New 3DMark03 Patch 330
- Thread starter Nick[FM]
- Start date
I can't go on to 2 or 3, because I've apparently missed the boat on 1.
Again, I don't see how it being him or ATI making the statements makes a difference, they still don't hold water.
I'll agree wholeheartedly that he said sites; that he was responding directly to Guru3d, that it was not a policy statement of ATI.
But I just don't see the difference it makes. Its not complicated, I read all of what you said(which complicated it quite a bit), I just don't see how any of that has any material affect on the validity of his statements that would preclude my conclusions.
Once again, I read your post, but its not ringing any bells in my little noggin.
Perhaps we can get past this hurdle by answering a few simple questions:
1)Does him addressing sites directly or broadening to include people change the meaning of:
a) what he percieves ATI did
b) what JC/TC expressed is proper/legitimate/etc
2) Is he directly addressing the Guru3d statement?
3) If so, does this change:
a) what he percieves ATI did
b) what JC/TC expressed is proper/legitimate/etc
I personally believe the following:
1) a-no;b-no.
2) Yes.
3) a-no;b-no.
Lets compare and contrast?
Again, I don't see how it being him or ATI making the statements makes a difference, they still don't hold water.
I'll agree wholeheartedly that he said sites; that he was responding directly to Guru3d, that it was not a policy statement of ATI.
But I just don't see the difference it makes. Its not complicated, I read all of what you said(which complicated it quite a bit), I just don't see how any of that has any material affect on the validity of his statements that would preclude my conclusions.
Once again, I read your post, but its not ringing any bells in my little noggin.
Perhaps we can get past this hurdle by answering a few simple questions:
1)Does him addressing sites directly or broadening to include people change the meaning of:
a) what he percieves ATI did
b) what JC/TC expressed is proper/legitimate/etc
2) Is he directly addressing the Guru3d statement?
3) If so, does this change:
a) what he percieves ATI did
b) what JC/TC expressed is proper/legitimate/etc
I personally believe the following:
1) a-no;b-no.
2) Yes.
3) a-no;b-no.
Lets compare and contrast?
RussSchultz said:
That's pretty remarkably ludicrous.
You have to go on to 2 or 3, because they explain 1. What does the numerical sequence have to do with it? It isn't even the order those were in from your original post, and 2 coming after 1 doesn't prevent you reading my text.
This type of nonsensical objection is what strikes me as intentional obtuseness, and that's disappointing because I thought there was a chance for progress.And I said that's not what I'm proposing they show.
That's progress.
That's obtuse. I'm going to stop repeating the reasons why, and point you to "2 and 3" yet again.
Well, there are lots of bits of text Russ. Is there any one in particular you're not understanding, or should I just repeat it all for the umpteenth time so you can ignore it again?
Did you move on to "2 and 3", or not? If you haven't, as you seemed to indicate in the beginning of the post, I'm simply pointing out that you calling them 2 and 3 does not prevent you from doing so.
I get the impression that your questions will be a bit skewed towards your conclusion.
First, he didn't include "people", you did. I thought you'd just recognized that? What you're doing by doing that is re-interpreting what he said as other than a response to Guru3D's commentary, when it is quite blatantly evident that it is exactly what it is meant to be.
a and b aren't yes or no questions, they are structures that force me to either accept your premise or take a stand that you picked for me.
Yes.
Much more successful, because the premise doesn't happen to be one I've already expressed disagreement with. No, and No.
It would be briefer for you to not skip reading "2 and 3" because "you can't move past 1 yet", since it directly answered these questions, and already specifically discusses the things that you are trying to say I'm saying "change". That is the exclusion I keep referring to, as you continue simply exclude explanation and ask for them again. You don't seem willing to accept that what they are changing from can possibly validly be anything other than what you think they are, and you are ignoring my discussion of that assertion to persist in that.
I'm really tired of repeating little snippets of "2 and 3", as I've repeated those concepts enough times today already. Please stop making up nonsensical reasons not to read it, and I'll get back to you tomorrow on it. Please give some actual thought to it, and don't skip over it or simply fail to see how a viewpoint other than your own can possibly be valid, regardless of reasons given.
1) Thrown out
2) Yes
3) a-no;b-no
Just leaves the matter of what the things that didn't change in a and b, didn't change from, but you seem to have renewed your dedication to avoiding even reading what I state.
By the way, context changes the meaning of words, not the thoughts and perceptions behind them. Of course, if you addressed "2 and 3", I wouldn't have to repeat that clarification. Actually, maybe I would, but keep it in mind when you go read it just in case the idea helps.
Ok, lets reword a few things, then to make things more precise. Change the text of question one to a hypothetical and also reword question 3 to the same as 1a. (percieves to referring to)
1)WOULD changing his statement from sites to people change the meaning of:
a) what he's referring to as ATI's actions
b) what JC/TC expressed is proper/legitimate/etc action
I say no and no. I'm not sure what you'd say because you placed a high importance on me not saying people.
Now, don't sidestep and throw it out. I'm trying to weed out issues that aren't important to the conclusion of our discussion.
If all the answers are
1) a-no;b-no
2) yes
3) a-no;b-no
Then it seems to me that it really doesn't matter who he was addressing, or for what reason and we can move on to what he said.
Now realize, I'm assuming 'no' means 'no it doesn't change the literal meaning of what's written.'
Now, if 1 is a yes yes for you, why would that really make a difference?
p.s. if you want to move this to IM (not PM), I'm all for it. We'd get somewhere quicker.
1)WOULD changing his statement from sites to people change the meaning of:
a) what he's referring to as ATI's actions
b) what JC/TC expressed is proper/legitimate/etc action
I say no and no. I'm not sure what you'd say because you placed a high importance on me not saying people.
Now, don't sidestep and throw it out. I'm trying to weed out issues that aren't important to the conclusion of our discussion.
If all the answers are
1) a-no;b-no
2) yes
3) a-no;b-no
Then it seems to me that it really doesn't matter who he was addressing, or for what reason and we can move on to what he said.
Now realize, I'm assuming 'no' means 'no it doesn't change the literal meaning of what's written.'
Now, if 1 is a yes yes for you, why would that really make a difference?
p.s. if you want to move this to IM (not PM), I'm all for it. We'd get somewhere quicker.
So you assume that just because you think it's wrong it MUST be wrong for the entire universe and then resort to childish insults when people disagree.
JC said it was acceptable and TS said nothing about it. NEITHER of them said it was wrong ONLY you interpreted it as such (and lots of other people who want to see ATi in a bad light).
Debug what? There was nothing wrong with ATi's code from an engineering pov. It just executed the code slightly different to the way Futuremark intended. When all the fuss hit the streets (which is vastly overrated and terribly boring imho) ATI's PR dept got their nickers in a twist and convinced management that removing the code was the only only option. You seem intent from only seeing this as a programmer thing, it's not. ATi's out to win the hearts and minds of the Graphic Card buying public, that's why it's being done.
To a large extent the code is irrelevent.
No kidding...
PVR_Extremist
Newcomer
Someone close this thread. It's been going around in circles for at least 2 pages......
If Russ and Demalion wish to continue to bicker/misunderstand/misquote ad nauseum can they take it to PM please?
If Russ and Demalion wish to continue to bicker/misunderstand/misquote ad nauseum can they take it to PM please?
Myrmecophagavir
Newcomer
Trust me, you'll wish you hadn't said that...PVR_Extremist said:If Russ and Demalion wish to continue to bicker/misunderstand/misquote ad nauseum can they take it to PM please?
Heathen said:
"Morally grungy" means acceptable to you?
I NEVER said they said it was wrong, I said they didn't call it legitimate. Simply because they didn't call it wrong, doesn't mean they endorse it.
But, I think you'll find the majority of people believe that targetting a benchmark with any sort of application specific optimization is not right, regardless of who's doing it.
And conversely, I think you'll find very few people that believe that the idea of optimizing in general (assuming the output doesn't change) is wrong. JC/TS certainly DO call this legit.
The point being, this gentleman expressed that his/their actions fell within the scope of what JC/TS called legitimate, and also called it unfair that sites would call them cheaters for these actions.
Assuming they didn't target 3dmark03, why are they removing their optimization? Its been legitimized by JC/TS and the majority of the population feels its ok to optimize in such a manner, so keeping it is completely defensable. As a PR move it accomplishes nothing but give the appearance of wrong doing.
There's enough evidence out there to strongly suggest that their actions were to target 3dmark03 (a benchmark) with a replacement shader. JC called it morally grungy; TS didn't speak on the topic at all. Most people think its wrong. So where is the unfairness of referring to his/their actions as cheaters?
PVR_Extremist said:
That doesn't make sense, why close the thread when you could just not read it just as well if it was open?
Except for the "misquote", however, that does make sense. If you think some misquoting occurred, point it out to me in the aforementioned mechanism of "PMs".
Exactly, dear Catalyst Maker. Never put in any benchmark-specific optimisations. Benchmark-specific optimisations inflate benchmark results. They don't give your awesome end users any better performance in games.
(I know he didn't post here, but this was the shortest way to put this in.)
(I also think this essentially is what Russ is trying to get through to Demalion.)
Doomtrooper
Veteran
I get writers cramp looking at this thread..
Hellbinder
Banned
What Id like to know is who you are refering to? Who is Apportioning what? Nvidia Is Denying everything, and Ati called it an Optimization. Which from a Puritan Standpoint given the circumstances is still technically a *cheat*.
Are you saying that the camp with the minor infraction is getting penalized because they publically owned up to it and say they will remove it in the Future? Or are you saying the Bold faced Denial in the face of Hard Evidence and Attacks on everyone to cover it up is what is causing the Grief with OEMs.
Hellbinder
Banned
Yeah Right... Like Ati is going to tell every single developer what they do in their Drivers that *They* consider, and most everyone else considers a borderline *optimization*.
Real real Sneeky..
I guess Out right Denial and Attacking everyone else is a much better less *sneeky* approach.
Gunhead said:
I took their balls comment as "well, if you're going to do it, be a man and do it right" Kind of recognition of the audacity, not supportive of the actions themselves.
Hellbinder
Banned
Strangely,,,, I am completely not supprised at all with your take on the matter.
The odd thing is Nvidia is Still denying they have done even the least thing wrong. So i guess doing it *right* includes denying everything, blaiming everyone else, paying off TV shows to spead misinformation, And Try to Publically Destroy the only Company/Software that shows proper DX9 support for what it is supposed to be.
*shrug* I didn't say whether I agreed with them or not--just that it was what I felt they were trying to convey.Hellbinder[CE said:
Similar threads
