Late, noisy, HUGE!!! - makes 17k Mark...
- Thread starter T2k
- Start date
- Status
Jeez, Demo, why are you taking this so personal? To some, the cooler from hell(j/k) is a big deal. To some, it's not the cooler, it's nVidia. And to some, it's not the cooler, but what's under it, that matters. Myself, I do worry about the noise & the heat, but , until it's available, I won't know. I have plentty of room in my box for it. I do worry that, do to misguaging the R300, that nVidia has had to compromise the NV30 in order to gain the speed needed to "win".
By beating your chest & ranting like you are, you really seem to lose any objectivity you may have had......
By beating your chest & ranting like you are, you really seem to lose any objectivity you may have had......
I'm just getting tired of the hyperbole laden tirades. Look, I can understand the points people are making about the cooler. I had similar "elegance" complaints on the V5-6000. But there is a difference between a complaint and along rant using ad hominems left and right. I understand people are disappointed with the NV30. I understand the points about what a delay can do, and there are several posters on this board who make clear, rational, points on this issues.
Hell, I was hoping myself that the NV30 was a tiler, and at the NV30 launch event, when they showed the GeForce and 3dFX logos merging, I almost wet myself. (I was also hoping for a per-primitive processor) If you remember my COMDEX and MOJO reports, I praised ATI and dis'ed NVidia. I sang the praises of the 8500 when it was announced. Ditto for 9700.
It's not disappointment, disagreement, even dislike, that bothers me. It's the active attacks, almost hatred of Nvidia by some on this board that bothers me. It seems like even the smallest issues are blown way out of proportion. And it happens over and over and over again.
So yes, I defend Nvidia against this tripe. But I have also consistently praised ATI since the 8500 came out. I am not objective in this regard. NVidia takes more of a beating on this board, and I spend more time defending it. I am "biased" towards defending NVidia, because of what I see is unreasonable commentary. On the other hand, despite my supposed non-objective status, I do not launch attacks against ATI, its products, and I still defend unreasonable criticisms of their HW.
Hell, I was hoping myself that the NV30 was a tiler, and at the NV30 launch event, when they showed the GeForce and 3dFX logos merging, I almost wet myself. (I was also hoping for a per-primitive processor) If you remember my COMDEX and MOJO reports, I praised ATI and dis'ed NVidia. I sang the praises of the 8500 when it was announced. Ditto for 9700.
It's not disappointment, disagreement, even dislike, that bothers me. It's the active attacks, almost hatred of Nvidia by some on this board that bothers me. It seems like even the smallest issues are blown way out of proportion. And it happens over and over and over again.
So yes, I defend Nvidia against this tripe. But I have also consistently praised ATI since the 8500 came out. I am not objective in this regard. NVidia takes more of a beating on this board, and I spend more time defending it. I am "biased" towards defending NVidia, because of what I see is unreasonable commentary. On the other hand, despite my supposed non-objective status, I do not launch attacks against ATI, its products, and I still defend unreasonable criticisms of their HW.
DemoCoder said:
Whilst not justifying anything but rationalising their approach, it's interesting how the dynamic changes based on successful execution when ATI fans and 3dfx fans in the past were beaten on at every turn by nVidiots for daring to suggest the V5 or Radeon were good cards, I think its a case of some peoples mentality being 'its our turn now to crow'.
The pro-nVidia media & developers coding on their hardware sometimes exclusively has lead to a follwoing that just cant accept good products and drivers doenst mean perfect hardware and drivers and so target every little issue and blow it out of proportion. Hence the ATI fans feel they have to have an 'offense is the best form of defence' policy because of the still rampant blinkers that affect a lot of netizens when it comes to nVidia. On another gaming board I frequent someone was having teething issues with their 9700pro and was instantly leapt on and criticised for buying ATI!
Its been gone over here before that most of the developers/coders here dont want that form of 'madonion' fanboyism here - so the simple answer is dont particpate in these threads and feed the fishes.
everyone knows you have been impressed by recent ATI hardware and demo's and developer relations so dont get rattled by those who dont believe you can appreciate both IHV's!
Nagorak said:
A lot of people buy high end machines to make sure it's silent to begin with, it's the el cheapo overclock specials that make all the racket. Watercooling for example is not exactly cheap.
I have no idea about the noise level of the GFX, but I would be concerned about dust buildup and the extra heat the card will add to the case. Putting a hot plate directly under the cpu would be annoying.
Actually, we see it all the time. It's just some people have selective memories. Either that or they dont find the context as noteworthy or memorable so psychologically they just block it out.
NVIDIA had equally if not larger scandals in the past few years and they also didn't exist as hardly a blip on these boards. Insider trading or CEO/CFO antics are real boring yawn material. They also generally find themselves in the different boards here like News or whatnot, not in 3D Tech & Hardware section.
The same goes for 3dfx, ATI, Matrox and 3DLabs. It's just selective recollection. The lions will always hone in on juicy tidbits and describe them in (likely) more than realistic terms. It's the "fanboi" that tries to build a case that this is somehow disproportionate for one IHV versus another.
We have 10-12 page thread against Quake/Quack, tons of Cg and Rendermonkey haters, "Matrox is the suck" posts and talks about every other IHV in a negative light, but obviously NVIDIA is the only IHV that gets unfair treatment? Open your eyes a bit and try reading with an open mind for a change.
Moreover, I'd say the negative overbounding posts are all positive and constructive. The more bad press an IHV gets for a mistake, oversight or underdelivery, the more likely they will make a strong mental note of it and possibly strike the occurence for any future repeat.
The only way people can truly judge bias is by looking at the defenses created to draw fire away from a controversy. If anything, there IS a pro NVIDIA bias on these boards as even physical dimensions are being argued. You can argue and debate featuresets, driver quirks, performance figures, IQ differences and things of this nature pretty fairly. But physical dimensions arent something you really can't explain away. Is the next argument going to be that the GFFX isn't very photogenic and somehow looks fatter in pictures than it does being held in your hand? For chrissakes, there are shots of it installed in a case now to put size into perspective.
What needs to happen is more logic and reasoning needs to be added to arguments, and simply allow those without either to simply bark at a brick wall. It's fun to play with the trolls and generates long sweeping threads, but none of that should be additive to some sort of motif of these forums. Some people cannot see the forrest through the trees and choose to ignore all facts, figures, test results, reproducible output, and whatnot. It's their choice and doesnt effect reality. Keep that in mind.
Sharkfood said:
Really? I don't remember anybody, ever saying anything negative about Rendermonkey. At all. Ever. (ok, that's too positive. I'm sure there's some statements out there, but honestly, can you honestly say rendermonkey has been givin the smear-treatment by nvidiots?)
But any technical discussion about Cg turns into a pure slag fest over how evil a company is, how it sucks, etc etc etc.
Hellbinder
Banned
I have to totally agree with this. I have not seen any negative stuff about Rendermonkey at all.
The reason is, it does not warrant it at all. Rendermonkey and Cg, are totally different annimals. Rendermonkey is completely non-proprietary tool, with no hidden back-ends, no IHV centric slants. Where no one who is honest can say the same thing about Cg.
How could Nvidiots or anyone else Whip out the Smear Treatment on a Front end graphical design tool ????
Selective memory Russ? Even you posted on some of the threads.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1652
"That's got to be just about the stupidest name I've ever heard."
"Whatever it turns out to be, you'll not find me using anything that goes by the name of "RenderMonkey."
etc.etc. There were several threads on the topic at that timepoint where it got pretty ugly. I only pull that thread out of the many since the full articulate purpose of the "anti" crowd was the highly scientific nature regarding it's name.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1652
"That's got to be just about the stupidest name I've ever heard."
"Whatever it turns out to be, you'll not find me using anything that goes by the name of "RenderMonkey."
etc.etc. There were several threads on the topic at that timepoint where it got pretty ugly. I only pull that thread out of the many since the full articulate purpose of the "anti" crowd was the highly scientific nature regarding it's name.
If such a shader does not exit at all then you have no point. I'm not saying you're just wrong I'm saying you should follow your own advice.Sharkfood said:Still waiting for you to point out where I stated a PS1.4 shader cant be done in PS1.1-1.3.. it wont happen because I never stated such nonsense.
Go away, foul demons of FUD... or re-read the posts so you might actually grasp the point in them.
It would be a good start
ciao,
Marco
But couldn't that just as well be attributed to the theory that it has the potential to be much more devisive? It's not as though we've heard a unified vioce from developers on this front either.
But we 'so' have. We've had Derek Smart comment on it, and he speaks so much that it should be enough to represent everyone
No, you just didn't understand the point and instead jumped on the easiest, pro-IHV wrongful point you could cling to and almost appear to have a point of your own. Neither is the case.
The earlier point was to illustrate a change in standard, ethic or ideology for a benchmark. I made it pretty clear that *anything* (please read this several times until it sinks in) as in *anything* can be coded differently, emulated with a new method, or done totally in software that is also done in hardware or in a "native" way. The only difference is performance... and in most cases going from what one would call realtime to non-realtime in the most dramatic of cases.
These are pretty simple concepts. 3DMark has chosen to change their ideology on this matter a number of times throughout the years. HW T&L, then SW T&L... then emulated through 3DNow! and SSE/2 for all to test and make comparisons. Then Nature comes around, and this changes to only allow the highest common denominator to be tested, but all others to be viewed emulated in demo mode only.. Then the APS which is described as being PS1.4, but now changes again to allow the emulated/recoded or non-native to score, and also takes an approach to code for the least common denominator.. etc.etc.etc.
It is nothing but FUD to try and discount these facts with endless ploys to try and persuade with fiction that this somehow stipulates that something coded in PS1.4 cannot be coded in PS1.1-1.3. Moreover, it was already brought to the forefront of the argument (multiple times) that crushes this attempt as it was put pretty clear that the very foundation of the argument relies upon that exact notion- that lesser, emulated or non-native methods of coding a benchmark DO exist, and that 3DMark's methodology and approach has changed back and forth in this respect. It's just the changes can be viewed as being random.. coincidence. Or they can be formulated with the heuristics surrounding each complete and total change in approach/methodology to try and determine a trend or reasoning. So far, the trend has only one consistent trail of logic attached to it. That was the point. And it's being brought up in order to predict the continuation of the trend likely to be seen with 3DMark03. Only time will tell if this trend continues.
So now, what was this about PS1.4 and PS1.1->1.3? And how does it relate to this line of debate?
Colourless said:But we 'so' have. We've had Derek Smart comment on it, and he speaks so much that it should be enough to represent everyone
Yeah, I know, replying to my own post, but in my sillyness, I unintentionally brought up something.... the 'loud' voice taken as being representitive of the whole.
Now, this has nothing to do with Derek Smart, but to do with all the all the noise generally created by only a few namless individuals who appear to have certain biases. They are NOT the whole, they are a select few who are making things seemed biased simply because of the volume they speak.
Yeah, and it's called the Sharklogic in this case.Sharkfood said:
Sometimes I believe people are loosing respect of the word 'proof', and this word is being twisted to mean almost anything.
I have no doubts about you knowing that one can literaly build hundreds of conspiracy theories..like, imho, you have done in this case.
It happens I just can't see all this so-called logic in your arguments, and believe me, I tried hard.
It's quite simple. To build your arguments you needed some sample point on your virtual conspiracy space that fitted your logic.
You tried hard to make us believe APS is a PS1.4 benchmark and bla bla bla..(the point about APS being heavily advertised as a PS1.4 test was quite poor) but you don't succeeded, sorry.
Now, even if I'd admit your points about APS hold true, they can be quickly dismissed if it happens the 99% of the real world PS1.4 shaders can be done with PS1.1-1.3..(like Democoders said final user don't care about 'how many passes it uses' but 'how fast it runs') as fast or even faster than PS1.4 (see GF4 and JC's comment about it and DOOMIII engine. Ok..it's not a general argument but it's quite significant, imho).
ciao,
Marco
Doomtrooper
Veteran
What part of John Carmacks quote are you using NAO, the part where he stated 30% faster on a 8500 with light interaction or slightly slower with high polygon, which has been fixed with later drivers..so your arguement is based on what...nothing.
Talk about BIAS, how about the constant one IHV drivel that flows from yourself...I mean who are you trying to kid.
Talk about BIAS, how about the constant one IHV drivel that flows from yourself...I mean who are you trying to kid.
- Status