Don't get fooled by .... nvidia attacking Ati

[Dave Baumann]

My original statement doesnt change any either, He asked for where people were getting that ATI failed PCIE compatibility, Its clear whether that proof is "incorrect" or not that this is the website that everyone has been referring too. Personally I dont see the problem,

You however seem to see a problem with this statement. That semantics for you I guess.

Chris, read the earlier post from Vortigan - he has already linked to the list himself, clearly indicating that he already knows of the existance of the list and understands the comments concerning lack of compliance, his question was one of the documents claims of failure which the lack of presence on the list does not prove to be the case.

 

[ChrisRay]

My original statement doesnt change any either, He asked for where people were getting that ATI failed PCIE compatibility, Its clear whether that proof is "incorrect" or not that this is the website that everyone has been referring too. Personally I dont see the problem,

You however seem to see a problem with this statement. That semantics for you I guess.

Chris, read the earlier post from Vortigan - he has already linked to the list himself, clearly indicating that he already knows of the existance of the list and understands the comments concerning lack of compliance, his question was one of the documents claims of failure which the lack of presence on the list does not prove to be the case.

ok, so I missed that post. I still dont see the problem Dave. If he alreaddy posted that information (which I apparently missed) T. All the information he'd need to find about PCISIG's compliancy and testing programs can be found here. The "term" Failed is still being derived from this list. Which brings us back to square one thus making his question rather rhetoric anyway.

http://www.pcisig.com/developers/compliance_program/compliance_checklist/

It seems pointless to argue about some internal slide anyway, Which once again Dave, you seem to be making a mountain out of an ant hill here.

 

[Dave Baumann]

It seems pointless to argue about some internal slide anyway, Which once again Dave, you seem to be making a mountain out of an ant hill here.

Chris, I'm merely arguing the correct point of discussion - your missing the point was perpetuating the discussion, ergo its hardly correct for you to be accusing me of "making a mountain out of a molehill".

As for whether of not these are internal slides, I doubt they would have got into the hands of a website if they were truly internal.

 

[PatrickL]

I have a question for you you Chris Ray.Who is the target audience for theses slides?
In other words who do you think that nvidia feels stupid enough to dare to come with such crap and expecting that audience to believe them ?

It seems at least one part of that audience decided to leak the slides. Maybe they feel insulted ?

 

[fallguy]

Funny how they dont show Farcry, or any other game that shows their cards in a more poor light. As if Doom3 is all that matters.

 

[ChrisRay]

It seems pointless to argue about some internal slide anyway, Which once again Dave, you seem to be making a mountain out of an ant hill here.

Chris, I'm merely arguing the correct point of discussion - your missing the point was perpetuating the discussion, ergo its hardly correct for you to be accusing me of "making a mountain out of a molehill".

As for whether of not these are internal slides, I doubt they would have got into the hands of a website if they were truly internal.

All I did was post a link Dave, and yes I feel my statement towards you is still the correct one, So I suppose should leave it at that.


But dave, They were. It was meant for an internal sales presentation, As was the last slides that got leaked. They arent something that was ever supposed to be shown to a resaler or made public. I'm sure if you asked Nvidia, They'd probably tell you the same. ( I mean heck I asked and got a pretty quick responce on it too)

Its far more useful than making up guesstimates. Which is why its unfortunate they got leaked.

 

[Dave Baumann]

All I did was post a link Dave, and yes I feel my statement towards you is still the correct one, So I suppose should leave it at that.

You are playing down the importance and you making the accusations and yet here you still are, despite the fact I was just clarifying the point

However, I missed your earlier comment (not that there was one, given you only provided a link )

All the information he'd need to find about PCISIG's compliancy and testing programs can be found here. The "term" Failed is still being derived from this list.

As we are trying to point out the list only lists “passesâ€￾, anything that is not on that list can either be, yes, a failure or not yet passed. Not yet passed could be that the paperwork is not complete yet, that not all steps for compliance have yet been complete or that nothing has been done at all – you can’t state that it is a failure from not being on that list, but merely that they have not yet achieved compliance for one reason or another.

You’ll note that the documents that you linked to are Step 2 for compliance. Step 1 for compliance is to attend a Compliance Workshop (Plug Fest) in which you have to take your components and boards along to and test them and these appear to be running one or twice a month – do you have any evidence for what boards ATI have taken to one of these? If not, the question still stands – how can you derive a failure?

 

[ChrisRay]

Dave, I'm curious, Do you even realise what I meant when I said Derived? Do you believe I am insinuating in any way that I believe they failed because of that list?

I simply pointed out that the inquirer, (as listed in the slide, details it as a failure from that list, you seem intent on running in a circular argument on this issue) Its pretty clear that the information listed in that slide is still based on that list, Whether accurate or not, Which I pointed out in my previous post, doesnt change where it was derived from. Anything else, You have read far too into.

I dont see where you are going with this Step 1, step 2 argument. I posted Step 2 because it had a last of requirements to be considered to compliancy.

You are playing down the importance and you making the accusations and yet here you still are, despite the fact I was just clarifying the point

However, I missed your earlier comment (not that there was one, given you only provided a link )

If you'd like to continue this subset of discussion there is always PM, (whatever issues you and I may have))


My downplay of the issue is because, (A) This is an internal sales document (B) its meant for the sales team to see, Not for the public (C) None of this matters based on (A) and (B). Only people it would matter too is for conspiracy theories,

Assuming your implying that Nvidia is lying about these issues in said Slide, What difference does it even make when its made for Nvidia personal? All other questions seem rather moot when you take in this one fact, And if you believe that this information was not meant for Nvidia personal. Perhaps you can provide proof it was distributed purposely.


P.S. There was no earlier comment to said link Dave, however there was a prior comment.

 

[PatrickL]

You are a bit funny, and the way you see Nvidia sales team brains is even better

 

[Heathen]

Assuming you implying that Nvidia is lying in these documents, What difference does it make sense they are for Nvidia Personal?

Yes, nvidia is lying in these documents. Not only are the slides incorrect but they are intellectually insulting. As for internal, it's amazing how many nvidia 'internal marketing' prsentations get leaked onto the web. You can't honestly be naive enough to believe it's by accident can you?

 

[Vortigern_red]

Sorry to have caused a row, I actually thought there was some source for ATI failing the tests.

ChrisRay, I think its a matter of interpretation. To my mind to say ATI have failed the tests is far worse then to say ATI have not passed the tests.

For example A: My daughter does not have a driving licence, based on that infomation would it be correct to say she had failed her driving test?

 

[ChrisRay]

Assuming you implying that Nvidia is lying in these documents, What difference does it make sense they are for Nvidia Personal?

Yes, nvidia is lying in these documents. Not only are the slides incorrect but they are intellectually insulting. As for internal, it's amazing how many nvidia 'internal marketing' prsentations get leaked onto the web. You can't honestly be naive enough to believe it's by accident can you?

What proof do you have? Yes, I pointed out to Nv that this kind of thing needs to be controlled. Again, If you can provide some kind of proof these documents were ditributed purposely, Other than "your opinion" on the subject, Then its worth carrying the discussion on wouldnt you agree?

I mean compare these slides to "official" nvidia advertisements and PR statements. We both agree that these slides are simpy awful, yet there they are. So now, I leave you with the burden to prove these slides were distributed purposely. If anyone here can do that excluding guessing, your opinion, and conspiracy theories. Then I will say I was wrong, and admit to being misled. Personally, I dont think any of you can do that though.

Without getting into the grounds of presumption. Judging by how people have charactorised these slides. It should be a matter of common sense that they are not meant for public.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

You however seem to see a problem with this statement. That semantics for you . I'm a little shocked at you though Dave, You should know that this is an internal marketing slide, Yet you are making a mountain out of an ant hill still.

It's funny how these kinds of "internal" marketing slides are always the ones that get leaked, isn't it? We've seen it time and time again. Nvidia's "internal" slides that rubbish the competition with falsehoods manage to leak out. There's never anything that shows Nvidia in a bad light.

Face it, this happens so often with their "internal" documents of this same nature that it can only be deliberate. It's a way for Nvidia to rubbish their competition with lies, and then not have to back up their words, as they never comment on these kind of leaks.

Just like their driver leaks, it's happens so often and in the same manner, it can't be anything other than approved by Nvidia's own management.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Dave, I'm curious, Do you even realise what I meant when I said Derived? Do you believe I am insinuating in any way that I believe they failed because of that list?

Given the way you are posting, yes.

Vortigans question to which you responded was asking for proof of failure. You responded with a link to the list and my response to that was that is not proof of failure, but proof of non-compliance. Given that Vortigan had already posted a link to the compliance list, hence was aware of what it meant, but subsequently asked for specific proof your responses indicated that you thought it was proof (given that I was replying in the knowledge that Vortigan was already aware of the list).

 

[ChrisRay]

Dave, I'm curious, Do you even realise what I meant when I said Derived? Do you believe I am insinuating in any way that I believe they failed because of that list?

Given the way you are posting, yes.

Vortigans question to which you responded was asking for proof of failure. You responded with a link to the list and my response to that was that is not proof of failure, but proof of non-compliance. Given that Vortigan had already posted a link to the compliance list, hence was aware of what it meant, but subsequently asked for specific proof your responses indicated that you thought it was proof (given that I was replying in the knowledge that Vortigan was already aware of the list).

You'd be incorrect then, What I posted was based on stuff I had noticed, read. and I was trying to give a rather generic answer to his question with a guess on where the marketing slide came up with the the term failure. None of this is based upon my own opinion.

 

[Vortigern_red]

its an internal sales documentation, That a 3rd party decides to leak, and distribute, Unfortunately.

Now I don't want to cause another row, but if these slides are intended for the sales team that, presumably, means that the infomation contained within the slides is for external people, ie the people to whom the sales people are selling to. I not sure anybody is arguing about the slides themselves rather the infomation contained within them.

Also if for internal use only how did a 3rd party leak them? Presumably they must have first "leaked" to the 3rd party?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here as I presume that NVs sales people only talk to AIB partners and OEMs who should see through all the errors in those slides, but how does it make your sales team look when they claim that the X700 is 112% slower than the 6600? If these slides are viewed by the AIB sales teams I think its a different matter as them the infomation contained within them *is* meant for external consumption ie Joe Public.

 

[ChrisRay]

its an internal sales documentation, That a 3rd party decides to leak, and distribute, Unfortunately.

Now I don't want to cause another row, but if these slides are intended for the sales team that, presumably, means that the infomation contained within the slides is for external people, ie the people to whom the sales people are selling to. I not sure anybody is arguing about the slides themselves rather the infomation contained within them.

Also if for internal use only how did a 3rd party leak them? Presumably they must have first "leaked" to the 3rd party?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here as I presume that NVs sales people only talk to AIB partners and OEMs who should see through all the errors in those slides, but how does it make your sales team look when they claim that the X700 is 112% slower than the 6600? If these slides are viewed by the AIB sales teams I think its a different matter as them the infomation contained within them *is* meant for external consumption ie Joe Public.

Well think of it this way, Assuming a slide of this nature is given in an Nvidia presentation. (Within Nvidia walls) Information can later be excluded, When I worked for Directv (heh dont work for them anymore) The phone reps would constantly recieve information and slides like these, And then about 3 hours later, We would be told to disregard presentation (A,B)

Surely any marketing done within the team is checked and double checked before going out.

 

[Vortigern_red]

When I worked for Directv (heh dont work for them anymore) The phone reps would constantly recieve information and slides like these, And then about 3 hours later, We would be told to disregard presentation (A,B)

LOL, thanks.

 

[Smurfie]

I don't understand this. Who cares about the semantics?

Fact 1: Only the X600 is listed in the PCI-SIG certification list. Why? Where's the X700 or X800?

Why didn't ATI play along and get their product lines in the PCI-SIG certification list? It's like car crash tests or electric appliance safety tests. Don't you want your products certified?

 

[Dave Baumann]

Xbit[/url]]ATI Technologies also informed X-bit labs that several products, including the RADEON X300, had been submitted for PCI-SIG compliance testing in September, 2004.

(As mentioned, there was a plugfest last week)