A funny comment from a site.

[binmaze]

More Benchmark Madness:
I personally have made up my mind that we will not be using the overall 3DMark03 score for video card testing, but others are finding it an issue still worth talking about at TechReport.


Losing the graphics market sales leader will hurt the credibility of FutureMark's graphics test, without a doubt.

From H****** site.
But the original article was:

I can't comment much on the status of its beta program members other than to say that NVIDIA is a very big loss. Losing the graphics market sales leader will hurt the credibility of FutureMark's graphics test, without a doubt. The fact NVIDIA's primary rival, ATI, remains a first-tier member of the beta program will raise questions about undue influence as long as the situation persists. However, no other beta members have, to my knowledge, broken ranks yet. NVIDIA may be seen as the primary problem here, which could actually enhance FutureMark's credibility, if other beta members see FutureMark as standing up to a bully.

Funny comment and quoting skill of H* it seems? Reminding of the style of a certain vga company?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

All in all, that was a good article. Again, fleshing out both "sides" of the case.

Losing the graphics market sales leader will hurt the credibility of FutureMark's graphics test, without a doubt.

Maybe yes, maybe no. A lot will probably depend on how all the other IHVs act. If other IHVs start dropping off, then you may be right.

But if every other IHV stands pat, and continues to "support" 3DMark, then it can actually be nVidia losing the bulk of the credibility here.

 

[Dave H]

It seems that (major) 3DMark releases are tied to the release of new DX versions. Considering DX10 is said to be put off until Longhorn launches (2005? 2006?), that gives everyone plenty of time to sort this out (i.e. gives Nvidia time to stop whining and quietly rejoin the beta program) before development of the next 3DMark.

Unless of course Futuremark wants a completely new 3DMark in place for PS/VS 3.0, which might make sense.

 

[Matt]

More Benchmark Madness:
I personally have made up my mind that we will not be using the overall 3DMark03 score for video card testing, but others are finding it an issue still worth talking about at TechReport.


Losing the graphics market sales leader will hurt the credibility of FutureMark's graphics test, without a doubt.

From H****** site.
But the original article was:

I can't comment much on the status of its beta program members other than to say that NVIDIA is a very big loss. Losing the graphics market sales leader will hurt the credibility of FutureMark's graphics test, without a doubt. The fact NVIDIA's primary rival, ATI, remains a first-tier member of the beta program will raise questions about undue influence as long as the situation persists. However, no other beta members have, to my knowledge, broken ranks yet. NVIDIA may be seen as the primary problem here, which could actually enhance FutureMark's credibility, if other beta members see FutureMark as standing up to a bully.

Funny comment and quoting skill of H* it seems? Reminding of the style of a certain vga company?

It's always a good idea to provide a source link to the information you're copy/pasting from: http://www.hardocp.com

Wasn't too hard, was that? 8)

 

[binmaze]

Actually..

Actually, i didn't want to specify the site name to avoid quarrel.
See. They are implying false notion. Making people(who not taking time to read the original article) think the conclusion of the article is "FM is not credible" But the real conclusion was far from it. This is quite annoying.

 

[Matt]

Re: Actually..

Actually, i didn't want to specify the site name to avoid quarrel.
See. They are implying false notion. Making people(who not taking time to read the original article) think the conclusion of the article is "FM is not credible" But the real conclusion was far from it. This is quite annoying.

Heaven forbid we ever give credit to the source of information we take it from because they expressed an opinion.

You wouldn't happen to work for The Inquirer, would you?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Matt,

Binmaze's gripe is that to him, [H]'s blurb made it appear that EXTREME TECH'S opinion is that FM has lost credibility.

That is obviously not Extreme Tech's opinion, and it appears that [H] is seletively pulling things out of context...

 

[Matt]

Matt,

Binmaze's gripe is that to him, [H]'s blurb made it appear that EXTREME TECH'S opinion is that FM has lost credibility.

That is obviously not Extreme Tech's opinion, and it appears that [H] is seletively pulling things out of context...

How can you put things out of context when there's a bright yellow link, that if you click on, takes you directly to the article that they're quoting from?

 

[Jima13]

Matt,

Binmaze's gripe is that to him, [H]'s blurb made it appear that EXTREME TECH'S opinion is that FM has lost credibility.

That is obviously not Extreme Tech's opinion, and it appears that [H] is seletively pulling things out of context...

Joe,
IINM that quote [opinion] should be attributed to Scott @ Tech-Report....

 

[Sabastian]

I actually found that Tech-Report article a very good read and a fair assesment of the whole matter with much the same conclusions Dave came to.

It seems that nvidias PR White-paper smear campain against Future Mark is back-fireing as most things they do lately.

DaveBaumann may find this quote a bit flatering to say the least.

Dave at Beyond3D has already offered an extensive evaluation with more detail than I was prepared to offer, so I will have to embarrass myself otherwise. I won't attempt to match all of his analysis,

http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2003q1/3dmark03-story/index.x?pg=1

 

[John Reynolds]

DaveBaumann may find this quote a bit flatering to say the least.

Dave at Beyond3D has already offered an extensive evaluation with more detail than I was prepared to offer, so I will have to embarrass myself otherwise. I won't attempt to match all of his analysis,

Are you kidding? Dave's probably already printed that out, framed it, and has it hanging over his desk at home.

 

[Nagorak]

I don't know what to say about HardOCP: they were winning me back over and then they started pulling this BS. Kyle really needs to remove his lips from Nvidia's rear end. I'm not sure he's biased or just gullible, but he seems to swallow everything they give him, hook, line and sinker...

 

[Sabastian]

DaveBaumann may find this quote a bit flatering to say the least.

Dave at Beyond3D has already offered an extensive evaluation with more detail than I was prepared to offer, so I will have to embarrass myself otherwise. I won't attempt to match all of his analysis,

Are you kidding? Dave's probably already printed that out, framed it, and has it hanging over his desk at home.

Hehe, oh dats funny. LMAO I read that this afternoon and thought "hrm, I wonder if he has already read that." Methinks Beyond3D is more of an attraction then ever was now. I see referances to this site on multiple popular sites and most have positve things to say about the content for the most part. Good show.

 

[Hellbinder]

That is obviously not Extreme Tech's opinion, and it appears that [H] is seletively pulling things out of context...

Yeah and Whats new..

This is all they have ever done with specific regards towards Nvidia, except for a very *Brief* period of time this summer When Brent did some Quality Analasys.

Kyle of course was quick to exnay that...

We cant be breaking ranks with the boss [N] now can we....

EDIT:
Actually, after looking at his initial comments about the GFFX. Its really like the guy is going out of his way to impress Nvidia he is still *one of the guys* or soemthing. I get the feeling that its almost like compensation for his brief laps into even handed judgement.

 

[epicstruggle]

My only real gripes with H are that they dont note their edits of stories and benchmarks, and that they will delete posts, ban posters for critizing their shady practices.

later,