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

Personally, I reckon "internal" here also covers the sales teams of the various board vendors making nVidia's cards.

Most leaked drivers leak from these board vendors and I would not be at all suprised if the leaked documents did too (especially if the vendor also dealt with ATi or other GPU vendors).
 
ondaedg said:
Why make a big deal out of something that was never meant for consumers' eyes.

And yet documents like this from NV consistently end up in front of consumers eyes, don't they? And a pretty healthy % of those who are willing to pay $150+ for an add-in graphics board at that (as opposed to the masses who end up with whatever anemic board or chip that is bundled with their box).

Were the materials provided under NDA? If so, does NV have a history of investigating and taking action against those who break NDAs on releasing this kind of material? How does that record compare to their investigation/enforcement of NDA's on material they do care about (like, say, next-gen board specs?).

These would all be relevant questions in assessing NV's culpability here, if anyone cared enough and had the time and money to burn to make an issue of it. But mostly, I think, NV has made a calculated assessment that no one would be willing to go to the mat with them over this kind of thing --and, of course, they are correct in this assessment.

Doesn't make it right, tho.
 
"internal sales documents" :D :eek:

Just like those "internal sales documenet" on the Kyro...you know the ones that NV showed the AIB folks? Maybe we need to re-define what "internal" means :p
 
In Soviet Russia, internal sales documents leak you!

Wait, did someone do the Soviet Russia joke already?
 
An interesting presentation just fell into our hands that looks to be an ATI original meant to be used by ATI sales staffers. It focuses on the ATI Radeon X700 series video card and the way it matches up to the NVIDIA 6600 series competition. It seems as though last week an NVIDIA based sales presentation was circulating although we never got a chance to verify its authenticity.

Dear partners,

In the past few days you've seen a lot of negative marketing against X700 series from NVIDIA. I am happy to send you this latest presentation, our answer to our competition's FUD. You will find lots of facts and data that speak for the truth. I am also attaching the latest press acclaims for the X700 series. No doubt we can proudly say that X700 is THE solution for $149 ~ $199 market.
....
Let the truth speak for itself...

Regards,

Hangmei Chen
Sr. Market Development Manager, AIB Partner Marketing

The ATI presentation goes as far as to accuse NVIDIA of being a "one trick pony" and having to use old benchmarks to make a new video card look good. ATI goes on to point out that "End-users don't play benchmarks...they play games...," but I am sure we will continue to see synthetic benchmarks noted where it behooves them to do so.

http://www.hardocp.com/

http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/...sakDo_1_1_l.gif
http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/...sakDo_1_2_l.gif
http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/...sakDo_1_3_l.gif
......
http://www.hardocp.com/images/news/...sakDo_1_13_l.gif

:p
 
1) 3dmark 2003 fiasco .

Hmm that one is true .

2)Claiming ati has an internal bridge ....


ati doesn't have a internal bridge and thier set up is infact supior to the bridge chip nvidia is using .

3)low k is dangerous

Low k was not dangerous for anyone but nvidia , so i don't see ati lieing .


4) comparing fake sm 2.0 pics to sm3.0 pics

yup nvidia did this , so ati isn't lieing here.

5) misrepresenting performance of the 9550 and the 9250.

This i dunno about , are these two cards price similar to the fx 5200 or the mx 4000 ? I dunno.

6) the 6600gt vs x700pro instead of xt .

This is also true , nvidia compared a slower card to the 6600gt to look better even though a card just as fast was at the same price point from ati.

7) first 200$ vpu with 6 vertex shaders is true , first 200 vpu with 8 pipelines is some what true .


8) the stuff about the pipe line set up is true , however where is 2x the performance or where is better than 6600gt performance ? if it was a 8x1 vs 4x2 and the x700xt had 2x the shader power and more vertex power why isn't it beating the 6600gt ?

9)the stuff on the vertex shaders is true , but then again the performance is still currently only matching the 6600gt so unless future drivers do something its not much of an advantage.

10)video decode ... i dunno i guess its true if thats what hexus is claiming (have to read up on that )

11)first slide for defending x700 is true , the graphs are missleading , the x700xt wasn't compared and they were using older drivers .

12) the 6600gt is a one trick pony is not really true , currently its at the very least even with the x700xt in most benchmarks .

13)i guess its true about x700xt maching the 6600gt in doom3 , have to go look at the article .

14)i don't agree with this slide , as i've been saying the performance is realtively even depending on what website u hit up . Mabye future drivers change this i dunno , but right now the only thing that is true is the lower x700s are better than the lower 6600s from what i see , but the 6600gt is equal to the x700xt

15)last slide is half true , half false .

anyway off to read that extreme tech review .
 
not suprised to see ati doing it as well...everytime one of nvidias sales presentation or what not in regards to ati (ie: sm3 vs 2, a supposedly internal pci-e bridge, etc...) gets leaked, ati's response to nvidia gets leaked, with both supposedly being "internal" :LOL:
 
jvd said:
12) the 6600gt is a one trick pony is not really true , currently its at the very least even with the x700xt in most benchmarks .

It's also rather funny that they say that the 6600 GT is a one trick pony and then compare Doom3 scores between the 6800 Ultra and the X800 XT which have a rather big clock speed difference (pony just left the show slide).

And the "games such as ..UT2004.. to show future performance" thing seems rather lame also. IMO, UT2004 have nothing to do with future performance.

I actually wonder why they had to bring this crap up, would have been better to just continue to laugh at Nvidia for their BS slides.
 
Nice to see ATi playing their hypocrite card - accusing nVidia of misleading the consumer, and then taking B3D comments completely out of context. Leaving out all the vital information on pixel shader performance, which transcends the supposed boundaries of a traditional 4x2 architecture? Good job.
 
Oh please Paul !

Nvidia slides had tons of crap it is stunning that you need to complain about the slides from ATI and had not a word about the Nvidia's ones. :rolleyes:
 
PatrickL said:
Oh please Paul !

Nvidia slides had tons of crap it is stunning that you need to complain about the slides from ATI and had not a word about the Nvidia's ones. :rolleyes:

Then there's the people saying "NVidia has done worse things, so you're not allowed to complain about anything that Ati does".
 
I have to agree with PaulS here. Just because NV is spouting crap doesn't mean that ATI should also attempt to mislead that NV43 is a 4-pipe card. :(

Oh, yeah - I'm sure that this 'internal' presentation from ATI was intended to about as 'internal' as the NV presentation to which it responds! ;)
 
This whole fiasco is just plain sad........ :cry: The saddest part is that ATI has taken the high road for 3 years and gotten pretty beat up by nVidia's PR. It's the old addage about if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. Evidently, ATI has decided if you can't compete with nV taking the high road, emulate them! It looks like ATI has decided that to compete with nV, it must behave like nV..... Optimising, shader replacements (Cat AI?) and now this.....

Very sad and disappointing.....
 
Back
Top