Whatever ... the general perception among most people is that the naming scheme is poorly choosen. A similar topic was brought up on opengl.org too, and I think most people contributing in that thread shared the same opinion, that it would only fool the uninformed. The same can be said about ATi old OEM vs. retail stuff too. That was only a speed difference though, but lots of people felt fooled. I guess many GF4 MX owner will feel fooled too when launching doom3 on it at the end of this year only to find the framerate sux, or when launching 3dmarks2001 only to find lots of features "not supported by hardware".
Nvidia withholding the launch of GeForce4 Ti 4200
- Thread starter Sabastian
- Start date
The key quote is this:
Define none has developed?
This part is interesting as Dave mentioned.
Doesn't add up when a Third party company executive said this about the Rv-250:
Again define finshing developing and define 1.5 times better?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-25 22:15 ]</font>
Define none has developed?
This part is interesting as Dave mentioned.
Doesn't add up when a Third party company executive said this about the Rv-250:
Again define finshing developing and define 1.5 times better?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-25 22:15 ]</font>
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Exposed,
Rather, let's have you interview a developer / publisher (or pull any comments made from any), that refute my "blanket statement".
I am always surprised when I present some "evidence" to support my position, and the counter to it is not to supply contradictory evidence, but to say I need to supply more...
Whether I have 2, 3, or 40 references, the point is, that's currently 2, 3 or 40 more references that I've found, or you've supplied, to the contrary of that statemet.
So rather than continue a debate on semantics and the exact number of references in question, please provide your own refuting evidence. It may be out there. I haven't found it. Maybe you can.
But I guess keeping up with the times isn't your forte...considering your belief that Hook is still employed by iD.
Rather, let's have you interview a developer / publisher (or pull any comments made from any), that refute my "blanket statement".
I am always surprised when I present some "evidence" to support my position, and the counter to it is not to supply contradictory evidence, but to say I need to supply more...
Whether I have 2, 3, or 40 references, the point is, that's currently 2, 3 or 40 more references that I've found, or you've supplied, to the contrary of that statemet.
So rather than continue a debate on semantics and the exact number of references in question, please provide your own refuting evidence. It may be out there. I haven't found it. Maybe you can.
But I guess keeping up with the times isn't your forte...considering your belief that Hook is still employed by iD.
Eh? Isn't that what you are doing as well?
Yes it is more than a GF2, but less than a GF3, in about every way that matters. Yet the name doesn't reflect that. *scratch* Should I take it that you think that the consumers who are misled into buying a GF4 MX over any GF3 don't matter? If you do think that, please explain why?
EDIT: sp
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: demalion on 2002-02-25 22:32 ]</font>
Joe DeFuria
Legend
I'll give the "typical" response for someone with Exposed's opinion...let's see if Exposed's actual opinion is any different.
The typical response is "consumers who don't do the research to know the differences between each set of products, deserves to be mislead or screwed."
The typical response is "consumers who don't do the research to know the differences between each set of products, deserves to be mislead or screwed."
Eh, its just Exposed. Thats the kind of stuff he posts.
Personally, i think the scheme is misleading, esp. based on the previous MX naming scheme, whereby a GF2MX has the features a GF2 does, just less pixel pipes. however, in this case, a GF4MX has the *essential* feature set of a GF2 STILL!
Yes i am aware, Exposed, that the GF4MX supports a new blur filter (for more craptastic graphics at speeds to slow to be usefull) and a new crossbar memory controller. As for the memory controller, thats NOT a feature. So, basically, a new blur filter ontop of the gf2mx, and youy have a gf4mx...what misleading crap.
Personally, i think the scheme is misleading, esp. based on the previous MX naming scheme, whereby a GF2MX has the features a GF2 does, just less pixel pipes. however, in this case, a GF4MX has the *essential* feature set of a GF2 STILL!
Yes i am aware, Exposed, that the GF4MX supports a new blur filter (for more craptastic graphics at speeds to slow to be usefull) and a new crossbar memory controller. As for the memory controller, thats NOT a feature. So, basically, a new blur filter ontop of the gf2mx, and youy have a gf4mx...what misleading crap.
Just to bolster your argument further Humus the at least the Radeon 8500 buyers got a Radeon 8500 chip granted at a lower clock spead but in terms of performance. I doubt that the disparity in performance would be as much as a GF4MX compared to a GF4Ti4600. Further the underclocked Radeon 8500's are Direct X 8.1, err I guess that really doesn't apply because the GF4Ti4600 isn't even DX8.1. But the GF4MX is yet only DX7 were the other GF4 familly are all DX8, now that is a shafting if you ask me.
Sabastian
Don't tell me you're that dense Joe, that you can't see the simple flaw behind "Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless."
Of course, that's not surprising from someone like you who's heavy into conspiracy issues, whether it be Anandtech's Unreal performance test or Madonion's 3dMark 2001SE.
No one in their right mind (not in the real world at least) would take a few examples and apply them to a whole....that would be quite ignorant. "Ask any developer/publisher" makes no sense (and I'm surprised you couldn't figure out why that's a blanket statement....you do know what a blanket statement is right?), that's something what a child would say to defend his/her argument. An even more example of ignorance is to try to reverse that argument. You base your broad generalization based on two examples, yet your generalization requires someone to specifically state otherwise to break that fantasy of yours. If I asked "any" developer, are you 100% sure they will agree with your stance? What makes you think its even important enough to make a statement upon? I don't see any other prominent programmers from various publishers making statements about the GF4 MX naming schemes, do you?
You didn't even addressed one of the main points I raised....and that was Carmack's criticism of the naming schemes of the GF2 and GF3. He thought the GF3 was an architectural difference enough to warrant a different naming scheme, compared to the GF2, a point he ranted upon earlier on. Yet, only his remarks concerning the GF4 is convenient for you
:rollseyes:
Let's see, automatically forcing what you think on others despite what they actually believe. Typical Democrat
(And no, I don't agree with that statement of yours).Hehe, I see you're still threatened by my presence, since you never really have anything intelligent to say concerning the discussion
No, what's shafting is buyers not knowing which clock speed their Radeon 8500 were clocked at. Not everyone knows the difference between OEM and retail. The Geforce 4 MX at least has that MX extension.....it took quite a good amount of "shouting" to change ATI's marketing of the lower clocked chips to the "LE" insignia.
Now, all you have to do is find TWO developers to offer positive statements about the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX; as others have offered two developers that offered two negative statements about the naming scheme.
And you get a bonus: because one of the two is John Carmack and, of course, his name doesn't carry any extra weight so-to-speak.
Should be easy for ya to find just two postive comments from developers the way you downplay the two negative comments offered by developers including John Carmack.
No conspiracy, ufo's, Mason's,illumaniti and such.... they offered proof for their views on the naming scheme and valid ones to many.
Now, you prove them wrong and offer how positive the naming scheme is. Simple.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-26 11:03 ]</font>
And you get a bonus: because one of the two is John Carmack and, of course, his name doesn't carry any extra weight so-to-speak.
Should be easy for ya to find just two postive comments from developers the way you downplay the two negative comments offered by developers including John Carmack.
No conspiracy, ufo's, Mason's,illumaniti and such.... they offered proof for their views on the naming scheme and valid ones to many.
Now, you prove them wrong and offer how positive the naming scheme is. Simple.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-26 11:03 ]</font>
You didn't read my post did you? Trying to reverse a flawed perception is an exercise of ignorance itself. How about I find positive statements about the Voodoo naming schemes? Or the TnT, or the Radeon, or the Kyro? You get the point or is too obviously far beyond your grasp?
It's like the man who says this magic bracelet keeps elephants away. He says "Do you see any elephants? That's proof it works." A woman says "that's not proof", and the man responds.."Well, prove it doesn't work."
Because you of all people should know "Accuview" isn't the name of the hybrid supersampling/multisampling mode in your shots.
What is the flawed perception?
Two developers that offered negative comments about the naming scheme?
Some posters that offered they don't like the naming scheme either?
Posters that offered they don't like the naming scheme and offered the developers' quotes that offered negative comments about the naming scheme?
Seems to me the perception here is a lot of people don't like the naming scheme of the GeForce4MX, no? hehe,
This is the flawed perception to you?
Okay, but make sure you keep looking for the GeForce4 MX positive comments, too.
But,I really didn't ask for that.. I asked for positive comments about the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX from two developers. I think Joe was on to something here.
If you want to play this game..I'll play, and this is more apples to apples:
Why don't you find some negative comments on the naming scheme of the Voodoo, Radeon or Kyro.... there is some on the GeForce4 MX from TWO developers, no? Should be easy.. all you need is just two, hehehe.:smile:
I grasp fine... I see a poster that claims he doesn't want to discuss the flawed perception behind the naming scheme of the GeForce4MX.
If you consider John Carmack like a man that wears a magic braclet and says, " Do you see any thing negative in the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX?"
Bad analogy, hehehe.:smile:
Okay. if you say so, hehehe.:smile: How you can offer a man with a magic bracelet creating a magical illusion of keeping elephants away to two prov'n names in the 3d industry offering their opinions on the naming scheme of the GeForce4 MX to the public?
You're calling John Carmack a con man... you do realize this?
That is flawed to me... but that is just my opinion.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-26 18:03 ]</font>
Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension
This is the flawed perception: "Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless." "So you see no fault with that statement?
And so you still did not get the point...it's more above your head than I thought. Stop and think for a moment, how many developers are you going to find that went out of their way to make positive comments about a naming scheme? I know its going to be hard, but think back to the Voodoo2 and Voodoo3, the TnT and TnT2, and Kyro and Kyro 2.... The answer? None....because its a moot point.
That's quite obvious....or did you forget the Radeon 8500 OEM/Retail debacle? Or the dozens of threads that littered Beyond3D's very boards concerning the Kyro2's release (that it was simply an overclocked Kyro)? Or how about Carmack's own gripes about naming the NV20 "Geforce 3"?
However, that wasn't even the point I was making.
You grasp fine? Apparently not since you don't even have a clue about what the debate with Joe is about, nor could you even figure out the flawed nature of the reverse condition posed.
Hehehe, seems you still can't comprehend
That man is Joe stating "Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless." ", using carmack as proof, and then asking to disprove that blanket statement otherwise with a flawed reverse condition. (Prove that it doesn't work/Find positive comments concerning naming schemes)When you're able to comprehend at a higher level then maybe you'll understand
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Exposed on 2002-02-26 18:59 ]</font>
"And so you still did not get the point...it's more above your head than I thought. Stop and think for a moment, how many developers are you going to find that have positive comments about a naming scheme? I know its going to be hard, but think back to the Voodoo2 and Voodoo3, the TnT and TnT2, and Kyro and Kyro 2.... The answer? None....because its a moot point."
You simply can't compare the naming schemes of these others without taking into consideration the performance disparities. It would be like hmm TDFX naming a Voodoo3XXX a Voodoo6XXXMX. You see it isn't just a matter of naming scheme but a performance factor as well. The GF4MX is a GF2MX with a few GF4 features and none of the performance of a real GF4 with 60 million transistors as opposed to the 26-30 million the GF4MX carries. So truly your case here is asinine.
Sabastian
You simply can't compare the naming schemes of these others without taking into consideration the performance disparities. It would be like hmm TDFX naming a Voodoo3XXX a Voodoo6XXXMX. You see it isn't just a matter of naming scheme but a performance factor as well. The GF4MX is a GF2MX with a few GF4 features and none of the performance of a real GF4 with 60 million transistors as opposed to the 26-30 million the GF4MX carries. So truly your case here is asinine.
Sabastian
And the point is? A Geforce2 MX 200 suffers considerably against a Geforce DDR. You need to factor that in as well.
What does transistor count have to do anything? A crippled pipeline/core will always yeild lesser transistos. Then again, you did post a while back that the GF4 Ti4600 didn't impress you because it was on the same .15 fab process as a GF3, and the GF4 Ti4600 had a less percentage gain in transistors compared to a GF2 (despite the mathematical fact that lesser numbers yield higher percentages than higher numbers even with the same numbered increase).
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Exposed on 2002-02-26 19:01 ]</font>
The problem as I see it is that all the advertisements for PCs will soon be saying "Includes GeForce4 graphics" when they are actually selling the GF4MX chips.
This will cause confusion to many non-techie types who have read that the new GeForce4 supports DX8 functions, especially when new games using the pixel shaders start to come out.
It is obvious why NVidia has called their new MX chip the GF4MX but it simply doesn't have the features that would be expected from the "new generation".
From my experience, most of the computer salesmen you encounter don't have a clue about graphics cards. They will be assuring their potential customers that all GF4 cards are "future-proof" without really understanding what they are saying.
I dare say that this naming scheme could backfire on NVidia in some ways, but on the other hand, what else could they have called the MX chip?
This will cause confusion to many non-techie types who have read that the new GeForce4 supports DX8 functions, especially when new games using the pixel shaders start to come out.
It is obvious why NVidia has called their new MX chip the GF4MX but it simply doesn't have the features that would be expected from the "new generation".
From my experience, most of the computer salesmen you encounter don't have a clue about graphics cards. They will be assuring their potential customers that all GF4 cards are "future-proof" without really understanding what they are saying.
I dare say that this naming scheme could backfire on NVidia in some ways, but on the other hand, what else could they have called the MX chip?
This is the crux of the discussion.
Define pointless? Depends on the context. And you're spinning the context of what it was intended for your flawed perception.
If I ask John Carmack:
John do you consider the naming scheme of the GeForce4 pointless?
He could say:
" Yeah, there is no negative or positve points to discuss..... pointless.
Or.... he could say:
" No, it isn't pointless..... It gives an impression it has programmable features to the consumer and a major point to discuss."
Stop and think.... why I asked you to look? hehehehe.:smile:
Did developers offer this or just posters? Two developers? Now, John thought the GeForce3 name didn't do the chip justice...and should of been named something else because the architecture was quite different than the GeForce2. But if this is the same as the negative GeForce4 MX comments or similar to you....okay.
Allow Joe to speak for Joe.
Does say ANY, right?
Why don't you ask John Carmack? He is a developer and let's find out how pointless it is and how great that analogy truly was.
When you stop spinning and dancing.... you might actually offer something.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-26 19:46 ]</font>
