The way it's meant to be patched...

[CorwinB]

Check the front page of Gamers Depot...

It seems that after Nvidia pulled some strings, Eidos removed the Tomb Raider A0D v49 patch, which contains the benchmarking code used by B3D.

I am totally speechless on this one. In addition to the benchmarking mode that reveals the GFFX's less than stellar DX9 performance, the patch also brought a large number of fixes customers who *paid* for the game were expecting... In other words, in addition to forcing developers to do additional work to hide the deficiencies of their under-performing hardware, the goons at Nvidia now go some extra length to be sure that if their "100 millions" customers can't enjoy the new games because of crappy hardware, then nobody will.

[digitalwanderer]

:shock: :shock: HOLY SPIT! :shock: :shock:

[Doomtrooper]

http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/sprachlos/speechless-smiley-018.gif

Sad...and people wonder why I stated:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7918&start=20

Now we have the market flooded with inferior graphic processors all based off...money. Games optimized for FX and FP 16 formats.

[GraphixViolence]

Can't someone just use FRAPS and show those brilliant people at Eidos that the benchmark results actually ARE a good indicator of the game's performance?

[Natoma]

Sigh. I can honestly say now that I will not purchase an Nvidia product for a very VERY long time. That GF2 GTS was the last one that will go in my computer.

Unbelievable........

[WaltC]

"It has come to the attention of Eidos that an unreleased patch for Tomb Raider: AOD has unfortunately been used as the basis for videocard benchmarking. While Eidos and Core appreciate the need for modern benchmarking software that utilizes the advanced shading capabilities of modern graphics hardware, Tomb Raider: AOD Patch 49 was never intended for public release and is not a basis for valid benchmarking comparisons. Core and Eidos believe that Tomb Raider: AOD performs exceptionally well on NVIDIA hardware."

If the last statement is true and is what Eidos believes, why would they pull the patch?

According to this link:

http://www.eidosinteractive.co.uk/support/patchinfo.html?ptid=67

...the v49 patch is still available for download. (Yep, just tried the link and could have downloaded it.)

So maybe this is just a statement of what Eidos "believes" rather than a pull of the patch.

Edit: or is this v49 sans the benchmarking capabilities? (I don't have the game.)

[CorwinB]

So maybe this is just a statement of what Eidos "believes" rather than a pull of the patch.

I'm getting the download information page, but I get an error when trying to download the file.

If I was a programmer at Core Design, I would be mightily pissed off right now : those guys, just like Valve, went the extra way to optimize for the GFFX line (using CG, using PP hints in most shaders), and they can't even patch their game like they wish.

[Dave Baumann]

No, 49 is the patch that we worked on for the benchmarking. If you click the download link its no longer there.

This is stupid since the patch actually increased performance for all boards and solved a number of bug fixes - the benchmarking mode is still available in the previous version, so if people use that then the performances will be even worse!

[digitalwanderer]

I'm downloading the patch now. They've removed the links to it from their pages, but haven't killed off all traces of it or removed the file.
A direct FTP link to the patch on their server (ftp://ftp.eidos.co.uk/pub/uk//tomb_raider_AOD/patch/TRAOD_PC_PATCH_V49_ALL_LANGUAGES.exe).

[Natoma]

I hope the mirrors for this patch don't take it down. And I certainly hope B3D continues to use the v49 patch for testing purposes, even if it's only in beta articles.

[EDIT]

This is stupid since the patch actually increased performance for all boards and solved a number of bug fixes - the benchmarking mode is still available in the previous version, so if people use that then the performances will be even worse!

WTF??? Ok this really doesn't make any sense now. I could understand if there were no benchmarking mode in the previous version, but this is ridiculous.

Now I'm confused........

[WaltC]

No, 49 is the patch that we worked on for the benchmarking. If you click the download link its no longer there.

This is stupid since the patch actually increased performance for all boards and solved a number of bug fixes - the benchmarking mode is still available in the previous version, so if people use that then the performances will be even worse!

I had to click refresh page about 3-4 times after clicking on Eidos's link for the file--but did get eventually get a download requester for saving the file. I'll go ahead and see if I can download it from there...

Edit: Yes, I am now downloading it--had to click the refresh button exactly 4 times after clicking their link, though...strange...

[ZoinKs!]

Tomb Raider: AOD Patch 49 was never intended for public release and is not a basis for valid benchmarking comparisons. Why does the phrase "valid benchmarking" jump out at me? Seems I've heard that before...
Maybe a few det versions from now, "valid benchmarking" will become possible. :roll:

[kihon]

So whats the bench marking like without the 49 patch? Is NV closer to ATI?

[Natoma]

Tomb Raider: AOD Patch 49 was never intended for public release and is not a basis for valid benchmarking comparisons.

Why does the phrase "valid benchmarking" jump out at me? Seems I've heard that before...
Maybe a few det versions from now, "valid benchmarking" will become possible. :roll:

Maybe EIDOS implemented anti-cheat code in the v49 patch? :wink:

Seriously though, Dave, do you think you could whip up a quick comparison in the beta section with the old version of the game to see how performance is decreased from v49? I'm pretty interested to see what the results bear out.

[digitalwanderer]

So whats the bench marking like without the 49 patch? Is NV closer to ATI?
Good question!

Some more patch links can be found here (http://support.eidosinteractive.com/GI/CustomerSupport/patches/PC/Lara_Croft_Tomb_Raider-_The_Angel_of_Darkness/TRAOD_PC_PATCH_V49_ALL_LANGUAGES.exe) or here (http://support.eidosinteractive.com/GI/CustomerSupport/Patch.jsp?patch=75&game=91&platform=3&problemType= 13).

[WaltC]

So maybe this is just a statement of what Eidos "believes" rather than a pull of the patch.

I'm getting the download information page, but I get an error when trying to download the file.

If I was a programmer at Core Design, I would be mightily pissed off right now : those guys, just like Valve, went the extra way to optimize for the GFFX line (using CG, using PP hints in most shaders), and they can't even patch their game like they wish.

Well, even though I am 75% through downloading from that link, this statement by Eidos is bizarre. Generally, all patches from developers are screened and tested by the publisher before being placed on the publisher's site for download. If I had to guess, somebody higher up in the company came in and ruined the show after some others at Eidos had signed on to and approved the patch for distribution. What is Eidos trying to do--to crap all over its brand new release??? Doubtless Baldwin thinks he's done something intelligent here--I think not.

File completed the download--it's the v49 All Language version weighing in at 8.55mbs.

[nggalai]

Well, this is just sad. Thanks for the e-mail, Wavey. We downloaded the patch and got a screenshot, too, so, eh.

I really don't get it. What was that last sentence in the statement supposed to do, other than make NV look even worse than they already do after the last weeks of benchmarking bonanza?

I wonder what the official statement will be for the pulling of the patch. Oh, wait, they already did: "Tomb Raider: AOD Patch 49 was never intended for public release and is not a basis for valid benchmarking comparisons. Core and Eidos believe that Tomb Raider: AOD performs exceptionally well on NVIDIA hardware."

*dons paranoia helmet and goes to sleep*

93,
-Sascha.rb

[WaltC]

This is thoroughly confusing--if they have pulled the patch, why is the link I reference above still there, and why did it work for me? (Albeit I had to hit the refresh button 4 times to get the download requestor to pop up--but I did that twice.) Busy server? I'd warrant a lot of folks are trying to access that file right now...

Does anyone have a link to the Baldwin statement on the Eidos site, by any chance?

[ZoinKs!]

This is so freaking bizarre, I'm currently having a hard time believing it's true. Am I dreaming right now :?:

[CorwinB]

Core and Eidos believe that Tomb Raider: AOD performs exceptionally well on NVIDIA hardware.

Well, I think the only thing left for them is to believe (I can imagine that if NV hardware actually performed well, they wouldn't have pulled the patch).

And to believe something like that, they must have smoked something mightily hallucinogenic...

[FUDie]

Check the front page of Gamers Depot...

It seems that after Nvidia pulled some strings, Eidos removed the Tomb Raider A0D v49 patch, which contains the benchmarking code used by B3D.

I am totally speechless on this one. In addition to the benchmarking mode that reveals the GFFX's less than stellar DX9 performance, the patch also brought a large number of fixes customers who *paid* for the game were expecting... In other words, in addition to forcing developers to do additional work to hide the deficiencies of their under-performing hardware, the goons at Nvidia now go some extra length to be sure that if their "100 millions" customers can't enjoy the new games because of crappy hardware, then nobody will.
Revisionist history at its finest.

Developer - "We've found that NV3x performance on PS 2.0 shaders is much worse than similar Radeon products."
NVIDIA hands pile of money to Developer.
Developer - "Oh sorry, we were mistaken. The NV3x is a great platform to work with and we look forward to our future dealings with NVIDIA."

HEY NVIDIA: YOU CAN'T BRIBE EVERYONE!

-FUDie

[CorwinB]

HEY NVIDIA: YOU CAN'T BRIBE EVERYONE!

-FUDie

True, but they can try. I think there is a great business opportunity in developing a few PS2.0 shaders demo right now... While Nvidia still has some cash left. As a side note, I'm wondering how Nvidia's accounting books will look like next quarter. There should be some really creative stuff into them. :P

[Doomtrooper]

http://www.filefront.com/r.b/page__file_info/_filepath__/pub2/Tomb_Raider_6/Official_Files/TRAOD_PC_PATCH_V49_ALL_LANGUAGES.exe/_clear__page,filepath/_output.html

Tomb Raider: the Angel of Darkness by Core Design - retail v49 patch
Bugs Fixed and changes in V49:
Save game time are now in local time and not GMT.
Fixed Lightning effects in final battle and hanger.
Added build version to start screen.
Changed conversation to use action key.
Multisampling and post process are no mutually exclusive. (Only possible with
DX9.0a or higher)
Stopped ammunition decreasing too fast.
Added key remapping for cycle weapons.
Stopped quick-save from producing empty filenames.
Fixed incorrect lighting on staticly lit animated objects.
Stopped failed controller profile from removing existing profiles.
Added user clip plane support to projected shadows.

Command Line
-level= Load Specific Level e.g.
"-level=datamapsparis5_3"
-selectlevel Level Select Dialog
-fullscreen
-windowed This is unsupported. The desktop
colour depth should match the colour depth in the settings.
-norun
-nofmv
-padplayback= Plays back the basic input. When
finished the application will end.
-padrecord= Records the basic inputs until the
application finished
-benchmark= Gives a Benchmark figure at the end
of the run. There must be a bin.pad file, that was recorded using
'padrecord'
-settings Displays a dialog that allows a user
to change there device settings
-settings_override= Overrides the gfx settings for a
predefined subset. Some things are not changed, like resolution. The profile
name must be in upper case.
-mode=xx Overrides the gfx setting's screen mode value.
Under Windows98/ME, or any situation where D3D returns a 0 for a modes refresh,
the refresh rate is ignored.
-multisample= Overrides the gfx setting's
multisample value. This can be 0, 2-16. A value of 1 is not supported.
-debugkeys
-godmode Sets the power ups to level 10 and
gives a selection of guns and ammo

Benchmark Instructions
To record a demo of paris1 use the following shortcut:

Target: "[INSTALLDI]inTRAOD_P3.exe" -padrecord=binparis1.pad
-level=datamapsparis1 -debugkeys
Start in/working directory: "[INSTALLDIR]"

Once you have run around enough use Alt-F4 to quit recording.
'paris1' can be swapped for any level name, but you have to change the
'-padrecord=?.pad' to the same name.

To play it back use:

Target: "[INSTALLDIR]inTRAOD_P3.exe" -benchmark=paris1
Start in/working directory: "[INSTALLDIR]"

This will record only the basic input data.
The debug function keys and other hardwired keys will not be recorded.
You should not use the menus while recording a benchmark demo.
'-benchmark' can then be combined with options like '-settings_override',
'-mode' and '-multisample' to create different benchmark setups.

The results of the benchmark will be appended to 'benchmark.csv'.
This feature is a gift and will not be supported by Eidos Interactive or Core
Design.
Thanks to Anthony Tan from http://www.beyond3d.com for all the useful feed back
on this feature. <------ :lol: Well at least Rev got credit.

[WaltC]

Core and Eidos believe that Tomb Raider: AOD performs exceptionally well on NVIDIA hardware.

Well, I think the only thing left for them is to believe (I can imagine that if NV hardware actually performed well, they wouldn't have pulled the patch).

And to believe something like that, they must have smoked something mightily hallucinogenic...

Yes--I'd like to see corroboration on the Eidos statement myself--have to say it does sound like a PR statement though--notice how scrupulously Baldwin avoids using the term "DX9" and how he doesn't list the conditions under which Eidos "believes" what it believes (ostensibly not the DX9 conditions that can be setup within the game.) If it's a legitimate statement, however, no doubt it was nVidia-inspired. Funny--you'd think Eidos would care more about its software than about a particular IHV's DX9 hardware. I mean, from what I recall the game sets up the nV3x on the DX8.x path by default. Hard to see why Eidos would get worked up about 3d-card support they had nothing to do with. What, is Core "guilty" of supporting DX9???? It really makes no sense.

[3dilettante]

This is all getting really bizarre. I can't make myself believe that things are happening the way people say they are.

It's not because I have any preference for any hardware company, but because I can't believe there is a group of people who would actually think pulling the patch is a good idea.

There's got to be a better reason than Nvidia not liking benchmark results. My sense of disbelief tells me that Nvidia couldn't possibly be that arrogant, or Eidos be that spineless.

Or are we all in a lot more trouble than I think? :(

[Laa-Yosh]

I only hope that it will not get even worse - TWIMTBP games getting some 'optimizations' to suddenly make them run slower on ATI hardware...

[Doomtrooper]

Bingo..S.TA.L.K.E.R comes to mind...My last email exchange..Nvidia was faster @ PS 2.0 :!:

[Mintmaster]

My sense of disbelief tells me that Nvidia couldn't possibly be that arrogant, or Eidos be that spineless.

Or are we all in a lot more trouble than I think? :(

Well, I think what Deano Calver had to say explains this a bit. I personally thought a lot of the anger directed at NVidia was unjustified ramblings from fanboys, but everyday it turns out to be more and more true.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7873

...what wasn't prehaps so expected was how glad everybody else was that HL2 results matched the results most of us had already seen ourselves. Somebody on the forums (sorry can't remember who) asked why developers seemed quite shy in stating our results, I obviously can't talk for everbody but the answer is probably a simple case of somebody had to first and whoever that person/company was, they better be able to handle the heat that it would produce.

[Natoma]

Great. Just Great... :roll:

[Doomtrooper]

Now that is not funny. :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

What is going on here... :?

[Laa-Yosh]

I wonder how far Nvidia can go then. What are they thinking about themselves??

Should we now make our game buying decisions based on our graphics hardware? Does TWIMTBP equal Needs a GF To Be Played?

At least Half-life 2 is such a big title that I hope it has enough momentum to turn the tide. Though I wonder if we'll see a FutureMark-kind of sudden change from them... someone please assure me that Nvidia doesn't have the power to do that. Or would they release new Detonators that just plain crash with HL2?? Surely they can't do that... right? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[T2k]

I only hope that it will not get even worse - TWIMTBP games getting some 'optimizations' to suddenly make them run slower on ATI hardware...

screw it

That type of thing has already happened. Have you heard of the problem with the water shader in Tiger Woods 2003? It works on NVIDIA's boards, but not any others. Evidently there is a device ID detect in there - if you change another shader enabled board to an NVIDIA device id it runs the NVIDIA shader, not only that but it runs it fine - change the device ID of an NVIDIA board to a non-NVIDIA board and it breaks. Ask EA who wrote that shader code.

WTF???

I think, this is the time for a class action suit against NVIDIA.
They notorisusly falsified EVERY bit of the available information about GFFX since last November - everything which can be used BEFORE buying, before you make your call... falsified everything that decision can be based on...

Mark my words: something just started...

EDIT: typos

[bloodbob]

Exactly what is going on???

To me when I try the link the FTP server is full.
Now that would suggest the file is probably there.
So is it
A) a mis understanding cause I'm using a gay browser that didn't tell me ftp was maxed out
B) they pulled the link to the link somewhere? they made a newer update?
C) they changed the content of the patch

[Nite_Hawk]

Naw, they might have been able to pull that with futuremark, but not with halflife 2. The reviewers would turn on them in droves. Not only that, but every single gamer with a geforce card (which would now include the GF3 and GF4 cards out there) would scream bloody murder. Sure it'd hurt valve, but it'd decimate nvidia. If people see that ATI cards can play the game, and hell, even Xaber, matrox, and 3dfx cards can squeek by, It's Nvidia they'd be pissed at. Hell, look at the nvnews forums already. Support for nvidia right now is either in the form of "nV1d14 r0x0Rs!" or "Well, things really arn't that bad... Not nearly as bad as it seems... Er... wait for Doom III!"

I don't think they could pull it off at this point. Too many people are already too fed up with them, and the news is starting to propogate out to the masses.

Nite_Hawk

I wonder how far Nvidia can go then. What are they thinking about themselves??

Should we now make our game buying decisions based on our graphics hardware? Does TWIMTBP equal Needs a GF To Be Played?

At least Half-life 2 is such a big title that I hope it has enough momentum to turn the tide. Though I wonder if we'll see a FutureMark-kind of sudden change from them... someone please assure me that Nvidia doesn't have the power to do that. Or would they release new Detonators that just plain crash with HL2?? Surely they can't do that... right? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[Natoma]

At this point Nite_Hawk I'm not putting anything past Nvidia......

[T2k]

At this point Nite_Hawk I'm not putting anything past Nvidia......

Neither I do... :!:

[nelg]

Does their depravity know no bounds? [H] has a poll on the front page that ask which you would buy, ATI, nVidia or other. Of `4200 votes >90% are for ATI. Maybe this problem will sort itself out. Has anyone heard any rumblings from any IHV’s that use nV GPU’s or OEM clients for that matter, about dropping nV. I can’t imagine that they all to happy lately.

[Reverend]

I am extremely pissed atm... I'm just thinking about all the hard work me and the Core Design programmer went through and I am very pissed.

It's not actually thoroughly surprising that this has happened since I already suspected that this may happen (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7622) (read last two paras before the "Developer Stuff" section, especially the last para) but nevertheless I am shocked and pissed that it actually did happen.

Did I say I'm pissed?

[Natoma]

I thought this bit was particularly prescient Rev, dated August 31st.

It's only if certain DX9 games have been released and NVIDIA GFFX cards run them poorly, that NVIDIA may tell (or perhaps persuade with cash in hand) such developers to release patches that cut down on such DX9 features, or use other shaders that makes NVIDIA GFFX cards run them better, that developers may be tempted to go "Damn NVIDIA". Speculation of course. But we all know politics always exist in this industry.

[Doomtrooper]

I don't blame you...and not one other day goes by without some type of Nvidia related fiasco.

[ClyssaN]

This all situation regarding nvidia actions has come to a point where i'm not shocked anymore, i'm just curious to see whats gona happen next.. :roll:

[Natoma]

This all situation regarding nvidia actions has come to a point where i'm not shocked anymore, i'm just curious to see whats gona happen next.. :roll:

Agreed. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. :?

[Corak]

Shocking! :shock: Both the hilarious Eidos statement and the Tiger Woods shader issue.

I would like to read more official info about both these very strong points. I hope none of this is made up. It's both just so plain stupid that it is hard to believe it is really happening. :roll:

But I can only assume it is indeed true for now. Nvidia is guilty unless proven otherwise for the time being. :evil:

I can fully understand how Reverend is pissed seeing all his good work being erased thanks to bribery money from Nvidia.

This is getting better and better every day. Nvidia has to be stopped!

I will vote with my money. That Geforce3, although it has served me well, will be my last Nvidia product for a long time to come.

Kinda sad really. I honestly can not complain about any bad experiences with both the Geforce2 and Geforce3 I have purchased. I would very likely have become a repeat customer and sticked to Nvidia on my next purchase just out of the trust I have built up to the company, thanks to these last two products. But you Nvidia, have worked very hard on destroying that trust ever so slowly by becoming guilty of virtually every computer video card crime we have a law for such as lying, cheating and bribing others to do the same. Great job on losing your customer base, Nvidia!

I hope ATI will stay honest and keep integrity, even when they increase their market share. Which they probably will and deserve. I'm also getting increasingly interested in XGI. :lol:

[Pete]

I've heard that Tiger Woods 2004 will show a different picture.

I'm wondering if nV's marketing dep't is receiving more funding than R&D ATM.

[Reverend]

I have written my Core Design contact a very frank email but I am not expecting a response that I like (and what you all want) nor do I actually expect a response from him per se (because I think he may be too embarrased to reply although he really has nothing to do with this absolutely horrendous and abhorrent act).

I have also written a NVIDIA personnel telling him I'd like to write him a very frank-no-bs email but that I would like to write him to his non-NVIDIA email addy, because I know he's just an employee (but a rather public one), he does his job well and as to be expected of him, and I want his frank opinion on the recent eye-opening happenings/decisions taken by NVIDIA and I don't want him to get int trouble should the NVIDIA police start going through his emails.

Slightly OT :

I am just totally amazed by the lengths NVIDIA are going through to try and limit the defiency between their hardware and ATI's. I understand it but I am amazed they are actually doing it. This TRAOD/Eidos incidence is just very probably the last straw for me when it comes to any remaining respect I may have for a company that I once admired.

Even Microsoft isn't so obviously blatant in doing dirty tactics.

At the moment, I am thinking about refusing to review any NVIDIA-based products, not because I don't like what NVIDIA is doing, but because I honestly do not know how to review their products accurately anymore.

I really want to say much more about this because I am very angry about this TRAOD incident, and I want to post this on our front page as a mini-editorial, just to make it an "official Beyond3D stance" but I am not sure this idea is endearing to Dave, nor appearing respectful to his position.

As my anger with NVIDIA subside, disappointment will take over. Maybe it may even turn to pity.

[digitalwanderer]

I thought this bit was particularly prescient Rev, dated August 31st.

It's only if certain DX9 games have been released and NVIDIA GFFX cards run them poorly, that NVIDIA may tell (or perhaps persuade with cash in hand) such developers to release patches that cut down on such DX9 features, or use other shaders that makes NVIDIA GFFX cards run them better, that developers may be tempted to go "Damn NVIDIA". Speculation of course. But we all know politics always exist in this industry.
Woah, you sure did call that one right! :shock:

I am extremely pissed atm... I'm just thinking about all the hard work me and the Core Design programmer went through and I am very pissed.

It's not actually thoroughly surprising that this has happened since I already suspected that this may happen (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7622) (read last two paras before the "Developer Stuff" section, especially the last para) but nevertheless I am shocked and pissed that it actually did happen.

Did I say I'm pissed?
Yo Rev, are you pissed or something? (Sorry, had ta. ;) )

What can be done about it, if anything? My personal theory is to just wait and let nVidia destroy itself, as I really don't see anyway they're going to weasle around any longer once Half-life2 is released if Valve doesn't fold-in to them.

QUESTION: You folks who actually saw the DX9 versus nVidia path versus DX8 path...is it a noticeable difference visually 'tween all of them or can nVidia ride it out thru Half-life2 and I'm wrong?

[digitalwanderer]

I have written my Core Design contact a very frank email but I am not expecting a response that I like (and what you all want) nor do I actually expect a response from him per se (because I think he may be too embarrased to reply although he really has nothing to do with this absolutely horrendous and abhorrent act).

I have also written a NVIDIA personnel telling him I'd like to write him a very frank-no-bs email but that I would like to write him to his non-NVIDIA email addy, because I know he's just an employee (but a rather public one), he does his job well and as to be expected of him, and I want his frank opinion on the recent eye-opening happenings/decisions taken by NVIDIA and I don't want him to get int trouble should the NVIDIA police start going through his emails.

Slightly OT :

I am just totally amazed by the lengths NVIDIA are going through to try and limit the defiency between their hardware and ATI's. I understand it but I am amazed they are actually doing it. This TRAOD/Eidos incidence is just very probably the last straw for me when it comes to any remaining respect I may have for a company that I once admired.

Even Microsoft isn't so obviously blatant in doing dirty tactics.

At the moment, I am thinking about refusing to review any NVIDIA-based products, not because I don't like what NVIDIA is doing, but because I honestly do not know how to review their products accurately anymore.

I really want to say much more about this because I am very angry about this TRAOD incident, and I want to post this on our front page as a mini-editorial, just to make it an "official Beyond3D stance" but I am not sure this idea is endearing to Dave, nor appearing respectful to his position.

As my anger with NVIDIA subside, disappointment will take over. Maybe it may even turn to pity.
Wow, color me impressed and answered on the "what can be done?" question...and it was damned quick too.

If it's any consolation, after the dissapointment and pity pass you'll be able to enjoy some serious entertainment at the flat-out hilarity of the over-the-top brazeness of nVidia.

I'm there now and it feels much better than the outrage did. 8)

[Joe DeFuria]

I am just totally amazed by the lengths NVIDIA are going through to try and limit the defiency between their hardware and ATI's. I understand it but I am amazed they are actually doing it. This TRAOD/Eidos incidence is just very probably the last straw for me when it comes to any remaining respect I may have for a company that I once admired.

Welcome to my world, Rev. ;) Although I've been leery of nVidia ever since the original "release a PR about a 125 Mhz TNT, and then release a 90 Mhz product instead" fiasco.

I just can't help but shake my head every time I hear the typical "but all companies do similar PR tactics" defense of nVidia. (Not pointed at anyone here in particular).

I couldn't disagree more. NO ONE has gone to the lengths and depths as I've seen nVidia go...and that's when nVidia is arguably ahead of the competition. Now that nVidia is definitely behind...it's beyond absurd. The first sign was 3DMark03.

I'm now curious more than ever what Futuremark is going to say on the 19th....

At the moment, I am thinking about refusing to review any NVIDIA-based products, not because I don't like what NVIDIA is doing, but because I honestly do not know how to review their products accurately anymore.

I have suggested that web review sites get together and do exactly that, for the reason you stated. You'll spend more time just trying to figure out WTF you have to do to have a semlance of a legit review, than you will actualy doing a review. It just isn't FAIR for reviewers to have to deal with this CRAP. (Let alone fair to the gaming public who will have to deal with the majority of reviewers who won't bother to figure out how to do a legit review in the first place.)

Try and put some pressure back on nVidia. To do this, it's gong to take a WELL ORGANIZED plan, with a public announcement and strict commitment from all those involved. It won't be easy, but I daresay it's necessary.

nVidia's playing hard-ball here folks, and the sooner the line is drawn in the sand, the better.

[Mark]

Come now Joe, you know damn well that that's not going to happen. No one wants to jeopardize their preview hardware.

[kindbudmaster]

In response to the gamers depot article, I'm sure that Nvidia had something to do with Eidos's statement about the patch. I'm just wondering about the journalistic integrity of passing opinion off as fact that I saw in that article. With standards like that, how is the reader being served?

[indio]

Come now Joe, you know damn well that that's not going to happen. No one wants to jeopardize their preview hardware.

What are you actually jeopardizing though? If a site is incapable of doing an accurate review why bother doing it?. If a web site is doing preview products for the sake of doing preview products and not attempting to give the reader an honest and accurate evaluation first and foremost , what good is the review or the reviewer? Let them type of web sites wither on the vine I say.
If it can't be done right don't do it. Tell Nvidia "Until we are satisfied we can accurately evaulate Nvidia cards and their drivers they serve no purpose to us. The amount of effort and time it takes to test the cards has become to prohibitive and is not in our best interest to continue doing so."

[nelg]

I am boycotting any product from nVidia. Also any product form any IHV that uses an nV GPU or chipset. Include in this list any game from any publisher that intentionally hurts performance for the sake of perception. Ha Asus, MSI, EA, etc. you just screwed yourself out of .....................$100 this year. :oops:

[Mark]

Come now Joe, you know damn well that that's not going to happen. No one wants to jeopardize their preview hardware.

What are you actually jeopardizing though? If a site is incapable of doing an accurate review why bother doing it?. If a web site is doing preview products for the sake of doing preview products and not attempting to give the reader an honest and accurate evaluation first and foremost , what good is the review or the reviewer? Let them type of web sites wither on the vine I say.
If it can't be done right don't do it. Tell Nvidia "Until we are satisfied we can accurately evaulate Nvidia cards and their drivers they serve no purpose to us. The amount of effort and time it takes to test the cards has become to prohibitive and is not in our best interest to continue doing so."
I'd love to see that. But who's going to get the ball rolling there? Who's going to take that chance of being shut out by the rest of the community and nVidia themselves? You've already seen what nVidia can do to companies like Futuremark - how would a website fare against that negative-PR onslaught?

[banksie]

QUESTION: You folks who actually saw the DX9 versus nVidia path versus DX8 path...is it a noticeable difference visually 'tween all of them or can nVidia ride it out thru Half-life2 and I'm wrong?

Judge for yourself :-

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_desktop/hl2_followup/shotdx.htm

Personally I don't think nVidia can cover this up, the differences are very very noticeable.

[g__day]

Wow!

I was skeptical of NVidia's honesty in their driver policy "from now on" - but it looks like the dishonesty has just been shunted higher in the development process via a policy of patches for the game engine itself. This is incredible, are they trying to piss everyone off and start a class action against themselves for fraud, mis-leading advertising and gainful deceipt?

Rev - B3d is one of the only sites I trust to do proper reviews, if you can't judge what you are really seeing - maybe review it anyway but add a large caveat to it that its NVidia - can you trust it.

Now there's a slogan opportunity

INWAIRS - Its Nvidia - what am I really seeing?
INCYTI - Its NVidia - can you trust it
INNOCENT - Its Nvidia - not only caught, encouraging neutered testimonies
INWPEMS - Its Nvidia - where performance ends marketing starts

etc...

[banksie]

nVidia's playing hard-ball here folks, and the sooner the line is drawn in the sand, the better.

While I agree that does have a very 'Picard holding the line in First Contact speech' feel to it.

"First they cheated the benchmarks and we withdrew. Then they attacked the filtering and we stood idly by. Entire games were savaged and mauled to become mere shadows of their former glory but we fell back.

No, this stops here. The line must be drawn of here and no further!

We will make them pay, I will make them pay for what they did!"

The point of that scene does apply here in that sometimes resistance can be pointless. nVidia will probably not listen to public outcry - look at how they have handled matters over the tri-linear anisotropy hack. Kyle, eventually, made that very public but still they do it.

The only place that nVidia will listen is in sales. Till it hurts their bottom line I don't think they care what developers, users, reviewers and the like think.

Refusing to review their cards is also the wrong answer - silence can be easily manipulated into tacit agreement. Sadly the only path is to continue to catch them at this with reviews till either nVidia stop doing this or, more likely, the buying public reach their limit and stop buying the hardware.

At which point either nVidia shapes up and produces good hardware or they become an irrelevance to the market because they simply aren't bought.

Could we see within two years nVidia becoming primarily a motherboard chipset maker? Given their current behavior it seems entirely possible, especially if the stock holders force some radical rationalisation on spending within the company.

[ZoinKs!]

QUESTION: You folks who actually saw the DX9 versus nVidia path versus DX8 path...is it a noticeable difference visually 'tween all of them or can nVidia ride it out thru Half-life2 and I'm wrong?

Judge for yourself :-

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_desktop/hl2_followup/shotdx.htm

Personally I don't think nVidia can cover this up, the differences are very very noticeable. Keep in mind that those shots don't use all of the dx 9 effects. High dynamic range lighting and a few other dx 9 effects weren't included in the levels that were reviewed. The water shader is probably the only difference in that shot... in the final game, the difference will be greater.

[3dilettante]

Is there a verifiable source of confirmation of Nvidia's involvement with the patch retraction?

Things look bad, but the idea that Nvidia could be so completely corrupt just hurts my head. Is there anything that can make things absolutely certain?

There probably aren't too many insiders in the position to clear things up without getting fired.

[indio]

Come now Joe, you know damn well that that's not going to happen. No one wants to jeopardize their preview hardware.

What are you actually jeopardizing though? If a site is incapable of doing an accurate review why bother doing it?. If a web site is doing preview products for the sake of doing preview products and not attempting to give the reader an honest and accurate evaluation first and foremost , what good is the review or the reviewer? Let them type of web sites wither on the vine I say.
If it can't be done right don't do it. Tell Nvidia "Until we are satisfied we can accurately evaulate Nvidia cards and their drivers they serve no purpose to us. The amount of effort and time it takes to test the cards has become to prohibitive and is not in our best interest to continue doing so."
I'd love to see that. But who's going to get the ball rolling there? Who's going to take that chance of being shut out by the rest of the community and nVidia themselves? You've already seen what nVidia can do to companies like Futuremark - how would a website fare against that negative-PR onslaught?

My point is that web sites are effectively shut out now . Having hardware that can't be accurately evaluated is just like having no hardware at all. A web site can't do there job with what there getting so why would they want it?
I understand there are web sites that don't give a rats ass and just want hits and that is the main purpose for them doing hardware reviews in the first place . At the very least we would atleast expose the hack journalists for what the are.

[Dave H]

:vomit:

[Deathlike2]

screw it

LOL, at this point, wouldn't all reviewers doing some ATI/NV shader performance/IQ analysis be saying that by now?


That type of thing has already happened. Have you heard of the problem with the water shader in Tiger Woods 2003? It works on NVIDIA's boards, but not any others. Evidently there is a device ID detect in there - if you change another shader enabled board to an NVIDIA device id it runs the NVIDIA shader, not only that but it runs it fine - change the device ID of an NVIDIA board to a non-NVIDIA board and it breaks. Ask EA who wrote that shader code.

I wasn't aware of that... is there a source?

Perhaps BigBerthaEA (from the NVNews boards and others) could comment on that..

At the moment, I am thinking about refusing to review any NVIDIA-based products, not because I don't like what NVIDIA is doing, but because I honestly do not know how to review their products accurately anymore.

Well, you obviously have to hold the same standard from one company and another... I'd say wait til the official Det50s come out.. and do some analysis of them... if they totally break all faith of "redemption"... it probably is the best way to go... although.. I don't think it's a great idea to exclude stuff like this in the longrun (then people would think you are biased towards NVidia)..

It WOULD be an idea to NOT to review anymore "FX series" cards... until a radically new solution (architecture) is available (I believe NVidia will release a new card based on the current architecture for a while, but that beats me)

(The suggestion I mentioned is in reference to something the head editor of 3DVelocity stated in his forums.. I think)

[Kristof]

I think they confused some words in that press release by accident, it should read :

Core and Eidos believe that Tomb Raider: AOD performs well except on NVIDIA hardware.

not :

Core and Eidos believe that Tomb Raider: AOD performs exceptionally well on NVIDIA hardware.

:lol: :wink:

[madshi]

Kristof, that was a good one! :lol:

[CorwinB]

Nice one, Kristof. :P

[Kristof]

SimonF came up with it... credit goes to him 8)

[Simon F]

SimonF came up with it... credit goes to him 8)
Ummm Errr... I deny all knowledge of that.... must have been a spammer forging my email address.

[LeStoffer]

I am just totally amazed by the lengths NVIDIA are going through to try and limit the defiency between their hardware and ATI's. I understand it but I am amazed they are actually doing it. This TRAOD/Eidos incidence is just very probably the last straw for me when it comes to any remaining respect I may have for a company that I once admired.

Even Microsoft isn't so obviously blatant in doing dirty tactics.

I'm thinking along the same lines but how on earth can nVidia even start to think that their company can afford the same luxury of arrogance and strong arming as Microsoft can? Did their last sales figures made them think that they are a monopoly without competition? That customers have no choice? That game developers will accept anything?

I think we all understand that they do have to protect their market shares and promote their products as good as possible, but words like high-handed, smugness and self-sufficient comes to mind when one have to describe their management dicisions since the whole NV30 cover-up started.

Maybe nVidia should remember Nixon: It is not the lie itself, but the damn cover-ups, that will kill you in the end. :|

... and thus we have a word for the whole affair:

CineGate!

[davefb]

I feel sorry for the Core guy.... Core have lost Tomb Raider,, they've been pretty much humiliated by the Eidos board... So that guy's job is probably not looking pretty good at the moment,,, and now he's probably gunna get a roasting..
Though, i can't understand how a patch can come out without Eidos knowing what was in it ! ! !

Stunned by the Tiger Woods issue thats incredible and M$ need to get involved here this is ruining DX. Mind you I had a v5 and although the box of ANOTHER EA game said "needs dx8.0" the EA online FAQ said "needs dx8.1" and the game promptly didnt work correctly on my v5. Apparently this was unfixable ( yeah right ), luckily i had a kryo2 board i could use instead...

-dave-

[THe_KELRaTH]

It seems to me the reason Nvidia is happy to continue with cheat drivers and persuading publishers to lower or alter game quality in their favour is because while it's been condemmed by online review sites and forums very little of this is seeping down to the general public.
I very much doubt that Joe Bloggs who pops down to PCWorld has any clue whats been going over the last year.
Until the hardcopy PC mags start slamming this kind of behavour Nvidia will be safe to continue. I also believe it will continue even when the NV40 is released, after all, why would the GPU still require Int16 at all in the next generation
A positive move by the online review community would be to collate all the years information, put it in date and point format, have all the contributors sign it then pass it onto PC mag and newspaper editors - it would only take 1 major newspaper to get interested and it would blow wide open.

[gokickrocks]

A positive move by the online review community would be to collate all the years information, put it in date and point format, have all the contributors sign it then pass it onto PC mag and newspaper editors - it would only take 1 major newspaper to get interested and it would blow wide open.

it would be better to send the information to the OEM companies like Dell...

hit them where it hurts

[Tim]

http://www.anandtech.com/#20525

It seems that anandtech has seen the light.

[THe_KELRaTH]

it would be better to send the information to the OEM companies like Dell...

hit them where it hurts

None of this effects companies like DELL at all. Now if the end user isn't buying their hardware systems because it has an Nvidia card inside then they would produce more product using ATI - Simple supply and demand.

[Gnep]

NVidia is getting nasty.

What does this make me think? That their next-gen chips are either nowhere near ready or they already know that their performance will be nowhere near good enough. So they panic.

It will be interesting to see how much influence the "network" of websites and enhusiasts who read and post on the web have in damaging the sales of NV hardware, given that they are seeing through a lot of this crap.

I'm hoping however that somehow NV pull through this - I don't want to be left with an effective ATI monopoly in cutting edge 3D tech, as that would just stifle progression as they sit back. We've already essentially lost Matrox, we might gain XGI if they turn out to be any good (I'm sceptical), and PowerVR-based tech has been too quiet for too long (although there's always hope/rumours...).

Sort it out NV. Spend more on R&D and less on PR spin. Compete by being competitive, and not by trying to mislead your customers. Don't treat us like idiots - it's insulting.

[Ollo]

That their next-gen chips are either nowhere near ready or they already know that their performance will be nowhere near good enough. So they panic.

Deja vu.

What would happen if they screw up the next gen? Perhaps we should all go out and buy nv30-boards after all...

[Rodéric]

What would happen if they screw up the next gen? Perhaps we should all go out and buy nv30-boards after all...

Maybe they would collapse life 3DFx did...
That wouldn't be a big problem, we'll simply have PowerVR and ATI, both firms being much nicer and having more respect to their customers.

[xGL]

we'll simply have PowerVR and ATI

Except PowerVR won't have anything for 2003, whereas XGI does :roll:

[Rodéric]

we'll simply have PowerVR and ATI

Except PowerVR won't have anything for 2003, whereas XGI does :roll:

The idea was that nVidia would collapse after releasing a poor NV4x chip, so PowerVR don't need to have something ready yet :) Only by the time NV4x is released.

But yes, XGI can produce something interesting.

[Entropy]

XGI, PowerVR, add the DeltaChrome + successors, add that Creative might let the 3DLabs boys design for the consumer market, consider that nVidia engineers will be soaked up by these new players.....

No, we really don't need nVidia, no more than we needed 3Dfx, or Matrox, or NumberNine, or Tseng Labs, or any of the rest who have come and had a place in the sun only to sink back into obscurity. nVidia is eminently replaceable in the graphics market, given a couple of years or so.

Consumers, reviewers, developers, OEMs - noone needs an IHV that decieves them and makes their lives awkward.

Entropy

[Dave Baumann]

That type of thing has already happened. Have you heard of the problem with the water shader in Tiger Woods 2003? It works on NVIDIA's boards, but not any others. Evidently there is a device ID detect in there - if you change another shader enabled board to an NVIDIA device id it runs the NVIDIA shader, not only that but it runs it fine - change the device ID of an NVIDIA board to a non-NVIDIA board and it breaks. Ask EA who wrote that shader code.

I wasn't aware of that... is there a source?

I apologise, I shouldn’t have said that as I haven’t actually verified it myself - there is at least one editor looking in to this that I am aware of. However, as I said, I shouldn’t have said this and it was an unprofessional emotional response to the events that have happened recently.

No, NVIDIA hasn’t "got to me", but this type of comment shouldn’t be what B3D is used for and I shouldn’t have made it. However, I am still rather astounded by the events recently.

...

Since starting to write this I have a long conversation with NVIDIA on some of the Tomb Raider stuff. They believed ATI tipped us off to there being a benchmark mode in the patch - I will state, that we had no such information from ATI. We started working with Core to get some enhancements to the benchmark (which are in the shipping version of the game) back in July and the first either NVIDIA or ATI knew that we were looking at this was when Reverend mailed about some driver issues for both parties - we did receive a reply from ATI, but AFAIK Reverend didn’t get anything back from NVIDIA.

There appears to be a slight impasse in the methods of benchmarking that NVIDIA would want, and also a lack of appreciation of what was actually benchmarked here. The problem is that at present there is a difference between the "out of the box" settings and the "like for like" settings. Reverend spent a lot of time talking with Core to get an understanding of what the "like for like" settings would be, which is what our settings documentation is based on. However, this like for like benchmarking isn’t necessarily how the game will be played out of the box - this is what I believe the last statement from Eido’s is in relation to. When I talked to NVIDIA there didn’t seem to be a level of appreciation that we took both benchmarks in the "like for like" settings and we also showed the default board performance as a current user would play it out of the box (and also listing all the settings that were enabled or disabled). I specifically did this because I figured there would be complaints that it doesn’t represent how you would play it, however this appears to have gone unnoticed - IMO reviews are also about understanding performance to base purchasing decisions on, not justifying (or getting annoyed at) the purchase you have already made.

[indio]

That type of thing has already happened. Have you heard of the problem with the water shader in Tiger Woods 2003? It works on NVIDIA's boards, but not any others. Evidently there is a device ID detect in there - if you change another shader enabled board to an NVIDIA device id it runs the NVIDIA shader, not only that but it runs it fine - change the device ID of an NVIDIA board to a non-NVIDIA board and it breaks. Ask EA who wrote that shader code.

I wasn't aware of that... is there a source?

I apologise, I shouldn’t have said that as I haven’t actually verified it myself - there is at least one editor looking in to this that I am aware of. However, as I said, I shouldn’t have said this and it was an unprofessional emotional response to the events that have happened recently.

No, NVIDIA hasn’t "got to me", but this type of comment shouldn’t be what B3D is used for and I shouldn’t have made it. justifying (or getting annoyed at) the purchase you have already made.

I for one figured it was second hand information and maybe you shouldn't have posted it . However you posted what you heard in the forums and not as news so don't be so harsh on yourself.
:)
In any case , if the information is true the implications are of an IHV breaking the law (atleast in the US). AFAIK intentionally breaking another companies product is an anti-competitive practice and a felony.

There appears to be a slight impasse in the methods of benchmarking that NVIDIA would want, and also a lack of appreciation of what was actually benchmarked here.

You might as well talk to a brick wall in this respect. De nile is a river and Nvidia is drowning in it.

[demalion]

kindbudmaster,

I agree with you completely. I think it has been born out that gamersdepot's accuracy and relevance is not related to following journalistic principles, but to do with the actions of nVidia being so amazing that sensationalism and non-objective commentary doesn't seem (at the moment) to depart from the truth. While the degree of problems in this regard is not nearly as extreme as certain other sites that come to mind (but worse, IMO, than certain others I do think have problems as well), I think they are distinguished mostly by having ended up picking the right company to crucify.

Perhaps their choice was based on a solid foundation, but that doesn't change that it displays a marked lack of objectivity in the way they are progressing.

Wavey,

On that note, I'm glad you modified your statement Wavey. Myself, you know I've long ago decided against buying nVidia products. Without any 180 degree changes in my outlook to confuse things for me, though indeed feeling some measure of amazement, I continue to find it important to stick to objectivity when dealing with these issues, as amazing as they are.

But I don't think you should be hard on yourself...your statements weren't on the front page or an article, and, true to expectations, your personal standards have shown through in a timely fashion in your follow up to them.

Others have spoken up on the problems with silence, and I think alternative solutions and approaches have been mentioned. I will reiterate my suggestion concerning the Det 50's, as far as one specific part of the current situation, in that an objective evaluation and isolation of cheats, as well as a a separate evaluation of any valid and confirmable actual legitimate optimizations, would be the way to present a complete picture true to this site's spirit as I perceive it. I think something like this is even more important in defining the site, and as an opportunity to illustrate the virtue of thoroughness and not being swayed by the "political" situation to nVidia, just in case there is something buried somewhere that nVidia is doing "right", even in this mess.

...

I try not to jump on bandwagons. I'm not going to tell people they shouldn't when they are faced with valid reasons to do so, I'm going to try to walk along side and prevent it from smashing through important things on its way to its destination. I think that's something Beyond3D has done successfully and seems to be prepared to continue to do, and I'd just like to encourage that.

[xGL]

When I talked to NVIDIA there didn’t seem to be a level of appreciation that we took both benchmarks in the "like for like" settings

nv doesn't like the fact that their cards don't perform as well as competing solutions in "apples for apples" comparison, that's all.

[THe_KELRaTH]

A company that touts CineFX / 32bit / the fastest etc etc then expects reviewers to lower settings to create an even fight against it's rivals is hardly what I'd call a balanced review anyway. All Nvidia have to is change the DX9 sticker to DX8.1 and the problem would be neutralized.

[demalion]

Ack! Someone took your forum commentary and posted it on Anandtech's front page. Perhaps an expansion of your sig for such eventualities is in order, Wavey? :-?

[CorwinB]

They believed ATI tipped us off to there being a benchmark mode in the patch - I will state, that we had no such information from ATI.

Not that NV had any moral problems tipping "guys with webpages" WRT Quake/Quack a while ago themselves...

[horvendile]

http://www.anandtech.com/#20525

It seems that anandtech has seen the light.

I read the comments.
Yowza :shock: !
I don't read any message boards beside B3D, and there's the explanation!
Admittedly I've seen far worse examples (e.g. at Firingsquad), but it's so long time between my visits at other message boards that I get surprised every time.

[Snyder]

I apologise, I shouldn’t have said that as I haven’t actually verified it myself - there is at least one editor looking in to this that I am aware of. However, as I said, I shouldn’t have said this and it was an unprofessional emotional response to the events that have happened recently.


Well, you are still only human. ;)
But I think it would be wise to contact anand about it (it seems they haven't noticed your new sig yet and already quoted it...) and to add a short note to the post in question (to prevent any further quotings "out of context")

[rashly]

Core and Eidos believe that Tomb Raider: AOD performs exceptionally well on NVIDIA hardware.
it performs exceptionally well like a retarded kid can read exceptionally well... FOR A RETARDED KID!!!

it should be:
Core and Eidos believe that Tomb Raider: AOD performs exceptionally well on NVIDIA hardware compared to home made grahics cards.

[Natoma]

That type of thing has already happened. Have you heard of the problem with the water shader in Tiger Woods 2003? It works on NVIDIA's boards, but not any others. Evidently there is a device ID detect in there - if you change another shader enabled board to an NVIDIA device id it runs the NVIDIA shader, not only that but it runs it fine - change the device ID of an NVIDIA board to a non-NVIDIA board and it breaks. Ask EA who wrote that shader code.

I wasn't aware of that... is there a source?

I apologise, I shouldn’t have said that as I haven’t actually verified it myself - there is at least one editor looking in to this that I am aware of. However, as I said, I shouldn’t have said this and it was an unprofessional emotional response to the events that have happened recently.

No, NVIDIA hasn’t "got to me", but this type of comment shouldn’t be what B3D is used for and I shouldn’t have made it. However, I am still rather astounded by the events recently.

Thank you for the update. However, my sneaking suspicion is that it will turn out true in the end anyways. I really just do not trust Nvidia anymore. And that's a sad position for one to be forced to take given the relative lack of competitors in the 3d market space outside ATI.

[Reverend]

http://www.anandtech.com/#20525

It seems that anandtech has seen the light.
Gawd... I sure didn't expect what I posted to be quoted...

[indio]

Just to clarify . Were you refering to Tiger Woods 2003 or Tiger Woods 2004?

[Reverend]

That type of thing has already happened. Have you heard of the problem with the water shader in Tiger Woods 2003? It works on NVIDIA's boards, but not any others. Evidently there is a device ID detect in there - if you change another shader enabled board to an NVIDIA device id it runs the NVIDIA shader, not only that but it runs it fine - change the device ID of an NVIDIA board to a non-NVIDIA board and it breaks. Ask EA who wrote that shader code.

I wasn't aware of that... is there a source?

I apologise, I shouldn’t have said that as I haven’t actually verified it myself - there is at least one editor looking in to this that I am aware of. However, as I said, I shouldn’t have said this and it was an unprofessional emotional response to the events that have happened recently.

No, NVIDIA hasn’t "got to me", but this type of comment shouldn’t be what B3D is used for and I shouldn’t have made it. However, I am still rather astounded by the events recently.

...

Since starting to write this I have a long conversation with NVIDIA on some of the Tomb Raider stuff. They believed ATI tipped us off to there being a benchmark mode in the patch - I will state, that we had no such information from ATI. We started working with Core to get some enhancements to the benchmark (which are in the shipping version of the game) back in July and the first either NVIDIA or ATI knew that we were looking at this was when Reverend mailed about some driver issues for both parties - we did receive a reply from ATI, but AFAIK Reverend didn’t get anything back from NVIDIA.

There appears to be a slight impasse in the methods of benchmarking that NVIDIA would want, and also a lack of appreciation of what was actually benchmarked here. The problem is that at present there is a difference between the "out of the box" settings and the "like for like" settings. Reverend spent a lot of time talking with Core to get an understanding of what the "like for like" settings would be, which is what our settings documentation is based on. However, this like for like benchmarking isn’t necessarily how the game will be played out of the box - this is what I believe the last statement from Eido’s is in relation to. When I talked to NVIDIA there didn’t seem to be a level of appreciation that we took both benchmarks in the "like for like" settings and we also showed the default board performance as a current user would play it out of the box (and also listing all the settings that were enabled or disabled). I specifically did this because I figured there would be complaints that it doesn’t represent how you would play it, however this appears to have gone unnoticed - IMO reviews are also about understanding performance to base purchasing decisions on, not justifying (or getting annoyed at) the purchase you have already made.

Dave, if need be, I can send you all the emails I traded with Core where I made the initial suggestions about all the benchmark stuff and of which Core implemented.

I was also asked by a NVIDIA personnel if ATI tipped us off abpout (or even provided us with) the benchmarking mode in TRAOD, right after Dave did his beta bench article. I shut him up.

[Mark]

More people need to shut nVidia up, for nVidias own sake.

[Deathlike2]

To note something on Anandtech's front page is something (I guess some people DO care about what goes on Beyond3D).. congrats :)

I was also asked by a NVIDIA personnel if ATI tipped us off abpout (or even provided us with) the benchmarking mode in TRAOD, right after Dave did his beta bench article. I shut him up.

LOL, That's giving it to them.

ust to clarify . Were you refering to Tiger Woods 2003 or Tiger Woods 2004?

Tiger Woods 2003, Tiger Woods 2004 will be out at some point (it would be an idea to contact BigBerthaEA about it.. (he's hyping it slightly, but he's also under an NDA)... Tiger Woods 2003 is partly under discussion

[Mark]

TW2004 release date is set for the 22nd I think. I also think Tim's NDA has expired on the game as well, so he could probably answer some of these questions if he wanted to.

[WaltC]

screw it

That type of thing has already happened. Have you heard of the problem with the water shader in Tiger Woods 2003? It works on NVIDIA's boards, but not any others. Evidently there is a device ID detect in there - if you change another shader enabled board to an NVIDIA device id it runs the NVIDIA shader, not only that but it runs it fine - change the device ID of an NVIDIA board to a non-NVIDIA board and it breaks. Ask EA who wrote that shader code.

Dave, look here in the Rev's review:

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/albatron/gffx5900pv/index.php?p=10

under the "Other Condsiderations" heading. To me, the R3x0 water shading is infinitely better than what nVidia's getting out of it...;) The wader shading for the Dets is flat--the trees don't even properly reflect in the water movement. The water shading with the Cats is mirrored, and you can see how the reflection of the trees distorts with the water rippling. It almost looks to me is if EA couldn't get the effect it wanted for the water with the Dets so they put in some "rough water" animated texturing to mask it. That's the way the screen shots look to me...

[digitalwanderer]

Tiger Woods 2003, Tiger Woods 2004 will be out at some point (it would be an idea to contact BigBerthaEA about it.. (he's hyping it slightly, but he's also under an NDA)... Tiger Woods 2003 is partly under discussion
No, no he's not under an NDA anymore about it...he was discussing it over at Rage3D a bit yesterday. Hold on a sec...

I will be able to comment more fully on this issue as I am supposed to be getting final game code tomorrow.

From what I have seen on alpha builds, TW2004 ran pretty much neck and neck with the 9800 Pro on my rig.

When we reached Beta and more shaders were added to the game code, the 9800 Pro did not bat an eye and was roughly TWICE as fast in framerates at the same resolution as the 5900 Ultra. The build I have tonight is 3 versions shy of final and the same story holds true.

I have also emailed the developer to get some answers to the issues that Dave brought up. Not sure when I will get an answer as this is a TWIMTBP game and I am not sure how much the developer can comment. That being said, I will follow up here with more when I have something to report.

-Tim

Direct link to quote (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33711306&perpage=20&pag enumber=2).

[WaltC]

...Since starting to write this I have a long conversation with NVIDIA on some of the Tomb Raider stuff. They believed ATI tipped us off to there being a benchmark mode in the patch - I will state, that we had no such information from ATI.

In other words, the person at nVidia you talked to basically believes that you are a liar, and involved in an active conspiracy to falsify information about their products along with ATi. Dave, I would send whomever you spoke with a written letter and ask him to restate those assertions in written form. You have a right--but I'll make a large wager they will never do so.

The one thing I learned long ago through bitter experience is that it is often the case when dealing with dishonest people and/or companies that they will accuse everyone else of doing exactly what they are doing--which is being dishonest. Somebody at nVidia is telling some whoppers, both to themselves and to anyone else who will listen. It is a classic example of conduct by professional crooks and and con men.

We started working with Core to get some enhancements to the benchmark (which are in the shipping version of the game) back in July and the first either NVIDIA or ATI knew that we were looking at this was when Reverend mailed about some driver issues for both parties - we did receive a reply from ATI, but AFAIK Reverend didn’t get anything back from NVIDIA.

The sin in the eyes of nVidia here is that you didn't allow nVidia to "co-ordinate" all of your activities in that regard, I'm sure. How dare you be brazen enough to think you could run your own web site without their guidance? (Is probably what they'd like you to think.)

There appears to be a slight impasse in the methods of benchmarking that NVIDIA would want, and also a lack of appreciation of what was actually benchmarked here. The problem is that at present there is a difference between the "out of the box" settings and the "like for like" settings.

I fail to see a problem with that at all--that's true of almost any software you can name. The real problem, of course, is that nVidia did not want it exposed that their hardware is truly not capable of doing a good job with real DX9-engine 3d games. So they will throw off on you, Core, FutureMark and anybody else who dares to question their PR machine. Whether the criticisms are valid is of no concern to nVidia, obviously.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33711306&perpage=20&pagenumber=2

Hmm, page one of that thread claims that Stalker has been bought by Nvidia, and they are coding all the PS 2.0 stuff for the developer and making sure it runs badly on ATI hardware.

Is this a growing trend of Nvidia trying to buy games and making them "Nvidia Only"? If so, Stalker's developers are going to be very unhappy when all the ATI owners with the high-end cards capable of running Stalker well don't buy the game because of the visuals being deliberatly crippled by Nvidia coders.

Does Nvidia really think that giving developers a load of cash and crippling code paths (which the ATI cards will probably run as well as the Nvidia cards - if not better - anyway), will actually have people buying 5900Us? Do they think we will throw away our R350's which run 2-4 times faster than Nvidia cards with better IQ in 99.9 percent of games, just to play the one or two "Nvidia Crippled" games?

Just when you think Nvidia reach an all time low, they again manage to pull themselves even deeper into the gutter....

[Colourless]

/me puts on the aiuminium hat

*Conspiracy mode on*

Is the TWIMTBP campaign something that Nvidia setup so it could prevent the use of benchmarks in games that use pixel shaders that show it's hardware in a bad light???

Think about it. UT2003 is a TWIMTBP game, and benchmarks are ok in that, because Nvidia cards do well in it (with just a 'bit' of extra help from the drivers). Of course it doesn't use PS2.0 as well. TRAoD though, completely different story.

*Conspiracy mode off*

/me takes off the aiuminium hat

[digitalwanderer]

/me puts on the aiuminium hat

*Conspiracy mode on*

Is the TWIMTBP campaign something that Nvidia setup so it could prevent the use of benchmarks in games that use pixel shaders that show it's hardware in a bad light???

Think about it. UT2003 is a TWIMTBP game, and benchmarks are ok in that, because Nvidia cards do well in it (with just a 'bit' of extra help from the drivers). Of course it doesn't use PS2.0 as well. TRAoD though, completely different story.

*Conspiracy mode off*

/me takes off the aiuminium hat
/me takes Colourless' aluminum hat and runs off to hide under me bed!

[Colourless]

/me takes Colourless' aluminum hat and runs off to hide under me bed!

Give that back! You should respect those who are higher in the organization. I am number 22, while you are only 357.

[Doomtrooper]

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33711306&perpage=20&pag enumber=2

Hmm, page one of that thread claims that Stalker has been bought by Nvidia, and they are coding all the PS 2.0 stuff for the developer and making sure it runs badly on ATI hardware.

Is this a growing trend of Nvidia trying to buy games and making them "Nvidia Only"? If so, Stalker's developers are going to be very unhappy when all the ATI owners with the high-end cards capable of running Stalker well don't buy the game because of the visuals being deliberatly crippled by Nvidia coders.

Does Nvidia really think that giving developers a load of cash and crippling code paths (which the ATI cards will probably run as well as the Nvidia cards - if not better - anyway), will actually have people buying 5900Us? Do they think we will throw away our R350's which run 2-4 times faster than Nvidia cards with better IQ in 99.9 percent of games, just to play the one or two "Nvidia Crippled" games?

Just when you think Nvidia reach an all time low, they again manage to pull themselves even deeper into the gutter....



Remember this from me:

Hi,

In fact, the graphics engine is developed on Radeon9700 :)
We demand special support from FX driver guys, 'cause in pure/standart
DX9 it's impossible so run the engine on FX, at the moment.
Yes, FX will be slightly faster, but in the margin of several
percentages...

So, don't worry, your card will be excelent performer in
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

--
Best regards,
Oles V. Shishkovtsov
GSC-Game World
oles@gsc-game.kiev.ua


Monday, February 17, 2003, 7:05:06 PM, you wrote:

OVJ> This is a forwarded message
OVJ> From: Anton Bolshakov <anton@gsc-game.kiev.ua>
OVJ> To: "Oleg V . Javorsky" <oleg@gsc-game.kiev.ua> (GSC Game World)
OVJ> Date: Monday, February 17, 2003, 7:00:11 PM
OVJ> Subject: : Stalker Support

Then when this went public on the net, 3DGPU writes this :

http://www.3dgpu.com/comments.php?id=2323&category=9 <---Link is dead



We use all hardware for development of Stalker, although most are NVIDIA. We will produce a game with the best quality, compatibility, and performance on all supported hardware (T&L or better).
Here are the general things. As a programmer, I need to get access to the latest hardware and talk to it's manufacturers, otherwise we may get way behind the competition. I want to give credit to NVIDIA for agreeing to be our technical partner and render us this kind of assistance (we contacted NVIDIA and ATI for several months, but ATI did not respond). NVIDIA offers me early hardware and very good support. Prior to GeForceFX I worked with Radeon 9700 but I am currently developing the Stalker engine on NV35. Naturally, such close work with NVIDIA engineers allows me to come up with better optimizations and support the new technologies of NVIDIA boards.

In Stalker you'll be able to play fine on NVIDIA and ATI hardware--the gameplay and run stability should be the same. On ATI boards Stalker will run fast, but on NVIDIA boards it will run even faster, plus gamers will get a set of unique effects, namely due to close work with the company enginers and support of NVIDIA hardware features.


Then ...ATI must have talked to them :lol: :

I'd like to bring in certain explanations. In the previous message from Oles Shishkovtsov it was mentioned "we contacted NVIDIA and ATI for several months, but ATI did not respond". I'd like to add some details here: it probably wasn't put in a proper way, for it's not that ATI refused us in technical help, it's more that not everything went as we expected. We got our 9700 board with delay early October. That was already the release variant of the board, we couldn't get hold of earlier versions. ATI guys provided us with access onto developer forums and were ready to answer our questions.


We wouldn't like you to get a wrong impression out of that previous message that ATI developer relations department works badly. We did receive two 9700 boards, and we'd like to thank ATI for that. It's just that everything went not as fast as we expected, boards came after quite some time and we did not get a possibility to demonstrate the game at ATI's booth at ECTS. So, everything's fine with ATI's developer relations, probably something just went wrong on our side.

Oleg Yavorsky
PR Manager
GSC Game World
www.gsc-game.com
www.stalker-game.com


Keep in mind the Hypocritical comments in the last email exchange, they got a DX9 board in October, prior to even the API's release...then didn't get a FX board till Jan of the following year.

Then claim things didn't happen as fast as they wanted to, instead of admitting they have taken a undisclosed cash settlement to ensure Nvidia looks better. :lol:

[Doomtrooper]

Pixel Shaders/Vertex Shaders used in S.T.A.L.K.E.R:

we won't use 1.2,1.3,1.4 Shaders. We will use only versions 1.1 and
2.0. V. 1.1. allows making everything, at the same time, it has no
compatibility issues, while 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 have. So we opted for
1.1.

Best regards,

Anton

[indio]

How can you blame GSC ? There in the Ukraine AFAIK and probably have VERY limited resources. It ain't exactly the lap of luxury over there. They didn't even have a publisher till the the last E3.
The probably didn't have muchof a choice given what DEV costs are today.

[digitalwanderer]

/me takes Colourless' aluminum hat and runs off to hide under me bed!

Give that back! You should respect those who are higher in the organization. I am number 22, while you are only 357.
/me gives Colourless back his aluminum hat abashedly :oops:

[Doomtrooper]

It goes back to the old arguement, it is in the developers best interest to ensure their customers get the maxium experience out of their hardware.

How can PS 2.0 'run faster' on Nvidia hardware..I mean really.
It is too bad it has come down to this, payoffs to Devs. vs. Devs working with everyone to ensure optimal performance on all cards.

WHY I like Valves approach, and they certainly tried to their best to give good performance to HL2 for Nvidia users.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

How can you blame GSC ? There in the Ukraine AFAIK and probably have VERY limited resources. It ain't exactly the lap of luxury over there. They didn't even have a publisher till the the last E3.
The probably didn't have muchof a choice given what DEV costs are today.

Yes, it's understandable if Nvidia ponied up a lot of cash. However, there is a difference to writing a NV3x optimised path like D3/Valve to get the best out of the poor NV3x, and actively trying to cripple the performance of the game on a different card.

Given the massive difference in PS capabilities between Nvidia and ATI, I would expect the R3x0 performance to be able to *at least* keep very close to the NV3x performance, *unless* the code deliberatly cripples ATI performance. If this is the case, I would hope that ATI sorts out Nvidia-style shader replacement.

However, it is always possible that all this talk of Stalker is for PR puposes. When it arrives, we may find that the developers have quietly done a DX9 path that the ATI cards will excel at.

[Joe DeFuria]

/me takes Colourless' aluminum hat and runs off to hide under me bed!

Give that back! You should respect those who are higher in the organization. I am number 22, while you are only 357.
/me gives Colourless back his aluminum hat abashedly :oops:

/Number 17 grabs hat administers 10 lashings with a wet noodle to the subordinates!

[Joe DeFuria]

However, it is always possible that all this talk of Stalker is for PR puposes. When it arrives, we may find that the developers have quietly done a DX9 path that the ATI cards will excel at.

Of course, we'll never know...because nVidia would at that time have any benchmarking facility in STALKER removed, with another round of "FRAPS is unreliable" PR....

[nggalai]

Something I still don't get:

While Eidos and Core appreciate the need for modern benchmarking software that utilizes the advanced shading capabilities of modern graphics hardware, Tomb Raider: AOD Patch 49 was never intended for public release and is not a basis for valid benchmarking comparisons.

Why the hell did Eidos need a fortnight to realise they published a patch that was "never intended for public release?"

What's scarier--that NV strongarmed Eidos to remove the patch because of its benchmarking feature, or that Eidos's QA needs two weeks to realise they spread a patch that's not meant to be used by gamers? ;)

93,
-Sascha.rb

[WaltC]

Of course, we'll never know...because nVidia would at that time have any benchmarking facility in STALKER removed, with another round of "FRAPS is unreliable" PR....

Not to mention getting those pesky DX9-ish features removed from the game....;) If not for DX9, nVidia could have played at DX8.x forevermore...ah, now M$, and DX9 (shades of xBox2!) have become the bane to nVidia's existence--the roadblock against "lighting every pixel on every screen", as the nVidia CEO dreams of each night while listening to Wagner and thinking about needing a bigger "living room."

:twisted: --Just kidding!....;)

[WaltC]

Something I still don't get:

While Eidos and Core appreciate the need for modern benchmarking software that utilizes the advanced shading capabilities of modern graphics hardware, Tomb Raider: AOD Patch 49 was never intended for public release and is not a basis for valid benchmarking comparisons.

Why the hell did Eidos need a fortnight to realise they published a patch that was "never intended for public release?"

What's scarier--that NV strongarmed Eidos to remove the patch because of its benchmarking feature, or that Eidos's QA needs two weeks to realise they spread a patch that's not meant to be used by gamers? ;)

93,
-Sascha.rb

As I pointed out in an earlier post, generally the publisher thoroughly checks out the patch before placing it on his web site--this happens at EA and Atari and everywhere else I know about--and I'm quite certain it happened in this case as well.

I think ATi should put out some feelers here...the story nVidia told Dave B may be the story they've put out to Eidos--that Core's developers were influenced through the B3d back door and that B3d was serving as the corrupt minion of ATi.

"I say, Holmes! Who's the mastermind? Who's pulling the strings?"

"Watson, my dear chap. It's Moriarty, of course--always Moriarty! Curse the fiend!"

"But how do you know?"

"Watson--you see but you do not observe! Notice that cleverly hidden in the name 'Moriarty' are the letters 'ATi'.....!"

"By jove, Holmes, you've got it!"

"Let's be off, Watson, the game is afoot..!"

The two men pause at the door and look at each other...

"I say, Holmes, where are we going?"

"Watson, that's a good fellow...Kindly hand me my pipe, my violin, and my syringe case...I need to think about this a bit more...let's not be hasty. My nemesis may be more cunning than I assume....Hmmmm...."

:twisted:

[nggalai]

WaltC,

I always said so--Conan Doyle was a bloody genius. :D

93,
-Sascha.rb

[hjs]

Patient privileges: Internet access


How did you get that? :o ;)

[WaltC]

WaltC,

I always said so--Conan Doyle was a bloody genius. :D

93,
-Sascha.rb

Unquestionably...:)

[WaltC]

Patient privileges: Internet access


How did you get that? :o ;)

It wasn't easy...but it was kind of fun...there was this nurse and she....nah, I better not say....

[Colourless]

From what I understand of what you'd do to optimize forNV3x cards, i wouldn't think that it would be exceeidingly difficult for ATI to reorder and optimize the shaders quite substantially to improve performance.

For the NV3x you want to first reduce register usage. That would mean that any NV3x oprimized code would have lots of free registers. Registers that an ATI optimizer could use to it's benefit.

One way that you'd free up registers for NV3x is of course to only sample textures when you need them. Now this will somewhat hurt for ATI cards. However, with all the unused registers, ATI could easily move all/most of the texture access to the start of the shader as they like.

In addition they could do various other oprimizations to the shader code as well. NV3x oprimized code is probably going to recalucate values rather than store them in register for re-use. Again, this will hurt ATI by costing extra clock cycles. ATI could just reuse the values by using extra registers and removing the undeeded repeated code. Something that compiler oprimizers usually like to do.

So, I have to wonder, how effectively could Nvidia, or a developer working with Nvidia, write shaders that would run slowly on ATI cards without actually hurting themselves too much in the process.

[nelg]

From what I understand of what you'd do to optimize forNV3x cards, i wouldn't think that it would be exceeidingly difficult for ATI to reorder and optimize the shaders quite substantially to improve performance.

For the NV3x you want to first reduce register usage. That would mean that any NV3x oprimized code would have lots of free registers. Registers that an ATI optimizer could use to it's benefit.

One way that you'd free up registers for NV3x is of course to only sample textures when you need them. Now this will somewhat hurt for ATI cards. However, with all the unused registers, ATI could easily move all/most of the texture access to the start of the shader as they like.

In addition they could do various other oprimizations to the shader code as well. NV3x oprimized code is probably going to recalucate values rather than store them in register for re-use. Again, this will hurt ATI by costing extra clock cycles. ATI could just reuse the values by using extra registers and removing the undeeded repeated code. Something that compiler oprimizers usually like to do.

So, I have to wonder, how effectively could Nvidia, or a developer working with Nvidia, write shaders that would run slowly on ATI cards without actually hurting themselves too much in the process.

In addition to this it would give ATI the reputaion as having the miracle drivers that inrease performance by ~25% or so. Killing off what is left of the myth of DET. performance increases.

[digitalwanderer]

/me starts making lots of aluminum hats and distributing them around the thread

[Humus]

/me put on a cupper hat for better cooling

[digitalwanderer]

/me eyes Humus' copper hat enviously as me fingers me aluminum hat...

[Live]

/me offers to sell you all very expensive sub zero cooling tech for all helmets to let you get some nightmare free sleep after this sordid affair

[digitalwanderer]

/me pulls out me change purse and starts counting me pennies.

[gkar1]

Hmm why has Dave's "screw it" post dissaperared?

[Althornin]

/me sticks everyone who uses "/me" into a microwave oven, and due to their metal hats, all of their brains are fried.

[PiNkY]

I'll probably get ripped for this, but i think quite a lot of people are overreacting lately. IMO Nvidia is hardly changing the rules as how large hardware/software companies have always operated. I, hitherto, have never seen a company, that has arguably slipped under heavy competition, openly admitting that it did and endorsing customers to go out and buy superiour competing products. Especially with hardware products, manipulating benchmarks, without any advantage to the customer, has a long tradition in the IT-sector (Standard works such as Computer Architecture have entire chapters devoted to it). This is in no way limited to Nvidia and Microsoft (arguably 3dfx didn't behave very different after TnT2, Geforce releases). What's new though, is the amount of publicity this topic is lately receiving (Something I really endorse, as seeing through ploys like this undoubtly seperates a good reviewer from the wannabe "guys with websites"). To sum it all up, i, however, in no way want to suggest that information like this [see thread] is unimportand, but i do hope that reviews @ beyond3d stay as objective as they are and don't slip in the "we wont accept XY products from now on direction".

[Simon F]

/me takes Colourless' aluminum hat and runs off to hide under me bed!

Give that back! You should respect those who are higher in the organization. I am number 22, while you are only 357.

"I am not a number. I am a human being".

Anyway, why not use copper? It seems to be the favoured replacement for aluminium in chips - why not lunatic-fringe hats as well :)

Ahh I see Humus already has.... I wonder what that implies... :-)

[StealthHawk]

I'll probably get ripped for this, but i think quite a lot of people are overreacting lately. IMO Nvidia is hardly changing the rules as how large hardware/software companies have always operated. I, hitherto, have never seen a company, that has arguably slipped under heavy competition, openly admitting that it did and endorsing customers to go out and buy superiour competing products. Especially with hardware products, manipulating benchmarks, without any advantage to the customer, has a long tradition in the IT-sector (Standard works such as Computer Architecture have entire chapters devoted to it). This is in no way limited to Nvidia and Microsoft (arguably 3dfx didn't behave very different after TnT2, Geforce releases). What's new though, is the amount of publicity this topic is lately receiving (Something I really endorse, as seeing through ploys like this undoubtly seperates a good reviewer from the wannabe "guys with websites"). To sum it all up, i, however, in no way want to suggest that information like this [see thread] is unimportand, but i do hope that reviews @ beyond3d stay as objective as they are and don't slip in the "we wont accept XY products from now on direction".

I don't think many people are asking for NVIDIA to come out and say "look, our products suck and are uncompetitive. Go buy ATI, it's a better use of your money." Rather, we would like it for the lies and PR games to stop. NVIDIA is entitled to try and sell its products. But the contradictions really need to stop. Do they think that the people who read their PR are so stupid that they don't remember things they said a few weeks or months ago :?

As far as my memory recalls, 3dfx did not act like NVIDIA at all. NVIDIA has always acted rather arrogantly and rashly. "FSAA is not important, nobody needs FSAA!" ...next drivers add FSAA support :wink:

[CorwinB]

I don't think many people are asking for NVIDIA to come out and say "look, our products suck and are uncompetitive. Go buy ATI, it's a better use of your money." Rather, we would like it for the lies and PR games to stop.

Agreed. Solutions they could try :
- stay silent and swallow the pill instead of lying/cheating/throwing discredit on other companies (FutureMark/Eidos)
- issue factuals (even if sometimes funny) Press Releases to keep brand recognition up (they have been doing a lot of this lately, with "king of retail", "professional workstation king"... There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, provided they stick to facts and don't sling mud.
- use the TWIMTBP program to try to sign deals for exclusive content on NV hardware. *Not* crippling competitor products, but semi-exclusive bundle deals (IIRC, DroneZ for example was an exclusive NV bundle for a while), specific "NV-only" levels for download (wasn't there a "high-poly count Q3 level" a while ago, or something like that ?).
- Focus on nForce, which is, right now, the only excellent price/performance ratio Nvidia product

I think there is a lot they can do to keep afloat until NV40 ships. Of course, it could also be that they are really desperate because right now, they already know that NV40 won't be able to compete with ATI's next part (I suppose the IHVs know much more about each other's parts than the public does :) ). Or it could be that they know that NV40 will feature such huge performance increases that most people will forget about the past and buy their products anyway.

[Nite_Hawk]

I'd even be willing to allow them some of what they want, like reducing trilinear to a mixed mode, and some other quality reductions so long as they don't try to pass them off as full quality. If they want to stick a mixed mode in between bilinear and trilinear that's perfectly fine. If they want to have a "mixed mode" Aniso setting that's fine too. It's all about how you present it to the user.

This is pretty much their problem both on the technical side, and on the marketing side. At the best they are content to let you believe something they know is false, and at the worst they outright lie about their products. If Nvidia simply started treating people with respect, stopped lieing, and started talking frankly about their card, and what needs to be done to make it perform well (even if that means a reduction in image quality), I'm sure people would be willing to listen. Yeah, it might not go over well that it's slow unless you drop quality, but it'd go over a lot better than us finding out it's slow on our own *and* finding out that nvidia thinks it's ok to lie to us about it.

Nite_Hawk

[digitalwanderer]

I'd even be willing to allow them some of what they want, like reducing trilinear to a mixed mode, and some other quality reductions so long as they don't try to pass them off as full quality. If they want to stick a mixed mode in between bilinear and trilinear that's perfectly fine. If they want to have a "mixed mode" Aniso setting that's fine too. It's all about how you present it to the user.
Trilinear "quincux" filtering, so to speak?

[CorwinB]

I'd even be willing to allow them some of what they want, like reducing trilinear to a mixed mode, and some other quality reductions so long as they don't try to pass them off as full quality. If they want to stick a mixed mode in between bilinear and trilinear that's perfectly fine. If they want to have a "mixed mode" Aniso setting that's fine too. It's all about how you present it to the user.


Exactly ! I think pretty much everyone agreed on this at the beginning of the whole UT2K3 "trilinear" scandal... Offer the choice to the user, and it's a very nice feature. Force it in spite of all settings asked by both the user and the application, and it's a dirty cheat.

[Jima13]

"I find it a bit odd that nobody has mentioned something...
The benchmark was already in Tomb Raider long before the v49 patch. In fact, it's present on the Tomb Raider cd in the retail box.

All you need to add is "-benchmark=paris3" on the command line, and you're off and running. Use the "settings" panel in the game launcher to configure whatever options you want.

Sure, the v49 patch added a few "convenience features", like a command line option to set the resolution and refresh rate. But there's really nothing in v49 that's not available in every other version of Tomb Raider. Well... except for some bug fixes and performance improvements.

Maybe NV doesn't like bug fixes and performance improvements?"

http://www.gamersdepot.com/index.asp

[jpaana]

Anyone tried the "new" (says Released
03 September, 2003) v.52 patch from http://www.eidosinteractive.co.uk/support/patchinfo.html?ptid=67 to see what if anything changed?

[Reverend]

Anyone tried the "new" (says Released
03 September, 2003) v.52 patch from http://www.eidosinteractive.co.uk/support/patchinfo.html?ptid=67 to see what if anything changed?
A friend emailed me about this patch and said that the benchmark feature has been removed. I've yet to confirm this (haven't downloaded the patch yet) nor have I talked to Core Design.

If this is the case, we'll very probably continue to use V49 for reviews. Hope this is understandable to everyone.

[Mark0]

This is what the readme say:
Tomb Raider: the Angel of Darkness by Core Design - retail v52 patch
Bugs Fixed and changes in V52:

No details available.

Bugs Fixed and changes in V49:
Save game time are now in local time and not GMT.
[...]etc. etc. etc.[...]


Bye!

[Dave Baumann]

If there's no changes then the results will be consistent with those in the 49 patch, hence 49 is still just as valid a patch.