First off, we need to clarify some terms your text changes so things don't get confused:
- I attacked the idea of stating that there was no reason for "fuss" based on the image quality issues, as you proposed based simply on the idea that "the preview didn't picture the NV38 as the end all be all of cards... it actually came in second to the 9800 XT the majority of the time". IOW, your proclaiming there is no reason for a "big fuss", not the idea of there being valid optimizations possible for the NV38.
- When I discuss ATI's being at a disadvantage, I'm not discussing how ATI compares to nVidia in the fps results in the article, I'm talking about how "the ATI cards compare to the nVidia cards in the article in the absence of any assurance of image quality equivalence" to how "the ATI cards compare to the nVidia cards with such an assurance". In one, the ATI compares more favorably in performance results. Replacing that set of results in a place where they seem to belong, with one where they don't compare as well
putting ATI at disadvantage...not necessarily to nVidia's performance results, but to the reality of the relative abilities of the cards in the given tasks.
- The conclusion is part of an article. People do draw conclusions from an article, but not just based on the conclusion in isolation. Just in case your use of the word "conclusion" coming up is due to confusion about what I'm addressing...which is the article.
This becomes important to replying to some of what you decided to attack.
On the label of my discussion as 'vague' said:
bdmosky said:
How does Anandtech's conclusion in any way, shape, or form spread bad information? When was this established because I must have missed it.
To answer your question, again: I am proposing incorrect (wrong) information is bad information.
For why I propose the information is incorrect...I quote myself, since it seems to have been "missed", at least until later: "The missing image quality analysis, the lack of the ability for independent verification, the presentation of comparison with settings/workload that seem to be vastly divergent in actuality...all of these seem bad or very bad by themselves, and the combination even worse."
The only one that doesn't seem self-evident in the article itself and prior discussion is the "divergent workloads", for which I had UT 2k3 (full AF-bitri/2x-bi versus full AF-tri/full AF-bi) and Aquamark 3 (missing light source and texture detail) from the article specifically in mind. I also have a lot of concern for the mindset that resulted in the results in the blog about HL2, though I don't currently view the results as warranting the same level of criticism as for appearing in an article.
I really find your first question a bit mind boggling...not necessarily that you might disagree about the issues (I'd just think you were wrong) but that you spent time proposing that you had no idea what I was talking about.
demalion said:
More directly: How does a comparison that puts someone at a gross disadvantage to where they actually stand, in this case by representing their doing more work as valid to compare to another doing less, show that someone in a "positive light"?
What gross disadvantages? How is another doing less work?
See above.
You talk of this not being a cut and dried issue yet offer little but vague statements to at least clarify your problems with the article.
Apparently, I took it for granted that I didn't have to mention the problems observed in abundance with nVidia's approach to "optimization" and illustrate why a lack of image quality comparison makes "new and optimized drivers with 'visual glitches'" cause for "fuss", when you actually required me to mention this.
This seems to be a problem on your part...this entire "What are you talking about 'bad information'?" discussion seems to have been a tremendous waste of time that only served to propose my commentary as "vague" before you even discussed the commentary.
..
Now that we've hopefully resolved the premise of my commentary being "vague", let's discuss my statements.
demalion said:
The missing image quality analysis, the lack of the ability for independent verification,the presentation of comparison with settings/workload that seem to be vastly divergent in actuality...
The lack of ability for independent verification I'll give you, but as far as presentation of comparison, you'll have to be a little clearer on what your problem is with the settings/workload.
So, your basic premise is
entirely that you don't know about any settings/workload issues?
I don't know where you've been, but I thought you'd already been pointed towards such info. Please see about correcting that if my above attempt isn't sufficient, so I don't have to spend time covering what has been covered in abundance elsewhere (more than I already have).
The main problem here is that you go on to propose your (apparent) ignorance as being a final representatation of reality:
He already said he would put up another part with an image quality analysis so I think that point is moot.
The "fuss" is that the analysis is
not here, and very strong evidence of problems
is and has been for quite a while. This doesn't seem very complicated or vague, nor does Anand's assurances seem to make independent observations from elsewhere "moot".
You can complain all you want about it not being presented altogether, but if it piques you so much to return and read it when it is presented, then I'm sure it piqued a lot of other peoples interests as well for them to come back.
Are you talking to the other people who have complained, or to me who attacked your commentary? Me: What does "other peoples interests" have to do with it? I'm discussing what is wrong with the current information, not disputing that other people are interested in it.
Other people being interested in it and not knowing what is wrong with the information presented is exactly what I understand others in this thread, and myself in addressing your statements, to find as cause for "fuss".
Again, something I thought had been stated pretty clearly.
bdmosky said:
Did it cause irreparable harm to ATI?
Apparently I suck at sarcasm because WaltC and now you have both failed at catching it. Here... let me rephrase that for you:
Did it cause
any harm to ATI?
This is actually worse, because of the phrase itself is flawed as well, not just your usage of it.
Every lost sale that would have occurred with accurate information is financial damage done to ATI through Anand's review's flaws. Pretending ignorance of this simple proposition, and then asking how this proposition could possibly be, is astoundingly silly. Building a viewpoint on the premise that this proposition is obviously precluded seems a bit sillier.
But this is the problem with your new phrase, it wasn't the significant factor that concerned me about your either/or case...
If you think so, feel free to explain how...
Here, let me rephrase your proposition in a way that seems less silly to me...if I get it wrong, let me know: "Did it cause significant damage to ATI?". My answer: I don't have a metric for "significant" I think we could agree on, or even think is very relevant...I'm more concerned with
what it costs consumers who base buying decisions on such numbers, which, at the moment, is everyone who read the article and doesn't clue in on the context of the "visual glitches".
This is my problem with your either/or case...it simplifies the world to concerns of IHV versus IHV.
It isn't your "sarcasm" that is the problem, it is your using your extremes of saying "billion dollar companies like ATI weren't harmed too much so it doesn't matter" serving to completely eclipse the simple matter of the impact of misinformation on the people buying the products from IHVs. Like the readers of Anand.
Not everything is about IHVs.
Also, please don't mash my words together... I never made an implication statement "it shows them in a positive light because it didn't do irreparable harm to them."
Luckily, my earlier clarification and your continued discussion allows me to point out the problem here without getting a game of "connect the dots in English" here.
Go back and read how it was stated and then show me how I ever implied that it was positive because it didn't cause irreparable harm. I said I actually thought the preview showed ATI in positive light.
For this assertion to make sense, you, I presume, are talking about "ATI fps in the article" versus "nVidia fps in the article". I don't know of anyone who is disputing the ATI fps lead nVidia fps in most benchmarks, so I'm not sure why you are doing this.
As I mentioned at the beginning, and I hope you've given some thought to, I'm talking about something like "The picture of the ATI/nVidia card comparison due to flaws in the article" versus "the ATI/nVidia card comparisons with more complete information the article simply omitted without addressing".
The problem here is that it doesn't make sense for you to start talking about the way the fps results compare in the article, because people didn't seem to be disputing that, and because your assertion of ATI being shown in a "positive light" based on this assumed premise was used to answer what people said on the matter as if they were saying the fps numbers were
not greater for ATI most often.
Both alternatives I see don't make sense to me, and I've addressed the reasons why for both now. To complete this, and trying to make sense of your commentary despite the conflicts I see, I'll go back and address my usage of your discussion of "positive light" in my prior post...
If I understand your premise for 'positive light' correctly now said:
Place where my usage of "positive light" still seems to fit well:
"...can clearly be said to not show ATI in a 'positive light' in relation to reality.", because the wording makes the context of my usage clear.
Where it doesn't, if you think the only relationship for fps numbers relevant to comparison is of the nature "greater than/less than":
"...nor does representing those as the choices and saying 'it shows them in a positive light because it didn't do irreparable harm to them' make any sense whatsoever" should have quoted something like your text "I still don't see what all the fuss is about...the preview didn't picture the NV38 as the end all be all of cards..." instead.
"...show that someone in a 'positive light'" should have said something like "...show that someone fairly at all?"
