Kyle lays it on the line

[Sxotty]

I might suggest that the burden for improving the relationship lies not with ATI, but with [H]?

How is beyond3d's relationship with Nvidia Dave?

edit:
I am glad to hear it I have been worried that perhaps it was being negatively effected, or otherwise not as good as in the past.

(no need to add new post)

 

[Dave Baumann]

AFAIK, fine. I had a lengthy conversation with them last week on a number of things and am arranging to meet with their head of Dev Rel soon as he's moved away from the States to head up Dev Rel in Europe.

 

[Reverend]

Kyle - "I hope I have answered your three questions sufficiently."

Not in the least, But I do have a much better understanding of your Opinions, Rationalizations, and Justifications.

They are still erroneous because they are based on the false premises that what Nvidia did were Optimizations in 3DMark, not cheats so it was OK; and That IQ manipulation behind your back in UT2K03 using Nvidia drivers is OK, and the IQ "Good enough" for everyone, etc. etc. etc.

Hellooo! Kyle! I want to have the say in what IQ I get onscreen. I paid $XXX's of dollars for this Mega Gaming Wonder and I want to run it full tilt boogy with highest IQ possible. I don't give two shits about what Nvidia thinks it should be run at, nor do I want them hardcoding driver IQ settings based on Game Name, especially if it prevents me from the highest settings. It's purely an attempt to inflate scores in the Benchmark. And it sure as hell does NOT give the best Gaming Experience possible, as you seem to think your reviews represent. Hello! You gettings this Kyle?

Whether IQ is good enough or not, whether called cheats or optimizations, whether in Synthetic or "Game" Benchmarks, Nvidia is dumping workload behind the scenes in certain well known and oft used benchmarks at supposed "equal" IQ settings to it's Competitor to inflate scores and look better than they are. That's fruad, That's False Advertising, That's theft by Deception. That's BOGUS! That deserves a Front Page Editorial, Not lip service in your Forums and being swept under a rug.

I do not care about your subjective opinions of what is "good enough" IQ while playing games. Your not me, nor any other of your readers, and to ASSUME you know what's best for all of us is the height of Egotism.

If the first Law of Journalism is to be Objective, imho You failed miserably.

Er, I'll assume you made a mistake and posted your message here instead of in the relevant thread at the HardForums.

Or that you didn't make a mistake and that you, and others, got the message in my above sentence.

 

[swanlee]

posting this here just in case he nukes or edits my post, his qoute is below mine.


So essentially you refuse to take a real stance on this issue? And by the first paragraph you have given a corporate justification to the plain and simple fact Nvidia has ine the past and currently uses unethical optimizations in order to bring up numbers in benchmarks whihc in turn spawns greater sales whihc in turn helps their stock holders. They optimized and took away control for the users in benchmarks and popular games widely used by reviewers to test video cards. But you have yet to take a stance you state below we should let the vendors know what we think is acceptable and what we do not yet as yourself having a good relationship with Nvidia and a lot of readers your voice may stand above others in helping stop these types of thing from happening again yet you simply don't seem willing to actually state what you think.

Yes or No with all the recent findings about what Nvidia has been doing in it's drivers which has had the sole purpose of bumping up it's numbers in benchmarks and time demo's do you think that it was wrong for Nvidia to do that?

Don't you think this is also mis leading it's customers into buying a vidoe card that perfomed much better than it really did?

Kyle's qoute

"I think the IHV has the right to handle these optimizations as they see fit. We sometimes seem to forget that we are dealing with public companies that have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders. That is their number one responsibility in reality, whether we like it or not.

To answer your question as to whether or not it is a good practice... I think to answer that one way or another would be to paint with a very wide brush and the answer simply would be "wrong" either way it was answered. We are going to continue to see game specific optimizations. I think we are going to see some that are great and enhance performance sufficiently. Then again I am sure we will see some implementations of it that just plain suck.

Overall, I think moving towards this is a good thing. We just need to let the IHVs know what we consider acceptable and what we do not."


__________________

 

[Pete]

At this point, the only reaction I can muster for this whole "issue" is, "Meh."

 

[andypski]

Kyle's qoute

"I think the IHV has the right to handle these optimizations as they see fit. We sometimes seem to forget that we are dealing with public companies that have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders. That is their number one responsibility in reality, whether we like it or not.

[Turns to ATI driver engineers]

Wayhey lads - if it pumps up our stock price it's ok with Kyle. Drop every second triangle and turn off texturing. Render at half the requested screen res whenever a benchmark is detected. We're about to produce the largest single increase in benchmark scores in the recorded history of graphics.

[end sarcasm]

Arrrgh.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Kyle's qoute

"I think the IHV has the right to handle these optimizations as they see fit. We sometimes seem to forget that we are dealing with public companies that have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders. That is their number one responsibility in reality, whether we like it or not.

They also have a responsibilty to their stockholders not to do anything which might lead them to lose money (say through a class-action lawsuit from cheated customers) or to break the law by deliberately cheating customers.

Nvidia is lucky that once again the law is well behind the technology market. Can you imagine a car manufacturer that lies about the performance of it's products getting away with it? Heck no, they'd be fined millions of dollars and probably be made to recompense their victims.

 

[Blackwind]

...and once again people here miss the entire point. For someone who is "despised" Kyle sure gets plenty of coverage here.

 

[John Reynolds]

...and once again people here miss the entire point. For someone who is "despised" Kyle sure gets plenty of coverage here.

I agree that I'm sick of all the Kyle bashing myself, but you're painting with a rather large brush with that statement. Did Dave miss the point, or Andypski?

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

...and once again people here miss the entire point. For someone who is "despised" Kyle sure gets plenty of coverage here.

Yeah, that's right, everyone here has missed the point I think we get the point just fine.

Kyle gets coverage because he is so spectacularly, publicly, desperately *wrong*. He's like a man claiming the moon is made of green cheese because his "opinion" is just as valid as everyone elses. Having an opinion doesn't change the facts.

 

[Blackwind]

...and once again people here miss the entire point. For someone who is "despised" Kyle sure gets plenty of coverage here.

I agree that I'm sick of all the Kyle bashing myself, but you're painting with a rather large brush with that statement. Did Dave miss the point, or Andypski?

No, I'd say Dave brought up valid points. Blasting Kyle with a flame thrower 24/7 over here is "beyond "maniacal. I would completely disagree that the relationship growing beyond what is presently in existence between ATI and [H] is [H]'s job. ATI is the business with a product, not the other way around.

 

[Heathen]

I would completely disagree that the relationship growing beyond what is presently in existence between ATI and [H] is [H]'s job.

You aren't suggesting that ATi need sites like H do you?

Hardware review sites are ten a penny and the people the buyers that actually matter (the manufacturers) generally don't bother looking at them, they do the testing themselves.

 

[Blackwind]

I would completely disagree that the relationship growing beyond what is presently in existence between ATI and [H] is [H]'s job.

You aren't suggesting that ATi need sites like H do you?

Hardware review sites are ten a penny and the people the buyers that actually matter (the manufacturers) generally don't bother looking at them, they do the testing themselves.

No, I am not.

 

[AzBat]

2. I am not sure about your statements here but you seem to be somewhat confused about optimizations, benchmarks, and how exactly that is applicable to in-game experience. It seems with our latest benchmarks that ATI questioned us on, we were showing benchmarks that used the optimizations and that did in fact reflect in-game experience. ATI seemed to think the benchmark should not use the optimization like the game did when you actually played it. We disagreed with them and I think we proved our point.

Hmm. I thought ATI was complaining that since NVIDIA wasn't doing full tri-linear that they shouldn't be compared to their card which was using full tri-linear? Is that correct?

I myself wouldn't had mind [H] comparing NVIDIA's quazi-tri-linear with ATI's full tri-linear, but only as long [H] stated in review next to the numbers that NVIDIA's drivers didn't allow that comparison because they were special-casing for that application and that although the IQ was not as good as full tri-linear some people may not be able tell the difference while playing the game. That's the kind of statement I would like Kyle to add to his review. Remember, a lot of people may not read the "UT2003 Texture Filtering" article and they could possibly be mislead by reading the review "as is". To me this is ATI biggest complaint.

Tommy McClain

 

[Fred da Roza]

I would post this at [H] but, well, I can't...

It could easily be argued (and has been repeatedly) that every benchmark using Trilinear Filtering in an environment with surfaces other than 0 and 90 degrees over the last year have given ATI an edge that NVIDIA did not have.

Only if you are talking about rendering with AF enabled - under deafult rendering options you should be calling for full Trilinear - there is little difference in the numbers of samples taken with most boards when doing straight, full Trilinear filtering. .

Didn’t ATI in fact call their AF adaptive from the very start? So yes some could argue that ATI should have given the consumer the choice but in no way was it a cheat. No one was mislead.

If nVidia openly stated what they did and applied it to all games I think the majority would have accepted what they did as an optimization. The fact is the consumer was mislead. [H] participated in this deception. At the very least Kyle should have noted the drivers were not performing pure trilinear filtering and nVidia should openly state it.

What we do have with NVIDIA is a tremendously strong relationship. A relationship beyond what I ever thought would be nurtured. NVIDIA is making it a habit to talk with us. NVIDIA listens to us. They use HardOCP as a voice of the community that I still know in my heart and soul that we represent. New solutions in terms of press/community/manufacture relationships are being tried at NVIDIA and seem to be paying off in spades. We do not have that same relationship with ATI and the only time they contact HardOCP is when they have something to tell us.

I might suggest that the burden for improving the relationship lies not with ATI, but with [H]? Perhaps if some of the issues that have cropped up over the past few months had been handled differently then ATI would have been more willing to have a more open dialogue. For instance - my banning from [H]'s forums has not going unnoticed by ATI, including their PR, and from my conversations with them they think that was pretty unreasonable. Its actions like these and inactions in other areas that probably doesn't make ATI want [H] to be their confidant.

I may respectfully suggest that the onus there lies with [H] to improve the relationship, afterall if they don't then they are doing a diservice to their readers. While NVIDIA was the undisputed king of the hill over the two years prior to R300 its a good thing to insuate yourself into their talks, but ATI have proved that there are now two 3D vendors who can claim top class hardware - if this turns out to be a sustained effort by ATI then then by not doing the same with them as you have with NVIDIA you'll only be giving your readers half the story...

Kyle’s response sounds like an acknowledgment of a conflict of interest. Regardless of the relationship with a particular vendor, the same rules must apply if one is to claim journalistic integrity.

I’ll give him credit that he acknowledged his statements about ET were not appropriate. No one is required to grovel. But, as someone already said, he should have posted it where he slandered ET.

 

[andypski]

No, I'd say Dave brought up valid points. Blasting Kyle with a flame thrower 24/7 over here is "beyond "maniacal. I would completely disagree that the relationship growing beyond what is presently in existence between ATI and [H] is [H]'s job. ATI is the business with a product, not the other way around.

Generally speaking it seems to me that the responsibility for a relationship growing must lie with both parties by definition. If either party is not interested in growing the relationship then it will not grow.

ATI is a business with a product. [H] is also a business with a product - that product being their reviews. ATI relies on journalists to review their products and the journalists rely on ATI to provide them with hardware to review. It's a two way street.

Reading Kyle's post he obviously currently feels that nVidia are more responsive to him than ATI - I can't comment on why this should be the case as it is not my department.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I was just going to sit this one out watching it play out on the sidelines, but this bit bugs me.

Kyle in that post-
All in all if that is the way you insist looking at it, we will have to agree to disagree. If you could walk a mile in my shoes you might better understand our view of the situation. I am sorry to sound arrogant on this point, but I do fully understand how you are viewing the situation as I can see and understand it in those terms. I am simply saying that your view does not take in the full complexity of the situation in my opinion.

Now is it just me or is it just a bit insulting to be told it's just too complex for us simpletons to understand?

Why doesn't he just take a bit of time and explain it to us with little words so we'll all just stop pestering him about it? It really is the whole crux of the problem and the whole reason he's getting slammed all over.

I just don't get what the "complexities" of the situation truly are, it seems so damned black & white to me....I really wish he would explain how he sees it so we could understand.

Ok, I'm done. I would have posted it over there but I couldn't either.

 

[beyondhelp]

Kyle - "I hope I have answered your three questions sufficiently."

Not in the least, But I do have a much better understanding of your Opinions, Rationalizations, and Justifications.

They are still erroneous because they are based on the false premises that what Nvidia did were Optimizations in 3DMark, not cheats so it was OK; and That IQ manipulation behind your back in UT2K03 using Nvidia drivers is OK, and the IQ "Good enough" for everyone, etc. etc. etc.

Hellooo! Kyle! I want to have the say in what IQ I get onscreen. I paid $XXX's of dollars for this Mega Gaming Wonder and I want to run it full tilt boogy with highest IQ possible. I don't give two shits about what Nvidia thinks it should be run at, nor do I want them hardcoding driver IQ settings based on Game Name, especially if it prevents me from the highest settings. It's purely an attempt to inflate scores in the Benchmark. And it sure as hell does NOT give the best Gaming Experience possible, as you seem to think your reviews represent. Hello! You gettings this Kyle?

Whether IQ is good enough or not, whether called cheats or optimizations, whether in Synthetic or "Game" Benchmarks, Nvidia is dumping workload behind the scenes in certain well known and oft used benchmarks at supposed "equal" IQ settings to it's Competitor to inflate scores and look better than they are. That's fruad, That's False Advertising, That's theft by Deception. That's BOGUS! That deserves a Front Page Editorial, Not lip service in your Forums and being swept under a rug.

I do not care about your subjective opinions of what is "good enough" IQ while playing games. Your not me, nor any other of your readers, and to ASSUME you know what's best for all of us is the height of Egotism.

If the first Law of Journalism is to be Objective, imho You failed miserably.

Er, I'll assume you made a mistake and posted your message here instead of in the relevant thread at the HardForums.

Or that you didn't make a mistake and that you, and others, got the message in my above sentence.

I would have posted there had I been able to register... Whats your Point and whats the problem? I am not alone in my disdain for his "Opinions"

as far as that goes, [H] may not post here, but I'd bet dollars to donuts he lurks and reads the threads, so He'll see my post. If he has a rebuttal, I'm sure he's capable of defending himself. even if by PM.

 

[Althornin]

...and once again people here miss the entire point. For someone who is "despised" Kyle sure gets plenty of coverage here.

so, what is the entire point, in your opinion?
Because i dont think i'm missing it - maybe you could clarify?
Instead of blasting us all the time?
And what does "despising" someone have to do with coverage?
He's pretty influential - so of course we discuss what he says. What, should we ignore those we disagree with?

 

[Slides]

Yes, what is the point of all these threads about Kyle?