Yup, very good Saturday morning coffee reading.PatrickL said:You are a bit funny, and the way you see Nvidia sales team brains is even better
BTW-Here's my bit of putting out this fire with a bit-o-gasoline:
Hanners at EB said:
Please, proceed.
Don't get fooled by .... nvidia attacking Ati
- Thread starter nagus
- Start date
BTW-Here's my bit of putting out this fire with a bit-o-gasoline:
DaveBaumann said:
Yes, NV Marketing seems to use the "internal slide" dodge as a means of skirting copyright/trademark laws --they have to make that claim or admit they willfully misappropriate others IP. Here, ATI and the Inquirer, other places and times others (including the b3d logo awhile back, you will recall).
Since these things always seem to end up on the internet, it is rather hard to make the case that NV isn't complicit in that process.
overclocked_enthusiasm
Regular
Chris Ray:
"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. "
It is you who are missing the point. Nvidia has had a history of leaking these documents because they serve a very distinct purpose. That purpose is to sow FUD across the internet and fringe media (Inquirer etc.) for basically no cost to the marketing budget in the hopes that some may stick and actually be picked up by mainstream media or analysts. Make no mistake, this is marketing pure and simple. Jen discussed ATI's PCI SIG failure in the last quarterly CC and this recent attack is just a continuation of the process put in motion by Jen himself. To put a value on the perception that Nvidia hopes to foster amongst people that ATI's products are inferior is hard to do. But I can tell you this, the cost to do so was the creation of the slides themselves and the distribution was done for free via the internet.
The real story here is the corporate culture at Nvidia that Jen has fostered. Jen has spent the better part of the past 2 confernece calls bashing ATI's old architecture "3 year old architecture", the insignificance of native "what does that even mean?" PCIe, etc. Jen has fostered an attacking, negative based marketing scheme gainst ATi for the sole purpose of sowing FUD in the desperate attempt to stem ATI's market share gains. With Intel eating his lunch on the 5200 OEM front with IGP, his only recourse is to try to attack ATI by any means possible. This man has no conscience, no business ethics and no class. His actions as a CEO have been disgraceful and his negative allegations against ATI have backfired in almost every case. I cannot think of another CEO of a multi billion dollar corporation that has carried himself in the same classless way...it is shameful.
To send his salesforce out into the AIB market community with inflammatory allegations (PCI SIG failures), intentionally outdated benchmarks (Cat 4.7 results), intentionally false comparisons (6600GT vs x700 Pro) and all to the old Britney Spears hit "Oops I leaked it again". The tech savy AIB and OEM contacts are going to laugh in their face and put his salesforce into a defensive position. This is one of the cardinal sins of sales and marketing. NEVER put yourself in a position to have to defend your product, defend your "advertising" or anything else that may hamper your efforts to sell the product. The last set of slides that NVDA accidently "leaked" slamming ATI resulted in a clean sweep of Tier 1 OEM wins for ATI's PCIe chips.
Internal use only...give me a break.
"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. "
It is you who are missing the point. Nvidia has had a history of leaking these documents because they serve a very distinct purpose. That purpose is to sow FUD across the internet and fringe media (Inquirer etc.) for basically no cost to the marketing budget in the hopes that some may stick and actually be picked up by mainstream media or analysts. Make no mistake, this is marketing pure and simple. Jen discussed ATI's PCI SIG failure in the last quarterly CC and this recent attack is just a continuation of the process put in motion by Jen himself. To put a value on the perception that Nvidia hopes to foster amongst people that ATI's products are inferior is hard to do. But I can tell you this, the cost to do so was the creation of the slides themselves and the distribution was done for free via the internet.
The real story here is the corporate culture at Nvidia that Jen has fostered. Jen has spent the better part of the past 2 confernece calls bashing ATI's old architecture "3 year old architecture", the insignificance of native "what does that even mean?" PCIe, etc. Jen has fostered an attacking, negative based marketing scheme gainst ATi for the sole purpose of sowing FUD in the desperate attempt to stem ATI's market share gains. With Intel eating his lunch on the 5200 OEM front with IGP, his only recourse is to try to attack ATI by any means possible. This man has no conscience, no business ethics and no class. His actions as a CEO have been disgraceful and his negative allegations against ATI have backfired in almost every case. I cannot think of another CEO of a multi billion dollar corporation that has carried himself in the same classless way...it is shameful.
To send his salesforce out into the AIB market community with inflammatory allegations (PCI SIG failures), intentionally outdated benchmarks (Cat 4.7 results), intentionally false comparisons (6600GT vs x700 Pro) and all to the old Britney Spears hit "Oops I leaked it again". The tech savy AIB and OEM contacts are going to laugh in their face and put his salesforce into a defensive position. This is one of the cardinal sins of sales and marketing. NEVER put yourself in a position to have to defend your product, defend your "advertising" or anything else that may hamper your efforts to sell the product. The last set of slides that NVDA accidently "leaked" slamming ATI resulted in a clean sweep of Tier 1 OEM wins for ATI's PCIe chips.
Internal use only...give me a break.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
overclocked_enthusiasm said:
Yep. Just goes to show how scared Nvidia is that despite improvements in the NV40 range, they still feel they have to spend more time talking trash about ATI instead of talking about their own products.
That makes no sense to me, nVidia's offerings this time around don't suck...they don't need to do this!Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
They got a solid line of products, they should try playing to their strengths that actually do exist rather than trying to win a FUD war.
digitalwanderer said:That makes no sense to me, nVidia's offerings this time around don't suck...they don't need to do this!
They got a solid line of products, they should try playing to their strengths that actually do exist rather than trying to win a FUD war.
It's hard to expand beyond what they know. I doubt nVidia will ever stop with the FUD-tactics unless there is a major shake-up involving the upper management.
Which if didn't happen during/after the FX fiasco will never, ever happen.BRiT said:
Ah well, I look at it as a form of job security...
I wonder if there are some people at nv who don't like them, hence these "internal" docs being leaked?
I wonder why they have to resort to this?
The nvidia product range is in some ways better than the ati range, it's not like the R300 and the NV30, you can really choose either product and have a kickass graphics card
I wonder why they have to resort to this?
The nvidia product range is in some ways better than the ati range, it's not like the R300 and the NV30, you can really choose either product and have a kickass graphics card
Some habits are just hard to break. It's still pretty pathetic that these slides were even created in the first place regardless of the intended audience. I really don't care about this sort of thing when it comes to purchasing hardware but this kinda bullshit must turn off potential investors.
Scary scenerio: what if the people at nVidia believe what they wrote in these slides.... :?
And why shouldn't they believe it? They just chose to not talk about their weaknesses. If the slides were red, I think we would be looking at HL2 benchmarks
Just to note:
They tested following games in the pdf:
3dmark (obviously optimized, not approved drivers)
call of duty (opengl test #1 is nvidias strongpoint, otherwise okayish)
comanche 4 (not sure which api)
doom 3 (Opengl #2... Well, obviously very Nvidia biased test)
flight sim 04 (probably okayish)
Halo (probably ok)
Quake 3 (opengl #3I can't believe they're using this)
Serious Sam 2 (Opengl #4)
Splinter Cell (Converted from xbox (nvidia gpu) game, very Twimbtastic, not sure about the api )
UT2003 (spooky, why not 2004?)
RTCW (opengl #5)
X2 (not sure about api again, but almost betting its gl, and this is one heavily nvidia biased game too.)
See how much opengl games they are using? Guess how many there would be if this was pdf by ati?
So never trust a benchmark by either Ati or Nvidia. That's why we have these fine review sites.
Just to note:
They tested following games in the pdf:
3dmark (obviously optimized, not approved drivers)
call of duty (opengl test #1 is nvidias strongpoint, otherwise okayish)
comanche 4 (not sure which api)
doom 3 (Opengl #2... Well, obviously very Nvidia biased test)
flight sim 04 (probably okayish)
Halo (probably ok)
Quake 3 (opengl #3I can't believe they're using this)
Serious Sam 2 (Opengl #4)
Splinter Cell (Converted from xbox (nvidia gpu) game, very Twimbtastic, not sure about the api )
UT2003 (spooky, why not 2004?)
RTCW (opengl #5)
X2 (not sure about api again, but almost betting its gl, and this is one heavily nvidia biased game too.)
See how much opengl games they are using? Guess how many there would be if this was pdf by ati?
So never trust a benchmark by either Ati or Nvidia. That's why we have these fine review sites.
This whole PCIe compliance mess was apparently mooted a month ago by the PCI SIG (and reported by Charlie D, no less!). The X700XT was also reported to be MSRP$200 well before launch.
The people who created these slides--obviously avid Inq readers--knowingly included false assertions for the simple reason that the X700P wasn't available to be benchmarked until well after both Charlie's and Fuad's articles were published. So, by the time they got around to including benchmarks of the X700P, both of those Inq articles had exposed two of their juicier points as, well, pointless.
BTW, who typically creates slides like these--higher-ups, or the "rank and file?" I'm guessing those higher up the chain proof them, or are the marketing departments self-correcting?
If these are really internal docs, I'm curious why an nV employee would release them to make their employer look bad? It just seems odd, given that the purpose of such slides is to benefit the company, and thus the employees' job security. I guess they could be disgruntled, but enough to risk their job? Weird.
The people who created these slides--obviously avid Inq readers--knowingly included false assertions for the simple reason that the X700P wasn't available to be benchmarked until well after both Charlie's and Fuad's articles were published. So, by the time they got around to including benchmarks of the X700P, both of those Inq articles had exposed two of their juicier points as, well, pointless.
BTW, who typically creates slides like these--higher-ups, or the "rank and file?" I'm guessing those higher up the chain proof them, or are the marketing departments self-correcting?
If these are really internal docs, I'm curious why an nV employee would release them to make their employer look bad? It just seems odd, given that the purpose of such slides is to benefit the company, and thus the employees' job security. I guess they could be disgruntled, but enough to risk their job? Weird.
It's that they used the 4.7 cats to paint themselves in the absolutely best terms rather than the latest which they'd still whip ATi with but by not quite as much.Mendel said:
I'm hoping this isn't a sign that they're living in their own little world again and believe that just by saying things they're true. :?
Why would NVidia produce a PowerPoint presentation for consumers? Answer is they didn't. This presentation was probably done at some type of expo or convention. If ATI was at this as well, then I am sure Nvidia had some type of invitee workshop with some possible OEM customers. Of course they are going to market the hell out of Doom3. In the world of business, you try to make person A buy your stuff. If Person A also has ATI as a choice, they are going to tell them why their stuff is better than ATI's stuff. You don't think someone from ATI has ever sent Michael Dell an email telling him how much better their stuff is and why? Why make a big deal out of something that was never meant for consumers' eyes.
overclocked_enthusiasm
Regular
Similar threads
