Is the Good Dr Pabst smoking something hallucinogenic ?
- Thread starter CorwinB
- Start date
THe_KELRaTH
Regular
I thought the TH review wasn't too bad and Papst comments were in preparation for next April 1.
What did suprise me was the Techreport review using 51.75 drivers because Nvidia convinced them in probably a 5 minute chat, (and a few sweeties), that the drivers were A1.
What did suprise me was the Techreport review using 51.75 drivers because Nvidia convinced them in probably a 5 minute chat, (and a few sweeties), that the drivers were A1.
ZoinKs! said:
So true! I was actually reading the XT review and expecting more tweaks or certain mentions, and certain other LACK of mentions, but it was very respectable. But THIS thing...!
Meanwhile, I'm wondering what he EXPECTED Asus' CEO to say? "We're making ATi cards now because the FX is a sub-par solution" and cripple the sales of the thousands cards they already have floating about? Er... yeah. I'm sure Asus did a lot of number crunching and decided the best course for themselves, and I'm pretty sure things like "being polite" would not have stood in their way, nor would the ignore consumer confidence and performance issues.
It's good that everyone Tom likes is so NOBLE, and ATi is so DESPICABLE right now, and let's conveniently never bring up a single instance of the crap we've gotten from a particular IHV and the marketing silliness they've had going on for the past year. In context, this is such laughable tripe.
What the hell IS he complaining about? This? THAT is evil marketing?! Heck, I've been wondering where ATi's marketers WERE until lately.
...ugh, my head hurts. -_- I think I'll just finish with my overall reply towards this "commentary"
x 10^1000Vortigern_red
Newcomer
I think Tom has stepped up to replace Kyle as the NV mouthpiece, but its really strange to do it now given the fact that the site has actually taken a stance on NV cheating!
Also I think the techreport review was pretty good really. They included the det 50.xx but made it quite clear that they were unreliable at the start of the review. They even went as far as to comment on shadermark and the HDR demo that NV had yet to *optomise* for these benchmarks debunking NV claims of general shader improvements.
It could have been done better but anyone who comes away from reading that review thinking the NV card and 50.xx drivers are doing everything above board just looked at the pictures and did not read the comments!
Also I think the techreport review was pretty good really. They included the det 50.xx but made it quite clear that they were unreliable at the start of the review. They even went as far as to comment on shadermark and the HDR demo that NV had yet to *optomise* for these benchmarks debunking NV claims of general shader improvements.
It could have been done better but anyone who comes away from reading that review thinking the NV card and 50.xx drivers are doing everything above board just looked at the pictures and did not read the comments!
Vortigern_red
Newcomer
I think the point was to show they were unreliable, rather than us just take his word.
Also to show the huge application specific performance gains and to be able to comment on the massive loss of IQ.Vortigern_red said:
I read that article and just shake my head. Tom seems to be suggesting that Asus humbled ATi somehow into allowing for some kind of a deal that allows Asus to sell both ATi and Nvidia cards. Ironically it was most likely Asus that approached ATi seeing their sales numbers of GeforceFX cards are so reduced. ATi would gain market share with or without Asus but with Asus it will be that much faster. Over two years ago ATi started to attract third party vendors and this sort of deal was more then likely always their major objective. Sure it will increase competition for both companies. But as it was before Nvidia had a virtual monopoly on third party card makers and the largest of them were gigabyte, Asus and MSI. MSI is the next company to take ATi cards onboard they cannot afford to let Asus garner market share because they are tied at the hip with Nvidia and the GeforceFX. Asus did not take ATi on to create competition, they did it to have a positive effect on their bottom line. ATi will not sell their chips for any less to Asus when they can sell them to Asus competitors for more. Nvidia on the other hand is in a rather poor position however.
Anyhow Tom has always favored nvidia. The remarks in that review are more then a little telling. What a dirty rotten under handed commentary.
Anyhow Tom has always favored nvidia. The remarks in that review are more then a little telling. What a dirty rotten under handed commentary.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
The review itself was decent enough. While I don't like benchmarks done with unreleased drivers, at Lars made it clear that they were beta, and did the "gray out" thing in teh benchmark graphs, and included scores from drivers that are actually supported.
That's better than many of the sites *cough, Anand* that just took the latest dets and ran with them.
That Tom Pabst editorial in the middle of it just left me scratching my head over and over....what planet is he on?
That's better than many of the sites *cough, Anand* that just took the latest dets and ran with them.
That Tom Pabst editorial in the middle of it just left me scratching my head over and over....what planet is he on?
BTW, I read it again, and I don't think it has anything to do with Nvidia paying Tom or something like that. I really think, OTOH, it has everything to do with explaining why THG was so late to comment on Nvidia's marketing and butcheatoptimizations. It goes well with the "we don't take side because all IHVs are equally guilty" article that was run at the time of the 3DM03 debacle.
StealthHawk
Regular
Vortigern_red said:
If anyone is NVIDIA's mouthpiece it's Anand.
You didn't actually read the whole review, did you? Scott made his concerns quite clear.THe_KELRaTH said:
There are reasons to want to use them, and stating concerns like this IS fine, as long as people aren't skipping every word in an article and going straight to looking at graphs. (Of course they're foolish people in general.)
I'd rather he have included non-50 benches in there as well. It's fine to have reasons for looking at one, but give the "reference model" as it were.
I'd rather he have included non-50 benches in there as well. It's fine to have reasons for looking at one, but give the "reference model" as it were.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
cthellis42 said:
Agreed.
While I disapprove of using non public drivers at all....at the very least, benchmarks using currently available and supported drivers should be used as the basis of the review.
If they are going to be used at all....non public drivers should be treated more or less like overclocking in reviews...given for informational purposes, with the caveat of "until these are official and public...your milage may vary."
Similar threads
- Locked