NVIDIA claims top DX9 GPU marketshare spot.

[Jerky]

It appears NVIDIA has claimed the top spot in the DirectX 9 GPU marketshare. However, this number is a little misleading considering that a large majority of that is the FX5200, which we all know is an under-powered card which probably can't run DX9 properly.

ATI's numbers are smaller in this category because they only have DX9 solutions shipping in higher-range models (Radeon 9500 and higher). If ATI had shipped R9200s with DX9 support, the race will probably be a lot closer.

But overall, the market remained pretty static. NVIDIA lost a little in the overall marketshare (4%) where both Intel and ATI gained 5% and 1% respectively.

So looking at this, it would mean that even though NVIDIA dominates the DX9 market by share, ATI still managed to beat NVIDIA overall with their higher-end products (R9500s and higher).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/...0801102103.html

Next week's NVIDIA conference call should be interesting.

- Jonathan.

[Pete]

Marketspeak. I agree that ATi needs to take a serious look at transitioning the RV350 to their low-end slot, but that probably won't happen until R360 or, more likely, R420. That still leaves them with a marketing gap they need to cover.

[Doomtrooper]

That article is very misleading :roll:

[Ostsol]

The stocks are rather interesting, right now. . . ATI's stock prices are sitting at a close 90% of NVidia's, at the time of this post.

[nonamer]

That article is very misleading :roll:

Talk about inability to read 2 sentences...

[RussSchultz]

FX5200, which we all know ... probably can't run DX9 properly.

And they let you review video cards?

Ostol: #1, you're wrong. ATYT closed at 12.80, NVDA closed at 19.72; #2, comparing stock price is meaningless without context.

[Slides]

FX5200, which we all know ... probably can't run DX9 properly.

And they let you review video cards?


That's not really a false statement, though I realize that was not the point of NVIDIA's claim.

[Dean]

FX5200, which we all know ... probably can't run DX9 properly.

And they let you review video cards?

Yes they do. In fact he does a damn good job at it. Don't shoot the guy for having an opinion

[Ostsol]

Ostol: #1, you're wrong. ATYT closed at 12.80, NVDA closed at 19.72; #2, comparing stock price is meaningless without context.
2 's's! 2!! :)

Well. . . my numbers were right. . . assuming a Canadian dollar is worth the same as a US dollar. . . which it isn't. . . Doh. My mistake. :oops:

[StealthHawk]

But overall, the market remained pretty static. NVIDIA lost a little in the overall marketshare (4%) where both Intel and ATI gained 5% and 1% respectively.

Well, no. NVIDIA did not lose any market share. Neither did ATI gain any.

As reported yesterday, NVIDIA has 64% of the total standalone GPUs for desktop computers market, flat with the Q1, just like ATI Technologies with its 28%. Other suppliers’ shares obviously remained unchanged.

What the article did say was that shipments decreased and increased respectively.

[Dave H]

FX5200, which we all know ... probably can't run DX9 properly.

And they let you review video cards?

Yes they do. In fact he does a damn good job at it. Don't shoot the guy for having an opinion

Compliance with an API is not a matter of opinion. The 5200 can run DX9 perfectly properly.

[Dave Baumann]

It does have hardware waivers from MS for that compliance.

[Evildeus]

It does have hardware waivers from MS for that compliance.
:?: :? Can you restate your sentence, i don't understand what you are saying? :oops:

[Dave Baumann]

A waiver is effectively an area of non-compliance but MS are willing to overlook for certain reasons. I'm hearing that the 5200 has several waivers - we know that it only runs in FP16, so this is likely to be one of them.

The WHQL process is quite convoluted, not necessarily in terms of testing for compliance but more in terms of penalties for non-complaince (i.e. for non-WHQL hardware saying windows compatible being sold, the vendor has to pay MS money for each unit).

[Evildeus]

Ok thx, that what i thought... Does MS agree with the DX9 compliance or not finally?

[Doomtrooper]

Compliance with an API is not a matter of opinion. The 5200 can run DX9 perfectly properly.

*properly* when allowed to run lower precsion stated by M$ as a minimum.
It is slower that a Geforce 4 MX it is replacing and runs Pixel Shader 2.0 so slow it is not useable.

So sure if you like slide shows running at 1fps, its a good card :lol:

[demalion]

Ack! I wouldn't bother to tackle this "horrible" semantic issue, except that some misuse of English (as it appears to me) is being used to deny someone's right to hold an opinion.

FX5200, which we all know ... probably can't run DX9 properly.

And they let you review video cards?

Yes they do. In fact he does a damn good job at it. Don't shoot the guy for having an opinion

Compliance with an API is not a matter of opinion.

Right, but that's not what he said. Your taking "properly" to mean "compliance" is also an opinion. It is also an assumption (maybe right, maybe wrong...given the context, it seems wrong to me) that Jerky means compliance, and an assumption (wrong, thought it could be right in the context of a thread where compliance was the only factor being evaluated) that compliance (in DX 9 usage) is the only allowed meaning of "properly".

For instance, a set of standards could have a minimum fps criteria. "DX 9 compliance" is a specific word usage that excludes that, but only for the specific words used in the phrase. "running DX 9 properly" is not that phrase.

Semantics? Yes. Unclear? Not AFAICS....there is quite a bit of indication that performance is exactly what Jerky had on his mind, and "properly" is not a wrong word to use to include that consideration.

The 5200 can run DX9 perfectly properly.
Not if you are of the opinion that "properly" includes some criteria of fps performance that the 5200 does not meet. Of course, it is an opinion that it won't (though fairly well supported by performance data, and a criteria like 30 fps and 1024x768, for example), but that doesn't mean that is wrong.

I point this out because you proposed your disagreement by saying that 1) Jerky wasn't entitled to make this statement because it couldn't be a matter of opinion, 2) Russ was correct to propose that this opinion indicated incompetence (which, I'll mention since I'm responding here, did not seem to be an at all useful way of proposing disagreement itself :-?).

Aside from your asserting that your opinion is indisputable, I'm not even disagreeing with your opinion itself.

Note that I would agree with you (Dave H) if he said the 5200 was not a "proper DX 9 card", because that usage of proper would require exclusion of "DX 9 compliance", as well as other standards. Note that this is drastically different in implication than saying the 5200 is not a "proper DX 9 card for running games"...."for running games" introduces a whole host of other criteria that changes the meaning of "proper" away from being synonymous with the concept of "DX 9 compliance".

Sorry to dwell on specifics, but it seems necessary to discuss them when you are saying someone can't hold an opinion based on ignoring them when they are there. Wouldn't have brought it up except for that factor. :-?

[Doomtrooper]

That article is very misleading :roll:

Talk about inability to read 2 sentences...

Talk about inability to differeniate SOLD vs. SHIPPED...it is nice that there is lots of 5200's shipped, doesn't mean they are being sold.

[Evildeus]

That article is very misleading :roll:

Talk about inability to read 2 sentences...

Talk about inability to differeniate SOLD vs. SHIPPED...it is nice that there is lots of 5200's shipped, doesn't mean they are being sold.
For Nv it's the same thing.

[Evildeus]

Right, but that's not what he said
That's your opinion ;)

[Dave Baumann]

For Nv it's the same thing.

Thats for accountancy purposes. Mercury just ask each IHV how many units ship, they don't go back to the outlets and ask what have sold.

FYI - there's an interesting discussion over DX Dev list as to whether its better to ship a lower performance currnet DX board, or a high performance previous board in the low end.

Look for Support of D3DFMT_A32B32G32R32F ? (http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A1=ind0308a&L=directxdev)

[RussSchultz]

Demalion: he specifically mentioned performance in his original statment, so it would be safe to assume that the second part (can't run dx9 properly) does not include performance as a criteria.

And if this is all opinion, can I therefor say that the R300 can't run Dx9 (or even dx7 or dx8) properly because the anisotropic isn't good?

Dave: share with us these hardware waivers. What are they and where did you hear about them?

[Doomtrooper]

Look for Support of D3DFMT_A32B32G32R32F ? (http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A1=ind0308a&L=directxdev)

Very good link..tx :D

[Evildeus]

For Nv it's the same thing.

Thats for accountancy purposes. Mercury just ask each IHV how many units ship, they don't go back to the outlets and ask what have sold.
For Nv the number of chip shipped depends on the number of chip sold to board makers. Actually, the number of chip sold should be > than the number of chip shipped... That doesn't mean that the boards makers have sold them.

FYI - there's an interesting discussion over DX Dev list as to whether its better to ship a lower performance currnet DX board, or a high performance previous board in the low end.

Look for Support of D3DFMT_A32B32G32R32F ? (http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A1=ind0308a&L=directxdev)
Interesting, but a bit useless don't you think? It's not up to them to decide how the markets of VC fluctuates, but it's up to them to be as near as possible of this fluctuations. Anyway, there's no definite answer in this thread if i'm not mistaken.

[WaltC]

A waiver is effectively an area of non-compliance but MS are willing to overlook for certain reasons. I'm hearing that the 5200 has several waivers - we know that it only runs in FP16, so this is likely to be one of them.

The WHQL process is quite convoluted, not necessarily in terms of testing for compliance but more in terms of penalties for non-complaince (i.e. for non-WHQL hardware saying windows compatible being sold, the vendor has to pay MS money for each unit).

Also, too, as has always been true, if a company can produce a set of drivers which is capable of supporting API version features in software the IHVs commonly announce that the given hardware supports that version of the API without explaining that some of the required function support occurs in software as opposed to the hardware. The idea from a commercial perspective is that a buyer sees "DXx supported" as a marketing bullet associated with the product and does not appreciate that the "DXx support" in the $150 product is not the same as found in the $300 + products. Every IHV has done this at one time or another, AFAIK.

[demalion]

Demalion: he specifically mentioned performance in his original statment, so it would be safe to assume that the second part (can't run dx9 properly) does not include performance as a criteria.

That is not logic, that is stating "A follows from B" by depending on a presumption that someone can't "specifically mention performance in his original statement" while including performance as a consideration elsewhere as well. I think that assumption is completely nonsensical.

Now, let's discuss why I think that: for it to make sense, the wording would have to indicate that the two statements are mutually exclusive. What about the wording indicates that? His original statement highlighting performance does not preclude that he can't be refering to performance again in the same sentence. The word "which" does not indicate that something is mutually exclusive.

Let's propose a different assumption: that he is proposing that the reason the 5200 "can't run dx9 properly" is because of its poor performance. How would a person say such a thing? Well, connective words like "which" seem to me to be one way, and I propose that's exactly what Jerky did.

Now, maybe you are only paying attention to your quote selection, which deleted the connecting commentary (that would be your fault, because Jerky put it there pretty clearly). I'll quote it here for examination:

...the FX5200, which we all know is an under-powered card which probably can't run DX9 properly.

Now, if you have some reasoning that interprets this as the first assumption, and not the second, it would have been helpful if you'd included it. A straight reading of English does not seem to support your interpretation unless you drop inconvenient phrases, and I'm at a loss as to how your quoting can reasonably be proposed as anything else: you dropped exactly the text that works against your assumption, and the full quote doesn't seem to really need much trimming AFAICS. :shock:

In any case, it seems to me that you took a potshot, and, based on still not being able to see how your assumption in your reply makes any sense whatsoever, it also seems to me that you have decided to conduct your conversation purely based on saying he isn't entitled to an opposing opinion.

And if this is all opinion,

Please be careful when you characterize someone's specifically targetted commentary as "all". Your description using that word is erroneous, as I'll clarify.

can I therefor say that the R300 can't run Dx9 (or even dx7 or dx8) properly because the anisotropic isn't good?

Sure you can, I'm not aware of any facts that preclude that opinion from being stated, just ones that make it seem ridiculous (IMO) once someone does so. For instance...someone might have the criteria that a "good DX 9 card" has to run something like GT 4 in 3dmark 03 at 100 fps...there are no facts that say that you cannot have that criteria, though logic can dictate that you'd have to apply it consistently and meaningful discussion would require that you have some sort of coherent reasoning behind the criteria.

However, you can't say it isn't DX 9 compliant, and you can't propose your opinion as a fact, or even more than an unsupported opinion (at least without some indication that there is some support).

I do think these are facts, though: that "properly" and "with compliance" are not the same words, and that "DX 9 compliance" is a specific set of standards associated with the co-existence of "DX 9" and forms of the word "compliant" being used together. Do you disagree? I could be mistaken (though the first seems a bit basic), but some indication of my error would be helpful if you are proposing that.

I was trying to avoid linking to the dictionary...will it be necessary? :-?

[RussSchultz]

Sigh, I'm not going to get into a back and forth.

A) If he's a reviewer, he should know if it does or does not do DX9 properly. "Probably" shouldn't enter the equation.
B) I deleted 'underpowered' in my quote, because that definately is an opinion, and its one I generally agree with. (Though, for its pricepoint, I think it does OK)

He's entitled to an opinion, but a statement like "probably can't run DX9 properly" tells me he probably doesn't know enough about a card he's supposedly reviewed.

Or am I not entitled to my opinion and the ability to express it?

p.s. you can keep your dictionary put away. I really don't want to continue the discussion which will boil down to another semantics debate.

[Dave Baumann]

Russ, as I said earlier we know 5200/5600 and 5800 all run at FP16 precision in the WHQL certified drivers, which is not to DX9 specification - I'll wager that the proviso there was that subsequent parts would ensure FP24/32 compliancy (as 5900 does - afterall, if they could get away with FP16 with the rest you'd think they would want to with 5900 as well, as its faster). I think fog is borked as well. When I get some time I'll run DCT over it and see what crops up.

And as Jerky is a reviewer do you think its not at all possible that he's privy to more source then you are? And not necessarily competing IHV's bs'ing about each other?

[Evildeus]

Is it or is it not DX9 compliant? Are or are not the drivers WHQL? The responses to these are facts, anything else is opinion.

[Dave Baumann]

The specifications of DX9 call for a minimum FP support of FP24 in the pixel shader - NVIDIA's WHQL drivers for 5200 only provide support for FP16.

[demalion]

Sigh, I'm not going to get into a back and forth.

1) Refusing to discuss is not a virtue, nor does it validate your viewpoint. Yes, I've said this to you before because...yes, you've given me cause to do so before.

A) If he's a reviewer, he should know if it does or does not do DX9 properly. "Probably" shouldn't enter the equation.

2) Changing the point of dispute does not strengthen your argument. This comment depends on my commentary on "properly" being in error without the bother of actually showing it is the case. :-?

B) I deleted 'underpowered' in my quote, because that definately is an opinion, and its one I generally agree with. (Though, for its pricepoint, I think it does OK)

3) In case you lost track: I said that "properly" can include something besides just "DX 9 compliance", and supported it with specifics. You then replied he could not be talking about performance with properly, by the expedient of ignoring my support utterly. What is amazing to me is that you agree with Jerky that the 5200 is underpowered, and continue your attack without once addressing my discussion of how "properly" could include "underperforming" perfectly validly in the text Jerky actually said.

He's entitled to an opinion, but a statement like "probably can't run DX9 properly" tells me he probably doesn't know enough about a card he's supposedly reviewed.

So, you refuse to discuss anything I said, and, therefore, there isn't a problem with what you said in contradiction to what it proposes. To demonstrate, you proceed to...say what you said again.

Thank you for a productive conversation. Or not.

Or am I not entitled to my opinion and the ability to express it?
Well, I called your initial reply an unproductive pot shot, and said why. You replied that Jerky couldn't be talking about performance with "properly", and therefore seem to be maintaining that it was justified. I illustrated, clearly it seems to me still, that this assertion was counter to any reasonable interpretation of the full quote. As a reminder, the full quote (of what you edited and quoted) goes "...the FX5200, which we all know is an under-powered card which probably can't run DX9 properly".
Now, I really could spend some time discussing what "which" means in English, but you seem uninterested in irrelevancies like what things mean. :shock:

Anyways, nowhere in that did I deny you an opinion on the 5200 or Jerky. What I denied you was your apparent belief that your opinion did not require justification such that you could make a post calling Jerky incompetent and accomplish anything useful (outside of your desire to call him incompetent). I.e., I called it an unproductive pot shot. What I was denying you was a pretense for not having to support your opinion to make it more than just an insult thrown in for your personal satisfaction.

p.s. you can keep your dictionary put away.
Not when we don't appear to be speaking the same language. I know I'm calling what I'm using English, and with your usage diverging so widely it seems I might need to provide evidence of which one of us is really speaking it.
Well, if you were willing to entertain disagreement or correction to your statements, that is. :-?
I really don't want to continue the discussion which will boil down to another semantics debate.
Well, there really isn't much of a debate if one person is ignoring the meaning of words and language (in case you're confusing "semantics" with a swear word and forgot what it means), or is making up their own as they go along. There also isn't much communication when this is the case, either.
I don't think I'm the person who is ignoring "meaning", Russ. The lack of a semantics "debate" is exactly the problem...you're exhibiting only an interest in telling me the way things are without maintaining relevance to things like language. :-?

[WaltC]

Is it or is it not DX9 compliant? Are or are not the drivers WHQL? The responses to these are facts, anything else is opinion.

As I said above, "DX9 compliant" can mean many things...;) It's far from opinion that although the GFFX 5200 and the R350 can both be said to be "DX9 compliant" they each offer very different hardware support for DX9, both in type and efficacy.

Come on, would you prefer the guy to say "It is not a DX9 part" when he's not sure about that, or would you prefer him to say "It probably isn't" when he's not entirely sure? I think the latter is the only honest answer if he's not sure. Last I checked it is not a crime for a reviewer to say "I'm not sure" about something he's not sure about. I'd certainly prefer that to him saying he's sure when he isn't.

Parts can easily be "DX9 compliant" without supporting the rigid specification of "DX9" in hardware. So the person who talks about "DX9 compliancy" and means rigid adherence to the spec in hardware isn't talking about the same thing as the person who talks about "DX9 compliancy" and is satisfied with less.

[RussSchultz]

Just a hint, Demalion. If you really want people to read everything you write, write less.

I wrote a total of 1 sentence prior to your first response of 8 paragraphs showing me how I am in trying to prevent this person from holding an opinion.

I then responded with two sentences, explaining how I came to my conclusion (yes, I know, which contradicts your previous essay), again with a return volley of 10 paragraphs, explaining how a) I didn't read what you said, and b) how I am wrong again.

Then, I further clarified why I expressed what I did with a simple 4 sentences, including a plea to you to avoid another back and forth, and devolvement into a semantics debate, and once again another 9 paragraphs telling me about how avoiding discussing with you is non-productive, and again, how I can't grasp the english language, and how I'm wrong.

The truth of the matter is, your discussion style ends up in people wanting to avoid discussion with you precisely because such discussion is futile. Its no wonder nobody gets what you're trying to say, as you deconstruct any intended meaning out of sentences and bury it in semantics. There's only so many times I can restate my opinion and have it torn apart without simply getting frustrated.

/ignores oncoming 10 paragraph response on how I missed the point.

[Evildeus]

The specifications of DX9 call for a minimum FP support of FP24 in the pixel shader - NVIDIA's WHQL drivers for 5200 only provide support for FP16.
That doesn't answer my qestion. Is it or not qualified by MS to be called DX9 card (ie compliant), and are the drivers WHQL?

If they are, then they are. MS is the only one to be able to judge.

[Evildeus]

Is it or is it not DX9 compliant? Are or are not the drivers WHQL? The responses to these are facts, anything else is opinion.

As I said above, "DX9 compliant" can mean many things...;) It's far from opinion that although the GFFX 5200 and the R350 can both be said to be "DX9 compliant" they each offer very different hardware support for DX9, both in type and efficacy.

Come on, would you prefer the guy to say "It is not a DX9 part" when he's not sure about that, or would you prefer him to say "It probably isn't" when he's not entirely sure? I think the latter is the only honest answer if he's not sure. Last I checked it is not a crime for a reviewer to say "I'm not sure" about something he's not sure about. I'd certainly prefer that to him saying he's sure when he isn't.

Parts can easily be "DX9 compliant" without supporting the rigid specification of "DX9" in hardware. So the person who talks about "DX9 compliancy" and means rigid adherence to the spec in hardware isn't talking about the same thing as the person who talks about "DX9 compliancy" and is satisfied with less.
Well sorry, but it's not what you think, or what Nv think, or even god, it's what MS think, that is important. They are or aren't DX9 compliant (labelled by MS), there's no half path. Anything else is irrelevent.

[Myrmecophagavir]

Russ, as I said earlier we know 5200/5600 and 5800 all run at FP16 precision in the WHQL certified drivers, which is not to DX9 specification - I'll wager that the proviso there was that subsequent parts would ensure FP24/32 compliancy (as 5900 does - afterall, if they could get away with FP16 with the rest you'd think they would want to with 5900 as well, as its faster). I think fog is borked as well. When I get some time I'll run DCT over it and see what crops up.
Can you run DX9 Caps Viewer and see what's available and what isn't? Are these waivers all precision-related? How is fog broken?

[Dave Baumann]

That doesn't answer my qestion. Is it or not qualified by MS to be called DX9 card (ie compliant), and are the drivers WHQL?

Well, it does answer your question since MS have stated what the specification is, and it evidently hasn't met it.

However, the 44.03 drivers are WHQL, but whether that includes a statement saying these are DX9 compliant is a separate question - if it does then it must have been achieved via the use of a waiver.

[Dave H]

In regards to the quite silly debate on the meaning of the word "properly": I agree that, in certain contexts, the ability to run DX9 "properly" can be sensibly construed as requiring a certain level of performance.

However, the question whether a card belongs in the DX9 category in marketshare breakdowns is not such a context.

Having said that: If the 5200 doesn't have FP32 hardware, then I would generally not categorize it as a DX9 part. If it does, but there are no drivers which expose the functionality for DX9 (correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be the case here), then I'd classify it as a DX9 part without fully-DX9-compatible drivers.

It is not unusual for a part to ship with drivers that are incompatible with the spec in some way or another; this isn't typically taken to mean that the part itself isn't compatible with the spec. Of course, if Nvidia never intends to (or never will) produce a fully DX9 compatible driver for the 5200 then perhaps one might begin to question its status as a DX9 part, but I don't believe anyone is suggesting that's the case.

Finally, on the slightly related debate about whether it is better for a cheap card to be extra-slow with an up-to-date featureset, or only rather slow and a generation behind featureset: It depends. Both types of cards have a place in the market. Personally, were I forced to spend ~$80 on an Nvidia card today, I'd probably go for a Ti4200 or GF3 over a 5200. Although I can imagine cases where a 5200 would fill the consumer's needs better.

The assertion (in the thread Wavey referenced) that the up-to-date featureset doesn't matter anyways, because such a card (e.g. the 5200) will be so slow as to require its own path anyways, is a straw man, however. It may in fact be the case that such a card will require its own path. But it is not necessarily true that the best way to make such a path is to include absolutely no DX9-only functionality and include the full workload of DX7/8 functionality. Perhaps the best IQ bang for the performance buck would be found by including (perhaps sparingly) some of the DX9 shaders, or at least cut-down (but still PS/VS 2.0) versions thereof, while easing the workload in other ways--cutting down on geometry or texture size, for instance.

Moreover, not all games have similar characteristics to the first-person shooter types that typically get benchmarked. There are plenty of games where GPU performance is not critical and yet where DX9 effects might be made use of.

Or, in a couple years time, non-game applications, for that matter. Yes, it does sound terribly implausible, but it just might come to pass. Oh, here's one such application now: Microsoft Windows. Ever heard of it?

[demalion]

In regards to the quite silly debate on the meaning of the word "properly": I agree that, in certain contexts, the ability to run DX9 "properly" can be sensibly construed as requiring a certain level of performance.

Then the "debate" wasn't "silly", since your initial commentary excluded recognition of that. That was the point of my reply.
However, the question whether a card belongs in the DX9 category in marketshare breakdowns is not such a context.

Well, if you recognize the above, how are you arriving at the conclusion that this was the context in which Jerky's post should be discussed? I ask, because he did not say the 5200 didn't belong in the DX 9 category, nor did he say it was not DX 9 compliant...in fact, I'd propose that usage such as "...even though NVIDIA dominates the DX9 market by share..." serves to indicate the exact opposite of such. What he did say was that it probably didn't run DX 9 properly, as you were just agreeing was sensible.

I'm not saying he has to use exact words, I'm saying I don't see a reasonable interpretation of his words that indicates other than the opposite (that his usage of "properly" which was quoted in your initial post included performance, and not DX 9 compliance, as you originally asserted, or market segment, as you assert now).

Having said that: If the 5200 doesn't have FP32 hardware, then I would generally not categorize it as a DX9 part.

Actually, if the waiver system Wavey is describing allows the label "DX 9 compliance" for partial "non compliance", according to Microsoft, then this is "not a matter of opinion", as you proposed. That phrase is a specific marketing phrase, AFAIK, which is the way I thought you were proposing it.
We'd still have such phrases as "running DX 9 properly" available in case that happens, though recognition of that is hindered by labelling pointing such things out as "quite silly". :-?
Whether "DX 9 compliance" remains meaningful outside of marketing, if "DX 9 compliance" diverged from the technical DX 9 minimum as (hypothetically, AFAIK) proposed above, is another discussion entirely.

...skipping various commentary that I do not take issue with...

On another topic of discussion...
(As always, if you feel my quote selection distorts, indicate what key points I omitted and I will modify my address).
...
The assertion (in the thread Wavey referenced) that the up-to-date featureset doesn't matter anyways, because such a card (e.g. the 5200) will be so slow as to require its own path anyways, is a straw man, however.

A straw man is used to preclude discussion away from a topic based on a false premise of equivalency. Did it really propose a false premise? Read on for a moment.

It may in fact be the case that such a card will require its own path. But it is not necessarily true that the best way to make such a path is to include absolutely no DX9-only functionality and include the full workload of DX7/8 functionality.
The way I understood what was being proposed was that having to create a unique "limited" PS 2.0 shader for the 5200 means that there is a separate "full" PS 2.0 shader being used that is not inclusive of the 5200. What seems reasonable (but not an absolute that can be proposed to exclude that 5200 could be using PS 2.0 level functionality) is that this short PS 2.0 shader might not offer an advantage over PS 1.3 or PS 1.4 on the 5200, and therefore might not exist. This proposal cannot ignore details like what shader instructions and capabilities are common or unique amongst them.

I don't see how this (if it is what was said) is a straw man.

Another way of stating this: that this divergence existing can free up "PS 2.0" to evolve independently of "PS 2.0 that runs well on the 5200". Since you agree with this divergence in your discussion here, I am presuming you are saying something else is said in what you refer to...if so, a quick pointer as to what I missed or misread would likely have me agreeing with you concerning that flaw in it.

...other discussion that depends simply on the 5200 being DX 9 compliant, which I also tend to agree with...

[demalion]

Just a hint, Demalion. If you really want people to read everything you write, write less.

Just a hint, Russ. If you are going to write something, say something coherent with the words.

Are the "obligatory" put-downs out of the way, now?

I wrote a total of 1 sentence prior to your first response of 8 paragraphs showing me how I am in trying to prevent this person from holding an opinion.

Oh, you used less words than me. I guess you were right after all.

This would be a straw man, if an example was needed, BTW.

...Russ ignores every point I make, and counts words, while spending a lot of (countable) words doing so, which seems sort of contradictory to even the straw man "point" being put forth...

The truth of the matter is, your discussion style ends up in people wanting to avoid discussion with you precisely because such discussion is futile.

Here's a thought Russ...maybe you are wrong. Do you think if you don't honestly admit that, that you can't be? Maybe your frustration in not being able to respond to my points is the product of your own conversation, and not mine. Despite your complaints of word count in my posts, those words are absolutely rife with specific items that can be logically addressed to tackle any point I raise. My being able to discuss something wrong with what you stated in such detail might simply be because...there is something wrong with what you stated.

As long as you deny that possibility in a discussion, or alternatively, as an example, propose that your admitting that you are wrong is only an insencere statement of appeasement for someone rude enough not to let you have your way with being right when you want to be...discussions with you are fruitless.
But how is that my fault?

Its no wonder nobody gets what you're trying to say, as you deconstruct any intended meaning out of sentences and bury it in semantics.

Russ, some day you will stop saying things fall "up", and I can stop discussing the definition of up and down with you. Request: please stop saying up is down.

Since I'm not literally proposing you said up is down, hopefully I don't have to specify the exact conditions under discussion for this example as a product of your "throwing" your perception of what semantics are for "back at me"?

There's only so many times I can restate my opinion and have it torn apart without simply getting frustrated.

Russ, I'm sorry, but there seems to be no way to get around this: AFAICS, your opinion deserves to be torn apart. Not simply because I disagree with it, but because it doesn't stand. I disagree with it because it doesn't stand...if I am wrong in that assertion, hold a discussion to show it instead of spending ALL your time complaining about my disagreement and simply restating it because you don't like that disagreement! :-?

You are perfectly free to establish otherwise, but you do have to establish it. Those words you complain about are my recognition that I have to do the same, and I do. Here is a revolutianary thought: if you don't see an error in my reasoning and my description of flaws in yours, perhaps it is because there is not such an error...if you do see such an error, discuss it instead of what you are doing now.

I end up spending an extreme amount of words explaining things multiple times due to your simply seeking a way to avoid doing this. An ever expanding list of things you tack on to avoid discussing what I've already proposed.

3 paragraphs of something I've said before, and seems pretty glaringly obvious to me. Simply dismissing them as wrong or useless, as you've done before by word or deed, does not make them so...try addressing them in a different way, maybe even by taking them to heart.

/ignores oncoming 10 paragraph response on how I missed the point.

"Plug your ears" and go 'nyah, nyah, nyah', eh? :-?

[Dave H]

demalion-

I understood marketshare numbers as the context for Jerky's "properly" remark because they were the basis for the thread (which he started) and given in its title (which should be considered also as the title for that post, the first in the thread). In particular, something about the word "claims" in the thread title made it seem like Jerky was questioning the factual basis for the claim. I understand from your reply that you would agree a "claim" of DX9 marketshare should indeed include 5200 sales.

Having said that, looking back at Jerky's post I may have misinterpreted him. He does not specifically say that the marketshare numbers should not include 5200 sales, but only that by including them they are "misleading". I took "misleading" to be a normative charge that the numbers are essentially wrong, and that the basis for calculating them should be changed. I disagree with that assertion, and I gather that you would too.

However, "misleading" could also be taken to mean simply that the numbers don't tell the whole story. I would generally agree with that sentiment, and I'm pretty sure you would also. If Jerky meant "misleading" in that sense, then my criticism of his post was unnecessary and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to respond to it, not because it's not worth discussing, but because I simply don't have the time (and likely won't, at least not for several days).

[RussSchultz]

What happened to the end of the obligatory put downs?

Look, I stated my opinion, and clarified it for you with my reasoning.

There's no reason to spend your time or mine writing paragraph after paragraph about how I cannot comprehend the english language and how "wrong" I am in my opinion.

And I'm completely serious, and not trying to insult you with the critique on your conversational style. You respond with WAY to much verbeage, and it comes across as trying to bury the other person's point/opinion with volume.

If you feel what I originally had to say was "merely a potshot", then say that, and not an essay on how its wrong, describing in many details how its wrong, and somewhere in there saying "oh, and its a potshot too".

It would save me, and you a lot of time if you simply got to the point.

Beyond that, since we're discussing an opinion here (mine), I don't really see a need to answer your essay point by point. I stated why I believe such an opinion, and you've stated how you think its wrong. After two times around the mulberry bush, just assume I disagree with your assessment of "wrongness".

You're not going to change my mind. Simply because I don't want to go back and forth restating my opinion and having you try to change it by being presented with your reasoning along with intellectual slights doesn't mean I'm stupid or refuse to acknowledge that I'm wrong. I just simply disagree with your differing opinion.


Completely off topic: I've noticed that "strawman" is the coup de grace de jour, as it were. Everything is struck down as a strawman. I wonder how long until "strawman" becomes as unacceptable as "fanboi".

[demalion]

...
Yes.

...
Yes.


...

Yes.

However, "misleading" could also be taken to mean simply that the numbers don't tell the whole story. I would generally agree with that sentiment, and I'm pretty sure you would also. If Jerky meant "misleading" in that sense, then my criticism of his post was unnecessary and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Please note your initial post and the followup were far away from establishing this issue, and I'd propose that their presented reasoning still would not stand even if the criticism of Jerky's viewpoint did. A quote of the use of "misleading" would, however (IMO).

As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to respond to it, not because it's not worth discussing, but because I simply don't have the time (and likely won't, at least not for several days).

OK.

[demalion]

What happened to the end of the obligatory put downs?

A put down is a taunting or posturing statement made to describe someone unflatteringly and provide a platform for argument-by-ridicule. The first sentences are the only instance of it I'm aware of, by way of what seems your preferred post "greeting". The rest of my post consists of pretty accurate descriptions of your actions and questions...do you have a specific example in mind?

Look, I stated my opinion, and clarified it for you with my reasoning.

No, you didn't clarify it for me with reasoning. Your reasoning was flawed...can you process that statement and how it works against your "clarifying" something?

...Russ says my posts are too long again...

If you feel what I originally had to say was "merely a potshot", then say that, and not an essay on how its wrong, describing in many details how its wrong, and somewhere in there saying "oh, and its a potshot too".

Actually, that's all I did say to you! The rest of the initial post was directed at Dave H, and it was pretty short.
(talking about what I was criticizing about what Dave H seemed to propose):"...Russ was correct to propose that this opinion indicated incompetence (which, I'll mention since I'm responding here, did not seem to be an at all useful way of proposing disagreement itself :-?)".

Do you have a point?

The expanded reply was because of the extreme lack of sense you made in your reply to my statements. A reminder: you said that simply because Jerky mentioned performance "specifically", that he obviously couldn't be including the criteria of performance in "properly". Some sort of one word jeopardy that seems to have been made up on the spot, AFAICS. Details discussed prior.

It would save me, and you a lot of time if you simply got to the point.

Russ, I get to the point...for each new point you tack on (like this one about me not getting to the point). It would save time if you responded to my points the first time, and with a useful point of your own, instead of throwing another assertion in front of it that I have to dig through to get back to being allowed to address your commentary again.

All of those sentences had a point, Russ. There are a lot of problems in what you are saying. :-?

Beyond that, since we're discussing an opinion here (mine), I don't really see a need to answer your essay point by point. I stated why I believe such an opinion, and you've stated how you think its wrong. After two times around the mulberry bush, just assume I disagree with your assessment of "wrongness".

The issue is that your criteria for disagreement does not include things that seem to be true, or demonstrate an interest in trying to include such things.
I propose that behaving in such a way is going to earn you criticism, and that perhaps you deserve it. Am I wrong?

You're not going to change my mind.

You maintain that you're free not to change your mind about what you say, but you also maintain that I must change mine about what I say? To defend such an assertion other than by ego (i.e., the world should suite you over anyone else), you have to explain why and show that the why makes sense. One of us in this conversation is doing this, IMO, and the other is complaining about it. I'm open to have my mind changed, but just maybe the facts indicate I shouldn't. If you disagree, please give some illustration...otherwise you're telling me the world is flat.

But perhaps we should discuss the flatness of the world in some other thread. Feel free to return to the discussion about your proposing that Jerky is incompetent at some point in this thread. Hey, maybe even apologize if you might have been unfair?

Simply because I don't want to go back and forth restating my opinion and having you try to change it...

Change it? I'm pointing out how it is in error. If you can be shown how it is in error, and don't care to modify your opinion, I think that's a problem in you. Hey, but it's not your opinion, I can't say it at all, even if I provide reasons. :-?
...by being presented with your reasoning along with intellectual slights doesn't mean I'm stupid or refuse to acknowledge that I'm wrong. I didn't say you were stupid, nor in my experience does your behavior require stupidity. Maybe our conversations would be briefer if you stopped adding new things for me to correct.
As for refusing to acknowledge that you're wrong...
I just simply disagree with your differing opinion.
What about the things that I proposed as facts? You seem to have just avoided them repeatedly.
So...all opinions are created equal, purely by virtue of being held by someone? I'd say that the opportunity to express an opinion is equal instead...that's not the same thing.

[nelg]

A waiver is effectively an area of non-compliance but MS are willing to overlook for certain reasons. I'm hearing that the 5200 has several waivers - we know that it only runs in FP16, so this is likely to be one of them.

The WHQL process is quite convoluted, not necessarily in terms of testing for compliance but more in terms of penalties for non-complaince (i.e. for non-WHQL hardware saying windows compatible being sold, the vendor has to pay MS money for each unit).
Dave, does MS make waiver information public or at least a list of what areas inwhich non-compliance is accepted under waiver ?

[Evildeus]

That doesn't answer my qestion. Is it or not qualified by MS to be called DX9 card (ie compliant), and are the drivers WHQL?

Well, it does answer your question since MS have stated what the specification is, and it evidently hasn't met it.
No it doesn't. That's what you say, and it's perfectly understable. But what i want is the specific statement from MS saying it is or not DX9 compliant.

[Dave Baumann]

Well, you've seen the statement from MS that FP24 is the minimum requirement for the Pixel Shader haven't you? That is the answer.

As for the difference between market share and accountancy: NVIDIA only recognises revenue on units shipped by the AIB (i.e. actual units sold), Mercury research numbers account for units shipped by the IHV, not units sold.

[Evildeus]

Well, you've seen the statement from MS that FP24 is the minimum requirement for the Pixel Shader haven't you? That is the answer.
That not an answer. It could (and should) disqualify the FX5200, but it finally depends on MS decision which may forget this part. That's why i'm looking for a definitive statement from MS. Not some partial answers.

As for the difference between market share and accountancy: NVIDIA only recognises revenue on units shipped by the AIB (i.e. actual units sold), Mercury research numbers account for units shipped by the IHV, not units sold.
Of course, that's why unit sold is always > as unit shipped (but at the end of the life it's equivalent). I don't understand what you are trying to say?

[Hanners]

That not an answer. It could (and should) disqualify the FX5200, but it finally depends on MS decision which may forget this part. That's why i'm looking for a definitive statement from MS. Not some partial answers.

I think you're going to have a very long wait then. This isn't exactly the thing that MS are going to comment on is it? (Especially if a waiver was involved). I think on this occasion you just need to deduce the conclusions from the information you have been given here.

[Dave Baumann]

That not an answer. It could (and should) disqualify the FX5200, but it finally depends on MS decision which may forget this part. That's why i'm looking for a definitive statement from MS. Not some partial answers.

The statement is there - the specifications are there, testing shows that they are not to those specificatrions. Stop being obtuse.

Of course, that's why unit sold is always > as unit shipped (but at the end of the life it's equivalent). I don't understand what you are trying to say?

Units sold can never be greater than units shipped! I assume you mean "unit sold is always < unit shipped". However, it's harking back to you statement that NVIDIA recognises a unit sale ones its sold by the vendor - it does not apply here.

[Evildeus]

Well sorry to be obtuse, but that statement from MS doesn't automatically invalidate the possibility that the 5200 is a DX9 compliant card for MS. Anyway, where can i find the link where it shows that the FX5200 doesn't do FP32 in hardware? (i was in vacation so surely i missed something)

For the 2nd part. I'm talking from Nv point of view not from board makers, i think it's clear from the beginning...

[Dave Baumann]

Anyway, where can i find the link where it shows that the FX5200 doesn't do FP32 in hardware? (i was in vacation so surely i missed something)

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/ps-precision/index.html

For the 2nd part. I'm talking from Nv point of view not from board makers, i think it's clear from the beginning...

Yes, and your statement bears no relation to the figures being talked about here.

[digitalwanderer]

Question: What is this "waiver" y'all are talking about? Are you talking about M$ giving a free pass to some sub-WHQL drivers for nVidia?

If so, this is the first I've heard that M$ allows "waivers" to their quality certification program....I'd be VERY interested in hearing more.

[Tridam]

I've made many tests with a FX5600 and a FX5200. When using PS 2.0, I can't see any difference between these 2 chips. With 44.03, you can't use FP32 but with beta drivers or quadro drivers, this problem doesn't exist. FX5600 and 5200 hardware seem to do FP32 properly. The main difference I've seen between the two chips is that FX5600 can use its FX units to do PS1.4 but the FX5200 can't. FX5200 uses FP units for PS1.4.

I think the problem is not there. Does WHQL certification require DX9 compliance for drivers? I don't think it's the case.

Does Microsoft say "this chip is DX9 compliant" or "this one isn't"? I don't think it's the case.

If an IHV says that its drivers are WHQL, does that mean that they are DX9 compliant?

If an IHV says that its new chip is DX9, does Microsoft ensure for compliance? Isn't it a choice of the IHV to presents its products as a DX7, DX8 or DX9 parts with a single constraint: not shock press and people to much??? I've never seen a clear Microsoft's definition of a DXx product.

[indio]

All I know is that if you start googling the names of the 2 people that own Mercury Research , Dean Mccarron and Michael Feibus, you will find they are contributing editors of Microprocessor Report

http://www.instat.com/images7/analysts/peter_glas.gif
remember this guy when he gave the NV30 the 2002 processor of the year award?
Peter Glaskowsky


I think it's been well established that Microprocessor Report is a PAID analyst. I've also found that Mr Glaskowsky and Dean McCarron are often quoted together in the same "news" stories. I'm sure this is done for the purpose of making the story "appear" as if it queried multiple independant and diverse experts
Mercury Research is trash to me. In light of the corporate events of the last 18 monthes . All analysts are HIGHLY suspect

[digitalwanderer]

All I know is that if you start googling the names of the 2 people that own Mercury Research , Dean Mccarron and Michael Feibus, you will find they are contributing editors of Microprocessor Report

http://www.instat.com/images7/analysts/peter_glas.gif
remember this guy when he gave the NV30 the 2002 processor of the year award?
Peter Glaskowsky


I think it's been well established that Microprocessor Report is a PAID analyst. I've also found that Mr Glaskowsky and Dean McCarron are often quoted together in the same "news" stories. I'm sure this is done for the purpose of making the story "appear" as if it queried multiple independant and diverse experts
Mercury Research is trash to me. In light of the corporate events of the last 18 monthes . All analysts are HIGHLY suspect
I'm not disagreeing with you and don't mean it as fighting words, but what exactly does this have to do with the discussion? How does Mercury fit in on this one? (And does this mean I'll get to play with me friend Peter Glaskowhatshisface again?!?!? OH BOY! I think I almost made his head explode last time... ;) )

[RussSchultz]

Ok, demalion. One final try.

I feel a qualified reviewer should know either that it does, or does not have whatever quality he is claiming it has (or has not). Probably shouldn't enter the question, in my opinion.

Even if the quality in question is "the ability to run dx9 games at playable framerates" (which, I'll have to disagree that the construct of the sentence necessarily means that, though yes its possible that it that is what he meant) he should have enough familiarity with the product after reviewing it to know with more certainty than "probably".

But, assuming we take properly to include "at high enough framerate to be acceptable":

Truly, it is a bit murky to know what a DX9 game will require in terms of performance, however In my opinion, any reviewer worth his salt wouldn't come to this conclusion especially after just having run the card through a shootout and demonstrating and concluding that the card does just fine on current games at a lower resolution. Assuming it has the same feature set as its larger brother (which it does), it should accomplish the identical thing on future games. Or, are we now to assume that properly means "at a given frame rate at a high enough resolution" so that once again I am "wrong"?

Beyond that, given that the bulk of DX9 cards sold are indeed these cards which would suggest, in my opinion, that they would have the effect of having DX9 games written in ways to make them playable so that there will be a large enough audience to sell to, again undermining the notion that they will be unable to "properly" play the games. And yes, in my opinion, a qualified reviewer would come to a similar conclusion, given the historical evidence that "no card gets left behind, ever" and the general idea that publishers want the largest audience possible.

All in all, the statement comes off, in my opinion, as either unfamiliarity with the product, unfamiliarity with the market, or predictive naysaying and dare I say, fanboyishness, particularly in context with the rest of the statement. (Essentially dismissing the 5200 as a DX9 card to invalidate the claim that NVIDIA has sold more DX9 cards). Which is breaks another one of my requirements of being a good reviewer--impartiality.

But, that's all my opinion.

[indio]

The number's quoted are derived from a Mercury Research quarterly report , although they do a good job not referencing it till the middle of the story. That could just be their writing style though.

edit : The numbers quoted by Xbit Labs that is.

[RussSchultz]

but what exactly does this have to do with the discussion? How does Mercury fit in on this one?

If you go read the article at xbit which is tangentially at the center of this conversation, you'll see they base their story on figures from Mercury Research. (Which, contrary to what indio says, is noted in the first sentence of the story)

[indio]

I'm sorry I was looking at this other story they did http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030731084600.html . My mistake :?

[digitalwanderer]

The number's quoted are derived from a Mercury Research quarterly report , although they do a good job not referencing it till the middle of the story. That could just be their writing style though.

edit : The numbers quoted by Xbit Labs that is.
WE'RE DISCUSSING SOMETHING BASED ON FIGURES FROM MERCURY RESEARCH AND NO ONE HAS MENTIONED THAT MERCURY RESEARCH IS BASICALLY JUST AN EXTENSION OF NVIDIA'S PR DEPARTMENT?!?!

Sorry, I gotta go have some coffee and bang me head into the wall for a while for even taking this seriously. I was wondering how in the heck nVidia could have possibly maintained their marketshare in light of their recent fiascos and mediocre cards, now I know: PR BS! :mad:

[Evildeus]

Anyway, where can i find the link where it shows that the FX5200 doesn't do FP32 in hardware? (i was in vacation so surely i missed something)

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/ps-precision/index.html
I asked in hardware you answer with drivers?
Moreover Tridam says
With 44.03, you can't use FP32 but with beta drivers or quadro drivers, this problem doesn't exist. FX5600 and 5200 hardware seem to do FP32 properly.
So, what is what?

Yes, and your statement bears no relation to the figures being talked about here.
Excuse me, but where did i say it was in relation? i just said from the begginnning that from NV perspective that chip sold and shipped is the same think, i never talked from board makers point of view. You are the one talking about board makers and real number of chips sold to consummers....

[digitalwanderer]

Anyway, where can i find the link where it shows that the FX5200 doesn't do FP32 in hardware? (i was in vacation so surely i missed something)

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/ps-precision/index.html
I asked in hardware you answer with drivers?
Moreover Tridam says
With 44.03, you can't use FP32 but with beta drivers or quadro drivers, this problem doesn't exist. FX5600 and 5200 hardware seem to do FP32 properly.
So, what is what?

Yes, and your statement bears no relation to the figures being talked about here.
Excuse me, but where did i say it was in relation? i just said from the begginnning that from NV perspective that chip sold and shipped is the same think, i never talked from board makers point of view. You are the one talking about board makers and real number of chips sold to consummers....
I'm sorry Evildeus, but you do realize you're defending the point of view of a known bought research company?

Seriously, it's an un-winnable argument and a moot point since it has been pointed out that this article was based on Mercury Research numbers. That's like saying that nVidia dominates the marketplace based on nVidia's personal in-house numbers. :roll:

[Dave Baumann]

I asked in hardware you answer with drivers?

With WHQL driver that do not offer full compliance with the API. There is obviously some reason why why they do not off compliance with the API with their official drivers! :roll:

Excuse me, but where did i say it was in relation?

So what was the point of even mentioning if it bear no relation to the figures being discussed?

[RussSchultz]

All analysts are "bought". They don't make any money unless they can sell their products, and they don't make a very good product unless they get cozy to the people they're analyzing.

That being said, however, historical sales data is umpteen times more reliable than technology assessment or sales forcast data.

If Mercury says that these are Q2 numbers, I really don't have too much trouble believing that they're mostly in line with reality. I might question if the numbers reflect world wide sales, but the percentages would probably continue to bear out even if they missed a market like China. (If anything, China would skew the numbers toward the cheap end)

[Dave Baumann]

If an IHV says that its new chip is DX9, does Microsoft ensure for compliance? Isn't it a choice of the IHV to presents its products as a DX7, DX8 or DX9 parts with a single constraint: not shock press and people to much??? I've never seen a clear Microsoft's definition of a DXx product.

I think thats part of the point of the introduction of the DCT DX9 tests.

However, there does appear to be some precision issues when running FP32 on NV30/31/34 as witnessed by the PS2.0 procedural texturing test in 3DMark03 (without NVIDIA's replacement shaders). This issue isn't present on NV35.

[indio]

Anyone have access to a LexisNexis database? I'd sure like to find out if Mercury Research has EVER said anything negative about Nvidia.

[RussSchultz]

You'll likely find that no independant analyst will ever say anything negative about anybody.

Assuming they get their money from selling their reports, they don't want to alienate anybody.

Assuming they do their reports as part of a stock brokerage firm doing due diligence, they don't want to be sued for defamation of character.

[indio]

All analysts are "bought". They don't make any money unless they can sell their products, and they don't make a very good product unless they get cozy to the people they're analyzing.

That being said, however, historical sales data is umpteen times more reliable than technology assessment or sales forcast data.

If Mercury says that these are Q2 numbers, I really don't have too much trouble believing that they're mostly in line with reality. I might question if the numbers reflect world wide sales, but the percentages would probably continue to bear out even if they missed a market like China. (If anything, China would skew the numbers toward the cheap end)

The question remains. "How does Mercury Research generate the numbers?" I am fairly certain they don't have access to raw data and a lot of the the numbers are generated by speculation and/or interviews with the affected companies PR departments. Do you think they let these ppl. into there accounting departments?
I really don't believe any numbers coming out of Mercury. The process for the evaluations is not transparent. The basis of Mercury Research's value and accuracy is rested on the number of periodicals that quote them :roll:

[indio]

I don't wanna be argumentitive here. I just know that the current state of fair and impartial GFX evalution is pathetic (with the exception of Beyond3D :P ) My personal ax to grind open standards. That is the only way to push the industry forward constructively. I find that fudging up the abilities and limitations of cards (ala GFmx , FX5200+DX9) is hurting 3d graphics progress. When developers program to the lowest common denominator progress slows. When reviewers and analysts influence perception in a way that makes sub-standard products "appear" acceptable we all lose.

[WaltC]

Well sorry, but it's not what you think, or what Nv think, or even god, it's what MS think, that is important. They are or aren't DX9 compliant (labelled by MS), there's no half path. Anything else is irrelevent.

So, OK, then you'd say that a product which supports several DX-version features in software is exactly equal to a product which supports the same features in hardware? Either one can get a "DX-x compliancy" badge from M$. To me, this simply means that comparing products on the basis of DX-version compliancy *as awarded to driver sets by M$* is not the best way to evaluate hardware.

Rather, the best way would be to see which hardware best supports the DX-spec in hardware. Some will be more equal than others in this regard--which has always been the case.

I remember with my 3dfx V5 5.5K that shortly before the company folded it released a "DX8" driver set. Yet, in it were software workarounds for API feature support that, it turned out, didn't work so well in actual DX8 games using some DX8 features....;) Did the fact that this was a WHQL driver set (to my recollection) mean that the V5 was suddenly mutated into a piece of DX8 hardware? No, of course. And that's my point. If I am not mistaken as well, ATi will be releasing (or already has released) drivers for it's 9000 value cards which are "DX9" compliant, when it's well known the card at best supports DX8.1 in hardware. The point I'm trying to make is that getting a DX9-compliant driver set through M$ does little to tell us about the functionality of the hardware.

[RussSchultz]

Actually, they generate their numbers by:
-looking at financial statements from the producers
-contacting retail outlets and getting information from them
-talking to suppliers and oems and determing their sales

While it isn't an exact science, there should be enough information to come up with a somewhat reasonable picture, though I know from experience sometimes the analysts get it completely wrong (usually underestimating the market in general)

[WaltC]

All analysts are "bought". They don't make any money unless they can sell their products, and they don't make a very good product unless they get cozy to the people they're analyzing.



Heh-Heh...;) They also won't get repeat business if they make a habit of telling their clients what they'd rather not hear...;)

I remember 3dfx also employing Mercury to prove various points back in 1999 & 2000 about various things...from benchmarks to sales figures, man, according to Mercury 3dfx was unstoppable...;) (During the period 3dfx retained Mercury for such "studies", of course.) 3dfx got a lot of press-release mileage there.

I call these companies "statistics for hire" and it's an age-old advertising trick. It's like the old ad on TV "3 out of 4 dentists recommend Trident sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum" and you investigate the small print (not included in the TV ad) and find out the "independent study" done as the basis of the ad was done by a company recruited and hired by Trident. In this case I especially like the "for their patients who chew gum" phrase which was added because most dentists recommend people not chew gum at all--especially if they've got braces...;)

[demalion]

Ok, demalion. One final try.

I feel a qualified reviewer should know either that it does, or does not have whatever quality he is claiming it has (or has not).

Again, you are proposing "properly" cannot include an evaluation of performance, when it still seems rather abundantly clear to me that that assertion does not make sense.

Alternatively, you seem to be proposing that a reviewer should speak with certainty about performance when he hasn't run tests yet, and that they are incompetent if they do not.

Given your conversation, I picked the first, and I've covered it in detail. Do I have to quote it, or are you capable of understanding where I've explained this before?

Probably shouldn't enter the question, in my opinion.

Yes, I get that it is your opinion, Russ, we've gone over that. Are we finally going to discuss the problems with the way you proposed it?

Even if the quality in question is "the ability to run dx9 games at playable framerates" (which, I'll have to disagree that the construct of the sentence necessarily means that, though yes its possible that it that is what he meant)

This is progress...you're admitting that you were wrong when you said that this was not possible in your first reply. I still think your interpretation is the least reasonable, and I think I've provided ample reasoning as to why. However, by recognizing this you've removed the issue that made your stance completely incompatible with rationality, the english language, etc.. As long as you are consistent in this recognition, I can finally stop discussing the semantics of this point. I'd recommend that you work towards entertatining such possibilities earlier, however.

he should have enough familiarity with the product after reviewing it to know with more certainty than "probably".

Now we are on to logic again. Did you misspeak? "Even if the quality in question is 'the ability to run dx9 games at playable framerates'..he should have enough familiarity with the product after reviewing it to know with more certainty than 'probably'."

But, assuming we take properly to include "at high enough framerate to be acceptable":

Truly, it is a bit murky to know what a DX9 game will require in terms of performance, however In my opinion, any reviewer worth his salt wouldn't come to this conclusion especially after just having run the card through a shootout and demonstrating and concluding that the card does just fine on current games at a lower resolution.

Did you forget that we were discussing things like PS 2.0, Russ? Current games don't use PS 2.0, ergo there is a large logical gap in your proposal that current games show performance of DX 9 games. What conclusion should a reviewer come to after observing performance in games that don't use DX 9 shaders...that it "probably can run DX 9 properly", with properly including consideration of performance? What about observations about performance in PS 2.0 shaders?

Or is the problem not the viewpoint, but uncertainty? Would it have been fine if he'd said "it definitely can't run DX 9 properly", with performance being considered?

Assuming it has the same feature set as its larger brother (which it does), it should accomplish the identical thing on future games.

What!? It doesn't look like you misspoke, but simply believe the PS 2.0 hardware performance characteristics are not unique from other performance characteristics, or that they simply don't matter when...running PS 2.0 shaders. :shock:

Or, are we now to assume that properly means "at a given frame rate at a high enough resolution" so that once again I am "wrong"?

No, we are to assume we are talking about PS 2.0 and that PS 2.0 performance characteristics are a unique aspect of a card.
Consistent application of your "logical support", as far as you've presented, propose one or more possible interpretations that I see:

A GF 4 MX runs some current games faster than a 5200. Your logic would have it that the performance in current games indicates that the GF 4 MX would run future games faster, nevermind the differing shader capabilities and performance when implementing effects of the cards. This is the "performance in current games is universal" interpretation.
NV3x cards offer 16x AA. Your logic would have it that offering a feature makes it useful to use without regard to performance limitations. This is the "offering the feature is all that matters" interpretation.
Doom 3 (as an example) can offer its shadow effects via multipassing. Since many cards can do this, and Doom 3 can offer it, everyone with cards that have to implement shadows in this way will turn it on. This is the "no competent reviewer can express doubt about what a minimum framerate is" interpretation.

Russ, the rest of your post seems to depend entirely on what appear to me to be logical fallacies. Now, if I am wrong in my characterizations, just point out where I went wrong, and propose what you did mean instead, and we can discuss it. If I am not, pick one or more, of your proposals to discuss, and I'll explain further since it seems necessary. :-?

Please try to be somewhat consistent when doing this.

Also, if you think I shouldn't have snipped something, simply point it out.

[digitalwanderer]

Actually, they generate their numbers by:
-looking at financial statements from the producers
-contacting retail outlets and getting information from them
-talking to suppliers and oems and determing their sales

While it isn't an exact science, there should be enough information to come up with a somewhat reasonable picture, though I know from experience sometimes the analysts get it completely wrong (usually underestimating the market in general)
If there is any room for a fudge-factor in figuring it, I know which way Mercury would fudge it. :evil:

Again, if the article is based on numbers from Mercury Research it is useless. :)

[Dave Baumann]

Actually, they generate their numbers by:
-looking at financial statements from the producers
-contacting retail outlets and getting information from them
-talking to suppliers and oems and determing their sales

Russ, do you have anything to base that on? I can't find anything on the Mercury site, and I've had one analyst tell me that this isn't the case with Mercury - he thinks the only one to go to these lengths is JPA.

[Tridam]

However, there does appear to be some precision issues when running FP32 on NV30/31/34 as witnessed by the PS2.0 procedural texturing test in 3DMark03 (without NVIDIA's replacement shaders). This issue isn't present on NV35.

I've made some tests with a 'mathematical' shader to highlight the precision and it seems OK. Of course, some instructions could be done with a lower precision.

IE : NV3x are able to do a SINCOS instruction in a cycle only! Microsoft talks about SINCOS as a macro of 8 instructions slots and ATI seems to do it in 6 cycles (co-issue could help to do this in 6 cycles instead of 8 ). Maybe NVIDIA uses a lower precision (-> FX units) to reach a SINCOS per cycle. IIRC, the PS2.0 procedural texturing in 3DMark03 uses SINCOS. But I don't know if the precision issues in this test are related to SINCOS.

[Dave Baumann]

AFAIK SINCOS has specific hardware.

[Evildeus]

I asked in hardware you answer with drivers?

With WHQL driver that do not offer full compliance with the API. There is obviously some reason why why they do not off compliance with the API with their official drivers! :roll:
Performance heh? :roll: Or whatever reason... And furthermore they are able to do FP32 with beta drivers aren't they? So, the not being FP32 doesn's count don't you think?

Excuse me, but where did i say it was in relation?

So what was the point of even mentioning if it bear no relation to the figures being discussed?
Perhaps you should reread the 1st post where i say that, you will be able to find an answer :wink:

PS: The forum is really slow today, or is it just me having some issues?

[RussSchultz]

First off, I NEVER said that performance is not possible to be included in "properly" in his sentence. Unless "safe to assume" means "not possible"? (I guess I should be prepared for the essay on how it means exactly that!?)

Next, yes extrapolating performance IN PS2.0 is possible. The 5900 has a set of performance, the 5600 has a set of performance, the 5200 has a set of performance. They all have the same feature set. The 5200 is some fraction of the 5600 which is some fraction of the 5900. These fractions are pretty consistant across the feature set (in terms of fillrate, pixel shading rate, etc) It would therefor follow that if comparing card A and card b in fillrate leads to the conclusion that B is capable of providing acceptable framerates at lower resolutions, then when considering pixel shading. The only thing that would differ is the resolution at which it reaches parity to your criteria of "properly", unless we now include sufficient resolution in "properly".

And please, stop with the intellectual slights.

[RussSchultz]

Actually, they generate their numbers by:
-looking at financial statements from the producers
-contacting retail outlets and getting information from them
-talking to suppliers and oems and determing their sales

Russ, do you have anything to base that on? I can't find anything on the Mercury site, and I've had one analyst tell me that this isn't the case with Mercury - he thinks the only one to go to these lengths is JPA.
Nothing more than what I percieve to be industry standard practices.

How else could you obtain market share numbers without doing due dilligence and cross checking the data. No investment house would believe a word you said if your sole source was the company in question.

[digitalwanderer]

Actually, they generate their numbers by:
-looking at financial statements from the producers
-contacting retail outlets and getting information from them
-talking to suppliers and oems and determing their sales

Russ, do you have anything to base that on? I can't find anything on the Mercury site, and I've had one analyst tell me that this isn't the case with Mercury - he thinks the only one to go to these lengths is JPA.
Nothing more than what I percieve to be industry standard practices.

How else could you obtain market share numbers without doing due dilligence and cross checking the data. No investment house would believe a word you said if your sole source was the company in question.
Who said any investment houses listen to Mercury Research? Mebbe their only reason for being is to put their name on nVidia PR releases to make 'em look more legit. ;)

[Dave Baumann]

Performance heh? :roll: Or whatever reason... And furthermore they are able to do FP32 with beta drivers aren't they? So, the not being FP32 doesn's count don't you think?

a.) Performance is almost certianly not a good enough reason for this to be passed by MS. Plus, the performance difference is not that great - the performance differnce is impacted more by the register useage than thatyhing else.

b.) Beta drivers are beta for a reason - it is unlikely to be a coincidence that the only official drivers released so far drop down to FP16.

c.) The fact remains that MS passed the 44.03 drivers without full compliance to the specifications so it "does count" as it has happened.

d.) We've already demonstrated that there certianly is some issues with running DX code on these boards in FP32 precision with an actual example, being 3DMark03 PS2.0 test.



Perhaps you should reread the 1st post where i say that, you will be able to find an answer :wink:

What? You initially said:

Talk about inability to differeniate SOLD vs. SHIPPED...it is nice that there is lots of 5200's shipped, doesn't mean they are being sold.
For Nv it's the same thing.

But now you acknowledge that this may not have any bearing on the number of units being talked about in this market share report - so, again, what was the point of this?

[Dave Baumann]

No investment house would believe a word you said if your sole source was the company in question.

I think that was his point.

[RussSchultz]

So JPA is the only analyst that investment bankers listen to?

[digitalwanderer]

So JPA is the only analyst that investment bankers listen to?
That doesn't make sense, why not point to any evidence to support Mercury Research's credibility rather than try and bring in tangents?

Oh yeah, because there isn't a whole lot of evidence to support Mercury Research's credibility....well at least not to support it in a positive way. ;)

[Dave Baumann]

So JPA is the only analyst that investment bankers listen to?

I have no idea what they do Russ, I don't even know if they know how the results were achieved. I know they guy who mentions this does his best to do this himself, along with other sources such as JPA and Mercury.

[Tridam]

a.) Performance is almost certianly not a good enough reason for this to be passed by MS.

I agree.

Plus, the performance difference is not that great - the performance differnce is impacted more by the register useage than thatyhing else.

FX5600U :
arithmetic : 800 Mops/s - texturing ops
arithmetic + texturing : 800 Mops/s

Rad9600Pro :
arithmetic : 1600 Mops/s (3200 Mops/s with co-issue)
arithmetic + texturing : 3200 Mops/s (4800 Mops/s with co-issue)

The register useage is a problem, but it's not the only one.

b.) Beta drivers are beta for a reason - it is unlikely to be a coincidence that the only official drivers released so far drop down to FP16.
You're right. But what could be this reason ? Maybe NVIDIA drop down to FP16 just the time required to make better drivers and application-specific optimisations.

c.) The fact remains that MS passed the 44.03 drivers without full compliance to the specifications so it "does count" as it has happened.It's really strange. Does WHQL certification require DX9 compliance ? Was MS checking DX9 compliance when they passed the 44.03 ?

d.) We've already demonstrated that there certianly is some issues with running DX code on these boards in FP32 precision with an actual example, being 3DMark03 PS2.0 test.Of course, but we've also demonstrated that these issues disappear with newer drivers.

[RussSchultz]

So JPA is the only analyst that investment bankers listen to?
That doesn't make sense, why not point to any evidence to support Mercury Research's credibility rather than try and bring in tangents?

Oh yeah, because there isn't a whole lot of evidence to support Mercury Research's credibility....well at least not to support it in a positive way. ;)
Where's the evidence to support Mercury Research's non-credibility?

[Evildeus]

a.) Performance is almost certianly not a good enough reason for this to be passed by MS. Plus, the performance difference is not that great - the performance differnce is impacted more by the register useage than thatyhing else.
Well, are you able to say, because what you are saying is that FP32 doesn't exist on FX 5200. If it is "not that great", it means that FP32 exist doesn't it?

Then, it's MS decision, i don't know why, but they did qualify these drivers, that's is the fact. We can say that it's not logical, it should be the case, but it is, that's the fact.

b.) Beta drivers are beta for a reason - it is unlikely to be a coincidence that the only official drivers released so far drop down to FP16.
If it is possible to do FP32 in beta driver, i think it proves the point that the hardware is able of FP32. You said to that there's a difference between WHQL drivers and DX9 compliance, and now you are saying that there's no difference?

c.) The fact remains that MS passed the 44.03 drivers without full compliance to the specifications so it "does count" as it has happened.
Yes it counts in the fact that WHQL drivers doesn't ask for full compliance in the drivers, that doesn't mean that the hardware is not capable of doing it.

d.) We've already demonstrated that there certianly is some issues with running DX code on these boards in FP32 precision with an actual example, being 3DMark03 PS2.0 test.
Using what drivers?


Perhaps you should reread the 1st post where i say that, you will be able to find an answer :wink:

What? You initially said:

Talk about inability to differeniate SOLD vs. SHIPPED...it is nice that there is lots of 5200's shipped, doesn't mean they are being sold.
For Nv it's the same thing.

But now you acknowledge that this may not have any bearing on the number of units being talked about in this market share report - so, again, what was the point of this?
Well the point is for one actor it the same thing, ie NV, clear now? So perhaps, you should reread his phrase on the inability to differentiate sold and shipped, and my answer? Really, i still don't understand where i said anything else.

[Tridam]

About Mercury, I just want to say one thing: making a market share analysis is very difficult and we could always discuss about such an analysis.

[Dave Baumann]

The register useage is a problem, but it's not the only one.

I'm talking about the performance difference between running in FP16 and FP32, that shouldn't have much relationship to its compaetitive standpoint.

You're right. But what could be this reason ? Maybe NVIDIA drop down to FP16 just the time required to make better drivers and application-specific optimisations.

Oh, that could vey well be the case. Even if there are some hardware issues, that also doesn't preclude that they will find a workaround for that in a later release and be able to offer it at full FP32 precision. But that doesn't change the fact that, at present, the only officially released WHQL drivers from NVIDIA for these boards do not meet the specification set by MS - does it?

It's really strange. Does WHQL certification require DX9 compliance ? Was MS checking DX9 compliance when they passed the 44.03?

Again, I think this is the entire point of the DCT tests. Whenever a WHQL submission is ent to MS the IHV's run DCT themselves, and this drops out encrypted logs that are sent to MS. MS then asses these logs and then decide whether they are compliant or not (although there will be some dialogue on areas that are not compliant, as we've seen!).

Of course, but we've also demonstrated that these issues disappear with newer drivers.

From a recent conversation I had with NVIDIA I believe that has been done via shader replacement again. While this may not stick to FM's guidelines, it does stick to NVIDIA's policy of making the IQ the same. Thats said, these later drivers have also shown differences between the reference rasteriser and running on an NV board.

[indio]

You need this report if you:
Make implementation decisions at a PC or graphics board vendor. PC Graphics helps you choose the right parts...and the right suppliers, now and in the future.
Have responsibility for forecasting market growth, assessing the competition or planning products for a semiconductor supplier.
Are a volume hardware buyer who understands that graphics plays at least as big a role in system performance as the central processor itself. Armed with PC Graphics, you are equipped like never before to pick the winners from the pack of available hardware products.



It doesn't seem like their analysis is meant for investor guidance but more geared toward people looking to make future purchases.
I seems like a graphics card industry version of a "push poll".

[Dave Baumann]

Yes it counts in the fact that WHQL drivers doesn't ask for full compliance in the drivers, that doesn't mean that the hardware is not capable of doing it.

If you have no access to it then the hardware is not going to be able to do it!

However, this does not change the fact that at present 5200 has gone through the WQHL process without meeting the DX9 specification - show us, how, under currently released official drivers you can access FP32.

Well the point is for one actor it the same thing, ie NV, clear now? So perhaps, you should reread his phrase on the inability to differentiate sold and shipped, and my answer?

How many times do we need to say this: Shipped and Sold is only the same thing for NVIDIA for monetary purposes, that does not automtically count that it is the same for Mercury's figures.

Mercury may ask the IHV "how many units do you produce and ship to vendors" and NVIDIA will tell them - that number does not have to be the actual number sold since they are not talking about their own revenue numbers and their accounting practices. i.e. there could be a difference between what they say if a company asks "how many units did you ship" and what they would report on their balance sheets.

[RussSchultz]

Have responsibility for forecasting market growth, assessing the competition or planning products for a semiconductor supplier.

Which falls directly into what a fund manager or an underwriter should be doing before investing.

Regardless, the same holds true for companies looking for information for their own forcasting. Why would they rely on a company that only relys on them? Why pay money to somebody to regurgitate what you just told them?

Its certainly possible that they do no indepth research, but I'd doubt it.

[kkevin666]

Hello all

Sorry i know its off topic- does anybody that posts here know EXACTLY
what microsoft looks at in driver releases to be FULLY WHQL complient?

Or have nvidia overcome this problem by having unified drivers that are ONLY WHQL complient for certain card models - if this is the case the problem lays with microsoft allowing them.

And as for the whole industry believing in a set of made up/inflated sales
figures from dubious companys IT HAPPENS A LOT MORE THAN YOU REALISE .Crooked companys and dubious buisiness pratices only come to light once it hits the newspapers eg

ENRON

and they were in existence for quite a few years before the penny dropped.

Statistics can show anything when manipulated in the right ways - eg

If you eat ice cream youre more likely to drown.
People buy morre ice creams on the beach -right next to the sea - get my point.

Nvidia should be prepared for showing figures on all cards they sell being returned when the users try to run INDUSTRY STANDARD DX9 coded games-because this company is deliberately misleading/manipulating the general public into buying cards which can barely run INDUSTRY STANDARD DX9 code

I dont know of any company that gets away with this form of fraud to such a noticable extent and still is allowed to do buisiness

Rant over.

[demalion]

Russ, I propose logic and specific questions, and, once again, you seem to be choosing to disregard that opportunity to do so with any clarity.

First off, I NEVER said that performance is not possible to be included in "properly" in his sentence. Unless "safe to assume" means "not possible"? (I guess I should be prepared for the essay on how it means exactly that!?)

Now we're back to incompatibility with language again.

I provide an argument to Dave H concerning your assertion of incompetence based on (what you proposed as) the usage of "properly" by Jerky, which according to Dave H (at that time) was not a "matter of opinion". This argument by Dave H was predicated on the only interpretation for "properly" being exclusive of performance (i.e., "DX 9 compliance"). You did actually read this discussion, yes? You realize that this post was not a reply to you, and that your response to it placed you in the middle of it, right?

You replied to that post by saying:

Demalion: he (Jerky) specifically mentioned performance in his original statment, so it would be safe to assume that the second part (can't run dx9 properly) does not include performance as a criteria.

'Technically', you "said" "safe to assume" (if you define "said" as restricted to literal utterance)...

And if this is all opinion, can I therefor say that the R300 can't run Dx9 (or even dx7 or dx8) properly because the anisotropic isn't good?

...except it was predicated on proposing that the usage of properly wasn't a matter of opinion, both by this phrase challenging my assertion that it was indeed a matter of opinion, and by agreeing with what Dave H originally proposed. But...you didn't "say" it...you just "agreed" with it, said it was "safe to assume" and defended it. :shock:

"This is progress....you're admitting that you were wrong when you said it was safe to assume, agreed with, and defended the idea that this was not possible in your first reply."

Are you happy? What progress have you made? What did your use of semantics here serve, Russ? I think "said" communicated accurately with just 4 letters, and, IMO, this type of semantic misuse is exactly what initiates our semantic discussions, Russ, since "said" is not restricted to literal utterance (your reply depends on this error, and that is why I end up looking to a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=say) to bring in some sanity). I wasn't arguing about literal utterance, which is the only interpretation of "said" that allows your statement of disagreement to make sense. :-?

Next, yes extrapolating performance IN PS2.0 is possible. The 5900 has a set of performance, the 5600 has a set of performance, the 5200 has a set of performance. They all have the same feature set.

But not the same performance in implementing it, yes. Though it is unclear that that this statement about featureset is the case in the PS 2.0 testing conducted by the reviewer, however. Does uncertainty still make him incompetent?

The 5200 is some fraction of the 5600 which is some fraction of the 5900. These fractions are pretty consistant across the feature set (in terms of fillrate, pixel shading rate, etc) It would therefor follow that if comparing card A and card b in fillrate leads to the conclusion that B is capable of providing acceptable framerates at lower resolutions, then when considering pixel shading.

Well, it would have been useful if you addressed my provided discussion, so I wouldn't have to repeat pointing out that multipassing on non shader hardware and CPU rendering fit into your logical chain and its dependency on excluding minimum resolution, as well. This choice of response is what I mean by lack of clarity...you require me to do my work over again when you could have just addressed it.

The only thing that would differ is the resolution at which it reaches parity to your criteria of "properly", unless we now include sufficient resolution in "properly".

[relevant only to other possible discussions]
Well, it wasn't what I was proposing as my criteria of running DX 9 properly, it was Jerky's. I tend towards preferring phrases like "can't run PS 2.0 quickly", and I'd tend to use "properly" like Dave H would, but my preference (nor Dave H's) doesn't limit what can be fairly said by someone. I mention this again (and I do have to justify this since it doesn't matter for your current statement by itself) because, in my estimation, you (RussSchultz, in particular) seem to tend to apply the statements of others outside of their context, and I'd prefer to not have to explain how "properly" depends on context at a later date.
[/relevant only to other possible discussions]

Discussing the criteria of properly that I am, indeed, defending:

Do you limit fractions of that performance are you allowing, or are you really proposing that there is no minimum reslution for PC gaming? If you have specifics in mind, please mention them. The ones I have in mind are, for example, this (http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=249&PageID=8):

At 1024x768, the 5200 is ~ 1/6 (24/4.3) the speed of a 9500 (non Pro) in the 3dmark 03 PS 2.0 test.

At 1024x768, the 5200 is ~ 1/3 (18.3/5.3) the speed of a 9500 (non Pro) in the 3dmark 03 GT 4 test.

First, you haven't clearly answered my question as to whether the problem was with his "uncertainty", or for his evaluating the performance of the 5200 as being too low. It reads right now as if you propose that the uncertainty shows incompetence, and that his evaluation that it's performance being too low when running PS 2.0 is just plain wrong, leaving the only option for a competent reviewer being to say that the 5200 "certainly" has sufficient performance to "run DX 9 propeerly". Do I misunderstand?
Second, I currently think the 5200 performance is being overstated due to special case "optimizations" in these test, which seems to indicate both special attention and the ability to avoid image quality manifestion of special attention to be representative (i.e., not "consistent").
Third, even aside from that, the situation with shaders seem to have a lot more uncertainty than you propose. Note that (compared to themselves in the other tests) the 9500 non pro is faster in the PS 2.0 test, and the 5200 is faster in the GT 4 test, almost as if your proposal of extrapolation without uncertainty has some flaws.
Fourth, what fraction of this resolution do you propose ensures that the 5200 use is unequivocably "running DX 9 properly"? What fps do you extrapolate for it? I'll point out that 640x400 has 1/3 (1/3.072) the pixels of 1024x768.
Mutliplying by that gives us 16.3 fps and 13.2 fps. If your calcuation is something else, please clarify. For contrast, the 9700 (not a high end card anymore) gets about 24 fps at 1024x768.

And please, stop with the intellectual slights.

What intellectual slights? Asking that you be consistent...when you don't appear to be? Saying you are proposing logical fallacies? These assertions aren't slights, and I don't see any in my last post. Could you simply propose an example, like I asked before?

[Evildeus]

Yes it counts in the fact that WHQL drivers doesn't ask for full compliance in the drivers, that doesn't mean that the hardware is not capable of doing it.

If you have no access to it then the hardware is not going to be able to do it!

However, this does not change the fact that at present 5200 has gone through the WQHL process without meeting the DX9 specification - show us, how, under currently released official drivers you can access FP32.
Well, if MS qualify them they have necessary meet the specification. Moreover, we can acheve FP32 with beta drivers, meaning that it's possibile to do it, and that the hardware is DX9 compliant (at least in this specific point)

Well the point is for one actor it the same thing, ie NV, clear now? So perhaps, you should reread his phrase on the inability to differentiate sold and shipped, and my answer?

How many times do we need to say this: Shipped and Sold is only the same thing for NVIDIA for monetary purposes, that does not automtically count that it is the same for Mercury's figures.

Mercury may ask the IHV "how many units do you produce and ship to vendors" and NVIDIA will tell them - that number does not have to be the actual number sold since they are not talking about their own revenue numbers and their accounting practices. i.e. there could be a difference between what they say if a company asks "how many units did you ship" and what they would report on their balance sheets.
Of course, but i'm not talking of that i'm saying that for NV it's the same thing answering what Watlc did say, nothing more nothing less and that the number of chip sold is necessarily higher than the number of chip shipped.

[digitalwanderer]

So JPA is the only analyst that investment bankers listen to?
That doesn't make sense, why not point to any evidence to support Mercury Research's credibility rather than try and bring in tangents?

Oh yeah, because there isn't a whole lot of evidence to support Mercury Research's credibility....well at least not to support it in a positive way. ;)
Where's the evidence to support Mercury Research's non-credibility?
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7741&highlight=peter+gl askowsky
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9167&highlight=peter+gl askowsky
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4733

[Dave Baumann]

Well, if MS qualify them they have necessary meet the specification.

Well, its not to spec, hence that must have been achieved it with waivers.

Moreover, we can acheve FP32 with beta drivers, meaning that it's possibile to do it, and that the hardware is DX9 compliant (at least in this specific point)

Nope. Beta drivers with FP32 support only suggest that it is able to operate some of the elements of DX9, not necessarily all required fro compliance.

[Evildeus]

Sure Dave, but waivers enable the WHQL certification. As for FP32 on beta drivers not being able to all the element, that's possible.

[RussSchultz]

Ignoring all else for the time being....where again did I communicate (through written or oral, or intimation) "properly" cannot include performance?

Oh, no where.

Then why are you insisting I did?

You seem to suggest that by agreeing with Dave H, that I somehow communicated it CANNOT include. Strange, but in rereading what Dave communicated, HE didn't communicate such a thing either.

So where, again, did I communicate that "properly" cannot include performance?

(notice how I changed all my say/said to communicate/d? That isn't the point of my disagreement with your assertion of my written statements)

[kemosabe]

I really fail to see what the fuss is with these recent Mercury numbers. According to the second Xbit blurb ( http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030801102103.html ), Nvidia has allegedly lost a whopping 4% of overall market share, mostly by way of lost mobile share. Some assumptions would have to be made to explain how Intel became the main benefactor of Nvidia's losses, but the point is that this report does not indicate that Nvidia has emerged unscathed as some suggest. If you consider that 53 million units were shipped altogether, then Nvidia's shipments went down from about 16.4 million (31%) to 14.3 million (27%) units. That's a drop of about 13% in unit sales in a single quarter! Not to mention that while they maintained desktop market share, it is logical to conclude (as most already have) that they are selling proportionally more low-end/mainstream chips than in the past. Along with their 0.13u yield problems, this would be consistent with their falling profit margins.

My main contention with these numbers relates to how Nvidia has not suffered a more significant revenue hit if unit sales in its core PC business have dropped so much. Increases in XBox sales would be unlikely to compensate for that much. I believe Mercury used to omit the integrated segment from its data (or at least calculated it differently), but seems to have incorporated them this time. I'd have liked to see Peddie's numbers for comparison, but he doesn't seem to have updated his free Market Watch reports since the last quarter of 2002. Regardless, with numbers like this I can't imagine why anyone would raise the spectre of Mercury being an extension of Nvidia's PR department.

[Dave Baumann]

Sure Dave, but waivers enable the WHQL certification.

Thats what I said to begin with! :roll:

As for FP32 on beta drivers not being able to all the element, that's possible.

The weight of evidence (the fact that current WHQL drivers are only FP16, there are rendering erros in some apps with FP32) would actually suggest its likely.

[Evildeus]

Sure Dave, but waivers enable the WHQL certification.

Thats what I said to begin with! :roll:
So do i :P

As for FP32 on beta drivers not being able to all the element, that's possible.

The weight of evidence (the fact that current WHQL drivers are only FP16, there are rendering erros in some apps with FP32) would actually suggest its likely.
Well it could be drivers issues also, couldn't it? Did you test with 44.67 drivers?

[demalion]

Ignoring all else for the time being....where again did I communicate (through written or oral, or intimation) "properly" cannot include performance?

Russ, did you read my post?

Oh, no where.

I guess not?

Then why are you insisting I did?

I answered this...

You seem to suggest that by agreeing with Dave H, that I somehow communicated it CANNOT include.

Oh, you did read my post? I guess you decided to build your argument support backwards...by "saying" my support wasn't there, and then addressing the premise itself after having established that...my support wasn't there....by asking me where my support was... :shock:
For clarity(?): "asking where my support is" "communicates"/"says" that "my support wasn't there" when you are replying to a post where I proposed I was giving you support.
I guess that's a good way to avoid actually discussing what support I specified...works almost as well as going off on a tangent and ignoring it when someone specifically discusses exactly what you proposed, doesn't it? :shock: Is this description of what you are doing what you propose is an "intellectual slight", btw?

I guess I'll just have to wait for the PS 2.0 discussion?

Strange, but in rereading what Dave communicated, HE didn't communicate such a thing either.

Now, do I have to quote my reply to Dave H's post where I already provided this illustration, or can I just link to it (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=149266&#149266)? Look for "couldn't", "can't" and other discussion related to what I proposed he was precluding...the bolding and underlining should help you a bit. :shock:. If you find them, give the phrases "says he cannot" and "precludes him from" some careful thought, and then consider what I've provided and not provided again. :-?

In case it helps, let me quote Dave H's comment for you, since it appears I'm going to have to go over it again:



FX5200, which we all know is an under-powered card which probably can't run DX9 properly.
And they let you review video cards?
Yes they do. In fact he does a damn good job at it. Don't shoot the guy for having an opinion
Compliance with an API is not a matter of opinion. The 5200 can run DX9 perfectly properly.
(the blue text is what your original quote dropped).

Do I really have to explain this, or are you stuck on the "literal utterance" concept again? If you aren't stuck on the idea that "cannot" has to be in the text, I suggest you focus on the phrase "not a matter of opinion" and consider how it is related to Jerky's statement in the post.

So where, again, did I communicate that "properly" cannot include performance?

You know...I did actually quote you in the prior post when I discussed why I said this. Doesn't this strike you as a slightly silly question?

(notice how I changed all my say/said to communicate/d? That isn't the point of my disagreement with your assertion of my written statements)
Maybe if we were both adhering to a common method of communication, the word change would have helped. I foresee a discussion of what "cannot" means, with unambiguous dictionary and grammar discussion being required as proof on my part, before you'll get past this item, or even address the explanation for it I already provided. :shock:

[RussSchultz]

And your quote of mine and Dave's does not show that I have said (which for the future you can presume that "said" means wrote and/or communicated so you can avoid filling up the screen with more feigned ignorance and mental musings about what I mean), or agreed with the idea that "properly" in that context CANNOT include performance.

You're the one here with a bit of cognitive dissonance. Yes, I agreed with the idea that I believe the statement "properly" in context MEANS some sort of measurement that does not include performance, but nowhere do I state that it CANNOT include performance.

I have evaluated the meaning in context and came to a conclusion on what I believe it means. How you can bridge the gap to it meaning "I refute any idea or notion that it means somethign different" is beyond me.

So, have we cleared that issue up enough so that we can continue?

[Tridam]

The register useage is a problem, but it's not the only one.

I'm talking about the performance difference between running in FP16 and FP32, that shouldn't have much relationship to its compaetitive standpoint.
Ok

You're right. But what could be this reason ? Maybe NVIDIA drop down to FP16 just the time required to make better drivers and application-specific optimisations.

Oh, that could vey well be the case. Even if there are some hardware issues, that also doesn't preclude that they will find a workaround for that in a later release and be able to offer it at full FP32 precision. But that doesn't change the fact that, at present, the only officially released WHQL drivers from NVIDIA for these boards do not meet the specification set by MS - does it?

Of course, NVIDIA has still not any official DX9 compliant drivers.

It's really strange. Does WHQL certification require DX9 compliance ? Was MS checking DX9 compliance when they passed the 44.03?

Again, I think this is the entire point of the DCT tests. Whenever a WHQL submission is ent to MS the IHV's run DCT themselves, and this drops out encrypted logs that are sent to MS. MS then asses these logs and then decide whether they are compliant or not (although there will be some dialogue on areas that are not compliant, as we've seen!).
MS says whether the drivers are compliant or not in regard to WHQL requests. But couldn't WHQL compliance and DX9 compliance be different? IE : DX8 compliant drivers can be WHQL certified.

Of course, but we've also demonstrated that these issues disappear with newer drivers.

From a recent conversation I had with NVIDIA I believe that has been done via shader replacement again. While this may not stick to FM's guidelines, it does stick to NVIDIA's policy of making the IQ the same. Thats said, these later drivers have also shown differences between the reference rasteriser and running on an NV board.
Of course, NVIDIA uses shader replacement in 3Dmark with some newer drivers. But it is not the case with every drivers. Some 'old' Quadro drivers run FP32.

In some shaders I wrote, there are precision issues with 44.03 and not with 44.10 and newer. But of course, I can't say that there are never precision issues. I can just say that I don't see them with the shaders I use.

[indio]

Ok here's the beef with Mercury Research . I have never seen a comment or quote from them anywhere, except in news articles that show Nvidia in a positive light . That's why I suggest a LexisNexis search to see if this is actually the case.
Maybe their numbers are correct but is there counting method correct? Is a 5200 really DX9 hardware? Who classifies it as such? The IHV? No one AFAIK has gotten one to actually perform to DX9 specifications. The crux of the situation is that the report should not be taken at face value . Given the current controversies (i.e. compliancy and cheating) and a link (albeit flimsy) can be established between the generator of the report and other questionable analysts.
Mercury Research is quoted VERY often through out many online and print news outlets. They have alot of influence on PERCEPTION. If they go and run around telling the world that the 5200 is the most prevalent DX9 hardware what do you think that will do?
The bean counters will wave this report at the production manager and say "Nvidia has the most DX9 cards according to Mercury Research" When the planning stage of a game starts they will program for these crap cards. The net effect is to drag the majority PC gaming industry down to the feature-set level of consoles :(

[Dave Baumann]

MS says whether the drivers are compliant or not in regard to WHQL requests. But couldn't WHQL compliance and DX9 compliance be different? IE : DX8 compliant drivers can be WHQL certified.

Yes, you can be compliant to DX8, but then you would only be exposing PS1.x caps. Here there driver are testing to the PS2.0 caps bits, but being allowed to run in FP16.

Of course, NVIDIA uses shader replacement in 3Dmark with some newer drivers. But it is not the case with every drivers. Some 'old' Quadro drivers run FP32.

The early NV30 drivers (pre shader replacement) also had FP32 support, and these show the 3DM issues as well.

[Tridam]

Of course, NVIDIA uses shader replacement in 3Dmark with some newer drivers. But it is not the case with every drivers. Some 'old' Quadro drivers run FP32.

The early NV30 drivers (pre shader replacement) also had FP32 support, and these show the 3DM issues as well.

What's exactly the issue you're talking about ?

[Dave Baumann]

Look towards the bottom of this page (http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/nv34/index.php?p=12).

[CapsLock]

This is the first reason why Mercury Research should be doubted as having any kind of credibility: thier very own freaking website:

http://www.mercuryresearch.com/

Please note as you peruse this marvel of slick PR and technological know-how (not to mention enormous substance), that:

1. It looks like a 12 year old did it!!!!!!!

2. It looks like a 12 year old did it-in a couple of hours!!!!!

3. Where the hell is "Cave Creek, Az"?

Googling "Cave Creek" I have discovered that it is a town of an entire 3,728 people (in 1,571 homes), located 25 miles north of Phoenix. And as anybody can tell you, they know thier IT in Cave Creek. Its like Silicon Valley 2, for petes sake.

Please do not confuse this Mercury Research (http://www.mercuryresearch.com/) with this Mercury Research (http://www.mercury.ro/home_ie.html), because the second one, even though its based in Romania, looks extremely proffessional and legit. It does provide a nice comparison though.

(I love OUR Mercury Research's contact page especially.)

CapsLock

PS. After noting thier products proven worth and industry recognition, as clearly demonstrated by thier website, I am so ready to plunk down 10,000 USD. (Check out the beautiful order form page.)

Could Nvidia sink any lower than hiring/buying these clowns?

Wow, how come no one noticed this before?

edit: population found higher than first reported, assumed more recent and updated

[Bolloxoid]

And they let you review video cards?

And just recently you were in tears complaining how people here here received undue "treatment."

[RussSchultz]

Yes, I noticed I was a pack of people repeatedly attacking this guy, burying him in ad hominem attacks and repeatedly dragging up old discussions, until he leaves in disgust.

And, if you hadn't noticed, everybody is completly silent about how I'm going about doing it.

The parallels are SO there.

[demalion]

And your quote of mine and Dave's does not show that I have said (which for the future you can presume that "said" means wrote and/or communicated so you can avoid filling up the screen with more feigned ignorance and mental musings about what I mean), or agreed with the idea that "properly" in that context CANNOT include performance.

Well, actually, what I said was Dave H said that, and you agreed with it and defended it, while proposing your assertion of reviewer incompetence that depended on it being the interpretation of his words. Just a bit of clarity, as "refute" indicates you actually "made a case" for the notion instead of just "proposing" it. I don't think saying this the 3rd or 4th time will help, or simply referring to my text, so let me quote and add color for you... :-?

...

First off, I NEVER said that performance is not possible to be included in "properly" in his sentence. Unless "safe to assume" means "not possible"? (I guess I should be prepared for the essay on how it means exactly that!?)

Now we're back to incompatibility with language again.

I provide an argument to Dave H concerning your assertion of incompetence based on (what you proposed as) the usage of "properly" by Jerky, which according to Dave H (at that time) was not a "matter of opinion". This argument by Dave H was predicated on the only interpretation for "properly" being exclusive of performance (i.e., "DX 9 compliance"). You did actually read this discussion, yes? You realize that this post was not a reply to you, and that your response to it placed you in the middle of it, right?

You replied to that post by saying:

Demalion: he (Jerky) specifically mentioned performance in his original statment, so it would be safe to assume that the second part (can't run dx9 properly) does not include performance as a criteria.

'Technically', you "said" "safe to assume" (if you define "said" as restricted to literal utterance)...

And if this is all opinion, can I therefor say that the R300 can't run Dx9 (or even dx7 or dx8) properly because the anisotropic isn't good?

...except it was predicated on proposing that the usage of properly wasn't a matter of opinion, both by this phrase challenging my assertion that it was indeed a matter of opinion, and by agreeing with what Dave H originally proposed. But...you didn't "say" it...you just "agreed" with it, said it was "safe to assume" and defended it. :shock:
...

I just quoted what I'm proposing shows exactly what you're saying I didn't provide for you, since apparently just referring to it was not enough. Does that mean that now you can spend your time actually addressing it and showing why your disagreement makes sense?

Alternatively, do I have to specifically discuss the definition of "say"? Some excerpts: "To state as one's opinion or judgment", "To report or maintain; allege".
Question: How are you not 'maintaining' something when you express your agreement with it, defend it, and express disagreement with someone's attack of it? Note, if you think I'm using "maintaining" in a "slippery" way that doesn't fit within the use the dictionary is specifying for "say", you are free to show why...AFAICS I'm picking a usage that removes the connotation of "literal utterance" it looks to me you are thinking of when you disagree with me.
Another set of questions: Do you disagree with my discussion of what Dave H said? If so, why aren't you illustrating why instead of "communicating" that it is irrelevant? Do I have to explain again (as I did in that discussion that I linked to) how Dave H said (at the time) that "properly" CANNOT include performance?

Now, if you propose that you weren't agreeing with Dave H's commentary or defending it, it would have saved us a lot of time if you'd actually addressed my assertion the first time instead of simply pretending it didn't exist and requiring me to "prove" to you what "say" means first. :shock:

Otherwise, you seem to be displaying a poor grasp of "say" and "cannot", again seemingly tied to having had to say "say" and "cannot", literally, and arguing over the specific word instead of their meaning. I.e., you'd say that "He precluded the possibility of her being right" never means "He said she could not be right".

You're the one here with a bit of cognitive dissonance.
Well, if my disagreement is simply a "cognitive dissonance", I guess you don't have to actually recognize my reasons?
Yes, I agreed with the idea that I believe the statement "properly" in context MEANS some sort of measurement that does not include performance, but nowhere do I state that it CANNOT include performance.
Let's switch to "maintain", since you so clearly indicated that you aren't tied to the "literal utterance" interpretation of "say".

Russ says: "nowhere do I maintain that it CANNOT include performance".

I'm saying that: Yes, there is somewhere you maintain that it CANNOT include performance. An example is in blue above.
Now that I've repeated the text and highlighted an answer to your question in blue in addition to referring to it after I typed it in the first place, are you capable of a reply other than repeating "nowhere did I state that" while completely ignoring my specific discussion of the words where I maintain you did exactly that?

If you are disputing the word "CANNOT", look at my prior post once again and take the opportunity to follow up on the clues I provided to aid in understanding it. That includes the recommendation of the two phrases to consider.

Alternatively, we could discuss the dictionary again. :shock:

I have evaluated the meaning in context and came to a conclusion on what I believe it means.

And responded in disagreement to my discussion of how the full quote indicated something else when it mentioned that something else explicitly. Now we're back to a discussion of "which" and how it indicates the opposite of properly having nothing to do with performance in the full quote. Well, if we're speaking the same language.

How you can bridge the gap to it meaning "I refute any idea or notion that it means somethign different" is beyond me.

I don't happen to believe you, but if it is so, it is so. I guess it would have been shorter to just discuss "which" with you using the dictionary, since my discussion without direct quotes from it didn't seem to help. :-?

So, have we cleared that issue up enough so that we can continue?
No, but we can continue (I assume you mean with the PS 2.0 discussion) anyways. It was your decision to not do so.
You remember me asking you to continue the PS 2.0 discussion, don't you? You know what PMs are, right? I already recommended that you could confine requiring me to prove that English means what I say it does to you, for every particular, to some other location than this thread.

[Tridam]

Look towards the bottom of this page (http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/nv34/index.php?p=12).

This problem is strange. Maybe it is not a PS precision related problem.

I've just finished some tests with a NV34. I can't see any precision problem. I check for range and epsilon. With and without partial precision. Everything seems OK and works like it has to work.

[CapsLock]

Hey, c'mon now, I am not a 3d graphics expert, true. But did anyone bother to check out Mercury Research's site? Its a complete joke.

Please compare:

http://www.mercury.ro/home_ie.html

and

http://www.mercuryresearch.com/

I am having a hard time believing the above site is at all legit, take a good look at it and you'll see what I mean. Especially when compared to the other one.

Caps

[RussSchultz]

Yes, I can read exactly what I said, and what you said for the 4th time, and it still does not amount to me stating/maintaining/communicating that "performance CANNOT be a criteria in properly". It simply amounts to you putting words in my mouth.

He didn't say that, and neither did I. You didn't even begin to assert that until well after my initial response. You seemed to be putting forth your interpretation of what properly meant, so I offered mine and my reasoning. Then, sometime later, you seem to be asserting that I'm suggesting that there was no other possible way to interpret what "properly" means.

Which completely boggles my mind. I said nothing of the sort. I said I don't think that is what he (jerky) meant, not that it CANNOT be what he meant. Matter of fact, I've been pretty much denying it ever since you started asserting it directly.

Its strange that for someone who's so insistant on the correct meaning of words, you're more than willing to conjure meaning into other peoples.

Just like this whole thing over "say". I didn't even begin to suggest that "say" doesn't mean "typed" or "conveyed". YOU DID, as some strange strawman to show that I'm incapable of logical thought because you can't accept that I didn't say what you're saying I did.

[demalion]

Yes, I can read exactly what I said, and what you said for the 4th time, and it still does not amount to me stating/maintaining/communicating that "performance CANNOT be a criteria in properly".

The impasses is that you are saying that "cannot" and "say"..."cannot" mean what I'm saying they mean.

The problem, Russ, is that you are simply wrong. I have the dictionary and discussion that seem to prove it. Do you have a response to this assertion other than simply denying it?

Where we are, and have been for pages, is at a point where you are telling me things are not so, without being required to prove that any of my arguments, proving that they are, are wrong in any way. As I described before: arguing by ego, where things are a matter of the world having to suit you without you ever being accountable to ever show "why" you are right. Simply ignoring this description of your actions does not make it go away, or reduce the accuracy of its correlation to them.

It simply amounts to you putting words in my mouth.

You keep saying this while completely ignoring my demonstration of it being the words you put there . I answer your question of "where did I say that?", and you completely ignore it, do absolutely nothing to prove me wrong, and simply say, again, that you did not. :shock:

The only way this makes any sense is if you are working on "said" meaning only to "literally utter" something...the meaning of "cannot" and "preclude" and all the other words I've mentioned show this in the actual English language. My proposing this is because the least illogical (but not least wrong) of interpretations, and I've given an explanation of why this is the case. If I'm incorrect, my discussion of it is available, with abundant specifics available for you to prove in error. Extending no effort, besides repetition of denial, to do this is, and have me change what I say is not a "right" you have. I'd point out it isn't one I have, but you seem to demonstrate that you know that by the level of detail you require for explanation and then ignore. :shock:

He didn't say that, and neither did I.

Well, I put together a discussion showing that he indeed did say that, and that you did as well. At this point, your behavior has been to consistently (completely so) simply ignore any argument you disagree with. The world (outside your head) doesn't work in such a way where you can just dismiss someone's argument at will without showing some rationale for doing so. This world is outside your head.

It's "too bad" that in this world (outside your head) everybody is capable of being wrong, not just everyone besides you. It's "too bad" that I have an argument that you are completely unwilling to address except by just saying it is wrong, period, and that I don't just agree with everything you say when you do this and abandon what I believe and have gone through the effort to support.

Russ, it's too bad, that to the standard of the objective criteria that's been brought to the conversation, that you are wrong.

But simply saying over and over that things are otherwise doesn't change, prove, demonstrate, or make that proposition "right"...except maybe in your head.


You didn't even begin to assert that until well after my initial response.

:shock:

No, I asserted that this is what Dave H said in my reply to Dave H, exactly like I pointed out to you. See, when I discuss the word "properly" specifically in that post, and say explicitly that Dave H is precluding Jerky's using properly to include performance..and you tell me I never asserted that Dave H precluded properly meaning performance "until well after your initial response"...you're completely failing to make sense.

Having to dissect English for you to prove this is just an example of the lengths you are willing to go to deny the possibility of your being wrong without the bother of being accountable to reason or language itself. :shock:

Jerky: ...FX5200, which we all know is an under-powered card which probably can't run DX9 properly.

Dave H: Compliance with an API is not a matter of opinion. The 5200 can run DX9 perfectly properly.

demalion: Your taking "properly" to mean "compliance" is also an opinion. It is also...an assumption (wrong, thought it could be right in the context of a thread where compliance was the only factor being evaluated) that compliance (in DX 9 usage) is the only allowed meaning of "properly".
For instance, a set of standards could have a minimum fps criteria. "DX 9 compliance" is a specific word usage that excludes that, but only for the specific words used in the phrase. "running DX 9 properly" is not that phrase

Please note that "not a matter of opinion" and "you cannot say that" don't "look alike", but "communicate" the same thing with regard to properly having to mean compliance.

Do I have to go through and replace "compliance" with "standards excluding performance", or does my repeating the (underlined) text where I stated it the first time sufficiently show that your assertion and actuality are incompatible?

I.e., can you even admit error in the face of an unambiguous quote of something otherwise to your statement, or will you just continue to ignore it and state the opposite?

You seemed to be putting forth your interpretation of what properly meant, so I offered mine and my reasoning. Then, sometime later, you seem to be asserting that I'm suggesting that there was no other possible way to interpret what "properly" means.

This statement is based on excluding things I said, and things you ended up attacking when you directly attacked my statement of what was a "matter of opinion". What I was discussing with Dave H concerning what he said could not be matter of opinion is pretty specific. :shock: Does your simply not addressing my quotes of you here make it seem to you that you didn't say it?

Which completely boggles my mind. I said nothing of the sort. I said I don't think that is what he (jerky) meant, not that it CANNOT be what he meant.

This is sophistry. Here is why: What you did was attack and disagree with my reply indicating that it could be what he meant. That "communicates" and "maintains" exactly what I propose it does, that it "could not".

Matter of fact, I've been pretty much denying it ever since you started asserting it directly.

That's all you've been doing. Denial does not make a proof, Russ.
Here Russ, if I now say: "I'm not wrong in any particular"...is our argument over? If that doesn't work for me, why should it for you?

Its strange that for someone who's so insistant on the correct meaning of words, you're more than willing to conjure meaning into other peoples.

It's not conjuring, Russ, it's the English language. If you don't agree, I do believe I've demonstrated that you are in error. That's where we are until you actually demonstrate something other than your ability to repeat yourself, like, for example, that any of my support might be wrong. Pick something...start somewhere.

Just like this whole thing over "say". I didn't even begin to suggest that "say" doesn't mean "typed" or "conveyed".

"Typed" tends to mean literal communication, which is exactly what I propose your usage of say is tied to in order to make any coherent sense (though, say meaning more than that is what I'm discussing). So, this statement ends up not making sense.
Translating "typed" to "maintain", as would represent what I did propose you "began to suggest", all you've established again is that you consider repeating denial proof.

YOU DID, as some strange strawman to show that I'm incapable of logical thought because you can't accept that I didn't say what you're saying I did.

How is it my strawman when I'm eager to discuss something else entirely, and when I'm not proposing it as a substitute for another argument? You're the one who insists on perpetuating this simply by ignoring contrary opinion, and you're the one who dropped other discussion to do so. "I'm not wrong" can be a strawman argument, not just "you are wrong". :shock:
I certainly don't maintain that this proves anything about PS 2.0, which is why, several posts ago, I addressed the PS 2.0 argument separately. Whose decision was it to discuss this in this thread to the exclusion of that?
Sorry that the word you chose seems so inconvenient to what you use it to say... :-?

[RussSchultz]

What you seem to be stuck on is that by my coming to a conclusion that I think opposite of you and stating it, that I preclude you from thinking opposite of me. Which has never been the case in my life. Is that how you think judgement calls and opinions work?

If providing examples and comparisons to how I came to my conclusion amount to demonstrating that any other interpretation CANNOT be, then that's news to me. Especially when I use words like "safe to assume", which means nothing more than "it is clear to me that..."

So, once again, looking at your quote, you seem to point to Dave H coming to a different conclusion than you and running with it to mean that he rejects that properly COULD mean something else than what he took it to. Well, eventually when he got that that's what you were after (that it COULD mean something else), then he agreed: it COULD mean something else.

And I've never disagreed that it COULD mean something else. Except, I guess, by asserting that it means what I think it means.

So, who exactly is the one saying that somebody elses conclusion CANNOT be? Oh...you? Who is the one who cannot be wrong in spite of how the world works? oh...you?

So, have we finally gotten past this point?

[digitalwanderer]

This is the first reason why Mercury Research should be doubted as having any kind of credibility: thier very own freaking website:

http://www.mercuryresearch.com/

Please note as you peruse this marvel of slick PR and technological know-how (not to mention enormous substance), that:

1. It looks like a 12 year old did it!!!!!!!

2. It looks like a 12 year old did it-in a couple of hours!!!!!

3. Where the hell is "Cave Creek, Az"?

Googling "Cave Creek" I have discovered that it is a town of an entire 3,728 people (in 1,571 homes), located 25 miles north of Phoenix. And as anybody can tell you, they know thier IT in Cave Creek. Its like Silicon Valley 2, for petes sake.

Please do not confuse this Mercury Research (http://www.mercuryresearch.com/) with this Mercury Research (http://www.mercury.ro/home_ie.html), because the second one, even though its based in Romania, looks extremely proffessional and legit. It does provide a nice comparison though.

(I love OUR Mercury Research's contact page especially.)

CapsLock

PS. After noting thier products proven worth and industry recognition, as clearly demonstrated by thier website, I am so ready to plunk down 10,000 USD. (Check out the beautiful order form page.)

Could Nvidia sink any lower than hiring/buying these clowns?

Wow, how come no one noticed this before?

edit: population found higher than first reported, assumed more recent and updated
ROFLMFAO~~~~

Thanks, it's some fun facts to laugh at are a welcome diversion from Russ & demalion fighting. :)

BTW-I think saying a 12 year old designed it is being generous to 'em, it looks more like a 9 year old. ;)

[1000101]

hahah reading this thread I've learned a few things.

A. this report is the equivellent of me throwing a couple dimes at some homeless people and asking their opinion on the industry.

B. people cut apart what others say WAY too much. I figured that whole misunderstanding with the initial wording was covered in the span of about 3 posts.

i.e. compliance != performance and its unclear of his meaning.
so it seems the meaning was assumed in 2 different directions and now war is being waged over it.

C. RussSchultz will never admit he is wrong.

D. Demalion appears to "love the sound of his own voice"

Needless to say, if nvidia isn't faltering now, unless they pick up real steam they'll eventually lose alot of marketshare.
Not sure why ww3 needs to be waged over a marketting report though...
oh well..

[j_a_florez]

1. XbitLabs reports on the results of an independently generated Industry Research report and the thread gets titled "NVidia Claims...". Yet, I have not found a Press Release from NVidia claiming anything from the report. (which isn't to say they will or won't at some future date - only that I haven't found an official response to it)

2. Mercury Research and its principles are widely recognized by industry leaders (Intel, ATi, AMD, etc.) and industry leading periodicals (Cnet, InfoWorld, PCWorld, etc) by referencing their data, and through direct quotes commenting on the markets they research. Yet, by reading this thread, you would have thought, that

a) Because their website isn't cool looking or something like that, they must be idiots. Perhaps the reason is as simple as their customers don't care if they have a way cool looking website, and thus the cost to create and maintain a cool looking website is not worth the effort.

b) Because their contact address is in Cave Creek, AZ. They must also be idiots because it isn't near Silicon Valley. Is everyone here close to Silicon Valley? I would think that this community would recognize that with the availability of high bandwidth networking, where you live is less important these days. Also, Cave Creek is just outside Scottsdale, where I'm sure they must have, at a minimum DSL, though if they are successfull, and by every public indication it seems they are, they might have a T1 to whatever address they have in Cave Creek. Which might be something indicating they aren't 12 year old idiots.

Perhaps Dave B. could chime in and give us his, and B3D's, opinion of Mercury Research and the data it generates. And since B3D has referenced the report and its findings on the front page, we might see that it is viewed with some legitimacy here and not jump to conspiritorial bought-and-paid-for conclusions.

And I ain't even gonna comment on the Russ/Demalion...(I don't even know how to describe that exchange)...

Joe

[CapsLock]

j a florez: my post on the credibility, or lack thereof, of Mercury Research, was obviously intended to be humerous as well as so obvious in its point that the matter did not require rigorous logical analysis.

Apparently in regards to this last assumption, I was mistaken.

Do you live in Cave Creek by any chance? No, I see by your ID that this is not the case. Hmmm...

One simple question, name one other industry recognized company, private or public, that has a website anywhere near that pathetic. Just one, and please provide an address.

Caps

[AzBat]

I'm going to have to agree with a lot of Joe's comments regarding Mercurcy Research. They have been around since way before I got started in graphics back in 1995. They are very well known by the graphics/PC industry and were very good competitors to Jon Peddie Associates(JPA) when I worked for them for 4+ years.

Even though they were competitors it upsets me to hear people publicly ridicule them especially when they don't know who they are or what they do. I believe that they use some of the same methods that JPA used(and JPR uses now), but I'm not totally sure. I've set an email to Jon Peddie to see if he could explain it and I'll post whatever I get.

Anyway, during the years I worked for JPA you would see NVIDIA or 3Dfx or whoever jump from JPA to Mercury depending on how good their numbers made them look. So one moment they might use our(JPA) numbers or they may use Mercury's numbers. I believe all of the graphics companies buy not only market research reports from JPR and Mercury, but also weekly newsletters and/or consulting. Yes, they probably do a little of in-house research, but it's easier and cheaper to get JPR or Mercury to get data on their competitors. Provided it doesn't violate any NDAs.

Anyway, a couple of other comments before I leave. Mercury Reseach's web site is the same now as it was when I first designed and maintained JPA's web site back in 96/97. They basically decided against hiring anybody to do one, whereas Jon Peddie personally hired me to do theirs for 4 years. They got me cheap though as I also did benchmark testing, consulted on gaming, wrote articles on games, benchmarks, E3 or GDC for their weekly newsletter and also did some networking and computer support when I flew out to the home in Tiburon(north of San Francisco).

This leads me to the part about Mercury Research being in Cave Creek, AZ. They have always been in the Scottsdale, AZ area. If there's any proof that you can work anywhere, I'm proof of that. I lived in Stillwater, OK and did all my work for JPA at home. They then they would send me to Tiburon, LA, San Jose or Atlanta when things came up like E3, GDC, press conferences, benchmark seminars and even to companies offices to do benchmarking tests for upcoming products. So like I said, you don't have to been in the Bay Area to be in the business.

And lastly, Peter Glaskowsky and Mercury Research are not together. Peter is Editor-in-chief for Microprocessor Report, which is owned by In-Stat/MDR, which is owned by Reed Electronics Group. As for Mercury Research I found this little write-up in InsideChips.Ventures Feb 2002:

Former In-Stat researchers Mike Feibus and Dean McArron founded Mercury Research (MR) in 1989. The company went through a recent downsizing when Feibus left to start his own consulting boutique, Feibus Strategic Consulting. Both companies are relocating operations to their houses. The split-up reportedly resulted from the consolidation of the graphics business, which was a big part of MR’s coverage.

Mercury Research survives with Dean McArron running the company and offering the same report venue. He was formerly VP of technology for In-Stat, with responsibility for technology content in the entire semiconductor research products portfolio. He has also contributed to In-Stat’s Microprocessor Report.

MR offers three annual services covering PC graphic chip sets/technologies, PC processors/chipsets, and PC build costs. Each service is updated quarterly and sells for $9,995.

Feibus was formerly a reporter for the Arizona Republic. He became a strategic marketer for Texas Instruments and later joined In-Stat as senior analyst.

I will note that Feibus Strategic Consulting is now known as TechKnowledge Securities Inc.

Tommy McClain

[CapsLock]

Well, and exactly what kind of a response does a company, especially one which requires a great deal of public recognition of the value of its services, deserve with a website like that?

That site LOOKS like one guy runs it out of his house in Cave Creek, a guy who either isn't smart enough or doesn't have the capitol to afford a decent website. Even though I would assume that such a thing for someone in that business would be painfully obviously essential.:roll:

Especially if one lived in freaking Cave Creek and the website was his public office!!!!!!!:lol:

I don't know how anyone could fail to see this. I don't care how long he's been around. He isn't in the mad genius business, therefore he cannot afford to look like he hasn't a clue as to how a proper business has to represent itself. PLEASE refer to another Mercury Research's website, located in Romania no less, for an idea how other companies do it.

http://www.mercury.ro/home_ie.html of Romania -compare to:
http://www.mercuryresearch.com/

Which one would YOU hire????????????

That was the obvious stuff I thought I didn't have to mention.:wink:

Caps

Not to mention the complete lack of any evidence posted there that would indicate that Mercury Research has a) customers
b) customers you may have heard of
c) industry recognition, testimonials
d) credibility or value

[indio]

Alot of analysts and accounts are currently under federal indictment , so terms like "well respected" and "widely recognized leaders" means diddly now a days.
What do I know about Mercury Research? Not very much.

What I do know is this. The are "cozy" with another organization that does market analysis that has NO credibility.
They are quoted very often by many periodicals. However being quoted alot does not make you truly competant , it only gives you an appearance of competance.
The web page does not reflect a level of professionalism that matches their alleged level of competance.
Their methods of gathering data is not readily apparent. It may be available by request though.
They could be a perfectly reputable company and I have seen nothing that says they are not , but I am not one to take things at face value.

[CapsLock]

indio said:

What I do know is this. The(y) are "cozy" with another organization that does market analysis that has NO credibility.

Well, sir, I am shocked to hear this. Mercury Research not reputable?
:shock:
Of course, thats your word versus a company based very near Phoenix!!
:lol:

Caps

watch it turn out indio is MR's primary competition, then I'll be embarassed [/quote]

[indio]

watch it turn out indio is MR's primary competition, then I'll be embarassed

only if MR starts using a shovel for dirt and not shhh.... nevermind :twisted:

[j_a_florez]

What do I know about Mercury Research? Not very much.

Its apparent.

The are "cozy" with another organization that does market analysis that has NO credibility.

Can you provide a link demonstrating their "cozy"ness? I'm open-minded. As long as I've followed the industry, I've never seen a reputable journalist publish anything that would lead me to join you in your conclusion, but I'm open to hear what you have.

However being quoted alot does not make you truly competant , it only gives you an appearance of competance.

No, being quoted once or twice doesn't show you are competent. Being quoted in press releases from Intel, AMD, ATi, etc. over the past 10 years, however, does demonstrate that you are more likely to be compentent than not.

The web page does not reflect a level of professionalism that matches their alleged level of competance.

I'll bet that if they needed a more professional looking website in order to keep subscribers they'd do it. But I still haven't seen any evidence demonstrating that they are losing business as a result other than from folks here who have admitted they do not know much about the business.

They could be a perfectly reputable company and I have seen nothing that says they are not , but I am not one to take things at face value.

I guess I just don't fall into the disparage their reputation first camp before making an informed decision about a company or persons reputation.

CapsLock: You don't "Hire" MR. You either subscribe to their reports or you don't. Just like you don't "Hire" the NY Times. You subscribe or you don't. I thought that was obvious. Guess not.

[demalion]

What you seem to be stuck on is that by my coming to a conclusion that I think opposite of you and stating it, that I preclude you from thinking opposite of me.
If providing examples and comparisons to how I came to my conclusion amount to demonstrating that any other interpretation CANNOT be, then that's news to me. Especially when I use words like "safe to assume", which means nothing more than "it is clear to me that..."

The substance of your reply is exactly what I already responded to by providing reasoning to address, several times. This is a pretty gross example that you are completely unwilling to address what I actually said, as your replies consist of: ignoring what I said, saying I said something else, ignoring any further evidence provided that I said what I said I did, and repeating the process in your next post.

My reply to every point still stands if you actually want to engage in a discussion of something someone else proposes.

So, once again, looking at your quote, you seem to point to Dave H coming to a different conclusion than you and running with it to mean that he rejects that properly COULD mean something else than what he took it to.

Russ, I provided a logical chain and argument, directly quoting Dave H. What do you think you accomplish by ignoring it when I quote what he actually said along with providing that, to simply propose your replacement?

Well, eventually when he got that that's what you were after (that it COULD mean something else), then he agreed: it COULD mean something else.

Well, I do believe that's because he admitted that he'd been mistaken to make that particular statement. So...he changed it so he wasn't saying anymore that "properly" couldn't be including performance. This did not require that he change his central opinion, only recognize that it precluded Jerky unfairly as stated. He still seems to disagree with me about what Jerky was saying, but his assertion is no longer worded in a way that precludes that Jerky can be saying something valid.
What we're discussing, however, is your support of Dave H's original statement and the problems in it that I discussed, and your insistence that there was no problem with it in the first place.

And I've never disagreed that it COULD mean something else.

"If this is as you propose, then I can say this other example that doesn't make sense, right?" "communicates" disagreement pretty clearly, Russ. So does context and stepping in to oppose what someone is saying. If I thought linking to the dictionary definition of disagreement would help, I'd do so. :shock:

Except, I guess, by asserting that it means what I think it means.

Try addressing a quote of my text, Russ, you do a lousy job of representing anything even remotely close to what I stated when you manufacture it yourself. Atleast if you use a quote, I can point out your errors clearly. Or, well, you could possibly actually begin to point out my errors, as I've asked you to attempt.

So, who exactly is the one saying that somebody elses conclusion CANNOT be? Oh...you?

Eh? Try the dictionary, and the English language. How is it you so easily forget that detail? My assertions about your statement not making sense are based on those "minor" details.

Who is the one who cannot be wrong in spite of how the world works? oh...you?

This doesn't even make sense to me...what "how the world works" are you proposing you just related to disproving me? When "throwing words back at me", please give a bit more thought to the attempt.

So, have we finally gotten past this point?

You mean did your simple repetition of assertions, without any attempt at coherence or actual rebuttal to mine, convince me of anything? :shock: Didn't I give you the answer to this already? "Just repeating yourself doesn't convince me". Will that cover as an answer to all future attempts to repeat yourself and ignore my reasons for disagreeing?

Why exactly are you incapable of replying to the PS 2.0 discussion? Do you have a reason? If so, could you share it? Have you considered merely stopping talk on this topic and picking up that one, instead of the reverse?

Your insistence on getting me to stop saying you were wrong without demonstrating that I was wrong to do so isn't merely a device to avoid that discussion, is it? I've asked several times to continued the PS 2.0 discussion, and you simply omit recognizing the request, seemingly due to focusing on continuing this one.
If I let you have the last word in this branch of discussion, and don't reply, will you pick the PS 2.0 discussion up and address the specifics I provided that are sitting idle from earlier in the thread, or not?
If the answer is yes, say so, have your reply, and continue the PS 2.0 discussion by replying to that part of my post (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14973&#149733)...though I hope you understand that if this is what you require to continue the specific discussion of PS 2.0 performance, posing questions in that "last word" might be a bit futile.

[indio]

What do I know about Mercury Research? Not very much.

Its apparent.

The are "cozy" with another organization that does market analysis that has NO credibility.

Can you provide a link demonstrating their "cozy"ness? I'm open-minded. As long as I've followed the industry, I've never seen a reputable journalist publish anything that would lead me to join you in your conclusion, but I'm open to hear what you have.

However being quoted alot does not make you truly competant , it only gives you an appearance of competance.

No, being quoted once or twice doesn't show you are competent. Being quoted in press releases from Intel, AMD, ATi, etc. over the past 10 years, however, does demonstrate that you are more likely to be compentent than not.

The web page does not reflect a level of professionalism that matches their alleged level of competance.

I'll bet that if they needed a more professional looking website in order to keep subscribers they'd do it. But I still haven't seen any evidence demonstrating that they are losing business as a result other than from folks here who have admitted they do not know much about the business.

They could be a perfectly reputable company and I have seen nothing that says they are not , but I am not one to take things at face value.

I guess I just don't fall into the disparage their reputation first camp before making an informed decision about a company or persons reputation.

CapsLock: You don't "Hire" MR. You either subscribe to their reports or you don't. Just like you don't "Hire" the NY Times. You subscribe or you don't. I thought that was obvious. Guess not.

Here's the coziness . Both founders of MR worked for and currently contribute to Microprocessor Report aka In-Stat/MDR. Microprocessor Report has ZERO credibility. MPR awarded the NV30 "Processor of the Year Award for 2002".
The NV30 wasn't even available for nearly another 6 monthes!!!

http://www.mdronline.com/events/dinner/index.html

here's more coziness Googling The editor-in-chief Peter Glaskowsky and founder of MR Dean McCarron together.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=peter+glaskowsky+dean+Mccarron
hmm... there sure are alot of stories they are quoted together on..
Seems cozy to me

You saying that ATI , Intel , AMD and whoever else quotes them is further illustrating my entire premise that Mercury Research are "hired guns".



Furthermore I am not disparaging their reputation. I am questioning the trustworthiness of the source of information . This is a legitimate step when evaluating any important information. I do not know anything about them and neither does anyone else I might add. That is the entire point . I know VERY little about them so why should I trust the info. Why should you? Is it because every Tom Dick and Harry quotes them?
Ever consider that everyone is quoting them because everyone else is quoting them?

Want some more about MR?
how bout this news story

http://news.com.com/2100-1046_3-1009574.html?tag=fd_top
here's a ridiculous quote for you

Dean McCarron, an analyst with Mercury Research, said benchmark results are valuable for graphics chip makers if they want to claim general bragging rights for the fastest chip. But the results hold little sway with the hard-core PC game players who make up the bulk of the customer base for high-end graphics chips.
Dean McCarron, an analyst with Mercury Research, said benchmark results are valuable for graphics chip makers if they want to claim general bragging rights for the fastest chip. But the results hold little sway with the hard-core PC game players who make up the bulk of the customer base for high-end graphics chips.

this next part is seems right out of an Nvidia Press Release

"What happens is that in the gamer market, the buyers are fairly sophisticated," McCarron said. "They're looking at real-world results--how the product performs on the games they're interested in playing. The overall benchmarks, like what Futuremark does, are more influential for the less sophisticated part of the market."


I think I've demonstrated at the very least the appearance of linkage (with a meager effort I might add) and the justification for deeper analysis of the source.

[RussSchultz]

I'm not willing to move foreward until we can clear up this one item. My little brain can only concentrate on one thing at a time, as you so graciously point out that I apparently can't even concentrate on this one item.

Now, go back, again, consider carefully. Is there any other possible outcome of why I might have said

Demalion: he specifically mentioned performance in his original statment, so it would be safe to assume that the second part (can't run dx9 properly) does not include performance as a criteria.

And if this is all opinion, can I therefor say that the R300 can't run Dx9 (or even dx7 or dx8) properly because the anisotropic isn't good?
Other than attempting to deny the possibility that any other interpretation of the original statement other than mine was possible?

Could it be, perhaps, further clarifying my position and the reasons I came to this position? The first sentence addressing my take on the sentence structure leading me to believe that performance was not included in properly; the second sentence bringing a matter of opinion into the works to parallel the 'minimum FPS' proposition and showing that I think measuring 'properly' in that context is a bit daft.

Or, do you know SO much about what I'm thinking, and/or this statement is SO clear that the only interpretation of such is that "I am right, you MUST be wrong", irregardless of my protestation otherwise?

Where I come from, we present ideas, discuss the ideas therein, and come to some sort of conclusion, whether it be "I disagree" or "oh, yeah, I didn't think about that". As far as I was concerned, we were still in the "lets explore each others ideas phase". (To spare you the effort, and allow your post to be a bit shorter so you don't look like "you like hearing yourself talk", I'll include the obvious intellectual slight for you: Well, you certainly don't seem to demonstrate mastery of that in the previous 6 pages.)

And that, sir, is where my rhetorical retort about who was pushing who's conclusion on whom. Here you are, forcing your view of what I said (that my view was the only onen tenable) as being the only tenable view.

So, in conclusion, I am in no disagreement that I disagree with you over what I think "properly" means in this context. And yes, my interpretation of the statement does preclude opinion in "properly".

I AM in disagreement with you over the assertion that I reject any other view as impossible to hold. None of my statements, directly, or ,in my opinion, indirectly, preclude there is another interpretation of the statement in question that might include "properly". I'm sorry it wasn't written explicitely "The ideas expressed herewithin are simply an opposing opinion offered as the conclusion of the author, and are not to be taken an assertation that they are the only possible conclusion that logic can dictate unless explicitely stated as such." I felt that was a given in any discussion involving opinion or conclusions.

So now, can we move on? Even this tiny little point is taxing my brain to breaking.

[j_a_florez]

Here's the coziness . Both founders of MR worked for and currently contribute to Microprocessor Report aka In-Stat/MDR.

I don't know what they contributed in the past or what is contributed on an on-going basis. I fail to see the reason to disparage their work based on your perception of coziness.

You saying that ATI , Intel , AMD and whoever else quotes them is further illustrating my entire premise that Mercury Research are "hired guns".

No. I am saying that MR publishes data. Intel, ATi, AMD, etc., feel the data they provide is of sufficient quality, i.e. trustworthiness, that they feel comfortable issuing a press release that highlights the data pertinent to their standing in the market at the time of the report. They do not hire MR to make a statement on their behalf. In the auto industry, for example, many carmakers issue press releases when JD Power's data reflects positively on that carmaker. They don't hire JD Power to create the data as I think you are implying of MR.

Furthermore I am not disparaging their reputation

MR make a living by marketing themselves as industry analysts with certain background, experience and knowledge, you disparage their reputation by stating:

a) they create false data in order to make IHV's look good, i.e. their data is untrustworthy
b) they have no knowledge of the industry, i.e. they have no idea what gamers do or don't do
c) they are quoted not because they are knowledgeable in their field of work, but because everyone else quotes them.

If that is not disparaging their reputation then I don't know what is.

Ever consider that everyone is quoting them because everyone else is quoting them?

Tell me you really don't believe this. I'm dumbfounded by this statement. But, whatever.

I think I've demonstrated...

By virtue of that one statement above, you've indeed demonstrated something to me.

In the final analysis, if you don't like 'em, don't like their website, don't like where they live, don't think they know anything about their business, don't think they know their own customers, don't think they are trustworthy: don't buy their product. Maybe everyone reading this thread agrees with you and thinks they are bought and paid for, and I've wasted my time. But at the very least I've tried to add balance to the thread. Oh well. Mea culpa.

[digitalwanderer]

Here's the coziness . Both founders of MR worked for and currently contribute to Microprocessor Report aka In-Stat/MDR.

I don't know what they contributed in the past or what is contributed on an on-going basis. I fail to see the reason to disparage their work based on your perception of coziness.

You saying that ATI , Intel , AMD and whoever else quotes them is further illustrating my entire premise that Mercury Research are "hired guns".

No. I am saying that MR publishes data. Intel, ATi, AMD, etc., feel the data they provide is of sufficient quality, i.e. trustworthiness, that they feel comfortable issuing a press release that highlights the data pertinent to their standing in the market at the time of the report. They do not hire MR to make a statement on their behalf. In the auto industry, for example, many carmakers issue press releases when JD Power's data reflects positively on that carmaker. They don't hire JD Power to create the data as I think you are implying of MR.

Furthermore I am not disparaging their reputation

MR make a living by marketing themselves as industry analysts with certain background, experience and knowledge, you disparage their reputation by stating:

a) they create false data in order to make IHV's look good, i.e. their data is untrustworthy
b) they have no knowledge of the industry, i.e. they have no idea what gamers do or don't do
c) they are quoted not because they are knowledgeable in their field of work, but because everyone else quotes them.

If that is not disparaging their reputation then I don't know what is.

Ever consider that everyone is quoting them because everyone else is quoting them?

Tell me you really don't believe this. I'm dumbfounded by this statement. But, whatever.

I think I've demonstrated...

By virtue of that one statement above, you've indeed demonstrated something to me.

In the final analysis, if you don't like 'em, don't like their website, don't like where they live, don't think they know anything about their business, don't think they know their own customers, don't think they are trustworthy: don't buy their product. Maybe everyone reading this thread agrees with you and thinks they are bought and paid for, and I've wasted my time. But at the very least I've tried to add balance to the thread. Oh well. Mea culpa.
No offense, but you've just questioned his questioning of their credibility rather than offering any proof of their legitimacy.

And no, I don't think I should be required to give the benefit of the doubt to MR in this instance after all the cited connections to Peter Glaskowhathisface and their rather POS website.

What makes you think they're credible?

[CapsLock]

j a florez wrote:

"CapsLock: You don't "Hire" MR. You either subscribe to their reports or you don't. Just like you don't "Hire" the NY Times. You subscribe or you don't. I thought that was obvious. Guess not."

Very lame comeback. 1. you couldn't think of an original put down
2. using the term "hire" when "subscribing" to a market analyst's product is legitimate. A company employs (ie.hires) Mercury Research to do statistical analysis for them by "subscribing" to thier quarterly report.

You cut me to the quick sir. :roll:

More importantly, I asked you for 1 (one) measly example of any proffessional website (never mind one for a company so lofty as to advise or inform Intel and Amd) that looks anywhere near that stupid and unproffessional.

Geez, one would think having "subscibers" as prestigious as Intel and Amd, one might not only brag about it (with appropriate proof, links, testimonials) but also be able to afford a proffessional web designer. hmmmm.....

Isn't it strange how the famous Microprocessor Report can name a GPU (NV30) as chip of the year, and then months later the company that makes it (Nvidia) calls it a failure!!!!!

:lol::lol::lol: hmmmmm......

Caps

[nelg]

Unless anyone has actually read one of their reports, I do not think we are in any position to say definitely, one way or another, if they provide good analysis. That being said it is possible that they produce the type of work that allows companies to quote from in order to garner good press. Much like the movie industry can always find a reviewer to say "THE BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME" about any crappy move. In this capacity they perform a valuable service to their customers. The attention from this remark alone (most Dx9 parts) is worth many times more than the subscription cost.

[RussSchultz]

A small question:

Is the thought that 60-70% of the DX9 cards out there being 5200's that outlandish?

[digitalwanderer]

A small question:

Is the thought that 60-70% of the DX9 cards out there being 5200's that outlandish?
No, it's just the thought of a 5200 being considered a real DX9 card that I personally have a problem with. :)

[RussSchultz]

No, it's just the thought of a 5200 being considered a real DX9 card that I personally have a problem with.

You wouldn't happen to be a reviewer, would you? ;)

[indio]

J A ,
I think your taking me the wrong way. :?
What I'm saying is this.
Let's just imagine I'm fresh out of college with my Business degree.
I am hired by some start up business to gather the type of information MR provides. How am I to gauge there legitimacy? By the shear number of times they are referenced and quoted? You think they'd have some type of fact sheet or something with maybe an overview of how they reach there conclusions. I guess everyone should just jump off the Brooklyn bridge because everyone else seems to be doing it.
Do you think Mercury Research is above all reproach??? If so , why?
What I am saying is I have found zero information out about them that would give them the benefit of the doubt , quite the contrary. I have found enough to make me suspicious enough to dig deeper than a press clipping.
BTW where is the information that enumerates the times they are correct? Do there numbers match IHV numbers? If not what is the margin of error? Do they issue follow-up corrections? As powerful and oft quoted as these ppl. are some transparency is in order.

They are a big voice in the industry. The companies you mentioned know that these reports move "the market" ,whether correctly or incorrectly is irrelevant. That in and of itself is reason enough to buy the report. It is so a company knows what others are reading about them and can react accordingly.
The bean counters of the companies you've mentioned are most likely significantly more accurate in gauging marketshare , however that doesn't mean they can off-handly dismiss a report that is going to be quoted all over the media affecting there stocks price and system builder buying patterns.
The more times MR is quoted the more power they gain and likewise the more times ppl. will perceive them as expert and legitimate. It just grows from there. What I'm asking is this simple question.
Where is the basis of this reliance and trust? When did the industry start relying on MR and why? I think these are all fair questions.

[CapsLock]

Sure its possible that mercury research is legit, but woah! how could any real company invovled in the IT industry actually have a web site that amateurish? What are the odds. It would be like finding a heart surgeon driving a kia or a yugo. But..... All I'm really trying to say/do, besides having fun at someone else's expence, is point out how this IS somewhat suspicious. Image is everything in a information service business. You have to always appear as proffessional and respectable as possible, if you want people to believe in the value of the service/information your selling. You also have to appear connected, like there was a reason people should believe that you know things about inside information. Who the bleep would seriously start/run a business to analyze the computer industry, and NOT be where the industry was? (Thats why there is a silicon valley and not a silicon coast or continent) Let alone in Cave Creek Az (thats too much, I'm beginning to think I made that up) Seems crazy to me, but what the hell do I know?

Caps

[CapsLock]

YA-all that stuff indio said too! Sorry I didn't see your post before posting myself, seems a bit redundant now...

Well, we're both coming from the same place I think indio. :D

Caps

[Slides]

I don't even see why they need a professional website if they already have made a name for themselves in the industry?

[CapsLock]

Good point Slides.

Why, if anyone wanted to:
find out who they were,
or to "subscribe" to thier service
or to contact them....

They could just drop on by in Cave Creek, its only 25 miles north of Phoenix, they could sit on the porch and have a beer, talk directly to the man himself.

Or just write a little note and drop it in the mail. Perhaps ask people at the mall if anyone knows anything about them.

:roll:

Caps

check that: no one could know they were in Cave Creek to visit, or thier mail address or phone number...I guess that just leaves going to the mall and asking around

[j_a_florez]

indio,

How am I to gauge there legitimacy?

I think you are right that critical analysis of the data they publish is the best way to measure the veracity of what they produce. Problem is, I don't know of anyone else who is providing this data in this sector. Gartner, IDC and Forrestor research are a few that follow the IT sector in general, but no one else does the legwork to as great a detail as these guys. My, perhaps flawed, logic tells me that if they produced inaccurate data that effected a negative change to the stock of a company, they'd be brought up on it very, very quickly. For example, while the data indicates that NVidia maintained market share in the core desktop sector, they dropped significantly in the mobile market. Every analyst on the Street worth their salt knows the mobile market is where there is still some growth. End result: NVidia stock goes down, Ati stock goes up. If the data were so inaccurate, I don't think the legal dept at NVidia would be too happy. And two guys with an, admittedly bad website in hobokensville would be out a job - not because of NVidia, but because EVERY company who's in the report would view the report as suspect and bring out the REAL hired guns...lawyers. We know NVIdia isn't shy about its legal dept., but I suspect this is true of all of the companies listed in the report.

Do you think Mercury Research is above all reproach??? If so , why?

No I do not. And conversely, I do not think they deserve to be personally or professionally vilified either - especially when we've admitted that we do not know much about them.

What I am saying is I have found zero information out about them that would give them the benefit of the doubt

Good for you. I'm saying I don't start from a position that requires I cast or bestow benefit from doubt. I plainly don't see the relationship that causes you to cast doubt upon them.

Where is the basis of this reliance and trust? When did the industry start relying on MR and why? I think these are all fair questions.

I think these are fair questions. I'd be very interested in seeing B3D contact MR and interview them. I doubt that they (MR) provide data solely to make companies look good. Obviously a couple of years ago when they were saying that ATi was losing marketshare faster than Clinton was dropping his pants, ATI wasn't happy about the data. I've seen a couple of the quarterly reports, and as I recall it was a lot of data. I don't recall reading their method of data collection however.

The point of my original post was soley to provide balance to, what seemed to me at the time, a lopsided thread. I appreciate your reply, and can agree that the questions you posed at the end of the post are indeed interesting, valid and fair.

(moved a comma)

[Slides]

Good point Slides.

Why, if anyone wanted to:
find out who they were,
or to "subscribe" to thier service
or to contact them....

They could just drop on by in Cave Creek, its only 25 miles north of Phoenix, they could sit on the porch and have a beer, talk directly to the man himself.

Or just write a little note and drop it in the mail. Perhaps ask people at the mall if anyone knows anything about them.

:roll:

Caps

check that: no one could know they were in Cave Creek to visit, or thier mail address or phone number...I guess that just leaves going to the mall and asking around

They're not a Wallmart. They are offering B2B services. I'm sure they have contacts with marketing firms.

[chavvdarrr]

IMHO
The whole "their site is not overloaded with flash/grafics/fancy java/vb scripts, so it's crap " is BULLSHIT.
Having simple , yet readable site is bad
Having site which will look almost same way on PC/MAC/PDA is bad
Using more and more "advanced" technics (java, vbscript, flash, c++, .net, XML.... add your "favorite") just to show you know about its existence is good.
What you offer is not important, how you look-like IS.

LOL

My POV - whole main page is 49KB, of which 6KB in html, setting "pictures off" does not change the view&information one receives. The site is good for one who seeks info, but not if you look for "dancing monkeys".
/IMHO

Oh, and about 5200 & DX9.
1 question
Is 5200 able to execute ps&vs 2.0 instructions?
Please be simple - Yes or No.
Otherwise - why not switching the theme? - arguing again and again if 9200 supports DX8, after all 9200 is not capable of running current games which use DX8 techniques, in 1600x1200 with 16xAF and 8xAA, yeah?

Since when the resolution&speed dominate over compatibility?


angry tirade from one who played Quake1 on 486 & Trident 8900 at ~ 6fps @ 320x200. It was great game, for god's sake - the only mode supported by first "Wolfenstein was 320x200... :)

[demalion]

I'm not willing to move foreward until we can clear up this one item.
Well, atleast that is an unambiguous statement of your intent. When you do this by refusing to take any opportunity to clear up anything, I think it shows we're talking about two different meanings of "clear up". Witness that your tactic of conversation persists in leaving abandoning lines of discussion one after another.
Your "clearing up" something seems predicated on you being right. Mine is predicated on actually having had a discussion, which you seem singularly determined to avoid. This would be a definition of discussion where logic, arguments of support, and some accountability to objective criteria (like language) are important, in case your definition is different.

My little brain can only concentrate on one thing at a time, as you so graciously point out that I apparently can't even concentrate on this one item.
Pardon? I said you are concentrating on this one item, just that you're not trying to discuss it. I've even given my reasons, but you don't address them when you simply assert otherwise. Which is a demonstration of what I'm asserting, as I've mentioned.

Now, go back, again, consider carefully. Is there any other possible outcome of why I might have said

Demalion: he specifically mentioned performance in his original statment, so it would be safe to assume that the second part (can't run dx9 properly) does not include performance as a criteria.

And if this is all opinion, can I therefor say that the R300 can't run Dx9 (or even dx7 or dx8) properly because the anisotropic isn't good?
Other than attempting to deny the possibility that any other interpretation of the original statement other than mine was possible?

You see, Russ, when I quoted this text of yours, and give an explanation, replying by simply replacing my explanation completely and proposing your own just requires me to repeat my explanation again to point out the error in yours.

Could it be, perhaps, further clarifying my position and the reasons I came to this position?
Sure, and what you seem unable to grasp is that this "communicates" something. Give careful thought to "yes" and "no" and how their meaning relative to a discussion is defined by context.
You know, I explained (not just stated) this before where I quoted you, right?
The first sentence addressing my take on the sentence structure leading me to believe that performance was not included in properly;

Objective criteria: your take lacks correlation to making sense in the English language. I've shown why, asked you to consider what I stated and respond with a demonstration of how it does. This repetition of denial is all you've provided instead, ad nauseum.
Hey, this was explained (not just stated) when I quoted you before too. See a pattern?
the second sentence bringing a matter of opinion into the works to parallel the 'minimum FPS' proposition and showing that I think measuring 'properly' in that context is a bit daft.
Ayep, this disagreed with it being a matter of opinion, as I just said, and said the first time I discussed your text. :shock:
Seems sort of silly for you to say you "never disagreed that it COULD mean something else", when what you just specified you were disagreeing with was discussing "a matter of opinion" definitively and explicitly for the purpose of proposing that properly "COULD mean something else".
You're stance is not compatible with logic, and it won't be shown to be compatible by its repetition, Russ.

Or, do you know SO much about what I'm thinking, and/or this statement is SO clear that the only interpretation of such is that "I am right, you MUST be wrong", irregardless of my protestation otherwise?

Well, the only problems with the second protestation is 1) I've provide an answer to it before, several times, 2) I've specifically asked you to provide an alternative explanation, which is not accurately characterized as my saying "I am right, you MUST be wrong". However, the "protestation otherwise" is exactly right, if you recognize a difference between "protestation" and my usage of "discussion" along what I specified.


Where I come from, we present ideas, discuss the ideas therein, and come to some sort of conclusion, whether it be "I disagree" or "oh, yeah, I didn't think about that".

First of all, you continue to forget the simple possibility of "I'm wrong", Russ.
Second of all, your usage of "discuss" is incompatible with mine, as I've specified.
An interesting example: if I said "it is safe to assume your usage of discuss can't include simply repeating an assertion", because of the possibilities of the meaning of the word as defined objectively, I'd be precluding what you could say and doing so wrongly.
What I am instead saying is that my usage of discuss is distinct from what you've demonstrated by your "discussion", as I've repeatedly established throughout this discussion.
I could, however, argue that you can't equate your usage of "discussion" to mine, because I've established further details and provided discussion of how your conduct is lacking them.

...Russ makes up an intellectual slight for me to say to him, as an alternative to pointing out where I actually did so where I asked him to... :shock:

And that, sir, is where my rhetorical retort about who was pushing who's conclusion on whom. Here you are, forcing your view of what I said (that my view was the only onen tenable) as being the only tenable view.

No, English, logic, and reasoning are forcing a view of what you "maintained", "communicated", "agreed with", "defended", etc. I'm not just stating it, I'm demonstrating why I propose that. When you recognize that there is a difference between the two, will your behavior change?

So, in conclusion, I am in no disagreement that I disagree with you over what I think "properly" means in this context.
OK.
And yes, my interpretation of the statement does preclude opinion in "properly".
Sure.
What we are in dispute over is what you said before, however. Was the contrast between your behavior and Dave H's too inconvenient to deal with, or are you just dropping that discussion until you forget about my reply?

I AM in disagreement with you over the assertion that I reject any other view as impossible to hold.
OK, but, as I said, what we are discussing what you said. I hope you understand why I snip the rest of your commentary.
So now, can we move on? Even this tiny little point is taxing my brain to breaking.
I'm not willing to move foreward until we can clear up this one item.
Apparently not. Why are you asking me?

[RussSchultz]

Ayep, this disagreed with it being a matter of opinion, as I just said, and said the first time I discussed your text.
Seems sort of silly for you to say you "never disagreed that it COULD mean something else", when what you just specified you were disagreeing with was discussing "a matter of opinion" definitively and explicitly for the purpose of proposing that properly "COULD mean something else".
You're stance is not compatible with logic, and it won't be shown to be compatible by its repetition, Russ.

You seem to be unable to separate:
1) the concept of me interpreting the sentence to not be an opinion, and
2) the concept of the interpretation itself being an opinion/judgement.

[digitalwanderer]

about 5200 & DX9.
1 question
Is 5200 able to execute ps&vs 2.0 instructions?
Please be simple - Yes or No.
No.

Before you go correcting me, the drivers do the ps & vs 2.0 instructions....the 5200 is incapable of doing it in hardware.

So simply put, no.

EDITED BITS: And I'm rooting for Russ over demalion just because his answers take so much less time to read! ;)

[RussSchultz]

about 5200 & DX9.
1 question
Is 5200 able to execute ps&vs 2.0 instructions?
Please be simple - Yes or No.
No.

Before you go correcting me, the drivers do the ps & vs 2.0 instructions....the 5200 is incapable of doing it in hardware.

So simply put, no.

EDITED BITS: And I'm rooting for Russ over demalion just because his answers take so much less time to read! ;)
Hrm, I hope you don't stop rooting for me when I tell you that your understanding of how the 5200 works is wrong--or at the very least, mostly wrong.

There's no way you could do pixel shader instructions in software in realtime.

Vertex shaders you could get some sort of reasonable performance, but I beleive that if you check vertex throughput numbers, they're pretty high and much higher than any software solutions.

[digitalwanderer]

about 5200 & DX9.
1 question
Is 5200 able to execute ps&vs 2.0 instructions?
Please be simple - Yes or No.
No.

Before you go correcting me, the drivers do the ps & vs 2.0 instructions....the 5200 is incapable of doing it in hardware.

So simply put, no.

EDITED BITS: And I'm rooting for Russ over demalion just because his answers take so much less time to read! ;)
Hrm, I hope you don't stop rooting for me when I tell you that your understanding of how the 5200 works is wrong--or at the very least, mostly wrong.

There's no way you could do pixel shader instructions in software in realtime.

Vertex shaders you could get some sort of reasonable performance, but I beleive that if you check vertex throughput numbers, they're pretty high and much higher than any software solutions.
I haven't used a 5200 first-hand yet so there ain't no way I'm gonna mind anyone correcting me on info about it. :)

Thanks Russ, I stand corrected.

[demalion]

Ayep, this disagreed with it being a matter of opinion, as I just said, and said the first time I discussed your text.
Seems sort of silly for you to say you "never disagreed that it COULD mean something else", when what you just specified you were disagreeing with was discussing "a matter of opinion" definitively and explicitly for the purpose of proposing that properly "COULD mean something else".
You're stance is not compatible with logic, and it won't be shown to be compatible by its repetition, Russ.
You seem to be unable to separate:
1) the concept of me interpreting the sentence to not be an opinion, and
This is supposed to be what I'm proposing, right?

The concept of saying "No" to someone saying "Properly can include performance perfectly validly, and you are wrong to provide an argument based on the precept that it cannot".

2) the concept of the interpretation itself being an opinion/judgement.

The concept of saying "No" to something else entirely.

It looks to me like you are either you are mistaken in your interpretation of what the first No means in its context (which is what I discuss in the quote above), or are proposing that I was talking about something else when you said "No". If you do think I was talking about something else, simply explain what it was and give your reasons.

I've already discussed both possibilities before, but your replies have been based on ignoring those discussions and simply stating that their premises are wrong without showing why.

Can you finish this line of discussion and not simply skip over what I've said? I.e., not do the same thing again?

[digitalwanderer]

Ayep, this disagreed with it being a matter of opinion, as I just said, and said the first time I discussed your text.
Seems sort of silly for you to say you "never disagreed that it COULD mean something else", when what you just specified you were disagreeing with was discussing "a matter of opinion" definitively and explicitly for the purpose of proposing that properly "COULD mean something else".
You're stance is not compatible with logic, and it won't be shown to be compatible by its repetition, Russ.
You seem to be unable to separate:
1) the concept of me interpreting the sentence to not be an opinion, and
This is supposed to be what I'm proposing, right?

The concept of saying "No" to someone saying "Properly can include performance perfectly validly, and you are wrong to provide an argument based on the precept that it cannot".

2) the concept of the interpretation itself being an opinion/judgement.

The concept of saying "No" to something else entirely.

It looks to me like you are either you are mistaken in your interpretation of what the first No means in its context (which is what I discuss in the quote above), or are proposing that I was talking about something else when you said "No". If you do think I was talking about something else, simply explain what it was and give your reasons.

I've already discussed both possibilities before, but your replies have been based on ignoring those discussions and simply stating that their premises are wrong without showing why.

Can you finish this line of discussion and not simply skip over what I've said? I.e., not do the same thing again?
This is not intended as a flame or to be disrespectful, but what in the heck are the two of you even arguing over anymore?

Could you just say it in simple words, and only a few of them?

[RussSchultz]

This is supposed to be what I'm proposing, right?

The concept of saying "No" to someone saying "Properly can include performance perfectly validly, and you are wrong to provide an argument based on the precept that it cannot".
So, you're suggesting that simply by offering my interpretation and my reasoning, I'm somehow stating that your interpretation cannot be, with certainty.

Like I said: you seem unable to grasp the difference between a statement of differing interpretation and a statement of denial of differing interpretation.

[Doomtrooper]

There's no way you could do pixel shader instructions in software in realtime.

Vertex shaders you could get some sort of reasonable performance, but I beleive that if you check vertex throughput numbers, they're pretty high and much higher than any software solutions.

Maybe so, but vertex shaders can be emulated on a fairly fast CPU and Pixel Shader Speed of a FX 5200 Is too Slow to be considered a 'feature' as enabling Pixel Shader effects in a game would bring the game to unplayable levels, and that is all that matters.
The Pixel Shader speed is more imortant than Vertex Shader support IMO, there is still lots of game engines that use very little of Vertex Shaders, in fact UT 2003 engine doesn't use them at all.

We don't use vertex shaders in UT2003 though we do use multiple vertex streams in conjunction with the fixed function pipeline which is the reason why we have to revert to software vertex processing on SiS cards like the 315 or Xabre as they only expose one vertex stream

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2855&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=20

http://hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/06/IMG0006007.gif

[Tridam]

These results are normal in regard to the hardware implementation of pixel shader in FX5200.

In PS 1.1 a GeForce FX 5200 has half the units a GeForce 4 Ti has.

In PS 2.0 it's strange. With some other tests I have no difference between FX5200 and 5600.

In PS 1.4 there's a difference. FX5600 seems a lot faster than FX5200.

[RussSchultz]

Maybe so, but vertex shaders can be emulated on a fairly fast CPU and Pixel Shader Speed of a FX 5200 Is too Slow to be considered a 'feature' as enabling Pixel Shader effects in a game would bring the game to unplayable levels, and that is all that matters.
The Pixel Shader speed is more imortant than Vertex Shader support IMO, there is still lots of game engines that use very little of Vertex Shaders, in fact UT 2003 engine doesn't use them at all.

I'm glad you have your opinion that they're too slow to be considered a feature.

That wasn't the question asked.

The question was "are PS2.0 instructions done in hardware on the 5200?"

The answer is clearly yes.

But, to address your "too slow" opinion, consider that they are, even by your graph, half the speed of the 5600, and 1/4 the speed of the 9500. This would lead one to believe that you could run at 1/4 the resolution of the 9500 and still get the same framerates. That would be, for example, the difference of no AA at 1024x768 on the 5200 compared with 4x AA at 1024x768 on the 9500. Or no AA at 800x600 at a higher frame rate. (Assuming framerates are solely a ratio that mirrors the ratios of PS2.0 scores in 3dmk03). In that light, the it seems it is, indeed, a feature that has usefulness. Unless you're proposing that the 9500 is useless also, just 1/4 as useless.

And that doesn't even address that PS2.0, for the near future, will only influence a fraction of the framerate simply because no card can run them at truly acceptable speeds. Even more so that the bulk of the cards sold that can do DX9 PS20 shaders are in the "too slow" category.

[digitalwanderer]

Maybe so, but vertex shaders can be emulated on a fairly fast CPU and Pixel Shader Speed of a FX 5200 Is too Slow to be considered a 'feature' as enabling Pixel Shader effects in a game would bring the game to unplayable levels, and that is all that matters.
The Pixel Shader speed is more imortant than Vertex Shader support IMO, there is still lots of game engines that use very little of Vertex Shaders, in fact UT 2003 engine doesn't use them at all.

I'm glad you have your opinion that they're too slow to be considered a feature.

That wasn't the question asked.

The question was "are PS2.0 instructions done in hardware on the 5200?"

The answer is clearly yes.

But, to address your "too slow" opinion, consider that they are, even by your graph, half the speed of the 5600, and 1/4 the speed of the 9500. This would lead one to believe that you could run at 1/4 the resolution of the 9500 and still get the same framerates. That would be, for example, the difference of no AA at 1024x768 on the 5200 compared with 4x AA at 1024x768 on the 9500. Or no AA at 800x600 at a higher frame rate. (Assuming framerates are solely a ratio that mirrors the ratios of PS2.0 scores in 3dmk03). In that light, the it seems it is, indeed, a feature that has usefulness. Unless you're proposing that the 9500 is useless also, just 1/4 as useless.

And that doesn't even address that PS2.0, for the near future, will only influence a fraction of the framerate simply because no card can run them at truly acceptable speeds. Even more so that the bulk of the cards sold that can do DX9 PS20 shaders are in the "too slow" category.
I beg to differ. If it can't run DX9 functions well enough to be useful it ain't truly a DX9 part, it's just PR window dressing.

Sorry, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. The 5200 is a sadly under-powered excuse for even an entry-level gaming card. :(

[RussSchultz]

So, 1024x768 isn't useful? 800x600? Where does 'useful' begin?

[digitalwanderer]

So, 1024x768 isn't useful? 800x600? Where does 'useful' begin?
But what kind of performance are we talking about at those levels right now, not to mention that titles are only going to get more and more demanding.

My V5 5500 can game at 1024x768, but it can't do it very well. :(

Sorry, I really shouldn't be making an opinion since I haven't really had a chance to try one yet...but from the reviews I've seen I really don't think it's got enough power to be considered a good card.

[RussSchultz]

If the 9500 can run at 4xAA in 1024x768, then the 5200 can run at the same framerate without AA.

If the 9500 can run at 2xAA in 1024x768, then the 5200 can run at a slightly lower framerate at 800x600.

(Again, assuming that the game framerate directly by the ratio of the PS2.0 scores in 3dmk03 and the ratio of the resolution resolution)

Is that still useless for an entry level card?

You or I might not buy one, but for the average person they're "OK", and they do their job.

[andypski]

If the 9500 can run at 4xAA in 1024x768, then the 5200 can run at the same framerate without AA.

If the 9500 can run at 2xAA in 1024x768, then the 5200 can run at a slightly lower framerate at 800x600.

I understand where you are coming from, but I really wouldn't make a sweeping generalisation like that. Depending on how limited a particular application is by factors such as the pixel shader and vertex shader then 4xAA can potentially come for very little frame rate hit (multisampling, remember).


Quick example - a 9600 Pro might do about 29fps in the 3Dmark03 PS2.0 test without AA and 23fps with 4xAA (about 79% of the noAA performance). A 9500 would be a bit slower than this, but not much.

I don't think that a 5200 would get close to 20 fps in that test even without AA (well, not if it's rendering stuff correctly ;)) It would probably somewhere closer to 10 fps at best.

The same thing could easily be the case in other applications that make extensive use of longish pixel shaders.

[digitalwanderer]

You or I might not buy one, but for the average person they're "OK", and they do their job.
The question I ask myself is, "Would I recomend it to someone as an entry level card?"; and to that I answer "NO!". :)

Can we agree to disagree on this one since it is just an opinion call? I'm not saying I am absolutely right here, I'm just giving me most honest opinion that I do not think it has sufficient power to even be considered an entry level card for gaming. :)

[RussSchultz]

If the 9500 can run at 4xAA in 1024x768, then the 5200 can run at the same framerate without AA.

If the 9500 can run at 2xAA in 1024x768, then the 5200 can run at a slightly lower framerate at 800x600.

I understand where you are coming from, but I really wouldn't make a sweeping generalisation like that. Depending on how limited a particular application is by factors such as the pixel shader and vertex shader then 4xAA can potentially come for very little frame rate hit (multisampling, remember).
Of course, that's why my disclaimer was there.

Though, presuming the 9500 would get its "free" 4xMSAA, then the 5200 would too. Or not?

[andypski]

Though, presuming the 9500 would get its "free" 4xMSAA, then the 5200 would too. Or not?

It might do, but the problem is that it wouldn't necessarily get close to the same performance as the 9500 even without AA, so the fact that it might get AA close to free wouldn't necessarily be of any use.

[digitalwanderer]

If the 9500 can run at 4xAA in 1024x768, then the 5200 can run at the same framerate without AA.

If the 9500 can run at 2xAA in 1024x768, then the 5200 can run at a slightly lower framerate at 800x600.

I understand where you are coming from, but I really wouldn't make a sweeping generalisation like that. Depending on how limited a particular application is by factors such as the pixel shader and vertex shader then 4xAA can potentially come for very little frame rate hit (multisampling, remember).
Of course, that's why my disclaimer was there.

Though, presuming the 9500 would get its "free" 4xMSAA, then the 5200 would too. Or not?
Not. :)

[RussSchultz]

Though, presuming the 9500 would get its "free" 4xMSAA, then the 5200 would too. Or not?

It might do, but the problem is that it wouldn't necessarily get close to the same performance as the 9500 even without AA, so the fact that it might get AA close to free wouldn't necessarily be of any use.

Sure, but then we're back to the 1/4 ratio, no?

(Even though, I think historically games have shown us, that its never a direct ratio of the fillrate, but that the ratio in performance delta seems to be much less than the ratio of fillrate would suggest. In otherwords, a 2x improvement in fillrate doesn't translate to a 2x improment in framerate, it translates to much less than a 2x improvement in framerate.)

[demalion]

This is not intended as a flame or to be disrespectful, but what in the heck are the two of you even arguing over anymore?

Could you just say it in simple words, and only a few of them?

Russ requires that I believe things that I propose don't make sense when considering: logic, English, and the discussion I've proposed to him multiple times connected with these things, and he refuses to provide support for why he is right in this requirement (he simply repeats that he is right). He has flatly refused every alternative to continuing this in this thread that I've offered.

What purpose a discussion serves, because Russ is simply demanding that he isn't accountable to provide support for his viewpoint except his belief in it, or even to simply show why my own assertions counter to it are wrong? The only one I ssee is to allow Russ to say whatever he wants without possibility of him being wrong until such time as it suits him to believe it (in this particular case, that seems to be "never"). I.e., I can't prove him wrong with a discussion of the objective criteria above as long he ignores them.

That's where we are.

[demalion]

So, 1024x768 isn't useful? 800x600? Where does 'useful' begin?

Hey, you know someone tried to hold a discussion with you to answer this. Why are you are ignoring it? Math too inconvenient? :-?

[digitalwanderer]

What purpose a discussion serves, because Russ is simply demanding that he isn't accountable to provide support for his viewpoint except his belief in it, or even to simply show why my own assertions counter to it are wrong?
So y'all mean you're just arguing over if Russ' opinion is a fact or in fact his opinion y'mean...right? :|

[indio]

My question is this. Is the 5200 really doing DX9 level PS 2.0 (that means at minimum precision) ? Is the 5200 doing a minimum of FP24?
This smells like the next-gen GF4mx.

[digitalwanderer]

This smells like the next-gen GF4mx.
That's my big problem with this card. I recomend a GF4ti over it any day! (How come I have a feeling not a whole lot of people are going to jump up and disagree with me on that one... ;) )

[demalion]

This is supposed to be what I'm proposing, right?

The concept of saying "No" to someone saying "Properly can include performance perfectly validly, and you are wrong to provide an argument based on the precept that it cannot".
So, you're suggesting that simply by offering my interpretation and my reasoning, I'm somehow stating that your interpretation cannot be, with certainty.

No, I'm proposing what you just quoted me as saying in contrast to just saying "No" in isolation or to something completely different.. Adding the "simply" in there changes it from what I said in this quote, to the "saying 'No' to something else entirely" which I already discussed. I.e., what I say in the quote is specifically not what you just said. :shock:

"Should I buy this car?" "No"
"Is buying this car a good idea?" "No"

There is no "simply saying 'No'" without context, Russ, even if it is inconvenient to your not wanting to admit an error. English does not allow you to propose that the two statements of "No" above communicate the same thing. Even if you protest you were "simply saying 'No", so can't be accused of saying something about the car.
Maybe if you'd discussed my first reply to your initial post instead of simply skipping over it, this wouldn't be news to you?

Like I said: you seem unable to grasp the difference between a statement of differing interpretation and a statement of denial of differing interpretation.

No, Russ, you are simply unwilling to grasp basic English. :shock:

Russ, I already addressed exactly why this statement is wrong, untrue, unrelated to actuality. What do you accomplish by ignoring each and every time I do so to simply say it again? Is it supposed to be hard to see that you just skipped over my discussion in its entirety, again? To whom?

[demalion]

What purpose a discussion serves, because Russ is simply demanding that he isn't accountable to provide support for his viewpoint except his belief in it, or even to simply show why my own assertions counter to it are wrong?
So y'all mean you're just arguing over if Russ' opinion is a fact or in fact his opinion y'mean...right? :|

I prefer to use "fact" for something more concrete. I think it would be closer to say we're arguing over whether Russ was wrong when he said something. Proposing "fact" implies there is no possibility of Russ being right, when what I'm actually proposing is that Russ refuses to believe anything else but also refuses to prove it except by saying he is right over and over.
Of course, this, as well as English, logic, etc., leads me to believe that he is, in "fact", wrong, but all I'm insisting on is an actual discussion where the possibility of him being right and wrong can both be represented. He, on the other hand, seems to want to skip to the "done deal" of him being right, without having an accountability to the intervening discussion.
At the moment, the argument for him being wrong seems to be the only one with support provided that correleates to something outside of insisting "I'm right because I said so". :-?

[Slides]

No more caffeine for demalion. :lol:

[Dave Baumann]

Though, presuming the 9500 would get its "free" 4xMSAA, then the 5200 would too. Or not?

Russ, its not actually a given that a chip that can support, say, 4X MSAA natively actually support 4 samples per cycle.

[andypski]

Sure, but then we're back to the 1/4 ratio, no?

No. I think your original example is flawed because these cards use multisampling AA - with multisampled AA increasing the AA ratio is not remotely equivalent in terms of performance hit to increasing the number of screen pixels rendered.

I'll go back to your earlier post to comment here -

But, to address your "too slow" opinion, consider that they are, even by your graph, half the speed of the 5600, and 1/4 the speed of the 9500. This would lead one to believe that you could run at 1/4 the resolution of the 9500 and still get the same framerates.

This part of your statement is definitely reasonable.

That would be, for example, the difference of no AA at 1024x768 on the 5200 compared with 4x AA at 1024x768 on the 9500. Or no AA at 800x600 at a higher frame rate. (Assuming framerates are solely a ratio that mirrors the ratios of PS2.0 scores in 3dmk03).

This part is the part that I think is wrong.

Using a 1/4 pixel shader performance ratio means that to get equivalent performance in a pixel shader limited application you need to run at a physical resolution 1/4 the size, not the same resolution without AA.

eg. Taking a hypothetical completely pixel shader limited application where a 9500 is getting 30fps at 1280x960 resolution you might expect that a 5200 with 1/4 the shader performance would get the same frame rate at 640x480 (1/4 the number of pixels)

If the 9500 turned on 4xAA it might then take a 20->30% performance hit, so say it would drop to 20 fps.

If you increase the resolution on the 5200 to 1280x960 (without AA) it would be rendering at around 7.5fps - this is only 1/3rd the performance of a 9500 running at the same resolution with 4xAA enabled.

And that doesn't even address that PS2.0, for the near future, will only influence a fraction of the framerate simply because no card can run them at truly acceptable speeds
The first part of this is a perfectly reasonable position - we can expect a gradual uptake of PS2.0 just as with any other new technology, however I take issue with the second part of the statement. Certainly I believe that our current cards are perfectly capable of running complex PS2.0 shaders at good frame rates - they were designed with this performance level in mind from the start.

[RussSchultz]

Well, when I said "truly acceptable" I meant 60+ FPS, or 180+ if you're a quakehead, particularly for twitch type games. I doubt that even the 9800 pro could do that for every pixel being shaded with PS2.0. (Assuming the shader was something difficult enough to require PS2.0)

But yes, I see your point about MSAA. Thank you for the clarification.

[RussSchultz]

Demalion: unless you can stop with the "inability to understand basic english" slights, you can count this discussion as over.

But to continue it one more time: here you are again, insisting I refuse to believe anything else possible but my own conclusion.

Of course, this, as well as English, logic, etc., leads me to believe that he is, in "fact", wrong, but all I'm insisting on is an actual discussion where the possibility of him being right and wrong can both be represented. He, on the other hand, seems to want to skip to the "done deal" of him being right, without having an accountability to the intervening discussion.

Do I need to quote to you AGAIN where I explicitely state that I don't agree with this idea that my conclusion is the only acceptable one and any other is completely wrong?

Why should I even both to discuss my reasoning if you continue to assert that I have no reasoning; that I don't accept anybody elses conclusion; and that I assert that all other conclusions are wrong? ESPECIALLY SINCE I'M ACTIVELY AND EXPLICITELY SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE!

If you could just back down and accept that my assertion of my conclusion does not preclude your assertion of your conclusion, perhaps we could address the meat of our differing conclusions.

Or is it more fun to you to go round and round?

[Joe DeFuria]

I think Russ just likes to hear himself argue. ;)

[digitalwanderer]

If you could just back down and accept that my assertion of my conclusion does not preclude your assertion of your conclusion, perhaps we could address the meat of our differing conclusions.

Or is it more fun to you to go round and round?
I sure hope not! I got in the Russ/demalion pool late and got one of the high post numbers before one of ya goes absolutely psycho on the other. ;)

[Myrmecophagavir]

I think Russ just likes to hear himself argue. ;)
I think they both do; trouble is, no-one else does.

[RussSchultz]

I'm just bored at work. Figure its here arguing over semantics, or fark arguing over politics.

[andypski]

Well, when I said "truly acceptable" I meant 60+ FPS, or 180+ if you're a quakehead, particularly for twitch type games. I doubt that even the 9800 pro could do that for every pixel being shaded with PS2.0. (Assuming the shader was something difficult enough to require PS2.0)

Fair enough - certainly you are right if every pixel is shaded with very long PS2.0 shaders, however a mix of short and long ones should give very acceptable performance, depending on resolution.

Assuming an execution rate of only 1 instruction per clock per shading pipe (very much the worst possible case) then a simple calculation shows that a 9800 pro could run a 64 instruction PS2.0 shader at 1024x768 resolution at 60 fps with an overdraw of 1.


1024*768 = 786432 pixels

* 60 fps = 47185920 pixels per second

380MHz * 8 pipes = 3040 MPixels/second

/ 64 instructions = 47500000 Pixels per second

47500000 / 47185920 P = 1.007 (overdraw for 60 fps)

Normally shader performance should be higher than this, and in addition early and hierarchical Z rejects can speed up the overall effective shading speed immensely, so even with the longest possible shader (under PS2.0 limitations) you could probably support an overdraw significantly greater than 1 in this case.

Reducing the length of an average shader down to 32 instructions (still easily long enough to require PS2.0) will give more headroom. Considering that the most complex shader model available before PS2.0 had a maximum instruction count of 16 ALU operations you can see that even averaging 32 instruction shaders would be a huge leap forward in complexity.

Admittedly with shaders this complex you won't be playing at huge frame rates and incredibly high resolutions, but I think the performance available in our current parts is well targeted to enable extensive use of complex shaders (compared to previous generations) right from the start.

[RussSchultz]

So it would have approximately the same performance as a VoodooI, but look much nicer? (A voodoo I had 45Mpix/s, didn't it?)

[andypski]

So it would have approximately the same performance as a VoodooI, but look much nicer? (A voodoo I had 45Mpix/s, didn't it?)
Not a bad analogy to the baseline performance, although that is worst case (compared to the Voodoo1's best case). I would expect the overall performance would typically be significantly higher than that (I would have thought it would generally be more like a Voodoo 2).

Maybe I should hack up Quake 1 to run with 64 instruction pixel shaders and see what performance I get ;)

[digitalwanderer]

So it would have approximately the same performance as a VoodooI, but look much nicer? (A voodoo I had 45Mpix/s, didn't it?)
Not a bad analogy to the baseline performance, although that is worst case (compared to the Voodoo1's best case). I would expect the overall performance would typically be significantly higher than that (I would have thought it would generally be more like a Voodoo 2).

Maybe I should hack up Quake 1 to run with 64 instruction pixel shaders and see what performance I get ;)
Excuse me, but are you guys seriously suggesting that the 5200 performs at near V2 levels?!?!

I think I'm confused.... :?:

[RussSchultz]

Maybe I should hack up Quake 1 to run with 64 instruction pixel shaders and see what performance I get ;)
Do, please! It'd be a great demonstrator and tidy little benchmark program.

[RussSchultz]

Excuse me, but are you guys seriously suggesting that the 5200 performs at near V2 levels?!?!

No, the 9800 does. When running only PS2.0 shaders of 64 instructions.

The 5200 would likely run at about 1/8th of a V2 or worse under the same conditions.

[andypski]

I think I'm confused.... :?:

I think you are. :lol:

[demalion]

Demalion: unless you can stop with the "inability to understand basic english" slights, you can count this discussion as over.

Well, I don't just say "you are displaying an inability to process basic English", I demonstrate where you are failing to do so.

Showing my demonstration to be in error will work towards your requirement for me to stop saying you are wrong. So will moving on to a different topic of conversation.
Holding a conversation with me and continuing to require me to explain the problem with your statements, and simply dictating to me that I'm not allowed to find that problem, will not.

If you think there is something wrong with those choices outside of your personal criteria of feeling uncomfortable when not getting what you want, you are free to make a case for it.
Until then, those are your options.

But to continue it one more time: here you are again, insisting I refuse to believe anything else possible but my own conclusion.
Of course, this, as well as English, logic, etc., leads me to believe that he is, in "fact", wrong, but all I'm insisting on is an actual discussion where the possibility of him being right and wrong can both be represented. He, on the other hand, seems to want to skip to the "done deal" of him being right, without having an accountability to the intervening discussion.

Do I need to quote to you AGAIN where I explicitely state that I don't agree with this idea that my conclusion is the only acceptable one and any other is completely wrong?

Here is the fallacy you propose:

You said, after our conversation progressed, that properly could include performance.
I said we were making progress and you were admitting to the error in your prior statement.
You are maintaining that you were not wrong in your prior statement, while circumventing any and all reasons I propose why the latter statement contradicts it, by insisting that you aren't now saying what I proposed was wrong with your prior statement. Of course you aren't, that was why I said we were making progress from your original statement.

Again: *I'm not saying you're refusing to believe anything else about properly now, I'm saying your original statement denied that properly could include performance by agreeing with someone who proposed that it could not, and by attacking me when I said "properly can include performance" to that person.
Your responses also propose that "You weren't disagreeing with saying properly could include performance" in your reply to me, and you ignored my question about what you thought I was saying when you...disagreed with me.

* What I'm saying you refuse to accept is that your modified statement indicates something different than what your initial statement did. I.e., that there was a problem with your original statement.
* I'm also saying your original statement's presented commentary doesn't make sense, and I've explained why in my first reply to it.

You are addressing my replies on the premise that I'm telling you that what you are proposing right now is that properly cannot include performance, when this entire branch of discussion started when I was saying what you were now proposing was different than what you had proposed. The discussion of why I think you had proposed such a thing is nowhere addressed by you in your pursuit of this nonsensical address.
This is something I explained earlier as well...take a look of some of the explanations you've been skipping. :-?

Why should I even both to discuss my reasoning if you continue to assert that I have no reasoning; that I don't accept anybody elses conclusion; and that I assert that all other conclusions are wrong? ESPECIALLY SINCE I'M ACTIVELY AND EXPLICITELY SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE!

Now. Had. :-? Why should I think you make sense when you propose that I'm arguing what you are doing now when it was drawing a distinction between what you now said and what you had that prompted this discussion?!

If you could just back down and accept that my assertion of my conclusion does not preclude your assertion of your conclusion, perhaps we could address the meat of our differing conclusions.

"Backing down" comes before addressing the "meat of our differing conclusions"?!
Also, get the "conclusions" straight...it might also help if you didn't just keep skipping over my explanations and restating things that ignore what I just tried to explain to you. :shock:

[Dave Baumann]

Ahhhh, I lament for my database space.

[Malo]

LOL Russ and demalion taking up 10% of total database eh?

[demalion]

Ahhhh, I lament for my database space.

I'd offer to pay for the storage I'm taking up, but I doubt I could afford it. :(
:P

[RussSchultz]

I'm saying your original statement denied that properly could include performance by agreeing with someone who proposed that it could not, and by attacking me when I said "properly can include performance" to that person.
Your responses also propose that "You weren't disagreeing with saying properly could include performance" in your reply to me, and you ignored my question about what you thought I was saying when you...disagreed with me.
If that is the bone of your contention, you have seriously wasted a lot of my time and yours.

Again, in plain english for you:

Me stating an opposing conclusion with my reasoning does not equate to me denying that any other conclusion is possible.

Consider the following:
Somebody else: "JoeSmith would never drive drunk."
You: "I think he was drunk and drove off the side of the cliff after dosing off. Look, there's a broken beer bottle in the car"
Me: "I never knew Joe to drink and drive. There's a dead deer here on the side of the road, I think its safe to assume he lost control after hitting the animal"

Do you see me denying that it is possible that Joe, our hapless driver, was driving drunk? No. I'm simply asserting my view on the situation.

If you don't understand that, I don't know what I can quote or illustrate to help you. And, we'll just call this conversation over.

[digitalwanderer]

Is Joe ok after the accident or not? :|

[RussSchultz]

Is Joe ok after the accident or not? :|
Immaterial. The semantics are much more important. ;)

[digitalwanderer]

Is Joe ok after the accident or not? :|
Immaterial. The semantics are much more important. ;)
I betcha Joe feels a whole lot differently about that..... :p

[RussSchultz]

He's happy to be dead after 10 pages of this.

[digitalwanderer]

He's happy to be dead after 10 pages of this.
ROFLMFAO~~~

I was gonna say, you must be VERY bored at work today. :lol:

[demalion]

I'm saying your original statement denied that properly could include performance by agreeing with someone who proposed that it could not, and by attacking me when I said "properly can include performance" to that person.
Your responses also propose that "You weren't disagreeing with saying properly could include performance" in your reply to me, and you ignored my question about what you thought I was saying when you...disagreed with me.
If that is the bone of your contention, you have seriously wasted a lot of my time and yours.

Of course, you couldn't be the source of wasted time?

Again, in plain english for you:

Me stating an opposing conclusion with my reasoning does not equate to me denying that any other conclusion is possible.

Russ, why do you keep insisting on ignoring my specific discussion of your quoted text over and over? You either propose something I've already addressed, again, or go off on a confused tangent.

Consider the following:
Somebody else: "JoeSmith would never drive drunk."

Is this supposed to be Dave H? As close I can get in your extremely flawed analogy model, what Dave H said was more like "JoeSmith crashed due to driving drunk, and it is not a matter of opinion", after seeing a beer bottle next to the car.

You: "I think he was drunk and drove off the side of the cliff after dosing off. Look, there's a broken beer bottle in the car"
No, what I said was more like "There is a dead deer here, and you can't rule out that he hit it and ended up crashing due to that."

Me: "I never knew Joe to drink and drive. There's a dead deer here on the side of the road, I think its safe to assume he lost control after hitting the animal"
What you said to "me" was more like "No, it is safe to assume that he was driving drunk because that's what a beer bottle in the car means. And if his being drunk is a matter of opinion, then could I say I'm not drunk after I've had a half a bottle of vodka?" Except that what you actually did propose in the first part doesn't even make that much sense, because there wasn't a camera to record Joe drinking or that the beer bottle was or was not in the car before the accident and not just lying where the car crashed, but there are English rules and dictionaries to apply to an exact record of what was said in the actual conversation.

If you contradict me when I am saying to "Someone else" that it is possible that he hit the deer and then lost control, and propose a ridiculous example to disagree with the premise I propose that it is a matter of opinion whether he was drunk, you are maintaining "Someone else"'s statement.

This is a (bastardized, sloppy, ill-suited, but the best I could fit into your framework) represenation of exactly what I've proposed to you numerous times. If this is news to you, that is your fault. If you can't see it, disagreeing and taking the conversation down another erroneous path contrary to my statmements, is you wasting time, not me.

I don't recommend you argue against this example, and instead deal with...what I actually said.

When I ask you to stop proposing flawed representations of my point and ignoring the discussions I already provided, of course it is perfectly natural to ignore the discussion I already provided, and propose another flawed representation, and this doesn't display a dedication to arguing by ego at all. :shock:

Your analogy ignores exactly the same things as you've ignored before, that there is a record of what actually happened and an objective standard for interpreting it (English), and doesn't even come close to representing my actual statements even aside from that. :-? It is also in an unrelated context of an unwitnessed physical event involving limited information being discussed after the fact, in contrast to a discussion that is recorded in exact detail and is/can continue to be witnessed and referred to with specifics. Perhaps your continuing to ignore those details makes these situations seem the same to you?

Do you see me denying that it is possible that Joe, our hapless driver, was driving drunk? No. I'm simply asserting my view on the situation.

Well it is nice when you can win an argument against yourself. My actual argument remains unaddressed. :-?. Look, analogies and reinterpretations can be a valuable tool for communication, but not when used over and over to completely ignore what the other person is saying.

If you don't understand that, I don't know what I can quote or illustrate to help you. And, we'll just call this conversation over.

Does that mean you'll address the discussion I provided about PS 2.0, or has perpetuating this discussion made it convenient to ignore the questions and discussion I propose? Has Andy's commentary jogged any new thoughts with regard to it? Do you still think no competent reviewer can be in doubt about the 5200 "running DX 9 properly"?

[RussSchultz]

If you contradict me when I am saying to "Someone else" that it is possible ... you are maintaining "Someone else"'s statement.

As I suspected. It is impossible to continue.

If you cannot grasp that my initial response was a differing conclusion than yours and the attached statement was support for that conclusion, there's no point in me continuing.

Feel glad. You won. Completely and utterly. 8 pages of back and forth for a point that was completely and utterly meaningless.

If you didn't notice, on page 3, I decided properly wasn't worth arguing over so I stated so and couched my further response in the term that "properly" included performance and included detailed reasoning over my stance. But no, you insist on continuing to beat the dead horse. Well, sometimes it is fun to beat a dead horse so I joined you and I kept it up for another 8 pages because, quite frankly, it was fun to irritate you with the added bonus of demonstrating to the forum that you can't accept common communication mechanisms at the same time that you excel in writing essays over the smallest of topics using the most daunting of language.

Its amazing to me that you can't see the irony of you lambasting me for refusing the possibility of opinion in properly, while at the same time refusing to accept the possibility that my statement was exactly as I said it was: me stating my take on what properly meant in that context. Even with me here to clarify what I meant and intended, you were willing to continue to interject your own thoughts contrary to mine.

And, yes, I really was being honest and not faceteous at all when I say you write too much and don't get to the point. Though maybe the problem is you have too many points, or maybe you attempt to pre-emptively dismiss points and obscure the ones that are important inadvertantly in the process.

And yes, intentionally or not, your discourse style is very insulting. It comes across as intellectual slight after intellectual slight. Quite frankly, you do not write in a manner that is easy to read or follow and then turn around and lambast people for missing your very subtle points. Which even after the lambasting don't seem any more apparent then before.

So, from now on, you get a "two response" limit from me. If you don't catch my drift, or I don't catch your drift by then, its "agree to disagree" time.

As for the 2.0 discussion: I think I've shared enough information that outlines how you can and should achieve greater certainty than "probably" in "properly" statements. Look at the discussion between Andy and I (I know you read it) to see how you can get there. You're a smart guy, fill in the blanks if they're missing.

Once again (for posterity), my providing evidence that contradicts your conclusion does not mean I am rejecting it as an invalid conclusion.

At least not in my world.

[Reverend]

Russ, demalion... please continue this in private. The two of you don't seem to be able to see eye-to-eye on whatever-tf you two are arguing about and I (and I presume 99% of those here) don't care to read any of your posts pertaining to your argument with each other.

This is the way I see it and I hope this is cool with the two of you.

And my sort-of-on-topic contribution to this thread :

I think anyone can make a piece of next-gen hardware that runs next-gen software at 5fps. The 5200 performs very poorly, not only with DX9 features but also in the toughest DX7 and DX8 environments. Its very existence, and the fact that it is the DX9 hardware that has shipped the most and hence likely to be in more folks' machines than other DX9 hardware, means that developers will likely have to take it into account when they create their "DX9 games" (and no, I haven't done such a survey with developers because I know I won't get too many replies due to diplomacy and politics). Hopefully there will be more developers who can afford to take the risk of long development time with their games like Valve with HL2 and games can look extremely cool with lots of DX9 effects while also being able to look decent with DX7 effects. IMO however, there aren't too many such developers.

[RussSchultz]

Don't worry, we're well past the limit of 2.

[demalion]

...
As for the 2.0 discussion: I think I've shared enough information that outlines how you can and should achieve greater certainty than "probably" in "properly" statements. Look at the discussion between Andy and I (I know you read it) to see how you can get there. You're a smart guy, fill in the blanks if they're missing.

But my understanding is that Andy said "probably" with regards to the 5200...where is this outline of how you can and should achieve greater certainty than "probably" in "properly" statements? This is the question I was proposing to you about 6 or 7 pages ago, and I don't see an answer.

I do see Andy's answers, and your statements and questions, but what he states doesn't seem to at all indicate what you are saying it does AFAICS. Seems to be filled with conditionals that would depend entirely on the specific game and a person's criteria for performance.

I assume, since you point to this discussion, that you are saying that what should be said by a competent reviewer is that the 5200 "certainly" can't run DX 9 "properly", since your criteria for "truly acceptably" is 60 fps or higher? That would answer one of my questions, then.
What I don't understand, since we've established that "properly" can indeed include performance criteria, is why a reviewer posting in a forum would have to be incompetent not to both have decided on a threshold and known whether games utilizing PS 2.0 that he hasn't seen yet would run above it or below it? I don't even see Andy (who I'd propose is certainly competent with regard to the technical side of reviewing) doing this anywhere.

Maybe we can focus on this, and how I'm misunderstanding (highlighted as an aid):

Well, when I said "truly acceptable" I meant 60+ FPS, or 180+ if you're a quakehead, particularly for twitch type games. I doubt that even the 9800 pro could do that for every pixel being shaded with PS2.0. (Assuming the shader was something difficult enough to require PS2.0)
Fair enough - certainly you are right if every pixel is shaded with very long PS2.0 shaders, however a mix of short and long ones should give very acceptable performance, depending on resolution.

I think he sounds very competent, as usual, but I don't see the greater certainty than "probably" evident in this discourse.
Perhaps you meant the mathematical calculations, but I don't see them being proposed outside the above discussion, but as examples of one possibility for the sake of illustration.

[demalion]

Hmm...didn't see your post until now, Rev. This discussion is the one back on topic I've been asking for, and it is also open for andy to clarify my question. If it heads down the same road as the other branch, I'll stop replying.

[andypski]

But my understanding is that Andy said "probably" with regards to the 5200...where is this outline of how you can and should achieve greater certainty than "probably" in "properly" statements? This is the question I was proposing to you about 6 or 7 pages ago, and I don't see an answer.

I don't really want to get dragged into a long debate on the DX9 merits or otherwise of particular pieces of hardware. I am hardly going to come across as unbiased in these cases whether my opinions are justified or not.

When considering environments as complex as modern 3d application software it is a bit naive to make absolutely definitive statements when predicting performance in future applications, while at the same time it is certainly possible to make general statements about performance expectations, and provide information as to why this sort of performance level is expected.

I assume, since you point to this discussion, that you are saying that what should be said by a competent reviewer is that the 5200 "certainly" can't run DX 9 "properly", since your criteria for "truly acceptably" is 60 fps or higher? That would answer one of my questions, then.

Russ further makes the distinction about the differences in acceptable frame rates between certain games, and certain game players -

Well, when I said "truly acceptable" I meant 60+ FPS, or 180+ if you're a quakehead, particularly for twitch type games

Given these criteria (which are pretty harsh - there are game types where lower rates are generally acceptable), low end parts are going to be restricted to low resolutions like 640x480 in order to attain "truly acceptable" frame rates when running environments that are composed using complex pixel shaders. The 'twitch' framerates that he talks about will simply not be achievable without dialling down shader complexity.

I don't see the greater certainty than "probably" evident in this discourse. Perhaps you meant the mathematical calculations, but I don't see them being proposed outside the above discussion, but as examples of one possibility for the sake of illustration.

The calculations were there to support the basic performance conclusions - they give a common understanding of the baseline of performance that can be expected. By establishing a reasonable lower limit it is then possible to have specific discussions about performance.

Once you go beyond purely mathematical cases it is difficult to make accurate predictions.

However, this having been said, provided that you have an in-depth understanding of current applications and hardware and have done extensive analysis of their respective performance bottlenecks then it does become possible to make strong and well supported statements about performance expectations for future applications. Engineers at IHVs have to do this sort of thing all the time when making design decisions for future hardware in order to correctly target the appropriate performance, and then when the hardware becomes available we see whether our experience allowed us to make the right choices.

[demalion]

But my understanding is that Andy said "probably" with regards to the 5200...where is this outline of how you can and should achieve greater certainty than "probably" in "properly" statements? This is the question I was proposing to you about 6 or 7 pages ago, and I don't see an answer.

I don't really want to get dragged into a long debate on the DX9 merits or otherwise of particular pieces of hardware. I am hardly going to come across as unbiased in these cases whether my opinions are justified or not.

When considering environments as complex as modern 3d application software it is a bit naive to make absolutely definitive statements when predicting performance in future applications, while at the same time it is certainly possible to make general statements about performance expectations, and provide information as to why this sort of performance level is expected.

I understand and agree with both points, and the latter is exactly what I was pursuing with the latter half of this post (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=149733&#149733), and what I do believe Jerky established directly with "probably can't run DX 9 properly" (even though he said that in a forum post, and not a review).
I certainly agree that the 5200 can be definitevely said to fail the 60 fps criteria for the PS 2.0 shaders examined, and I was maintaining that it would even fail the 30 fps criteria at 640x400, even when other DX 9 cards might run above it.

Now that we all agree on that, including Jerky (this is based on my considering "probably can't run DX 9 properly" to exactly to fit "to make general statements about performance expectations, and provide information as to why this sort of performance level is expected."), and that to satisfy Russ, Jerky was supposed to say "The 5200 definitely cannot run DX 9 properly" by Russ's criteria and the information available to Jerky from his review:

Russ, why would Jerky be incompetent to recognize other criteria than your 60 fps criteria for "twitch games", such that his behavior would have to fit andy's first description to anyone who thought differently than you? There are other game types, shaders, opinions, and he wasn't just talking to you.

Andy, somewhat related to this discussion, what is the minimum resolution for DX 9 rendering? 320x200?

Russ further makes the distinction about the differences in acceptable frame rates between certain games, and certain game players -

Well, when I said "truly acceptable" I meant 60+ FPS, or 180+ if you're a quakehead, particularly for twitch type games

Given these criteria (which are pretty harsh - there are game types where lower rates are generally acceptable), low end parts are going to be restricted to low resolutions like 640x480 in order to attain "truly acceptable" frame rates when running environments that are composed using complex pixel shaders. The 'twitch' framerates that he talks about will simply not be achievable without dialling down shader complexity.

Agreed, and thank you for getting answers for some of my questions from him.

I don't see the greater certainty than "probably" evident in this discourse. Perhaps you meant the mathematical calculations, but I don't see them being proposed outside the above discussion, but as examples of one possibility for the sake of illustration.

The calculations were there to support the basic performance conclusions - they give a common understanding of the baseline of performance that can be expected. By establishing a reasonable lower limit it is then possible to have specific discussions about performance.

Once you go beyond purely mathematical cases it is difficult to make accurate predictions.

Agreed.

However, this having been said, provided that you have an in-depth understanding of current applications and hardware and have done extensive analysis of their respective performance bottlenecks then it does become possible to make strong and well supported statements about performance expectations for future applications.

Out of curiosity, how strong a statement could you make about the 9200 or the IGP chip and the shaders they'll be running, after you've picked the minimum fps and resolution criteria as you stipulated? (EDIT: this might be unclear...what I mean is that with the capabilities of PS 1.4, and their limited transistor count, the chips seem to be "closer to the edge"...this relates to the minimum DX3D resolution issue).
And how do you represent the way things like texture usage as a bandwidth bottleneck can vary so widely in your consideration of performance in future games? I personally don't know how to narrow this down reasonably to consider how fillrate might be hindered. There doesn't seem to be a clear consideration like resolution that I know can represent the amount of texture usage per pixel as there seems to be to calculate fillrate.

Engineers at IHVs have to do this sort of thing all the time when making design decisions for future hardware in order to correctly target the appropriate performance, and then when the hardware becomes available we see whether our experience allowed us to make the right choices.

Heh, reviewers need to know as much as Engineers to be competent? I don't exactly disapprove of that idea. :P

[andypski]

Andy, somewhat related to this discussion, what is the minimum resolution for DX 9 rendering? 320x200?

There is no minimum resolution restriction that I am aware of in DX9. Typically the lowest screen resolution exported by drivers is 320x200, but developers routinely render into lower resolution buffers such as texture maps, and theoretically there is nothing to stop you doing this and then stretching it up to fill the screen.

Certain hardware could have restrictions on the lowest rendering resolution for surfaces.

Out of curiosity, how strong a statement could you make about the 9200 or the IGP chip and the shaders they'll be running, after you've picked the minimum fps and resolution criteria as you stipulated? (EDIT: this might be unclear...what I mean is that with the capabilities of PS 1.4, the cards seem to be "closer to the edge").

I'm not really sure what you're asking here - I guess you want to know how capable the architectures are of dealing with long shaders? I wouldn't really make strong statements about either because I have not had much direct involvement with these chips. The 8500 and its more recent cousins do have highly capable shading engines that are well balanced in terms of program length to their overall performance.

And how do you represent the way things like texture usage as a bandwidth bottleneck can vary so widely in your consideration of performance in future games? I personally don't know how to narrow this down reasonably to consider how fillrate might be hindered. There doesn't seem to be a clear consideration like resolution that I know can represent the amount of texture usage per pixel as there seems to be to calculate fillrate.

With difficulty ;). I can't give you a magic formula - we work closely with developers so that we are aware of the types of workload they are producing. Given a particular application we have to look at aspects like the ratio of texture lookups to ALU operations, size and type of textures etc. As with anything else a lot of it comes down to experience, and there's still always room for surprises when developers do things in ways we haven't necessarily considered.

[demalion]

I should have been clearer: the minimum full screen resolution supported for 3D display. If the answer is the same (EDIT: heh, that doesn't quite make sense since you mentioned screen resolution..."if my narrowing it down doesn't facilitate you adding more details"), you don't have to bother yourself to reply.

And your guess answered the other matter, thanks.

[5150 Joker]

Seriously, you guys need girlfriends.

[Malo]

Seriously, you guys need girlfriends.

do you have any idea what this website is about? or specifically this forum? :roll:

[Reverend]

Yeah... most guys here (except those married, I think) have developed calluses on their right (or left) hands.

[Bjorn]

Yeah... most guys here (except those married, I think) have developed calluses on their right (or left) hands.

Some people need to use both hands, hehe

[above3d]

A waiver is effectively an area of non-compliance but MS are willing to overlook for certain reasons. I'm hearing that the 5200 has several waivers - we know that it only runs in FP16, so this is likely to be one of them.


Where did you hear that it runs only in fp16 mode?
(Obviously you don't "know" that it does since it does run fp32.)

[digitalwanderer]

A waiver is effectively an area of non-compliance but MS are willing to overlook for certain reasons. I'm hearing that the 5200 has several waivers - we know that it only runs in FP16, so this is likely to be one of them.


Where did you hear that it runs only in fp16 mode?
(Obviously you don't "know" that it does since it does run fp32.)
Ooooh, this should be fun! :D

BTW-I still want to know what happened to Joe...I'm getting worried. :cry:

Sayeth the married man with callouses... ;)

[ZoinKs!]

Seriously, you guys need girlfriends. Is your sister available? Is she hot? :P

[StealthHawk]

A waiver is effectively an area of non-compliance but MS are willing to overlook for certain reasons. I'm hearing that the 5200 has several waivers - we know that it only runs in FP16, so this is likely to be one of them.


Where did you hear that it runs only in fp16 mode?
(Obviously you don't "know" that it does since it does run fp32.)

Check DX9 caps.

With that said, I have heard that FP32 is once again enabled in 45.23 and 45.24 for the 5200, 5600, and 5800. Anyone here care to verify...or send me a gfFX card to test :lol:

[Clootie]

With that said, I have heard that FP32 is once again enabled in 45.23 and 45.24 for the 5200, 5600, and 5800. Anyone here care to verify...or send me a gfFX card to test :lol:
I can confirm what all FX cards support FP32 in PS_2_0 with new official 45.23 drivers, along with FP16 in partial precision (PP) mode.

[Dave Baumann]

Where did you hear that it runs only in fp16 mode?
(Obviously you don't "know" that it does since it does run fp32.)

Clearly it didn't with the 44.03's.

[digitalwanderer]

Where did you hear that it runs only in fp16 mode?
(Obviously you don't "know" that it does since it does run fp32.)

Clearly it didn't with the 44.03's.
I'm not disagreeing or questioning your statement here Dave, but how can you tell if it's doing fp32 or not?

[CorwinB]

I'm not disagreeing or questioning your statement here Dave, but how can you tell if it's doing fp32 or not?

I'd say that you can check if FP32 is available by running custom code generating visible artefacts in FP16 (Mandlebrot ?), and coded without specifying _PP...

[Tridam]

I'm not disagreeing or questioning your statement here Dave, but how can you tell if it's doing fp32 or not?

I'd say that you can check if FP32 is available by running custom code generating visible artefacts in FP16 (Mandlebrot ?), and coded without specifying _PP...

It's rather simple if you code your own shader. You can use a shader to mathematically check the epsilon (precision) and the range. The epsilon gives you the mantissa and the range gives you the exponent.

With det 44.03, FX5800, 5600 and 5200 were always doing FP16, with or without _pp. But this is not the case with det 45.23. Without _pp we have FP32.

[digitalwanderer]

I'm not disagreeing or questioning your statement here Dave, but how can you tell if it's doing fp32 or not?

I'd say that you can check if FP32 is available by running custom code generating visible artefacts in FP16 (Mandlebrot ?), and coded without specifying _PP...

It's rather simple if you code your own shader. You can use a shader to mathematically check the epsilon (precision) and the range. The epsilon gives you the mantissa and the range gives you the exponent.

With det 44.03, FX5800, 5600 and 5200 were always doing FP16, with or without _pp. But this is not the case with det 45.23. Without _pp we have FP32.
Oh, ok....I get ya now. You do some things that are totally above me head and beyond my current scope-o-understanding and find out that way.

How 'bout next time you just say "magic!", it's close enough for me little brain and it'll save you some typing. ;)

[Reverend]

With that said, I have heard that FP32 is once again enabled in 45.23 and 45.24 for the 5200, 5600, and 5800. Anyone here care to verify...or send me a gfFX card to test :lol:
I can confirm what all FX cards support FP32 in PS_2_0 with new official 45.23 drivers, along with FP16 in partial precision (PP) mode.
I can verify that.

[Clootie]

It's rather simple if you code your own shader. You can use a shader to mathematically check the epsilon (precision) and the range. The epsilon gives you the mantissa and the range gives you the exponent.
Yes it's easy - Pixel Shader 2.0 precision (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/ps-precision/index.html)

[Tridam]

It's rather simple if you code your own shader. You can use a shader to mathematically check the epsilon (precision) and the range. The epsilon gives you the mantissa and the range gives you the exponent.
Yes it's easy - Pixel Shader 2.0 precision (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/ps-precision/index.html)

This software just check the registers and coordinates data type. It doesn't check the precision of the units !

IE : this software say that Radeon 9700/9800 use s23e8 registers. But every precision and range test will show you that Radeon do calculations in the s16e7 format. This software doesn't say that ;)

[EDIT] : Sorry, it was an error of mine :oops: The software shows s16e7 for Radeons as expected.