OMG HARDOCP REVIEW OF UT2003 AND FILTERING

[Miksu]

Sorry if this sounds like the Spanish Inquisition, but does that imply that you were unaware of Kyle's discussions about this matter with NVIDIA, which presumably occurred before Dave's revelations here on B3D? If so, why would Kyle not inform his reviewers about an ongoing issue of such relevance, especially with your NV35 review about to be posted?? :?

Because Kyle doesn't want to be seconded so if someone finds out something new, he says "I've known that for months".

And sorry for bashing Kyle again, but I think I haven't seen anyone over 10-years-old acting like this.

 

[WaltC]

The problem is that that could also mean that the problem they're having with FSAA is a very small. But he said that they would make videos to show that "problem" so i guess we'll find out pretty soon.

Yes, the impression I got was that it was a small problem, basically from reading his descriptions of other software, including HL, running with current MSAA implementations. I don't see, or else can't notice, the artifacts he's referring to when running HL with FSAA on my 9800P. But at the same time it would appear he's stating that in his opinion the artifacts caused by the lack of FSAA in the movies are less severe than those caused by running it with current FSAA MSAA implementations. As the lack of FSAA in the movies is very obvious...well, like you say we'll have to wait and see what he's talking about when they compile their FSAA movies.

 

[Nazgul]

I didn't know of the issue until dave pointed it out to me a while ago when he showed me the screenshots he had taken

So when Kyle apparently talked about this with Nvidia long before "the B3DPolice arrived at the crime scene", he didn't tell his staff? Please tell me I'm misreading something because otherwise, eeeesh.

 

[swanlee]

Gees people you can tip-toe and over analize the technical issues till the cows come home but it is plain as day, the final conclusion to all of this is Nvidia has cheated in every benchmark and from what we've seen every major game that is used as a benchmark in order to maintain the image that their video cards are the best money can buy. that is the bottom line and that is consumer fraud. Regardless of the technical speak that is what this all boils down to.

What is also obvious by his recent actions is that Kyle is getting either paid or special treatment by Nvidia in order for Nvidia to use him to to speak through his web site to his user base. Kyle is mearly an extension of Nvdidia marketing dept. and should be treated with the same skeptisim as Nvidia.

Nvidia is probably hoping this issue will get bogged down in the technical mumbo jumbo because then the actual issue become clouded and very difficult to show average joe what is going on.

If this were any other industry or if this issue was easier to explain to the average user their would already be a class action lawsuit and the feds would have gotten involved by now. This is consumer fraud on it's most basic level and the players invovled in this fraud need to be called out.

don't let these technical nit piks cloud the issue that is simply playing into nvidia's hands.

 

[Dave H]

If you're referring to the "quack" scandal, what was going on there was that the 8500 was for some reason fetching really high mipmaps (i.e. mipmaps with far too little detail) for a handful of textures in Q3 which were nonetheless heavily used enough to make a big difference in both performance and IQ. Unlike the current issue, the IQ loss was extremely noticeable when it existed.

How do you know it had a large impact on performance? Once the problem was fixed, performance stayed the same, and even improved later.

Good point. My "reasoning" was that when the app-detection was prevented (by "quackifying"), performance dropped quite significantly. Obviously if I'd thought I would have realized that this could be due to other, legitimate, app-specific optimizations being prevented at the same time.

Considering "quackified" scores indicative of the 8500's "true" performance (on that driver set) without the buggy mipmap selection suffers from the same falacy as considering AntiDetected UT2003 scores indicative of NV3x's "true" performance with full trilinear.

Meanwhile, the 8500 didn't do trilinear at all when AF was enabled. Obviously that was almost two chip generations ago (another way for saying, "just last chip generation") but it does go to show how far we've come to be worrying about problems with partial trilinear that apparently can't even be seen in most situations.

EDIT: And if you're referring to the fact that the 8500 didn't do trilinear at all when AF was enabled...it didn't do trilinear at all when AF was enabled! It wasn't a driver bug but a hardware limitation; AFAIK, the 9200 you can go out and waste your money on buy today will have the exact same behavior. And straight bilinear is way way more noticeable than this partial trilinear NV3x is using in UT2003.

Except that when you compare a part that is doing no or partial trilinear to a part that is doing full trilinear (AF or no) then it's not a fair comparison, is it? I wouldn't expect people to compare bilinear-AF on an 8500 to trilinear-AF on a GeForce card, or, if they did, then the image quality differences need to be pointed out.

Agreed entirely. I'm not saying [H] was right to run their original 5900 review and not mention that the UT2003 partial trilinear issue existed. What they should have done in the first place is what they ended up doing after complaints and pressure--run their own tests to see if the partial trilinear impacted IQ or not.

My only issue is with people bagging on [H] after they made an apparently good-faith effort to do the right thing, and merely came to conclusions that people didn't like. I say "apparently" because in light of Dave B.'s new screenshots, it seems that the pics in the [H] article may not be representative of the game as a whole. Still, "never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

 

[Dave H]

If you're referring to the "quack" scandal, what was going on there was that the 8500 was for some reason fetching really high mipmaps (i.e. mipmaps with far too little detail) for a handful of textures in Q3 which were nonetheless heavily used enough to make a big difference in both performance and IQ. Unlike the current issue, the IQ loss was extremely noticeable when it existed.

No, he wasn't referring to that. 8500 also had a Bi/Trilinear mix functionality. Read [H]'s 8500 Revisited review fo their views on it then and the use of mipmap colorings.

Interesting reading. Thanks for the tip.

As for [H]'s views of the issue back then, it seems to come out of the "here are the results of a bunch of tools I don't entirely understand, so I'll just print it all under the notion that the more information the better" school of review-writing. He says that the final "image quality looks the SAME" to him (although you get the idea he didn't bother to look very hard or check in motion), but gives the mipmaps anyways and then proclaims that Nvidia is "a bit" ahead in quality. Several screenshots, but only two completely contradictory sentences of text.

 

[WaltC]

Kyle and Brent have expressed time and time again their frustration as a review site and just how much more difficult the job is to do that, review. It's not as cut and dry as it once was when all you had to do was look at a FPS and you knew. (misses 3dfx) I find current standings much more exciting simply thinking of the potential. ATI and Nvidias hardware are apparently very differant. They also choose to render differant. In the end, I'm willing to bet, the consumer will win. Very rarely in the history of business has that failed to happen.

Well, let me suggest something novel: perhaps the "frustration" Kyle and Brent feel, as you've characterized it, stems from the fact that they might not understand the issues involved and therefore are overreaching when doing anything beyond writing a fluff piece for the benefit of the manufacturer?

I mean, anybody at home can pull out fraps or turn on a game-engine frame counter and jot down the numbers it spits out. Anybody at home can run 3DMK03 and record the scores it generates. That's why being a hardware review site entails much greater knowledge and experience than simply doing something like that. If a person feels "frustrated" when asked to go beyond the point of what anybody at home can do for himself I think it's apparent that he's admitting he isn't qualified to look at the situation under the kind of critical magnifying glass people who read hardware review sites want to see.

In this case you have Dave B. very generously and uncritically passing along the benefit of his expertise to the guys at [H] in the form of *information* which [H] can freely use---and, he gets slapped in the face and insulted for his trouble. He's banned from the forums and accused, moronically, of having an "agenda." It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

The purpose of the Internet, since the guys at [H] apparently are a bit behind on the subject, is to dispense information. It's not called the "information superhighway" for nothing. People go to the Internet over any other kind of media in order to get the kind of information the manufacturers won't provide and the paper magazine fluff pieces almost always seem to miss. That's the attraction and the charm of Internet forums. Over the years I've received a lot of valuable information in these venues that is unavailable anywhere else. I have also been able to pass on a few things from time to time that I've picked up in my experience which has benefitted others. A more accurate term might be to call the Internet the "information-sharing superhighway." People frequent technical forums precisely because they can often explore information not available on the PR-propaganda pages of a given company's web site.

By doing things like assuming an [H] "community" while overlooking the larger Internet community at large, [H] is simply shooting itself in the foot, if not the brain. Tactics of attempting to control the information on the Internet are doomed to complete failure, because the Internet is far, far larger than *any* single web site within it. It's like trying to control a 300-foot high tidal wave by putting your finger in a tiny hole in a 20-foot tall dike. It's ludicrous to try and control the information content of the Internet by clamping down on the information shared in a single web-site forum. Anyone who tries it will fail--there's no question about it.

To that end, my own estimation of the "frustration" you've described is that it comes from a certain sense of being unable to control what people think. Why else would you ban individuals, delete posts, lock threads, and all of the rest if not to attempt to control what the people who are reading your forums are thinking? Why else, indeed. Attempting to control the thinking of your forum members who are free to visit any site they choose on the Internet has got to be excruciatingly frustrating even at the "best" of times, because it simply cannot be done.

As a remedy, I would propose that the staff at [H] recognize they are fighting a war that they cannot ever hope to win, and a war they must inevitably lose no matter how many people they ban or how many threads they delete and lock. I would urge them to go easy on themselves and stop looking at things through the tainted lens of ideology, and relax, settle back, and let the information flow. There is no reason to fear information, or the exchange of less-than-perfect ideas. The best and smartest of us are imperfect and there is no need to fear information because you disagree with it. Instead of wasting so much time policing his forums, Kyle might experiment with engaging people in a discussion on the topics raised with which he disagrees. You can influence far more people far more effectively through persuasion than through naked attempts at censorship. Censorship is the intellectual domain of the idiot, IMO. This is something I wish Kyle would take to heart.

Heh... Kyle's really got some stupid nerve to term B3d the "B3d police", since the censorship tactics he routinely engages in in his own forums are exactly representative of the worst kind of "thought police" imaginable. If I didn't see it happening before my eyes I wouldn't believe it.

 

[kkevin666]

Heres exactly how kyle responded to a polite / direct question on his trilinear filtering knowledge

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FrgMstr
I did not feel comfortable saying this earlier, but I am in a WTF state of mind at the moment so....

The entire Trilinear issue was brought up with NVIDIA in face-to-face meetings over two months ago.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Reverend
It isn't clear to me from your wording if this means [H] brought this up with NVIDIA, even given what you said below. To clarify, did [H] bring this up?

And in those two months, how many shootouts involving NV3x cards and R3x0 cards using UT2003 were written by [H]? Why was there no mention of this "entire Trilinear issue" in all those shootouts, but only in your recent-but-now-pulled UT2003 Filtering article?

Also, I need some clarification -- are you saying that we will get "true Trilinear" in UT2003 in "their upcoming driver set"? Would this mean next driver set, or some driver set further down the road? Also, which is the "most robust driver ever seen for a video card" -- the "upcoming" one or the next one? If the next one is not the one you refer to as "upcoming", then which one (next or upcoming) will allow "full trilinear" in UT2003?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FrgMstr
Congrats on your first post with the mighty unwashed. It only took you over five years....funny that it should be about getting credit.

You can have all the credit. I will state here right here right now that B3DPolice are fully responsible for getting this issue fixed. I am glad to see that Dave solved this problem months ago......You can have 100% credit for it all, as I really don't care.

It is sad that you have let all your influence mean nothing in an industry that you could have truly helped shape. Anthony, you have truly wasted what could have been greatness in the industry on the likes of VE and B3. I can fully say you are one of the wasted talents in our industry that was bound for greatness and lost it to the disappointment of many.

Greatness...thrown away. It makes me sad to see such talent wasted on B3DPolice postings.




Thats the most well thought out anwser the man could give?

Do not trust ANYTHING this man says.

 

[Blackwind]

Kyle and Brent have expressed time and time again their frustration as a review site and just how much more difficult the job is to do that, review. It's not as cut and dry as it once was when all you had to do was look at a FPS and you knew. (misses 3dfx) I find current standings much more exciting simply thinking of the potential. ATI and Nvidias hardware are apparently very differant. They also choose to render differant. In the end, I'm willing to bet, the consumer will win. Very rarely in the history of business has that failed to happen.

Well, let me suggest something novel: perhaps the "frustration" Kyle and Brent feel, as you've characterized it, stems from the fact that they might not understand the issues involved and therefore are overreaching when doing anything beyond writing a fluff piece for the benefit of the manufacturer?

I mean, anybody at home can pull out fraps or turn on a game-engine frame counter and jot down the numbers it spits out. Anybody at home can run 3DMK03 and record the scores it generates. That's why being a hardware review site entails much greater knowledge and experience than simply doing something like that. If a person feels "frustrated" when asked to go beyond the point of what anybody at home can do for himself I think it's apparent that he's admitting he isn't qualified to look at the situation under the kind of critical magnifying glass people who read hardware review sites want to see.

In this case you have Dave B. very generously and uncritically passing along the benefit of his expertise to the guys at [H] in the form of *information* which [H] can freely use---and, he gets slapped in the face and insulted for his trouble. He's banned from the forums and accused, moronically, of having an "agenda." It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

The purpose of the Internet, since the guys at [H] apparently are a bit behind on the subject, is to dispense information. It's not called the "information superhighway" for nothing. People go to the Internet over any other kind of media in order to get the kind of information the manufacturers won't provide and the paper magazine fluff pieces almost always seem to miss. That's the attraction and the charm of Internet forums. Over the years I've received a lot of valuable information in these venues that is unavailable anywhere else. I have also been able to pass on a few things from time to time that I've picked up in my experience which has benefitted others. A more accurate term might be to call the Internet the "information-sharing superhighway." People frequent technical forums precisely because they can often explore information not available on the PR-propaganda pages of a given company's web site.

By doing things like assuming an [H] "community" while overlooking the larger Internet community at large, [H] is simply shooting itself in the foot, if not the brain. Tactics of attempting to control the information on the Internet are doomed to complete failure, because the Internet is far, far larger than *any* single web site within it. It's like trying to control a 300-foot high tidal wave by putting your finger in a tiny hole in a 20-foot tall dike. It's ludicrous to try and control the information content of the Internet by clamping down on the information shared in a single web-site forum. Anyone who tries it will fail--there's no question about it.

To that end, my own estimation of the "frustration" you've described is that it comes from a certain sense of being unable to control what people think. Why else would you ban individuals, delete posts, lock threads, and all of the rest if not to attempt to control what the people who are reading your forums are thinking? Why else, indeed. Attempting to control the thinking of your forum members who are free to visit any site they choose on the Internet has got to be excruciatingly frustrating even at the "best" of times, because it simply cannot be done.

As a remedy, I would propose that the staff at [H] recognize they are fighting a war that they cannot ever hope to win, and a war they must inevitably lose no matter how many people they ban or how many threads they delete and lock. I would urge them to go easy on themselves and stop looking at things through the tainted lens of ideology, and relax, settle back, and let the information flow. There is no reason to fear information, or the exchange of less-than-perfect ideas. The best and smartest of us are imperfect and there is no need to fear information because you disagree with it. Instead of wasting so much time policing his forums, Kyle might experiment with engaging people in a discussion on the topics raised with which he disagrees. You can influence far more people far more effectively through persuasion than through naked attempts at censorship. Censorship is the intellectual domain of the idiot, IMO. This is something I wish Kyle would take to heart.

Heh... Kyle's really got some stupid nerve to term B3d the "B3d police", since the censorship tactics he routinely engages in in his own forums are exactly representative of the worst kind of "thought police" imaginable. If I didn't see it happening before my eyes I wouldn't believe it.

I believe they understand the “issues†just fine. What you deem important, frankly, I do not. I cannot speak to the opinions of Kyle or Brent other then what I have read.

They have been up front about it. What apparently appears to be the case is that many believe there level of expressing their own opinion wasn’t good enough. If they express it and you fail to understand, but everyone else does, seems to me it may be something to do with you. What you describe as a fluff piece I describe as informative and to the point. A review of IQ. I see what you believe entails a site to be a hardware review site, a matter of opinion. Not everyone wants to read “techie junk†when trying to decide what to buy. We are fortunate as enthusiast to have several sites on the Internet that review to various levels and degrees. Simply because you prefer reviews done in a certain fashion, to a level of thoroughness, containing this or that information, or making certain statements in a certain fashion, does not make a site wrong or right in doing so.

On the subject of Dave B’s “generously and uncritically passing along the benefit of his expertise†I can say I highly enjoy reading his findings. For the reasons for Kyle’s actions there is only one person to ask, Kyle. I would state if asked whether or not Dave B. had an agenda or other in posting there my response would be I don’t know. From what can be seen or reviewed of persons who frequent B3D and have decided to post on [H] I would have to state, yes, as group they appear to have an agenda. Quite possibly, boiling down to simple guilt by association.

I do not believe [H] assumes a [H] "community" will overlook the larger Internet community at large. In fact they go to great lengths every single day and post several times day right on the front page of [H]ardOCP other sources of information. And lengths to peruse it. What you label a “naked attempt at censorship†I would point out as something that has been missing for a long time right here on this very board. The number one reason for never posting here. I have been reading B3D for about a year and a half now. Primarily links that a friend supplies me with. I had attempted to simply stroll through and find things on my own here but was very much put off by what I deem “retarded behavior.†There has been a level of improvement and that would be why I finally decided to actually setup a login of my own. B3D shines with technical expertise, and that’s why I come here to learn new things. I go to [H] for some of the very same reasons. I believe both sites do what they do rather well.

 

[Dave Baumann]

What you describe as a fluff piece I describe as informative and to the point. A review of IQ.

In your opinion was the conclusion correct?

 

[Ollo]

Great post WaltC, I agree with you.


With the risk of having this post deleted, I have to quote:

putting your finger in a tiny hole in a 20-foot tall dike

 

[andypski]

It is sad that you have let all your influence mean nothing in an industry that you could have truly helped shape. Anthony, you have truly wasted what could have been greatness in the industry on the likes of VE and B3. I can fully say you are one of the wasted talents in our industry that was bound for greatness and lost it to the disappointment of many.

Greatness...thrown away. It makes me sad to see such talent wasted on B3DPolice postings.

How exactly does Kyle measure 'greatness' in our industry, and who appointed him the judge of whether someone's talents are being wasted? That seems a bit presumptuous to me. :?

If Reverend is wasting his time and talents then I'm sure he could be wasting them on much worse things and places than B3D.

- Andy.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Quite frankly Revs talents and contacts would be wasted on most other places.

 

[kkevin666]

Well this is only opinion -

i have sent links to a few friends who have psychology degrees and pratice regularly

Their response to how kyle is responding to directly put questions and the bannings etc is the following

CONTROL FREAKISM TAKEN TO AN ABSURED LEVEL

EGOMANICAL SELF DENIAL AND UTTER DISREGARD FOR PROOF

SELF DESTRUCTIVE MENTALITY

But hey thats only a few psychologists opinions

Irrespective of weather kyle/brent think the iqs the same - the major problem remains that nvidia driver sets do not allow you to use your card in the manner it was sold to you IE FULL TRILINEAR .

What remains to be seen is was this deliberately done to deceive the buying public into believing the performance gains for their cards?

And i think that will be the hardest thing to prove.

 

[Bolloxoid]

For the reasons for Kyle’s actions there is only one person to ask, Kyle. I would state if asked whether or not Dave B. had an agenda or other in posting there my response would be I don’t know. From what can be seen or reviewed of persons who frequent B3D and have decided to post on [H] I would have to state, yes, as group they appear to have an agenda. Quite possibly, boiling down to simple guilt by association.

Totally incomprehensible. You are repeating Kyle's paranoid murmurings about "trolls", "people with axes to grind", "folks with obvious agendas" without in any way clarifying what the hell that is supposed to mean.

 

[Bolloxoid]

How exactly does Kyle measure 'greatness' in our industry

Isn't that obvious? Hint: He's got a mirror in his house.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Kyle and Brent have expressed time and time again their frustration as a review site and just how much more difficult the job is to do that, review. It's not as cut and dry as it once was when all you had to do was look at a FPS and you knew. (misses 3dfx) I find current standings much more exciting simply thinking of the potential. ATI and Nvidias hardware are apparently very differant. They also choose to render differant. In the end, I'm willing to bet, the consumer will win. Very rarely in the history of business has that failed to happen.

Well, let me suggest something novel: perhaps the "frustration" Kyle and Brent feel, as you've characterized it, stems from the fact that they might not understand the issues involved and therefore are overreaching when doing anything beyond writing a fluff piece for the benefit of the manufacturer?

I mean, anybody at home can pull out fraps or turn on a game-engine frame counter and jot down the numbers it spits out. Anybody at home can run 3DMK03 and record the scores it generates. That's why being a hardware review site entails much greater knowledge and experience than simply doing something like that. If a person feels "frustrated" when asked to go beyond the point of what anybody at home can do for himself I think it's apparent that he's admitting he isn't qualified to look at the situation under the kind of critical magnifying glass people who read hardware review sites want to see.

In this case you have Dave B. very generously and uncritically passing along the benefit of his expertise to the guys at [H] in the form of *information* which [H] can freely use---and, he gets slapped in the face and insulted for his trouble. He's banned from the forums and accused, moronically, of having an "agenda." It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

The purpose of the Internet, since the guys at [H] apparently are a bit behind on the subject, is to dispense information. It's not called the "information superhighway" for nothing. People go to the Internet over any other kind of media in order to get the kind of information the manufacturers won't provide and the paper magazine fluff pieces almost always seem to miss. That's the attraction and the charm of Internet forums. Over the years I've received a lot of valuable information in these venues that is unavailable anywhere else. I have also been able to pass on a few things from time to time that I've picked up in my experience which has benefitted others. A more accurate term might be to call the Internet the "information-sharing superhighway." People frequent technical forums precisely because they can often explore information not available on the PR-propaganda pages of a given company's web site.

By doing things like assuming an [H] "community" while overlooking the larger Internet community at large, [H] is simply shooting itself in the foot, if not the brain. Tactics of attempting to control the information on the Internet are doomed to complete failure, because the Internet is far, far larger than *any* single web site within it. It's like trying to control a 300-foot high tidal wave by putting your finger in a tiny hole in a 20-foot tall dike. It's ludicrous to try and control the information content of the Internet by clamping down on the information shared in a single web-site forum. Anyone who tries it will fail--there's no question about it.

To that end, my own estimation of the "frustration" you've described is that it comes from a certain sense of being unable to control what people think. Why else would you ban individuals, delete posts, lock threads, and all of the rest if not to attempt to control what the people who are reading your forums are thinking? Why else, indeed. Attempting to control the thinking of your forum members who are free to visit any site they choose on the Internet has got to be excruciatingly frustrating even at the "best" of times, because it simply cannot be done.

As a remedy, I would propose that the staff at [H] recognize they are fighting a war that they cannot ever hope to win, and a war they must inevitably lose no matter how many people they ban or how many threads they delete and lock. I would urge them to go easy on themselves and stop looking at things through the tainted lens of ideology, and relax, settle back, and let the information flow. There is no reason to fear information, or the exchange of less-than-perfect ideas. The best and smartest of us are imperfect and there is no need to fear information because you disagree with it. Instead of wasting so much time policing his forums, Kyle might experiment with engaging people in a discussion on the topics raised with which he disagrees. You can influence far more people far more effectively through persuasion than through naked attempts at censorship. Censorship is the intellectual domain of the idiot, IMO. This is something I wish Kyle would take to heart.

Heh... Kyle's really got some stupid nerve to term B3d the "B3d police", since the censorship tactics he routinely engages in in his own forums are exactly representative of the worst kind of "thought police" imaginable. If I didn't see it happening before my eyes I wouldn't believe it.

<CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP!!!!!!>
Beautifully put and totally insiteful.

 

[Blackwind]

What you describe as a fluff piece I describe as informative and to the point. A review of IQ.

In your opinion was the conclusion correct?

Yes, I do. I do not believe [H]ard's benchmarking was damaging to ATI. Seeing this was the entire reason for performing the task, I believe it deserves mention.

So for summing up which card is ‘best’ at image quality in UT2003 the 9800 Pro still stands as that card. The sharper texture quality with AF enabled plus its better AA quality combined gives the 9800 Pro its image quality edge in this game. Both the 9800 Pro and 5900 Ultra deliver a great overall gaming experience in UT2K3.

I have played with the 5900 Ultra enough to agree with this statement entirely. I will clarify by stating I've been holding off buying what I've decided to buy, a 9800 Pro.

Totally incomprehensible. You are repeating Kyle's paranoid murmurings about "trolls", "people with axes to grind", "folks with obvious agendas" without in any way clarifying what the hell that is supposed to mean.

What you deem "incomprehensible" is simply supported by the very actions of many banned. Does this measure of banning people cover all parties involved? Probably not. It does not change my opinion of what I have read time and time again. Whether sited or other I'm sure it would remain "incomprehensible" regardless of proof. I'd suggest obtaining an ID at such a time as possible and reading them for yourself. I'm no ones mouth piece. In the future I'd appreciate your refraining stating so.

 

[WaltC]

I believe they understand the “issues†just fine..

Well, based on their article defending the substitution of partial trilinear filtering in place of full trilinear, without the knowledge and consent of either the end user or the application, I really can't agree. Rather, the article itself seems to indicate they don't understand the point being made--that full trilinear is not available for UT2K3 with the present Dets.

What you deem important, frankly, I do not..

Really, if you don't care that you don't get full trilinear in the game with the Detonators that's certainly OK with me... I don't use the Detonators so it's not a concern for me, personally (as I get full trilinear when I want it.)

It's certainly your prerogative not to care about such things.

I cannot speak to the opinions of Kyle or Brent other then what I have read..

Ditto...

They have been up front about it.

I can see they've been "up front" in justifying their strange position--but seem to be very "down back" about spelling out why it isn't a good idea to tell people they are getting full trilinear and then giving them a partial trilinear in its place. That's my complaint.

What apparently appears to be the case is that many believe there level of expressing their own opinion wasn’t good enough. If they express it and you fail to understand, but everyone else does, seems to me it may be something to do with you.

No. It's not their "level" of expressing their opinions that bothers me. It's their opinion.... In perusing this thread I guess you can see there is no shortage of people who, like me, disagree with that opinion.

What you describe as a fluff piece I describe as informative and to the point. A review of IQ.

Hmmmm.....how is it "informative and to the point" to pretend that a performance-level trilinear is "almost as good" as a full trilinear, and so we should all be just as happy as chicks in a roost upon discovering the Detonators do not support full trilinear in UT2K3, even when both the end-user and the application expect the Dets to provide it?

The point here has nothing whatever to do with performance-mode trilinear, but rather has to do with the fact that full trilinear is unavailable. Very simple. Nobody's complaining about whatever performance trilinear modes nVidia wants to incorporate--they are complaining about the fact that nVidia has *substituted* performance for full, and not only failed to inform anyone, they actually stated the opposite to reviewers.

As you can see--nVidia's performance trilinear hardly enters the picture at all. Rather, it's the absence of full trilinear capability for the game that is the heart of the problem.

I see what you believe entails a site to be a hardware review site, a matter of opinion. Not everyone wants to read “techie junk†when trying to decide what to buy. We are fortunate as enthusiast to have several sites on the Internet that review to various levels and degrees. Simply because you prefer reviews done in a certain fashion, to a level of thoroughness, containing this or that information, or making certain statements in a certain fashion, does not make a site wrong or right in doing so.

Fair enough--just as it's your prerogative not to care about whether you get full trilinear when you think you are, it's also your prerogative not to have to wade through "techie junk" that will enlighten you and broaden your horizons. Ignorance is a commodity that some hug like a security blanket--as they say, ignorance can sometimes be bliss. I wouldn't dream of asking you to part with it (although I would certainly attempt to convince you of why you might wish to.) But in your case I can see that such an attempt is niether wanted nor welcomed.

On the subject of Dave B’s “generously and uncritically passing along the benefit of his expertise†I can say I highly enjoy reading his findings. For the reasons for Kyle’s actions there is only one person to ask, Kyle. I would state if asked whether or not Dave B. had an agenda or other in posting there my response would be I don’t know. From what can be seen or reviewed of persons who frequent B3D and have decided to post on [H] I would have to state, yes, as group they appear to have an agenda. Quite possibly, boiling down to simple guilt by association.

Ignorance may be bliss, but often it isn't profitable. I base my comments on [H] strictly by what they've written in the [H] forums on these issues. If you read just this thread many people have quoted him verbatim. Such conclusions as I draw I draw from those statements.

You say, "as a group" they appear to have an agenda. OK, fine. What agenda? If you can't define this "agenda" you hypothesize, then you have no basis for inferring it, do you?

Secondly, and I suppose this needs to be pointed out, although Kyle would like to fragment us all into neat little groups as "He belongs to B3d," or "She belongs to Rage3D" or "He belongs to [H]," the fact is no such groups exist. There are people who frequent one or more or all of these sites at one time or another--they "belong" to no one. So when you infer a "group" has an "agenda" you'd best be able to define and prove both the agenda and the group--otherwise you have no case to make. Right?

Now, the fact is that Dave B. is guilty of *nothing* except attempting to share information--which he has attempted to do both privately and in the various forums, as I read the situation. Inferrence of "groups" or "agendas" which are not defined is merely an obvious way of avoiding the content of that information and not having to deal with it.

I do not believe [H] assumes a [H] "community" will overlook the larger Internet community at large.

Fine--then why would Kyle state that Dave B. was "not a part of the [H] community"? Obviously, Kyle believes in something he thinks of as the "[H] community"--as taken from his own statements. I would advise that you temper your beliefs about "what he means" by way of quoting his own remarks, as that's the only way you can be sure of what he means, IMO.

In fact they go to great lengths every single day and post several times day right on the front page of [H]ardOCP other sources of information. And lengths to peruse it. What you label a “naked attempt at censorship†I would point out as something that has been missing for a long time right here on this very board. The number one reason for never posting here. I have been reading B3D for about a year and a half now. Primarily links that a friend supplies me with. I had attempted to simply stroll through and find things on my own here but was very much put off by what I deem “retarded behavior.†There has been a level of improvement and that would be why I finally decided to actually setup a login of my own. B3D shines with technical expertise, and that’s why I come here to learn new things. I go to [H] for some of the very same reasons. I believe both sites do what they do rather well.

Yes, and [H] also goes to "great lengths" in its forums to ban individuals, lock threads, delete threads, delete posts within threads, etc. I have never seen such at B3d. Many of the banned [H] individuals have done nothing except profess an opinion, or attempt to engage in a discussion, on topics the "moderators" do not wish to see discussed. Call it what you will, that is an attempt at censorship and might even be characterized as an attempt at "thought control." Kyle is in no position to call anyone the "B3d police" as from what I've seen the "[H] police" are infinitely worse. Perhaps though, Blackwind, you'll be the next to have your account banned at [H], and at that point you might have an epiphany...

 

[Dave Baumann]

What you describe as a fluff piece I describe as informative and to the point. A review of IQ.

In your opinion was the conclusion correct?

Yes, I do. I do not believe [H]ard's benchmarking was damaging to ATI. Seeing this was the entire reason for performing the task, I believe it deserves mention.

So, the images displayed here do not represent any kind of IQ reductions?