Kyle's new thread @[H]

[boobs]

I think there needs to be some perspective here.

Kyle wrote:

I think 3DMark03 has morphed into something that it should not be. 3DMark03 is helping destroy our community by introducing a bad scoring system that must be taken into account by the major video card companies. 3DMark03 has way too much power in the desktop and OEM industry and it can obviously be manipulated fairly easily. I think Futuremark clearly proves that themselves.

Futuremark asks the question, "Can 3DMark03 be used as a reliable benchmark for DirectX 9 generation graphics cards?" And Futuremark answers, "Yes, with the new 3DMark03 build 330, it can." Logically, any version of 3DMark03 prior to this build mentioned above has not been a reliable benchmark by their own admission. I personally have never thought it to be a reliable benchmark, albeit for other reasons than exposed here. I think it does more to harm the community than benefit it.

Was he talking about the Nvidia cheating issue? Well, not really. He was expressing his opinion that 3DMark03 is harmful to the hardware review community and consumers because its scoring system is not a valid predictor of performance in real applications.

This opinion was formed before the Nvidia/3DMark incident. Its validity is unaffected by the current fiasco. Kyle wants 3DMark's influence reduced, period. Hence, he does not really care about what Nvidia does on 3DMark.

People have been assailing his lack of integrity, well, I'm not sure how you go about defining the integrity of video card reviews, but he's been honest and straight forward about his agenda, which is to reduce the influence of 3DMark.

Personally, I applaud his frankness.

 

[jjayb]

This opinion was formed before the Nvidia/3DMark incident

This opinion may have been formed befor the nvidia/3dmark cheating incident. But, however, his opinion on this was formed only after Nvidia blasted 3dmark03 and it just so happens his opinion mimics nvidia's paper on this exactly. I still feel he is acting as nothing more than a puppet for Nvidia's PR. All of his recent statements on 3dmark show this. They have been almost word for word the same as Nvidia's statements on this. If one didn't know, you would think Kyle was an Nvidia PR spokesman himself.

When he starts calling anyone who doesn't agree with him "sheep", I find that rather amusing. He also insinuated ET was only releasing the info on Nvidia cheating because they didn't get to bench doom3. He has still not offered any evidence to support this. His only "evidence" is stating it's a "fact" that ET didn't get to bench doom3. He feels that's the only evidence he needs. Yet he feels more evidence needs to be brought out to show Nvidia was cheating? Kyle is nothing but disgusting to me at this point.

 

[Entropy]

People have been assailing his lack of integrity, well, I'm not sure how you go about defining the integrity of video card reviews, but he's been honest and straight forward about his agenda, which is to reduce the influence of 3DMark.

Personally, I applaud his frankness.

As far as agendas go, reducing the influence of 3DMark is fine and dandy. There are very real pros and cons of having a widely recognized standard benchmark, and depending on your values, you might end up at different conclusions as to whether it is good or bad.

However, not condemning an IHV for cheating is very very strange, particularly for a site that often purports to look after the interests of the "common enthusiast". Benchmark cheating is done for the sole purpose of creating a false impression. And review sites are the (unwitting?) tools used by the IHVs to spread this deception to the general public. How can a review site NOT condemn such actions, both for their own sake and for the sake of their readers?

It is possible to speculate on the reasons of course. Feel free to choose among them. None are pretty.

Entropy

 

[boobs]

This opinion was formed before the Nvidia/3DMark incident

This opinion may have been formed befor the nvidia/3dmark cheating incident. But, however, his opinion on this was formed only after Nvidia blasted 3dmark03 and it just so happens his opinion mimics nvidia's paper on this exactly. I still feel he is acting as nothing more than a puppet for Nvidia's PR. All of his recent statements on 3dmark show this. They have been almost word for word the same as Nvidia's statements on this. If one didn't know, you would think Kyle was an Nvidia PR spokesman himself.

When he starts calling anyone who doesn't agree with him "sheep", I find that rather amusing. He also insinuated ET was only releasing the info on Nvidia cheating because they didn't get to bench doom3. He has still not offered any evidence to support this. His only "evidence" is stating it's a "fact" that ET didn't get to bench doom3. He feels that's the only evidence he needs. Yet he feels more evidence needs to be brought out to show Nvidia was cheating? Kyle is nothing but disgusting to me at this point.

1. He happened to agree with Nvidia, whose position was a defensible one.

2. He pointed out that not getting DOOM3 may be a contributing motive for ET, which sounds reasonable.

3. He didn't need evidence for pointing out two well known facts.

4. He didn't say that Nvidia wasn't cheating. He says wait for more facts before forming an opinion on this in reference about his 3DMark comments, meaning, wait to see before you decide to jump to 3DMark's side. Did he mean 3DMark's side on this cheating issue? No! He meant 3DMark's side on whether 3DMark is useful or harmful. In his opinion, its harmful.

5. A lot of people here talk "objectivity" while stuffing words and connotations into other people's mouths. This is not objectivity, it's arguing from emotions and slanting what other people say to fit with your perceptions.

 

[mondoterrifico]

1. He happened to agree with Nvidia, whose position was a defensible one.

2. He pointed out that not getting DOOM3 may be a contributing motive for ET, which sounds reasonable.

3. He didn't need evidence for pointing out two well known facts.

4. He didn't say that Nvidia wasn't cheating. He says wait for more facts before forming an opinion on this in reference about his 3DMark comments, meaning, wait to see before you decide to jump to 3DMark's side. Did he mean 3DMark's side on this cheating issue? No! He meant 3DMark's side on whether 3DMark is useful or harmful. In his opinion, its harmful.

5. A lot of people here talk "objectivity" while stuffing words and connotations into other people's mouths. This is not objectivity, it's arguing from emotions and slanting what other people say to fit with your perceptions.

1. Nvidia's position has been one of obfuscation,half truths and lies.
2. This is a childish quasi slanderish assumption on Kyle's part.
3. If by well known facts u mean, points 1 and 2, god help your brain.
4. How do you know Kyle's true intentions?
5. Reread your own post

 

[boobs]

1. He happened to agree with Nvidia, whose position was a defensible one.

2. He pointed out that not getting DOOM3 may be a contributing motive for ET, which sounds reasonable.

3. He didn't need evidence for pointing out two well known facts.

4. He didn't say that Nvidia wasn't cheating. He says wait for more facts before forming an opinion on this in reference about his 3DMark comments, meaning, wait to see before you decide to jump to 3DMark's side. Did he mean 3DMark's side on this cheating issue? No! He meant 3DMark's side on whether 3DMark is useful or harmful. In his opinion, its harmful.

5. A lot of people here talk "objectivity" while stuffing words and connotations into other people's mouths. This is not objectivity, it's arguing from emotions and slanting what other people say to fit with your perceptions.

1. Nvidia's position has been one of obfuscation,half truths and lies.
2. This is a childish quasi slanderish assumption on Kyle's part.
3. If by well known facts u mean, points 1 and 2, god help your brain.
4. How do you know Kyle's true intentions?
5. Reread your own post

1. Is the position that 3DMark is not a useful benchmark indefensible?

2. What did he assume, exactly? He pointed out two facts and a possible connection. Do you think it would not have given ET pause before publishing this had they gotten the same red carpet that Anandtech and [H] got?

3. By well known facts I meant that ET didn't get to bench D3 and ET came out with the first cheating report.

4. I didn't talk about Kyle's intentions. I read and understood his post, which you did not read carefully enough to understand.

5. A. Learn to read carefully. B. Learn to think critically.

 

[jjayb]

1. He happened to agree with Nvidia, whose position was a defensible one.

Or not. But I guess his readers will never now unless they look elsewhere. Don't think Kyle ever mentioned this link in any of his ProNvidia standpoint posts:

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dmark03/post/

2. He pointed out that not getting DOOM3 may be a contributing motive for ET, which sounds reasonable.

Reasonable to who? They were working on the story before anyone even knew about being able to bench doom3. Kyle knows that as well. Do you think they were investigating but weren't going to actually publish the story? They only published it because they didn't get to bench doom3? It's absurd. Not even remotely "reasonable".

3. He didn't need evidence for pointing out two well known facts.

The only "fact" here is that extremetech didn't bench doom3. To imply a motive based on that is going a looooong way in assuming. He implied that was there motive. He should have backed up that implication, or not implied it.

4. He didn't say that Nvidia wasn't cheating. He says wait for more facts before forming an opinion on this in reference about his 3DMark comments, meaning, wait to see before you decide to jump to 3DMark's side. Did he mean 3DMark's side on this cheating issue? No! He meant 3DMark's side on whether 3DMark is useful or harmful. In his opinion, its harmful.

That's the problem, he didn't say Nvidia was cheating either. Instead he tried to take attention away from the issue at hand by focusing the attention on the benchmark itself. Furthermore, he says to wait for more facts. Yet when any facts are given to go against his and Nvidia's beliefs, he does not report them. He only reports what supports Nvidia's statements. He's basically saying, ignore the facts from everyone but Nvidia.

5. A lot of people here talk "objectivity" while stuffing words and connotations into other people's mouths. This is not objectivity, it's arguing from emotions and slanting what other people say to fit with your perceptions.

As is the very same thing Kyle did by implying ET only ran the story because they didn't get to bench doom3.

Fact: Nvidia was doing something fishy with 3dmark
Fact: Extreme tech saw this.
Fact: Extreme tech started investigating this.
Fact: Extreme tech does not get to bench doom3.
Fact: Extreme tech finishes their investigation.
Fact: Extreme tech publishes their findings.

From this Kyle Implies that Extreme tech published their findings only because they didn't get to bench doom3. Hey what proof does he need when afterall, you can clearly see from the above facts that ET didn't get to bench doom3.

 

[duncan36]

Kyle is not that much of an idiot he knows whats what to an extent. He's like GWBush who's quite happy for everyone to consider him an idiot as he pushes his well thought out(perhaps by other people) yet nefarious agenda down everyones throat.

 

[Gubbi]

Kyle is not that much of an idiot ....... He's like GWBush.....

Contradiction of terms

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[boobs]

1. He was stating his opinion in an editorial. Could you imagine what would happen if somebody has to state every other person's opinion every time he states his own? It's up to the reader to read multiple opinions. Otherwise, how could any news site ever publish any editorial??!

2. They've been working on the story, maybe, but the story was published after the D3 benches were publish was it not? 2 Facts, ET didn't get to bench D3, ET published after D3 benches. Yes/No? Do you not think that affected ET's decision to publish? Of course it did. It's human nature. If I were in ET's shoes, it would affect me too, and like them, I would have published. Now I believe that they published out of a desire to get the facts out, but Kyle was pointing out that ET aren't angels walking on water. GASP!!! You don't say??!

3. He made a political decision to focus the debate on the benchmark. He wasn't doing this to shield Nvidia, he was doing this to attack 3dMark. You mean, people are political animals that try to steer debates to achieve their own objectives??!! Say it ain't so!


Common now, let's be adults about this. Everyone in this whole mess has an agenda. Nvidia, 3dMark, ET, Kyle, Ati, etc. Kyle came out and said what he thought in the midst of a shit storm. That's why I applaud him.

 

[saf1]

Kyle is not that much of an idiot ....... He's like GWBush.....

Contradiction of terms

Cheers
Gubbi

Nice - bring our president into the mess. If you think you can do a better job, feel free to run.

 

[Randell]

1. He was stating his opinion in an editorial. Could you imagine what would happen if somebody has to state every other person's opinion every time he states his own? It's up to the reader to read multiple opinions. Otherwise, how could any news site ever publish any editorial??!

2. They've been working on the story, maybe, but the story was published after the D3 benches were publish was it not? 2 Facts, ET didn't get to bench D3, ET published after D3 benches. Yes/No? Do you not think that affected ET's decision to publish? Of course it did. It's human nature. If I were in ET's shoes, it would affect me too, and like them, I would have published. Now I believe that they published out of a desire to get the facts out, but Kyle was pointing out that ET aren't angels walking on water. GASP!!! You don't say??!

3. He made a political decision to focus the debate on the benchmark. He wasn't doing this to shield Nvidia, he was doing this to attack 3dMark. You mean, people are political animals that try to steer debates to achieve their own objectives??!! Say it ain't so!


Common now, let's be adults about this. Everyone in this whole mess has an agenda. Nvidia, 3dMark, ET, Kyle, Ati, etc. Kyle came out and said what he thought in the midst of a shit storm. That's why I applaud him.

aargh its Groundhog Day

 

[kyleb]

This opinion was formed before the Nvidia/3DMark incident. Its validity is unaffected by the current fiasco.

i don't rightly think so. the nvidia/3dmark incident was the release of 3dmark03, the only notable thing in the situation to happen any time before that was nvidia's recent drop from it's long time membership in beta program. but as for where the flag went down, if i am expected to believe that Kyle's opinion was formulated prior to the incident then i want to know; how did he come to this opinion?

oh and more importantly, for me the whole thing boils down to nvidia is claiming that their cheating is justified with the comical argument that it is simply revenge for attempted extortion. how absurd is that?!? i mean they might have well signed the argument off with "if chewbacca lives on endor you must acquit!" or as WaltC said, "2+2=5!" unfortunately, quite a few people are just eating it up.

 

[Typedef Enum]

Let me put it this way...and anybody who has ever talked to the guys @ nVidia...go ahead and chime in.

It's absolutely obvious to anybody that has ever talked to guys from nVidia that Kyle is nothing more than a puppet for the big "N." Why? Because, I know how they work/operate...

They have this amazing knack for trying to put words into your mouth anytime you disagree with their stance on certain issues...Like, you might not hear from these guys for a couple of weeks...and then, all of a sudden, you get a blitz of emails regarding some review/news post/etc. you make that doesn't seem to sit well with them...

In the case of Kyle, his reasoning for not liking 3DMark2003 is just so amazingly similar (if not word for word) to that of what nVidia wants you to believe...I have absolutely no doubt at all that in/around the time of that PDF being created, that there was a considerable amount of exchange between some guys @ nVidia and Kyle...and because Kyle is...err...Kyle is Kyle, he simply spit out the same worthless crap that nVidia wants everybody to believe.

 

[Tim]

1. Is the position that 3DMark is not a useful benchmark indefensible?.

Maybe be not, but nVidia has completely failed to do so every single technical argument in their anti 3dmark whitepaper has been proven wrong.

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dmark03/post/

Plus the whole 3dmark is a bad benchmark so it is ok to cheat argument is completely rubbish.

2. What did he assume, exactly? He pointed out two facts and a possible connection. Do you think it would not have given ET pause before publishing this had they gotten the same red carpet that Anandtech and [H] got?

He is completely ignoring the fact that ET was working on the 3dmark article long before the Doom 3 testing was done. This makes the argument that ET might not have posted the 3dmark article if they had been allowed to do Doom 3 benchmarks has completely backward.

3. By well known facts I meant that ET didn't get to bench D3 and ET came out with the first cheating report.

But these facts has no relevans, it is basicly saying that it wrong to post the article because they might not gave posted if they had received a bribe.

And no matter what exposing cheaters can never be wrong thing to do, not exposing cheaters because you are allowed to do Doom 3 benchmarks is highly immoral.

4. I didn't talk about Kyle's intentions. I read and understood his post, which you did not read carefully enough to understand.

So do we, the only difference is hat you fail to see how illogical his arguments are.

5. A. Learn to read carefully. B. Learn to think critically.

It is you that fails to understand.

 

[boobs]

1. Is the position that 3DMark is not a useful benchmark indefensible?.

Maybe be not, but nVidia has completely failed to do so every single technical argument in their anti 3dmark whitepaper has been proven wrong.

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dmark03/post/

Plus the whole 3dmark is a bad benchmark so it is ok to cheat argument is completely rubbish.

2. What did he assume, exactly? He pointed out two facts and a possible connection. Do you think it would not have given ET pause before publishing this had they gotten the same red carpet that Anandtech and [H] got?

He is completely ignoring the fact that ET was working on the 3dmark article long before the Doom 3 testing was done. This makes the argument that ET might not have posted the 3dmark article if they had been allowed to do Doom 3 benchmarks has completely backward.

3. By well known facts I meant that ET didn't get to bench D3 and ET came out with the first cheating report.

But these facts has no relevans, it is basicly saying that it wrong to post the article because they might not gave posted if they had received a bribe.

And no matter what exposing cheaters can never be wrong thing to do, not exposing cheaters because you are allowed to do Doom 3 benchmarks is highly immoral.

4. I didn't talk about Kyle's intentions. I read and understood his post, which you did not read carefully enough to understand.

So do we, the only difference is hat you fail to see how illogical his arguments are.

5. A. Learn to read carefully. B. Learn to think critically.

It is you that fails to understand.

Wow, I didn't know proof by repeated assertion was considered logic.

 

[mondoterrifico]

Thanks Tim, I was going to reply but you replied for me . I also figured it would be pointless, which turns out to be correct.

 

[martrox]

Well...if he just drops the "s" from his name, you can understand his reasoning........

 

[Althornin]

Wow, I didn't know proof by repeated assertion was considered logic.

Its not. Its an attempt to get you to read and understand, which you have apparently missed - again.

 

[boobs]

Wow, I didn't know proof by repeated assertion was considered logic.

Its not. Its an attempt to get you to read and understand, which you have apparently missed - again.

Well let's see:

Misrepresentation:

Plus the whole 3dmark is a bad benchmark so it is ok to cheat argument is completely rubbish.

Kyle said that he didn't care about it. He didn't make a judgement on whether it was okay or not.

Fallacy:

He is completely ignoring the fact that ET was working on the 3dmark article long before the Doom 3 testing was done. This makes the argument that ET might not have posted the 3dmark article if they had been allowed to do Doom 3 benchmarks has completely backward.

How is that so? ET started working on the story on day 1, which was before the D3 reviews came out. Then, on day X, they published. Evidently, on day X, there was a decision made to put the story up. Why didn't ET wait for 3DMark to further investigate? Why didn't it wait for Nvidia? Do you not think that the D3 review might have had some impact? That doesn't make ET shady. That's saying that ET also has their agenda. They can be good people even though they have their own agenda! Is is really that hard to grasp?

Utter irrelevance:

But these facts has no relevans, it is basicly saying that it wrong to post the article because they might not gave posted if they had received a bribe.

And no matter what exposing cheaters can never be wrong thing to do, not exposing cheaters because you are allowed to do Doom 3 benchmarks is highly immoral.

I was lauding Kyle for being upfront with his agenda instead of pretending to take the high road. How is what you said relevant to what I was saying?

Assertion:

So do we, the only difference is hat you fail to see how illogical his arguments are.

OMFG that demolishes my arguments.

Repeated assertion:

It is you that fails to understand.

OMG, you said it TWICE!!! I must be wrong.