I say initial in the title because I think there is more to come. Interesting that nobody decided to talk to ATI at all.
ATI's Initial Responce to NVIDIA's Editors Day IQ Issues
- Thread starter Dave Baumann
- Start date
I say initial in the title because I think there is more to come. Interesting that nobody decided to talk to ATI at all.
Not true, I know for a fact that Hanners contacted them about it immedietly after reading about the accusations.DaveBaumann said:
You mean "She did say", I believe the statement was made by Patti Mikula.fallguy said:
But you are right, I thought Dave was talking about other websites.
Okay then Lars - I presume you will at some point in the next 24 hrs or so browse this forum..... any reponse to why there was no attempt to verify or contact ATi?
I would be most interested to hear what you have to say on the apparent "situation" with regards ATi's, Epic's and the Aquamark developers positions on the matter.
I would be most interested to hear what you have to say on the apparent "situation" with regards ATi's, Epic's and the Aquamark developers positions on the matter.
Sxotty said:
They did not have to. Alls they had to do is suggest. Then people ran wild with it. We had at least one thread posted here with the ATI cheats for the title. I saw simular threads on Rage, 3DGPU and NVNEWS. News got out, poeple ran wild with it. Had Tom's done a better job of confiming first then it would have been a non-issue...
Sxotty said:Still people should not lie, lying and saying that Toms said "They are cheating" is worse than toms implying that they might be. People are diliberately misinforming people and that is wrong, so quit it please
Well, the phrase 'questionable optimisations' is not all that far away from saying cheating, there isn't really a huge distinction between the two in my mind beyond arguing the semantics.
Well I am touchy about news organizations taking things out of context, and the like. If you actually read what toms wrote, it really is not like they accused ATI of cheating they waffled around a lot and they implied it could be possible, but in the end they did not endorse any idea.
Even reading ATI's press release, they talk about accusations of cheating, but when it comes to specifics, they say perpetuate the allegations, not accuse. So even ATI realizes that sites did not accuse them, fanboys did. Sites perpetuated allegations, or in other words @ the worst they passed on what they were told w/o much comment. I did not see any large sites saying ATI is cheating, I only saw them say they might be and while I understand how this can tarnish ATI's image, I think it is really ridiculous to say it is some horrible blow, what it ended up doing is creating some publicity, and mayhaps a few folks will think that ATI did something bad b/c they will misremember, but more will think "gee whiz Nvidia is lame trying to besmirch ATI like that."
IMO of course/
Even reading ATI's press release, they talk about accusations of cheating, but when it comes to specifics, they say perpetuate the allegations, not accuse. So even ATI realizes that sites did not accuse them, fanboys did. Sites perpetuated allegations, or in other words @ the worst they passed on what they were told w/o much comment. I did not see any large sites saying ATI is cheating, I only saw them say they might be and while I understand how this can tarnish ATI's image, I think it is really ridiculous to say it is some horrible blow, what it ended up doing is creating some publicity, and mayhaps a few folks will think that ATI did something bad b/c they will misremember, but more will think "gee whiz Nvidia is lame trying to besmirch ATI like that."
IMO of course
/Sxotty said:
He insinuated it a lot though.
"This obviously saves memory bandwidth, leading to a higher framerate."
Does he have proof it does?
"Since the express purpose of this test is to test a card's memory bandwidth, an optimization such as this seems more than a bit questionable and smacks of cheating "
He says it is an optimization, but again, where is the proof? ATi said it is a bug. The same problem was in Cat 3.2', WELL before Aquamark3 came out.
"For now, we don't want to comment on the optimizations found in ATi's drivers."
Seems like he already did. By even calling them "optimizations" without knowing for sure, and insinuating that they gain performace with them. What is the average Joe going to think after what he said? I think its obvious.
Yeah, but so is THG.Sxotty said:People are diliberately misinforming people and that is wrong, so quit it please
AustinDeano
Newcomer
Look at the good with the bad
Well folks, at least the theory of cheating through optimization by these graphic card makers is a public idea. You think they'll screw around again? Yall are smart and stuff, the keen awareness to the situation by yourselves will keep a sizable balance I'm sure. Thanks.
Tyler
Well folks, at least the theory of cheating through optimization by these graphic card makers is a public idea. You think they'll screw around again? Yall are smart and stuff, the keen awareness to the situation by yourselves will keep a sizable balance I'm sure. Thanks.
Tyler
Now that's a quality press release: short and to the point. Assuming it's all true (and ATi were very specific to say they were not deliberately cheating), it reaffirms my view that ATi is just acting like a more trustworthy company lately. (Of course, as I've also previously said, ATi can afford to be honest, as they've had the best products for quite some time.)
Nice AM3 rebuttal, pointing out that pre-AM3 drivers render the same as post-AM3 ones. The fact that websites that repeated nV's accusations didn't also try this reinforces my position that, currently, consumer 3D card reviews just aren't professional.
Nice AM3 rebuttal, pointing out that pre-AM3 drivers render the same as post-AM3 ones. The fact that websites that repeated nV's accusations didn't also try this reinforces my position that, currently, consumer 3D card reviews just aren't professional.
