He didn't say that, he made a blanket statement that the NV40 was superior to the R420 which I do believe has loooong been established not to be the case.The Baron said:
Kyle throws a [H]issy fit about CrossFire shipping late
- Thread starter Junkstyle
- Start date
- Status
In the Grand Scheme of History, I'm pretty sure it has. One was available, had way more features, and comparable performance to the competitor. The other one wasn't NVIDIA.digitalwanderer said:
First part: availability, features. Still no match.radeonic2 said:
Second part: yeah, a year and a half later.
NV simply got a lot more *right* with NV4x than ATI did with R4xx.
Not to mention AGP for the enthusiast upgrade crowd that didn't move early.
As I seem to have a 6800GT in this box as I write, I'm not going to argue with you other than as a matter of degree, turning the knob a few degrees this way or that. If you go back and look at ATI's statements right around R420 release you see quite clearly that they thought they were trading features for a clear, decisive performance TKO. . .and maybe you'd like that trade and maybe you wouldn't. . . but they didn't really get it, either, so it almost became irrelevant. More like a clear, narrow performance lead at the tippy-top and not so good almost everywhere else for the first year or so.
As I seem to have a 6800GT in this box as I write, I'm not going to argue with you other than as a matter of degree, turning the knob a few degrees this way or that. If you go back and look at ATI's statements right around R420 release you see quite clearly that they thought they were trading features for a clear, decisive performance TKO. . .and maybe you'd like that trade and maybe you wouldn't. . . but they didn't really get it, either, so it almost became irrelevant. More like a clear, narrow performance lead at the tippy-top and not so good almost everywhere else for the first year or so.
There's a difference between lying, or cheating at benchmarks Martox, and making light of a competitor's paper launch.
NVida's performance on the 7800GTX was admirable and they are well within their rights to milk this success for all its worth, by drawing attention to ATI's recent foibles. So I see nothing wrong with NVidia suggesting to people to discount the XT. We've seen ATI downplay Golden Sample cards in the past too as well as downplay SLI. In fact, I'd say they're only carrying forward what legions of ATI f*nb*ys asked for when they use to downplay paper launched NVidia cards.
NVidia's nudging in this regard is simply not a repeat of their behavior during the NV3x era. They are trying to exploit ATI execution mis-steps for PR gain, and there is nothing wrong with that. Editorials on ATI execution are not simply reflecting NVidia PR nudges, but real and deserved anger. ATI deserves some of the heat they are taking now.
p.s. where's H.264 support? The lack of it seems ominously like the paper NV4x Video Processor. Lots of architectural diagrams, claimed performance and benefits at launch, but missing in action for months. Then it took patches to MediaPlayer and a silicon rev to get it.
NVida's performance on the 7800GTX was admirable and they are well within their rights to milk this success for all its worth, by drawing attention to ATI's recent foibles. So I see nothing wrong with NVidia suggesting to people to discount the XT. We've seen ATI downplay Golden Sample cards in the past too as well as downplay SLI. In fact, I'd say they're only carrying forward what legions of ATI f*nb*ys asked for when they use to downplay paper launched NVidia cards.
NVidia's nudging in this regard is simply not a repeat of their behavior during the NV3x era. They are trying to exploit ATI execution mis-steps for PR gain, and there is nothing wrong with that. Editorials on ATI execution are not simply reflecting NVidia PR nudges, but real and deserved anger. ATI deserves some of the heat they are taking now.
p.s. where's H.264 support? The lack of it seems ominously like the paper NV4x Video Processor. Lots of architectural diagrams, claimed performance and benefits at launch, but missing in action for months. Then it took patches to MediaPlayer and a silicon rev to get it.
Last edited by a moderator:
geo said:
That's pretty much it. R420 was going to be the Ultra High Clocked Performance Champion of the Universe... and then it wasn't. Despite, of course, the ultra high clocks. It's just that thinking back on NV4x versus R4xx, which could you buy? Which would you buy, assuming general price parity (e.g., no 12-to-16-pipe X800 Pros)? I can't think of any real reason to have purchased an R4xx unless I was playing HL2 or one of the games where it was ahead constantly. Even the AA quality wasn't that different (unless, of course, you are John Reynolds, the man with the eyes of an eagle!). At least with this gen, you have clearly different feature sets, slight differences in performance, and things like that. There are reasons to make a choice.
DemoCoder said:
I agree. What's wrong, however, is when a site or reviewer actually acts on the suggestions of one IHV to harm the product launch of another.
Hold on guys, you have to be consistent, you cannot say that Kyle is reviewing the 1600 when it is not released and then try and hint he is on the orders of nvidia not to review none released cards .... which of the two charges are you going to plump for ?
Whether Kyles logic on doing 1600 but not 1800 is warped then that is a valid question to be raised but to be honest, in the greater scheme of things, it is niether here or there because across the baord Ati is getting flak in one way or another on how they have handled things.
It's just that [H] is not very diplomatic about it, it never has been to be honest.
Whether Kyles logic on doing 1600 but not 1800 is warped then that is a valid question to be raised but to be honest, in the greater scheme of things, it is niether here or there because across the baord Ati is getting flak in one way or another on how they have handled things.
It's just that [H] is not very diplomatic about it, it never has been to be honest.
I don't disagree with you Democoder....but I do truly believe that, when everything is said and done, that nVidia will do whatever thay have to to win, and if they feel the need to return to their cheating ways, they will do it with absolutely no qualms. They haven't changed one bit from the company that did what they had to during the FX era......
But Kyle said he didn't get any e-mails like that, remember?John Reynolds said:
dizietsma said:
Warped? I'd say it's deranged!
I'm sure some people would have been reading the HOCP review and simply stopped when they realised there were no XT benchmarks. DC has it right - it would have been sensible to include the benchmarks for XT with a proviso saying to take them with a pinch of salt until the products actually arrived in the shops.
To do otherwise seems bizarre - cutting your nose off to spite your face.
DemoCoder said:
Absolutely.
DemoCoder said:
Like they did with their 6800ultra 'preview'> http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2
"This article is a preview, not a review, since this is a reference video card from NVIDIA and cannot be purchased through the normal channels."
who cared if you could't get one for 2+ months after...
Im suprised people are gettin so worked up over this. Did anyone actually think that [H] was a professional/unbiased review site??? Next people will get worked up because TheInq is posting rumours!!
epic
epic
DemoCoder said:
Yes, NVIDIA has done nothing wrong (in this case).
Yes NVIDIA can sugest whatever they want, the problem is when the reviewers start doing something just because NVIDIA (or anybody else) sugests it. In this case Kyle created a new requirement for Ati, a requirement that almost no product [H] has reviewed would live up to.
What Kyle and Brent should have done was to state the facts and let the readers make up their own minds.
The H.264 support clearly requires software support, so it could be that we have to wait before we see the benefits - but yes it would be better and more honest if they made sure that the software was ready before advertising features like this. The thing that made the NV40 Video Processor situation really bad was the fact that NVIDIA kept advertising the feature even after it was clear that the hardware was broken.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
