Have we forgiven Nvidia?
- Thread starter Mendel
- Start date
- Status
Exactly. Ati has gone a long way since the quake fiasco. They paid for their past mistakes. But nvidia hasnt paid dearly enough. And there is a difference between PR and benchmarking. Benchmarking is a tool that enables the buyer to judge whether the PR crap is true or not. When cheating in benchmarks/drivers and throwing mud at benchmarks then its a whole different thing than just PR crap. I dont know any PR department that makes drivers or replaces shaders, do you?
Yes it sucks and ati should offer an option for disabling all optimizations. Still the visual difference between the 2 optimizations(ati's and nvidia's) is like huge. And its a long way from clipping planes
.And then why are they gonna make an SM 3.0 compliant card? Its all about timing in this industry. Sure nvidia has SM 3.0 cards out, the key question is "Are they fast enough to run SM 3.0 shader paths when games that utilize SM 3.0 come out?". I highly doubt. SM 3.0 doesnt only mean faster, it also means more. So far nvidia(and the developers that working with them) are only taking advantage of the "faster". But when games are actually designed to use SM 3.0, then they will also include the "more" and thats when the party really starts
.Thats what i did. And at that time, nvidia looked really good. And not only from PR crap, but even from hardware review sites such as this one.
Cause some of my games dont run on linux(not even with emulation). And i dont care if ati's drivers suck at linux. Its like telling someone who is driving his car only on normal roads "Yeah your ferarri might be fast and cool on normal roads, but when you try to take it off road it will suck a lot". If i was interested into getting an off road vehicle, i wouldnt buy a ferrari. And i dont see what this has to do with morals or not. Ati and linux dont mix good, so what? I dont see ati saying "Linux sucks" and i dont see ati making its own linux kernel. Linux is 1 of their weak spots which they are actually trying to improve from what i know. Ati always had a small part in the market, so making drivers for linux wasnt a high priority. But now things have changed.
Or those ppl could visit a hardware review site and see that this product sucked before they buy it. See the difference?
Yes but things change. Ati has changed since then. Nvidia on the other hand hasnt changed. If nvidia convince me that they have changed, i will trust them again.
And to sum up. Ati cheated in the pasted, they changed now. Naming schemes or other PR lies can be easily filtered by benchmarking, unlike the things that nvidia did in the last years.
True, but then again I got an X800 pro in my rig and my lack-o-trust in nVidia is why just as much as my faith in ATi is. 8)Mendel said:digitalwanderer said:
Come on digi, Thats uncalled for. You had your finger on the order button, after all!
Here's a good reason to not forgive nVidia.......
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15708
The legacy of the FX will haunt the videocard industry for a long time.......
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15708
The legacy of the FX will haunt the videocard industry for a long time.......
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
trinibwoy said:
The whole thing of being part of 3Dmark development, leaving at the last minute when they saw how badly NV30 performed, then embarking on an orchestrated campaign of discrediting 3Dmark with lies and cheats in order to mislead customers, before rejoining as NV40 neared completion is just the lowest of the low. Has there *ever* been anything as bad as that from any IHV?
So let me get this straight.... It is ok for ATI executives to be misrepresenting their financial statements and taking part in insider trading, but it is morally incomprehensible to think Nvidia would optimize with predetermined clip panes in 3dMark?
I agree that Nvidia was cheating in that benchmark. There is no argument here. What I am really amazed is that you can sit here and tell me how unethical Nvidia is while ATI's stockholders are getting slammed by their own company's disregard for truthful accounting practices.
Furthermore, I am seeing nothing but pure speculation that Nvidia is hurting the industry by app specific optimization. Can someone show me proof that Nvidia has different paths being detected for each and every game? I don't think you can because that proof doesn't exist. ATI has done it in the past. That has been proven. Nvidia did it with 3dMark. That has been proven. Show me another game (not a benchmark) that either IHV has been shown to do app specific optimizations.
And who cares if they optimize for specific games? As long as the game looks as it was meant to look, I am all for improved performance. To sit here and tell me that Nvidia is cheating because they made Warcraft3 perform better without affecting image quality is totally unbelievable. I would feel the same way if ATI was doing it.
I think the funniest thing about all this is your demands for some imaginary "even playing field". You are just dying to put these two cards in a head to head battle with no optimizations, "cheats"/shader replacements, or image quality degradation. I could care less about which card is better at running DX9.0 or ARB paths. What I care about is how well the cards perform playing the games I play. I don't sit here playing Warcraft3 wondering how many passes my videocard took to draw this frame. I just want to be able to have high framerates with a good sharp image quality to help my micro management and unit micro. That is how I make a buying decision (throw in economic factors).
As far as I'm concerned, Nvidia, go right on performing app specific optimizations if you are. While you're at it, please improve Raven Shield, Warcraft3, and Unreal Tournament 2004 performance.
Oh, and that goes for you too ATI. I would like to see this this softmodded 9700 last me another year in my other box. And quit making excuses for ATI. That one guy said for those who bought an ATI Maxx that it was their fault that they bought it. WTF does that mean? What is ironic is that initially that card did very well in benchmarks at release time. What the consumer didn't know was that it was quite possibly the buggiest videocard ever released with discontinued support by ATI very soon after it was launched. But he was wronged by Nvidia's PR machine.....
I agree that Nvidia was cheating in that benchmark. There is no argument here. What I am really amazed is that you can sit here and tell me how unethical Nvidia is while ATI's stockholders are getting slammed by their own company's disregard for truthful accounting practices.
Furthermore, I am seeing nothing but pure speculation that Nvidia is hurting the industry by app specific optimization. Can someone show me proof that Nvidia has different paths being detected for each and every game? I don't think you can because that proof doesn't exist. ATI has done it in the past. That has been proven. Nvidia did it with 3dMark. That has been proven. Show me another game (not a benchmark) that either IHV has been shown to do app specific optimizations.
And who cares if they optimize for specific games? As long as the game looks as it was meant to look, I am all for improved performance. To sit here and tell me that Nvidia is cheating because they made Warcraft3 perform better without affecting image quality is totally unbelievable. I would feel the same way if ATI was doing it.
I think the funniest thing about all this is your demands for some imaginary "even playing field". You are just dying to put these two cards in a head to head battle with no optimizations, "cheats"/shader replacements, or image quality degradation. I could care less about which card is better at running DX9.0 or ARB paths. What I care about is how well the cards perform playing the games I play. I don't sit here playing Warcraft3 wondering how many passes my videocard took to draw this frame. I just want to be able to have high framerates with a good sharp image quality to help my micro management and unit micro. That is how I make a buying decision (throw in economic factors).
As far as I'm concerned, Nvidia, go right on performing app specific optimizations if you are. While you're at it, please improve Raven Shield, Warcraft3, and Unreal Tournament 2004 performance.
Oh, and that goes for you too ATI. I would like to see this this softmodded 9700 last me another year in my other box. And quit making excuses for ATI. That one guy said for those who bought an ATI Maxx that it was their fault that they bought it. WTF does that mean? What is ironic is that initially that card did very well in benchmarks at release time. What the consumer didn't know was that it was quite possibly the buggiest videocard ever released with discontinued support by ATI very soon after it was launched. But he was wronged by Nvidia's PR machine.....
Optimummind
Newcomer
nutball said:
Quoted for truth.
Carmack has himself stated that nvidia performance is hindered greatly in Doom3 if there are small changes in the paths.ondaedg said:
Is this a bad thing? No. Unless nvidia is sacrificing IQ or rendering different than the app or game requests then there is no problem. Most people will agree that app specific optimizations are great as long as things like shaders are mathematically the same and precision and quality are not sacrificed.
When nvidia does those things (and it wouldn't surprise me if they still do in some occasions) then that's where the problems are.
Yes, quite a few of them...but we generally do tend to make a big deal out of these petty viddy card things on forums about viddy cards.nutball said:
digitalwanderer said:Yes, quite a few of them...but we generally do tend to make a big deal out of these petty viddy card things on forums about viddy cards.nutball said:
Easy to say that because this is a forum about video cards, logic and objectiveness can be thrown out the window as long as the discussion revolves around video cards in one way or another. Maybe some of us enjoy the video card topic without being annoyed with all the "petty" arguing over really really really stupid stuff.
I guess it just all depends on how you define the "stupid stuff".ondaedg said:Maybe some of us enjoy the video card topic without being annoyed with all the "petty" arguing over really really really stupid stuff.
Have you noticed a dearth of video card topics lately? :|ondaedg said:I think my definition of "stupid stuff" is more than reasonable.
You ever think that maybe a forum covering the topic of video cards should actually discuss them rather than belittle each other over which one was better? Or is that not pertinent to these boards?
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
It amazes me that people call Beyond3D a ATI Fanboi sight. I see this site as a site that tells the truth. I own a GF3, before that I owned a GF1 DDDR and before that I had a Riva TNT2 Ultra. As you might notice I skipped every second generation. That would have been the NV3x Gen. And I would've bought a Nvidia card if it wasn't for the bad performances of the NV30. I read different sites ([H] was one who favoured the NV30) but it was one Beyond3D that went against the grain and told the truth. Nvidia had produced a dud. Then Nvidia released the NV3x series(reffering to 5900 and cards released after). I was still skepticle. I needed a new graphics card. The R9700 Pro was awesome. The 9800 XT was even better. Yet I still hold out(now realising I was waiting for a Nvidia miracle). It didn't happen. DX9 was bad. But it wasn't until Nvidia slanted FutureMark(who has a perfect benchmark in 3DMark2003) that I started to hate the company. It cheated, it told lies, it cheated some more. This still didn't make me go out and buy an ATI card though. I held out.
The NV40 and X800 got released but I still had to put up with the crap that is Nvidia. Anyone remember the FarCry SM3.0 conference. "Only we can do it." says Nvidia .. and for all purposes you are right .. but ATI can do the same thing to a degree. Yet nvidia encourages developers to use PS1.1 or SM3.0.
Nvidia.. you just stepped over the line. ATI will be getting my money now. I'm hoping to get a X800 soon.
Diplo.. unless you someone who reads awesome sites like Beyond3D who happen to tell the truth, then it's easy to get mislead by review sites. So ye .. damn I would be REALLY CHEESED if I bought a NV3x and found out it's really crap. Alot of people do not visit websites though and get duped into getting the inferior card. Is it their fault? No. They just buy what they are told.
Take the local PCFormat(SA version not UK). When HL2 reviews were released last year they praised the Radeon cards. Yet 3 months further they would say Nvidia cards were better than the ATI cards which was not true. So even major review players can get it wrong bigtime.. but that is all because of the PR BS that they hear.
True .. because funnily as it is .. it's kinda happened again. Doom 3 anyone? To be truthful, I haven't played it yet BUT I will be getting my copy next week. I will play it through. What can I expect though? I very good game? Or a game that was hyped to death?
People do forget though .. and while others might be careful when they buy HL2 for instance, 6 months down the line you'll get something else that will be hyped up and it will be disappointing.
Fortunately I have B3D.
True .. but if ATI can release cards in the near future that preforms comparable as a Nvidia card(even without special features), then I'll be buying that card over a Nvidia one.
If Nvidia do want to get my money though .. they'll have to release a Card that annihilates the ATI card. Until then they won't.
US
The NV40 and X800 got released but I still had to put up with the crap that is Nvidia. Anyone remember the FarCry SM3.0 conference. "Only we can do it." says Nvidia .. and for all purposes you are right .. but ATI can do the same thing to a degree. Yet nvidia encourages developers to use PS1.1 or SM3.0.
Nvidia.. you just stepped over the line. ATI will be getting my money now. I'm hoping to get a X800 soon.
Diplo said:
Diplo.. unless you someone who reads awesome sites like Beyond3D who happen to tell the truth, then it's easy to get mislead by review sites. So ye .. damn I would be REALLY CHEESED if I bought a NV3x and found out it's really crap. Alot of people do not visit websites though and get duped into getting the inferior card. Is it their fault? No. They just buy what they are told.
Take the local PCFormat(SA version not UK). When HL2 reviews were released last year they praised the Radeon cards. Yet 3 months further they would say Nvidia cards were better than the ATI cards which was not true. So even major review players can get it wrong bigtime.. but that is all because of the PR BS that they hear.
True .. because funnily as it is .. it's kinda happened again. Doom 3 anyone? To be truthful, I haven't played it yet BUT I will be getting my copy next week. I will play it through. What can I expect though? I very good game? Or a game that was hyped to death?
People do forget though .. and while others might be careful when they buy HL2 for instance, 6 months down the line you'll get something else that will be hyped up and it will be disappointing.
Fortunately I have B3D.
True .. but if ATI can release cards in the near future that preforms comparable as a Nvidia card(even without special features), then I'll be buying that card over a Nvidia one.
If Nvidia do want to get my money though .. they'll have to release a Card that annihilates the ATI card. Until then they won't.
US
if you take a step back over a year or two or three, Nvidia isn't the only company who has slanted consumers. That is my point. Look deeper and you will see that ATI too has been unruly children. Ask their stockholders or the SEC who are both pissed off at them. I suppose you don't feel slanted that ATI stated in their own .ppt presentations that they were doing "pure" trilinear filtering when in fact, they have been using a mixture of bilinear and trilinear with no option to turn it off. Is that not slanting the consumer? Then you claim that 3dMark2003 is a "perfect" benchmark. Hrmm, that is an interesting statement. How perfect is it really? They make IHVs pay fairly large sums of money to be able to participate in their "beta" program. Now how perfect is that? A benchmark designed to bring in revenue will always be flawed. To make a statement like it is a "perfect" benchmark is just plain....nuts. 8)
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
ondaedg said:
I made that statement to mean it's a perfectly good benchmark. But i'll leave it as it is and argue the point with you. Is it really evil to ask payment for people to use something you've created?? I see it all over the place. Applications, programs. Where they were free before and where you have to pay for them now. So does it make the application useless now? No! They got to make a living too. You can use 3DMark2003 without needing to pay for it. It'll even give you you result back no problem which you can compare for yourself later if you take a screenshot(or note it for yourself). I've done this.
As for making the IHV's pay to be part of the beta? Why not? They make us pay for their cards. Now because a certain IHV decides that it's card sucks(which it really does), and then decides to leave the program because of it, then slants the program because of it.. well that's taking it far. In my eyes the 9800 Pro/XT will always be faster than the GF5900 5950. Just because some IHV decides to release some drivers that cheats(yes cheats) it's way through the program to make it faster does not make me have to like the IHV. As a matter of fact, now I don't.
US
- Status
