again, this situation is not as simple as Quack was a couple years ago. The game is totally different and quite honestly ? BTW it's better over here :wink: . Dave B and Reverend do not shy away from questions.
K.I.L.E.R
26-Jun-2003, 05:38
have said it before and I will state it again, this situation is not as simple as Quack was a couple years ago. The game is totally different and quite honestly
It's not as simple because Kyle refuses to see it as simple as the Quack situation.
Let me solve the little mind boggling problem for Kyle.
nVIDIA = cheats; as it lowers IQ on the output.
Ati = optimises; as it doesn't change the output IQ.
Both companies cheated in 3dmark03.
See? Hard or easy to understand?
Ati's optimsiation is acceptable in games while nVIDIA's cheat isn't acceptable in games while niether cheats or specific optimsiations are acceptable in 3dmark03 or any synthetic benchmark.
There is no 2 ways about this.
[
Ati = optimises; as it doesn't change the output IQ.
Dont jump the gun kiler, somethings about to happen again :wink:
Dont jump the gun kiler, somethings about to happen again
Any bets that if ATI gets busted lowering quality Kyle will be all over it? A nice big front page headline?
digitalwanderer
26-Jun-2003, 07:30
[
Ati = optimises; as it doesn't change the output IQ.
Dont jump the gun kiler, somethings about to happen again :wink:
No hints? What you're not just gonna leave us hanging like that, are you?
Does it have to do with Aquamark3, the article about Unwinder's anti-cheat script, or something else entirely?
2senile
26-Jun-2003, 08:03
It's unwinders script. Check the end of "My thread @ Futuremark(Re =Waite for Unwinder)" thread.
K.I.L.E.R
26-Jun-2003, 08:17
I'm out to get both companies. :lol:
I wish IHVs would be honest with consumers. :x
nggalai
26-Jun-2003, 11:20
Hi WaltC,
I generally agree with your posting, but there's one bit:
Why? Because despite what Kyle believes, the vast majority of 3D games sold do not offer "optimized code paths" for anybody's hardware.
This may change, in the not-too-distant future. It's only guesswork whether the actual majority of games will support different code paths for different IHV in the future (I personally don't think so), but the number of such games will increase drastically. Looking at M$'s latest concepts (and betas) for the DX9 HLSL, I wouldn't be surprised to see many if not most DX9 games in the future offering optimised code paths--at least those games that make use of HLSL.
This, of course, doesn't mean I agree with the [H] blurb. Synthetic benchmarks are important. As far as I am concerned, though, so are as many different game benchmarks as possible, mind. A sensible balance should be strived for, booing either doesn't achieve anything.
93,
-Sascha.rb
Hi Yonex. Has anyone at [H] asked Kyle what has changed.....
have said it before and I will state it again, this situation is not as simple as Quack was a couple years ago. The game is totally different and quite honestly ? BTW it's better over here :wink: . Dave B and Reverend do not shy away from questions.
Kyle has been asked several questions.
His responses have been:
1. You can't cheat in a benchmark that doesn't matter.
2. If you can't see, it it isn't a cheat.
3. It wouldn't do any good so why bother.
The part that stills stuns me is his comment that he knew about this months ago and decided not to waste his time because Nvidia wasn't going to change. The jail is full and the new one isn't built yet so we aren't going to enforce any laws until we get our new jail. You cannot ignore the present because we aren't in the future yet.
The consequences from that statement are:
1. He did know Nvidia was cheating and held this incredible information back which is a biblical level violation of reader trust.
2. He didn't know and his most recent comment is not truthful, not accurate and not factual. This would be Clintonese for I didn't have sex.
Those are the only 2 ways that comment can go. 1 or the other is true.
It is very disappointing. I like [H]. I have been there for a long time. I have never seen this kind of behavior. I truly don't understand it. The implications are he is either an Nvidia shill or he is so focused on his view 3dmark is bad that he will embrace damn near anything that will help him acheive his desire of removing them. There are other alternatives I am sure but those are the most obvious and the most likely. The simplest solution to a question is usually correct.
Doomtrooper
26-Jun-2003, 15:40
Very interesting article by Lars, and one of the best reads I had at THG since... well, a damn long time. No name-calling, and very deep and thought-provoking. Thumbs up on this one !
hy·poc·ri·sy
A person given to hypocrisy.
-The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
-An act or instance of such falseness
[Middle English ipocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hupocrits, actor, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend ; see hypocrisy.]
I see some people got a laugh out of the mocking of Fanboys and the Jester in this article, now hypocrisy is riding high here.
The author of this article is Lars Weinand not Tom Pabst but the Nvidia fansite webmaster from http://www.rivastation.com/about_e.htm..
This is the problem with the industry, hypocrisy is the best term to comment on this article, especially mocking supposed fanboys when he is by far Nvidia slanted (or wouldn't be running a Nvidia fansite).
Since he started working at Tomshardware they have tried to change the image of the site and copies his reviews from Tomshardware onto his own site, but at the end of day that site always was a Nvidia Fan Site, so I hope Borsti likes his new hat :wink:
Not alot of Diversity here a couple years ago:
http://www.rivastation.com/news-alt.htm
I refuse to read reviews done there anymore, the 5800 Ultra was the icing on the cake..not only were his results laughable and lost all the HQ benchmarks even with running no Trilinear AF, he claimed them as the "new King".
That kind of journalism is beyond excusable.
K.I.L.E.R
26-Jun-2003, 16:17
DT, I already posted the meaning of it. :)
Lets sum this all up.
Kyle = hypocrite
Lars = hypocrite
:lol:
Borsti's article was pretty good. He also post's/hangs out here sometimes.
When I was over at the Tom's forums, I asked him if he could answer a few questions over there, because he was answering them here at the time. He apologized to me and said he would, and that the reason he was discussing things here @ B3D was because there was alot of intelligent people here that he could get information from. Maybe we might not want to call him names. To me he seemed rather pleasant, in the messages he sent to me, and I dont think that him owning RivaStation is grounds for dismissing his article as not having any merit.
I do agree though that giving NV30 the speed crown in the past was rather silly of him....
This may change, in the not-too-distant future. It's only guesswork whether the actual majority of games will support different code paths for different IHV in the future (I personally don't think so), but the number of such games will increase drastically. Looking at M$'s latest concepts (and betas) for the DX9 HLSL, I wouldn't be surprised to see many if not most DX9 games in the future offering optimised code paths--at least those games that make use of HLSL.
This, of course, doesn't mean I agree with the [H] blurb. Synthetic benchmarks are important. As far as I am concerned, though, so are as many different game benchmarks as possible, mind. A sensible balance should be strived for, booing either doesn't achieve anything.
93,
-Sascha.rb
You are forgetting something critical to the software developer--he wants to write software that runs well in any API-compliant environment. Software developers are interested in selling their software to the largest possible market--they are not interested in helping IHV's sell their latest hardware. So many times people think the goals of developers and IHV's are identical--when the truth is they couldn't be further apart. Game developers want to sell their software to everybody with a 3D card environment compliant with the specific versions of the APIs the developers target. The way the developer looks at it--and rightfully so--is that it's up to the IHV to create the proper environment to host his software. Again, developers are not interested in taking extra time to support one IHV's product at the expense of another. While that might help a particular IHV it does not help the developer at all--it just locks his software out of a certain percentage of sales. Such a policy is suicide for a developer.
The problem with whole concept of "vendor-specific" code paths is that they work to undermine and defeat the basic API. And make no mistake, the basic API is the developer's one true friend. API's were developed themselves for the *benefit* of software developers--not for the benefit of IHV's. But IHV's who adhere to the basic API development will certainly benefit because it is to the basic API that 99% of all software developers will write--and following the API allows the IHV to greatly expand the market for his products because of the abundance of software created which can run on his product. This is basic 3D-API 101. Following the API is of mutual benefit to the game developer and the IHV--not to mention the consumer since he has a wide selection of hardware from which he can choose, all of which will run 99.9% of the software available.
Likewise, the IHV who seeks to thwart the API paradigm will suffer in many ways, as will the software developer who follows him. Attempting to jerry-rig non-API compliant vendor-specific code paths into game software is a giant step backwards, IMO. For that reason you will see very few, if any, software developers choosing that route. (Aside from the very, very few whom the IHV's intentionally finance to write in code paths which are not representative of 99% of the 3D software available, which the IHV can then use in a marketing campaign to pimp his products.)
I thought Tim Sweeny said it well when he spelled out recently that no one should ever confuse Atari's participation in nVidia's TWMTBP marketing campaign with anything relevant to Epic's software development. IE, one may never assume vendor-specific code paths in TWMTBP-marked software--because in 99% of cases it won't exist. (As it does not exist in UT2K3.)
nggalai
26-Jun-2003, 20:01
Hi WaltC,
agreed. But I was speaking of HLSL applications. I'm not too much up-to-date with what's been made public and what hasn't, but I am pretty sure I've seen the different HLSL target profiles introduced with one of the last betas of the next DX9 SDK mentioned on these boards before. Devs don't need to make any special provisions for supporting different targets, HLSL will take care of it automatically, either at run time or during compilation (as long as you specify the target(s), of course).
93,
-Sascha.rb
The author of this article is Lars Weinand not Tom Pabst but the Nvidia fansite webmaster from http://www.rivastation.com/about_e.htm..
This is the problem with the industry, hypocrisy is the best term to comment on this article, especially mocking supposed fanboys when he is by far Nvidia slanted (or wouldn't be running a Nvidia fansite).
Since he started working at Tomshardware they have tried to change the image of the site and copies his reviews from Tomshardware onto his own site, but at the end of day that site always was a Nvidia Fan Site, so I hope Borsti likes his new hat :wink:
@Doomtrooper
I see you know nothing about the history of RIVA Station. Is there any word on the site that it is HIV related like nvnews or rage3d?
I started the site with a german language FAQ for the ELSA Victory Erazor (RIVA 128) next to my personal homepage. Not because I was a Fan of ELSA or NVIDIA but because of many things simply did´nt work with that card. I added some news and then wanted so separate it from my personal HP. I did´nt have any money to buy other cards at that time and coded websites in my free time to get money to pay the bandwith for a own domain. I got almost NO support from any HIVs at that time aside of from german PR people at ASUS and ELSA. At that time german PR people did not know anything about hardware websites so it was very tough to run a site in germany at that time.
After a while i was able to make contacts to 3dfx, ATI, NVIDIA, Matrox and others and descited to post news and reviews on general VGA hardware. NVIDIA changed their product name so I saw no reason to change the name of the site. I never saw it as an HIV related site. I made unbiased reviews about all kinds of VGA cards over the years at RS. Do you really think that ATI, 3dfx or Matrox would have given me samples if they thought that RS is a NVIDIA related side!?!?!?!?!
To make it clear: I never got any special support from NVIDIA at all. I also never cared about. My first contact with NVIDIA was 2 years after I started the site when I posted benchmark numbers of leaked Detonator drivers and offered the drivers for download. The first card sample from NVIDIA I received for a review was a GeForce 256 DDR!
I´m still running the site as a hobby. To support the community which grew in the Forums over the years and to stay in close contact with the readers. I don´t see any reason to change the name only because it has a name of a way outdated product from NVIDIA in it. Do you call B3D´s Reverend biased against ATI and NVIDIA because he ran a site with 3dfx related content years ago???
Your imputation that I tried to change the image of the site when I started to work for Tom is wrong as well as the other imputations in your post. You may not like me and/or THG. That´s your problem. But please stop posting any imputations about things you don´t seem to know.
Lars (Tom´s Hardware Guide)
Hi WaltC,
agreed. But I was speaking of HLSL applications. I'm not too much up-to-date with what's been made public and what hasn't, but I am pretty sure I've seen the different HLSL target profiles introduced with one of the last betas of the next DX9 SDK mentioned on these boards before. Devs don't need to make any special provisions for supporting different targets, HLSL will take care of it automatically, either at run time or during compilation (as long as you specify the target(s), of course).
93,
-Sascha.rb
OK, sorry nggalai, I didn't quite catch your drift from the first post--sorry for the elementaries lesson...;) Yes, nothing wrong with API-compliant HLSL, of course. I wouldn't call that "vendor-specific", though, at least from the developer's position, as you point out--unless you want to do something in there that departs from the API and goes toward custom hardware support applicable to a particular IHV.
Lars, HIV is not the same as IHV (which is what you meant) in English. ;)
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Reverend
27-Jun-2003, 02:12
. Is there any word on the site that it is HIV related like nvnews or rage3d?
OMG... I didn't know that about NVNews and Rage3D. Guess I'll need to be more careful when I visit them next.
digitalwanderer
27-Jun-2003, 04:12
. Is there any word on the site that it is HIV related like nvnews or rage3d?
OMG... I didn't know that about NVNews and Rage3D. Guess I'll need to be more careful when I visit them next.
Please tell me I can't catch it by just posting at one of them, 'cause I tend to post a bit at both! :eek:
Ichneumon
27-Jun-2003, 04:17
HIVnews or RageVD :D
LMAO... Ph33R next year's april fools at Rage3D hahahahahaha :lol:
ok, probably not, but an enormously humorous image came to mind for an april fools spoof for rage3d after reading that...
HIVnews or RageVD :D
LMAO... Ph33R next year's april fools at Rage3D hahahahahaha :lol:
ok, probably not, but an enormously humorous image came to mind for an april fools spoof for rage3d after reading that...
Yea, I freaked last april fools......thanx Eric :wink:
Lars, HIV is not the same as IHV (which is what you meant) in English. ;)
LOL! I meant IHV for sure!
:lol:
Lars
Doomtrooper
27-Jun-2003, 09:31
@Doomtrooper
I see you know nothing about the history of RIVA Station. Is there any word on the site that it is HIV related like nvnews or rage3d?
I know that it was a very popular Nvidia fan site for years :), and visited your site when I did own those products.
I started the site with a german language FAQ for the ELSA Victory Erazor (RIVA 128) next to my personal homepage. Not because I was a Fan of ELSA or NVIDIA but because of many things simply did´nt work with that card. I added some news and then wanted so separate it from my personal HP. I did´nt have any money to buy other cards at that time and coded websites in my free time to get money to pay the bandwith for a own domain. I got almost NO support from any HIVs at that time aside of from german PR people at ASUS and ELSA. At that time german PR people did not know anything about hardware websites so it was very tough to run a site in germany at that time.
I didn't say it was easy Borsti, but looking at your articles in the early days shows you were catered to the Nvidia crowd.
Doesn't make it a bad thing, but does influence 'reviews'.
To make it clear: I never got any special support from NVIDIA at all. I also never cared about. My first contact with NVIDIA was 2 years after I started the site when I posted benchmark numbers of leaked Detonator drivers and offered the drivers for download. The first card sample from NVIDIA I received for a review was a GeForce 256 DDR!
A new domain name would be in order IMO :)
Your imputation that I tried to change the image of the site when I started to work for Tom is wrong as well as the other imputations in your post. You may not like me and/or THG. That´s your problem. But please stop posting any imputations about things you don´t seem to know.
Well your reviews diversified alot after you started working there...approx around the 8500 launch.
You are one of the few sites that claimed the 5800 Ultra the new 'King' meanwhile Nvidia is completley removing that particular card from their webpage...it doesn't exist.
What ever happend to screen shots showing IQ doing graphic card reviews ?? We are talking Graphic Cards here, not Graph Cards.
A year ago I emailed you about your comments on the Parhelia review:
Hi,
there are some investigations on what ATi is doing in their drivers. ATI
does not filter all textures. Many textures are not filtered at all. They do
not have Anisotropic filtering in the "classic" way. R8500 is very fast with
Anisotropic, but it´s no "real" Anisotroppic. That´s why I did not use it in
the Parhelia review... it´s worth an own article and comparsion and I have
to be very carefully! You can mind that ATI and NVIDIA do only tell us what
they want us to know... so it´s very hard to get those informations. And
it´s very complicated to explain (and compare)
If I used it... I would have start a discussion about ATI... but I wanted to
show what Parhelia can do... I hope you see my point.
Lars
Lars "Borsti" Weinand
- Editor In Chief & Founder - RIVA Station
http://www.rivastation.com
http://www.rivastation.com/index_e.htm (English)
- Senior Editor, Graphics - Tom's Hardware Guide
http://www.tomshardware.com
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1382&start=0
you stated you were going to leave out the 8500 Anisotropic filtering numbers because it was too 'controversial' and wasn't 'true' anisotropic filtering. You were only going to use it if ATI told you exactly what they were doing :lol:
Yet you happily benchmarked away with your 5800 review using Bilinear AF, putting up your fancy graphs show it beating a 9700 which was doing trilinear.
How about commenting on the title of this review, and how wrong you were (remember your article you just wrote then stringing people along in your conclusions)
ATi Radeon 9700 PRO -
Pretender To The Throne
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020819/index.html
I find the closing comments in this article very funny, I'm sorry..you write a article about the public getting played by IHVs when really the hyprocrisy of it all is you got played, recomending a cancelled card that people can't even buy, or find on Nvidias webpage :roll:
The mis-information starts with the review sites then spreads throughout the forums.
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/geforce_fx-29.html
Your comments from this review:
NVIDIA takes the crown! No question about it
Crown of what...Pr power ?? With image quality comparisons below with obvious lod bias problems, and poor filterting. No mention of that in your review, Unlike the excellent review below...I'm sorry, take some critique and use image quality in your 'future' crownings. Setting the sliders to 2X FSAA on both cards doesn't mean the output is the same, especially Intellisample vs. Smoothvision II.
http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/gffx5800u/gffx_5.htm
Example:
232 fps Great IQ
241 fps Poor IQ
Tomshardware claims the poor IQ card ' the new king' based soley on FPS. So IMO you have done a poor job on a 'apples to apples' comparison.
Edit: I might add that all the review sites were played, besides this one regearding slider settings in the old Nvidia control panel...and I wasn't fooled for a minute :wink:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4051&start=0
Hey Doomtrooper check out my new sig. :wink:
Doomtrooper
27-Jun-2003, 19:12
:)
RussSchultz
28-Jun-2003, 01:45
And we've chased another one away.
Congrats, guys.
And we've chased another one away.
Congrats, guys.
You think that DoomTrooper's post is without merit then?
Doomtrooper
28-Jun-2003, 03:30
Russ thinks we should all be weasels, nothing in the post above was rude, I stated facts provided with links.
I kiss ass to no one :wink:
And we've chased another one away.
Congrats, guys.
Who was the first "one"?....*chuckle*
I dunno', Russ, it seems to me that the "ones" being "chased" have as much room to respond to comments as those doing the "chasing" have to make them. Where's the problem?
If the arguments seem one sided perhaps that's because only one side is making any points...? Just a thought...;)
I'm kind of old fashioned, I guess, and think that a "forum" is not a place for grandstanding, not a platform for one-sided preaching to the masses, but rather a place for discussion, dialogue, and debate. Quoting someone's own published remarks as a rebuttal to a recently stated position they've taken which runs contrary to those remarks is a tried and true debating tactic used almost universally--and generally accepted as legitimate everywhere. Underhanded? I think not. It's merely a very convincing way of saying and asking "This is what you said before, in your own words, and it seems contrary to your current position as stated here. Which remarks do you mean to retract, or do you have a justification for both positions?"--and that sort of thing.
I don't believe in the concept of "celebrity." An idea is either good or bad, justifiable or not, based on its substance and the person having the idea is irrelevant. IE, I'm not one for pandering. Example: if George Bush tells me he thinks a space shuttle with one wing is dandy idea but a wino named Buster in the alley tells me he'd prefer a shuttle with two, Bush's celebrity is not going to keep me from from ridiculing Bush and praising the wino...;)
By the same token, I do not view web masters as universally incompetent, either...;) It's just that their ideas are not valid simply because they are published on a web page--they must be valid intrinsically to hold up. Right? Good and honest web masters engage in debate on the substance of their ideas and are simply not afraid of picking up a new one here and there along the way. Other web masters are "chased away" when faced with their own opinions and asked to justify them. What does this tell us of their opinions as they originally published them? A pertinent question, I think.
RussSchultz
28-Jun-2003, 04:30
Russ thinks we should all be weasels, nothing in the post above was rude, I stated facts provided with links.
I kiss ass to no one :wink:
No, I think you shouldn't be a weasel. At least not a rabid one.
The shark feeding frenzy attitude and congratulating each other for 'schooling' somebody is just plain juvenile.
check out my new sig.
_________________
We are talking Graphic Cards here, not Graph Cards.
Dogging non-english speakers for mispellings and/or misuse of the language is pure class.
Bush's celebrity is not going to keep me from from ridiculing Bush and praising the wino
And that is the problem. What purpose is there in ridiculing people, beyond attempting to shame them into not expressing their viewpoints?
You claim to be all about free expression of ideas, but the oppresiveness of the gang tactics here (whether or not you realise it) is counter productive to that free expression of ideas, unless, apparently, they coincide with your own.
check out my new sig.
_________________
We are talking Graphic Cards here, not Graph Cards.
Dogging non-english speakers for mispellings and/or misuse of the language is pure class.Mmmm, classy. *drool*
Seriously, I think that was an attack on judging video cards solely based on benchmark numbers, without taking into account IQ.
I agree with Russ' dislike of the "Oh, snap, you just got schooled, boyee!" chorus in some threads. Lars seems to be fairly reasonable when he posts here, so, though I don't agree with some of his articles, I try to keep the debate civilized.
Doomtrooper
28-Jun-2003, 06:13
Pete/Russ what is your purpose here, if you have a rebuttal from my post, makes some valid statements, I couldn't care less about your semantics.
Legitimate issues were posted, I'm sick of the defensive attitude around obvious flaws in reviewing, and it doesn't get better by walking on 'egg shells' when a reviewers shows up. :x
RussSchultz
28-Jun-2003, 06:41
What's wrong, Doom? Don't like people ganging up on you and critiqueing your "review reviewing" style?
I'm sick of the defensive attitude around obvious flaws in discourse around here, and it doesn't get better by walking on 'egg shells' when somebody's acting out of line.
Seriously, though. I respect and somewhat agree with your views on Kyle, Lars, et al. However, I don't think that Beyond3d is the right place to sit around and bitch about them. I think YOUR board is the right place for you to soapbox from, or their board, but not here.
Of course, I'm just somebody who likes polite discourse about technology, not pages and pages of snarky gossip.
By the way, did you hear what John did? How scandelous! I've never seen such behavior...
And we've chased another one away.
Congrats, guys.
It´s not that easy to chase me away :wink: I´m always interrested in peoples opinions... even if they are prejudiced like Dooms. That´s the reason why I visit this forum as well as others. I made my point. If he still wants to see it in another way, well, that´s his choice.
Lars
K.I.L.E.R
28-Jun-2003, 08:56
And we've chased another one away.
Congrats, guys.
It´s not that easy to chase me away :wink: I´m always interrested in peoples opinions... even if they are prejudiced like Dooms. That´s the reason why I visit this forum as well as others. I made my point. If he still wants to see it in another way, well, that´s his choice.
Lars
Welcome to Beyond3D Mr Lars (sorry, I don't know your surname)
I have a bad habbit of spanking good boys. ;)
I hope you can stay around longer than 10 days. Some people have a habbit of disappearing, it isn't because of me either. Even though sometimes I can be a little bit of a porn enthusiast. :lol:
Try not to take most things too seriously, you will find a majority of us are not out to get you or Kyle.
I do not consider Kyle or yourself as bad people even if I disagree with your opinions. :)
Have a good stay and I hope all of us can have some nice discussions.
CorwinB
28-Jun-2003, 10:32
What Russ said. :(
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
28-Jun-2003, 11:34
Seriously, though. I respect and somewhat agree with your views on Kyle, Lars, et al. However, I don't think that Beyond3d is the right place to sit around and bitch about them. I think YOUR board is the right place for you to soapbox from, or their board, but not here.
[/size]
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6117
I don't see DT's posts as being OT under these rules, or his attitude as being anything more than business-like and factual in this matter. If you think they are, then it's the moderator's job to deal with it however they see fit.
Of course, I'm just somebody who likes polite discourse about technology, not pages and pages of snarky gossip.
I don't think it's "snarky gossip". There's a lot of industry wide stuff going on as a direct result of companies using websites as extensions of their PR departments. It is interesting and worth knowing when you are reading obviously flawed reviews and benchmarks, or downright untruths. Maybe you need to stick to the technology forums instead of the hazy and underhand world of "3D Graphics Companies and Industry"? :wink:
K.I.L.E.R
28-Jun-2003, 11:58
You all make good points here and there.
In the end everyone has his/her own opinion, something that all of you should learn to respect.
I respect Kyle's opinion (which are facts according to him) even though I disagree with 99.99% of the things he says. :)
Sabastian
28-Jun-2003, 12:12
I respect Kyle's opinion (which are facts according to him) even though I disagree with 99.99% of the things he says. :)
:lol:
John Reynolds
28-Jun-2003, 13:43
By the way, did you hear what John did? How scandelous! I've never seen such behavior...
??
Joe DeFuria
28-Jun-2003, 14:19
Seriously, though. I respect and somewhat agree with your views on Kyle, Lars, et al. However, I don't think that Beyond3d is the right place to sit around and bitch about them. I think YOUR board is the right place for you to soapbox from, or their board, but not here.
Well Russ,
Did you perhchance READ the "about this forum" sticky?
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6117
A few minutes ago, I renamed this forum from "3D Graphics Companies" to "3D Graphics Companies and Industry". This forum will no longer be limited to talking about 3D companies but the entire 3D industry as a whole, including your opinions about other websites.
(my emphasis added)
So perhaps if you don't like people stating their views on the industry, including other webites and the articles / authors at those websites,, then perhaps it is YOU who should consider staying away from this particular forum.
Of course, I'm just somebody who likes polite discourse about technology, not pages and pages of snarky gossip.
If you like discussions about technology, and not discussions about opinions on IHVs, other 3D websites, and the industry....then stick to the tech forum. You wouldn't have to read all this bitching, and we wouldn't have to read your bitching. Everyone's happy, right?
There's no rule that says you must read every forum here at B3D.
Am I "chasing you away?" Dunno. That depends on whether or not you perfer to accept the stated purpose of this forum, or reject it. It's your choice.
I just don't think we need another "virtual moderator" here, Russ.
By the way, did you hear what John did? How scandelous! I've never seen such behavior...
And what is that supposed to mean? And how is that accusation in any way similar to the ones that you bitch about...the ones that have several stated reasons and examples about why they have the opinion that they have?
K.I.L.E.R
28-Jun-2003, 14:37
If John is scandalous, then what am I? :lol:
What did John do to deserve such a title?
check out my new sig.
_________________
We are talking Graphic Cards here, not Graph Cards.
Dogging non-english speakers for mispellings and/or misuse of the language is pure class.Mmmm, classy. *drool*
Seriously, I think that was an attack on judging video cards solely based on benchmark numbers, without taking into account IQ.
I agree with Russ' dislike of the "Oh, snap, you just got schooled, boyee!" chorus in some threads. Lars seems to be fairly reasonable when he posts here, so, though I don't agree with some of his articles, I try to keep the debate civilized.
YEP. :D
And that is the problem. What purpose is there in ridiculing people, beyond attempting to shame them into not expressing their viewpoints?
You claim to be all about free expression of ideas, but the oppresiveness of the gang tactics here (whether or not you realise it) is counter productive to that free expression of ideas, unless, apparently, they coincide with your own.
Russ, how could you so thoroughly miss my point?
The ridiculing comes as the result of the ideas expressed and has nothing to do with the personalities involved--which are irrelevant. Not all ideas deserve "ridicule" of course. This was merely an example I used to illustrate the point you missed.
martrox
28-Jun-2003, 15:09
John? Scandalous? No.......say it isn't so......... :wink: Myself, on the other hand........... :roll:
digitalwanderer
28-Jun-2003, 15:09
I wanted to post up an "pwned!" so bad it hurt my teeth after DT cut loose on Lars, but I didn't because this isn't that kind of board!
Sorry to be the heavy, but I feel Russ actually gots some good points. There is a difference between DoomTroopers bluntly honest rebutal to Lars and the "owned" comment that followed it up. DT had an honest and topical point to make, the "owned" comment was just a fan to the flames of fanboism. :(
We have GOT to watch the fanboy stuff if we're going to participate in discussions on these boards. We must adapt to this boards standards rather than try and lower the board to our standards. ;)
Please, I mean this not as a flame but as an actual informative post. If you're going to post at B3D at least have something to say, don't just be posting to get rah-rah. (It ain't easy for me either, but I'm learning... ;) )
It´s not that easy to chase me away :wink: I´m always interrested in peoples opinions... even if they are prejudiced like Dooms. That´s the reason why I visit this forum as well as others. I made my point. If he still wants to see it in another way, well, that´s his choice.
Lars
Well, I think, Lars, he "sees it another way" based on quotes of things you've said in other articles. So wouldn't you say he's done a bit more that merely proffer an opinion? I'd say so. Based on those quotes it would appear he has a point, too.
Yes, you "made your point" here, which seems to have prompted Doom to look up quotes as to other "points" you've made at other times and places. I think what he's asking for is a clarification on whether or not you still consider the quotes he's reprinted to be valid expressions of your current opinion.
Saying, "I've changed my mind since I wrote those," is not so terrible a thing to say, is it?...;)
That's my biggest complaint--and it certainly isn't lodged at you specifically--that people write things on web pages as a part of reviews or opinion pieces which they later refuse to acknowledge or discuss or explain or expound upon when asked about them. It's an attitude difficult to understand, frankly.
It looks like Borsti just got owned.......I guess there are still some people that will blidly follow nVIdia no matter where they go...........
Can someone explain to me what that post had to do with the topic and how it in any way provided anything good to the topic.
And Digitalwanderer. I sometimes see you post posts like those YeuEmMaiMai on other boards(rarely here). And i would like to ask not only you but others who do it as well. What do you want to say with the post? You just want to spam to be rude(and bump some post counts) or you really think you contribute to the thread by making comments like that?
I hope the thread can continue on topic now. This post isn't some kind of attack or anything. Just want some answers to some things.
Doomtrooper
28-Jun-2003, 15:51
It´s not that easy to chase me away :wink: I´m always interrested in peoples opinions... even if they are prejudiced like Dooms. That´s the reason why I visit this forum as well as others. I made my point. If he still wants to see it in another way, well, that´s his choice.
Lars
No one is chasing you away, I could have made my post alot more aggressive as I have many more examples. I don't want to see you go, but I certainly hope you see some very bad flaws in your reviewing style including the 'technical' part of your reviews.
You say my opinion is prejudiced, which is so far out to left field, my opinion is ensuring reviewers try to be as accurate as possible and not just look at the FPS meter in every benchmark.
Critique is something alot of people need to take, and my examples which I knew you would avoid including the 8500 anisotropic debate is just another example of flaws in your methodology.
My main issue is Anandtech, [H} and Tomshardware all got played by Nvidia they didn't even tell you about the other slider options which included trilinear AF in the application setting. Lucky we have Beyond3D where the staff have the intelligence to investigate all the modes, and get down to a 'fair apples to apples' comparison.
Ever since that 5800 U review from Tomshardware, my respect for your site has gone down ALOT, just from sloppy reviewing with no regard to IQ.
I couldn't see one mention of IQ in your 5800 Ultra review, only graphs galore.
All benchmarks in that review in question were done using a mode worse than a 8500's AF, something you wouldn't even use last year :roll: , now you see where the hypodcrisy comes from in my posts.
5800 in the old 'balanced' setting
http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/gffxu/filtering/bal_8xs.gif
K.I.L.E.R
28-Jun-2003, 16:03
All benchmarks in that review in question were done using a mode worse than a 8500's AF, something you wouldn't even use last year , now you see where the hypodcrisy comes from in my posts.
Doomtrooper, makes a god point Lars. People will always look for inconsistencies in your past and present comments and reviews, if you are inconsistent it will make you look biased.
If you had said that the R200's AF was great and the FX's balanced AF looks great, I'm sure Doomtrooper would be on someone elses back. Others will think you have poor IQ tastes. :lol:
Pete/Russ what is your purpose here, if you have a rebuttal from my post, makes some valid statements, I couldn't care less about your semantics.
Legitimate issues were posted, I'm sick of the defensive attitude around obvious flaws in reviewing, and it doesn't get better by walking on 'egg shells' when a reviewers shows up. :xI wasn't referring to your post, Doom. I also refrained from criticizing your posts because I don't really know Lars that well, so I can't be sure he's not really a nVidia shill posing as a disinterested third party. I doubt it, but my doubt doesn't invalidate your opinion of him, and I believe your posts were pretty fair rebuttals.
digitalwanderer
28-Jun-2003, 16:13
Digitalwanderer. I sometimes see you post posts like those YeuEmMaiMai on other boards(rarely here). And i would like to ask not only you but others who do it as well. What do you want to say with the post? You just want to spam to be rude(and bump some post counts) or you really think you contribute to the thread by making comments like that?
I gave up worrying about post counts a long time ago, so it ain't ever for that reason. Sometimes it's intended to be rude to the one who is "pwned" to show support for the "pwnee", sometimes it's just a bit of social background noise as an acclaim to the one who's wit owned whoever.
Some boards are more social than others, for some reason I really want to use Rage3D's OT lounge as an example since it's pretty much the opposite end of the signal-to-noise levels as here. Over there it's perfectly normal & socially acceptable to post up an "pwned" comment or some such just to express your personal take on the post. Not for post count, not to impress anyone or dis anyone; but rather to just be sociable and add to the group experience. :)
There are a lot of social boards out there, and I am NOT saying that this is an unsocial board; it's just there really isn't as much place for that sort of behavoir here and it isn't welcome so I try and avoid it now.
People here prefer it if you don't post unless you have something to add or actually comment on, which I can respect and like about here since it gives B3D it's own unique personality & charm.
Different strokes for different folks, everybody marches to their own drummer, and that's why crayolas come in a box of 64. ;)
It's just that it IS ok for someone to post that sometimes and on some boards, it just isn't really appropriate here IMHO. :)
RussSchultz
28-Jun-2003, 17:12
Russ, how could you so thoroughly miss my point?
The ridiculing comes as the result of the ideas expressed and has nothing to do with the personalities involved--which are irrelevant. Not all ideas deserve "ridicule" of course. This was merely an example I used to illustrate the point you missed.
WaltC, how could you so thoroughly miss my point?
Ridiculing is uneccessary, whether you're ridiculing the person, or the idea. Either target is simply rude and either leads to a flame war, somebody leaving in disgust, somebody thinking twice about sharing their idea in the future or a combination of all three.
You don't have to ridicule to express your disagreement, and I find that mindset to the primary issue I have with these sort of threads. "YAE", where the editorial is essentially ridiculing somebody.
digitalwanderer
28-Jun-2003, 17:18
[quote=WaltC]You don't have to ridicule to express your disagreement.
No, but discussion/debate often does involve a bit of wry sarcasm which can be VERY effective when used right.
I think it just comes down to either of you could be right, depending on the situation/location.....and I think it's a close toss-up on DT's post to Lars since he DID make many valid points and I didn't feel he was too over-the-top on the sarcasm. (I really did feel that DoomTrooper presented his argument rather well and tastefully, one of the big reasons I never posted a "pwned" comment...his post was too classy for that. 8) )
K.I.L.E.R
28-Jun-2003, 18:07
No, but discussion/debate often does involve a bit of wry sarcasm which can be VERY effective when used right.
Sarcasm and the like do nothing to aid in an argument. This argument is going nowhere because of the amount of sarcasm and the like.
Intelligent arguers don't need sarcasm to make their point effective.
The only thing sarcasm does is attract smart asses and utterly stupid comments from both sides of the fence.
ATi Radeon 9700 PRO -
Pretender To The Throne
Lars did you write that? I know, in the newspaper bis. columnist do not write headlines (for the most part).
Sabastian
28-Jun-2003, 19:43
Pete/Russ what is your purpose here, if you have a rebuttal from my post, makes some valid statements, I couldn't care less about your semantics.
Legitimate issues were posted, I'm sick of the defensive attitude around obvious flaws in reviewing, and it doesn't get better by walking on 'egg shells' when a reviewers shows up. :x
Absolutely Doom, if you are worried about not being nice rather then finding the truth then what the hell are we doing here?
Pete/Russ: Prove his points wrong before you dismiss his case because he is not being nice. If you could actually do that then you could relegate what he is saying as f@nboyism or what ever, but you absolutely have to prove that he is wrong. The truth is though you can't prove DoomTrooper's points wrong because he is absolutely right in his listed accusations.
digitalwanderer
28-Jun-2003, 19:52
No, but discussion/debate often does involve a bit of wry sarcasm which can be VERY effective when used right.
Sarcasm and the like do nothing to aid in an argument. This argument is going nowhere because of the amount of sarcasm and the like.
Intelligent arguers don't need sarcasm to make their point effective.
But that statement comes dangerously close to saying that sarcasm shouldn't be allowed into the debate, which I disagree with.
I think it is a fair and legitimate way to make a point or show something, and sometimes there is just no substitute for it.
Besides, it adds some flavor and zip to discussion. ;) (I'm NOT talking about being rude, there is a difference. )
WaltC, how could you so thoroughly miss my point?
Ridiculing is uneccessary, whether you're ridiculing the person, or the idea. Either target is simply rude and either leads to a flame war, somebody leaving in disgust, somebody thinking twice about sharing their idea in the future or a combination of all three.
You don't have to ridicule to express your disagreement, and I find that mindset to the primary issue I have with these sort of threads. "YAE", where the editorial is essentially ridiculing somebody.
Now you've made me regret my choice of the word "ridicule" in my original comments...;) It seems to be the only thing you've focused on. I agree wholeheartedly that ridiculing is unnecessary.
However, some ideas are so bad that they deserve ridicule--especially after they've been plastered on the front of your web site as a platform from which to ridicule others. Let's take Kyle's ridiculous assertion when he ridiculed ExtremeTech for its nVidia driver expose', and asserted that although he did not have any proof that ET was jealous over not being allowed to take part in nVidia's rigged nv35 D3 promotional, this "information" had certainly "hit the rumor mill"--or some such nonsense to that effect. It was a transparent and baseless attack on another web site for which the accuser had not a shred of evidence to support his position.
This will hopefully lead you to understand my earlier posts a bit better...that what goes around, comes around. People who don't ridicule others from behind the cover of their editorial web pages generally don't receive ridicule in return. That's what you seem fundamentally unable to understand here (which is puzzling.) Your description of "ridicule" is always one sided--you see nothing wrong or rude or insensitive with the kind of ridicule that masquerades as an editorial on someone's website--but you only see it in a forum where posts are made *in response* to those "editorial" opinions.
I wonder...do you send these people emails chastising them for "chasing away" their readership with the kinds of ridicule they engage in? I would hope so, as that would make you consistent...;)
Sarcasm and the like do nothing to aid in an argument. This argument is going nowhere because of the amount of sarcasm and the like.
Intelligent arguers don't need sarcasm to make their point effective.
The only thing sarcasm does is attract smart asses and utterly stupid comments from both sides of the fence.
Talk to Mark Twain about the use of satire and sarcasm, especially from a humorous slant, to make a point. The man is famous for his gift of being able to do that...;)
Where I draw the line is at profanity, vulgarity, and threats. Immaturity like "ownz jooo" and so forth is, well, neither satire nor sarcasm..it's just immaturity and in very small quantities can be easily ignored.
The point to me has always been that people who throw stones at others from behind the facade of web sites should be thick skinned and should expect a few stones in return. If they are not prepared for this they should not initiate such deviant behavior in the first place. People who print opinions which are personally insulting to others on the editorial pages of public web sites are not prima donnas and shouldn't be treated as such--most especially when they take the gloves off insulting fellow webmasters in an entirely unprovoked fashion (as was Kyle's attack on ET over ET's nVidia driver expose'. In the ET 3DMk article not one mention of Kyle, or of [H], was made.)
OTOH, if the stones you throw are rational stones, and you can prove your points in such a way that they can be proofed by others elsewhere in an independent fashion--then it can be argued that you haven't thrown any "stones" at all--just facts. When facts emerge from subterfuge, everybody benefits (except possibly those parties responsible for whatever subterfuge has been uncovered.)
John Reynolds
29-Jun-2003, 00:31
I'm still waiting to hear what I did that was so scandalous. :?
Doomtrooper
29-Jun-2003, 01:24
My guess..nvidia/kyro Pr docs :lol:
Which if is, needs his head examined :wink:
Dave Baumann
29-Jun-2003, 02:28
By the way, did you hear what John did?
No, I didn't...?
martrox
29-Jun-2003, 02:29
I'm still waiting to hear what I did that was so scandalous. :?
Could it be a shameless plug for your 9800Pro review located here?
http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_011a.html
:wink:
John Reynolds
29-Jun-2003, 03:27
I'm still waiting to hear what I did that was so scandalous. :?
Could it be a shameless plug for your 9800Pro review located here?
http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_011a.html
:wink:
But I never mentioned that review on this site. Thought it would be rather tacky to do so.
RussSchultz
29-Jun-2003, 04:09
But I never mentioned that review on this site. Thought it would be rather tacky to do so.
As long as you're not wearing white shoes past Labor Day, I think its alright.
K.I.L.E.R
29-Jun-2003, 05:17
Well guys, try not to compare yourselves with others. Everytime one of you use sarcasm it tends to be rude and starts a pissing match between several people. This happens in just about every thread that involves a debate.
None of you are Mark Twain. :)
Well guys, try not to compare yourselves with others. Everytime one of you use sarcasm it tends to be rude and starts a pissing match between several people. This happens in just about every thread that involves a debate.
None of you are Mark Twain. :)
*chuckle* That's for sure...;) I just wanted to make the point that satire and sarcasm, when appropriately employed, are legitimate debating tactics because often they can illustrate a point better than any other method. What's "rude," btw? It often depends more on the concept of the reader than it does on the intent of the author and different readers will draw different connotations and inferences from the same set of comments--ie, what bothers you might not bother me, and the reverse. Even if I think someone's comments are rude I probably will not say so because I can't divine his intent. So I'll either ignore such comments, or else address myself to what I consider to be the meat of the post as opposed to the wrapper. But that's just me, and I can see how some people might be put off by the form of a comment as opposed to its substance.
K.I.L.E.R
29-Jun-2003, 17:54
Let's continue this in a new thread, as this threads topic has gone so far off course. :)
Continued in the open forum:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6669
Absolutely Doom, if you are worried about not being nice rather then finding the truth then what the hell are we doing here? The two are not exclusive. Again, I wasn't referring to DT's posts, and it seems to me Russ wasn't, either (apart from that quote it seems he misinterpreted).
If I'm putting the wrong words in Russ' mouth, I apologize--I was only going with the flow of misinterpretation. ;)
[conspiracy theory] I find it interesting that in Lars's article "Benchmarking: Games" all the pages are addressed as nv_cheating-xx but the headline is written to be ambiguous to who it is mainly addressing.[/conspiracy theory]
K.I.L.E.R
02-Jul-2003, 17:40
[conspiracy theory] I find it interesting that in Lars's article "Benchmarking: Games" all the pages are addressed as nv_cheating-xx but the headline is written to be ambiguous to who it is mainly addressing.[/conspiracy theory]
People name their pages in funny ways. :)
RuslanK
04-Jul-2003, 08:10
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/antidetect/index.html
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.