OMG HARDOCP REVIEW OF UT2003 AND FILTERING

We can certainly agree that the collective intent is not to hunt down anyone. I don't want to belabour the point, but from the hundreds of posts I've read since this saga began, Kyle has been as much the aggressor as the target of derogatory remarks. From the outset, he has insinuated that Dave's evidence was less than reliable based on the fact that he had not gathered such evidence himself, and he's followed that up with less than subtle accusations of B3D having an agenda (which he remains reluctant to elaborate on), topping it off with a highly personal and unprovoked attack on one of his industry peers and the arbitrary banning of another from his forums. This behaviour is entirely consistent with the specious claims he made about ExtremeTech's motivation for posting their 3DMark03 piece, which was arguably the instigating factor for the recent discontent with his conduct. Kyle willingly places himself in the public spotlight, and it's his obligation to deal with well-founded criticism as honourably as he deals with well-deserved praise.

You're probably right though about Dave not needing all this crap about Kyle on these forums - what he deserves is an apology.

 

Yes, we wish people to keep the mean-spirited and rude comments out of all of this. There are other places that have forums specifically for stuff like that.
however, we very much do NOT want the mods here to run around banning people for contradicting them, or telling them that they are wrong, or disagreeing with them, or because they are pushing some mysterious undefined "agenda" here.

We prefer to deal with "agendas" here by explaining why we think you are wrong. For instance, you appear to have an agenda here. And you are very much from another community. So did you get banned? No, people are trying to show you why they think you are wrong...

Oh yeah, and i agree with kemosabe.

 

My take

Blackwind, several of your comment strike me as inconsistent. Perhaps we could discuss them a bit.

The problem with this statement is related to, as one example, the distinction between hardware capability that is the common case and can be highlighted by specific tools, and a driver decision made for a specific application and therefore a specific representation of the hardware. The description "a review of IQ between cards if anything" excludes that fps was even mentioned, and that the IQ "review" was being used to represent hardware performance. Your commentary seems to consistently depend on isolating the opinion on IQ from any concern about fairness in hardware descriptions.

Let us start with an attempt at a more complete representation of the anisotropic filtering issue than [H] presents, and, as far as I understand at the moment, you seem to as well when yuu've commented here:

• [*]There are aniso tools that highlight the behavior of aniso and magnify issues with it in a way that aids in objective evaluation by giving information on what the aniso implementation is doing. Unless you spend your time just using such tools, this is just a foundation for relevance to the next points. Extensive and well thought out scene selection is a more complex, and less illustrative, alternative, but objective factors need to be established somewhere as the criteria for their selection to demonstrate accuracy.
  [*]There are benchmarks and games used as benchmarks chosen to aid in providing the user information to evaluate, where the user can observe the performance cost of the aniso implementations in the context of achieving the last point. Unless you spend your time watching benchmarks of either stripe, and maybe bragging about scores in them, this is just a foundation for that last point, which is the primary intended use for the cards (I'm focusing on games).
  [*]There are games where the user is using the aniso, and the image quality the user is getting matters for the user's experience. For the "tech junkie", the above foundations for comparing this are of primary interest, because they have interest in evaluating their relevance for themselves. For the "gamer" concerned only with this final issue, the foundations are important if they actually want an accurate picture of it for more than the specific games and positions represented in screenshots.

The last point doesn't stand by itself, it depends on the prior issues to establish its accuracy. This concerns there being a distinction between informed and uninformed opinions outside of saying the person who has the opinion matters more than the support for it, and brings to mind the saying "opinions are like a...". My answer (to the saying, which might not represent what you intend): "yes, everyone has one, but speak for yourself when you say they have to stink".

The focus of a hardware review or article can emphasize whichever it wants, but it can't beg off recognizing the first elements as being the foundation of the last while putting forth something built upon them, when the question of how well that structure will stand is being asked.

Now, the article is not a review of UT 2k3 image quality, it is a response to a question concerning [H]'s review of hardware while using UT2k3 and comparing fps as well.

Let us compare some example situations for UT 2k3 without omitting consideration of these particulars. For this discussion, we'll consider the relevant example cases of: the Radeon 8500, the Radeon 9500-9800, and the GeForce FX family cards and driver versions exhibiting this behavior.

Let's start by discussing these example cases with regard to the first point about aniso tools:

• 8500: The hardware can't do trilinear while doing aniso (up to 16x) and has fairly prevelant issues with applying aniso at some orientations. Aniso tools show this, but they have to be used and there was a time they weren't prominent and some cases where what they show aren't represented at all. This is a straightforward issue of knowing about it, and standards of reviewing evolved to provide that knowledge.
• >9500: The hardware has less prevelant issues with applying aniso (up to 16x) at some orientations, and can do full trilinear at the same time. Also, there is a driver behavior when forcing aniso that requires tools to represent more than the initial texture stage. Both are straightforward as above (once known), and the latter is consistently and logically resolved by using Application Preference.
• FX: The hardware is capable of doing aniso (up to 8x) with full trilinear at the same time. Also, there are driver behaviors that control how this is applied on a per application basis. One of these driver behaviors is defined as trilinear filtering, others are defined as bilinear and some type of intermediate. These are straightforward (once known, and if application detection isn't abused).

You maintain that evaluating image quality equivalency is "simply be a matter of opinion in regard to appearance". The aniso tools are part of the picture for making that opinion an informed one and providing a guideline for objective factors regarding it.

Next, let's consider benchmarks and games used as benchmarks:

• 8500: All benchmarks and games used as benchmarks accurately represent the performance and image quality of the aniso implementation when showing their scenes. At the time of the 8500's introduction, this emphasized a need for screenshots and analysis of what is represented in them.
• >9500: All benchmarks and games used as benchmarks accurately represent the performance and image quality of the aniso implementation when showing the scenes. When aniso is overriden and "Quality" selected, there is an issue of scenes being represented in the specific case of colored mip level usage if a lack of understanding of what colored mip levels don't show is present.
• FX: Benchmarks and games are specifically targetted such that performance evaluations are blatantly misrepresented. "Coincidentally", this is made evident for both 3dmark 03 and UT 2k3 specifically (by name, even), the leading applications used for benchmarking. Showing scenes where the "opinion" of the impact of this on image quality is disputable does not change that this action is a blatant misrepresentation. Doing so while providing and defending fps comparisons for this misrepresentation is participating in that misrepresentation yourself.

You're treating the occurrence of this stage as the same between the FX and the 8500 ("not apples to apples") because you're viewing it as if it is only a matter of the user playing the game in the specific scenes shown and not what is being represented about the card playing other games or other objective factors that are obvious in different scenes. UT 2k3 is not the only tool available, and knowing it specifically is problematic indicates that another is called for or that the issues with it need to be discussed.

OK, when discussing the results in game:

• 8500: Shouldn't mention fps results and represent equivalency without taking steps to indicate what the screenshot selection might not emphasize or might exaggerate about image quality. For the 8500, it is what might not be emphasized that is an issue with regards to typical screen shots, and screen shots of an aniso tool and some evaluation of the apperance of game scenes in general tends to accomplish this briefly at what is established as "minimum" reviewing at the moment.
• >9500: A similar discussion suffices for "minimum" review detail. Thanks to exploration by "tech junkies", the issue of control panel "Quality" behavior is also determined to be a further requirement (though colored mip levels which would tend to misrepresent the issue as they are currently implemented and interpreted) for the "new minimum", in the vein of ongoing evolution of reviewing.
• FX: A similar discussion suffices when using software where Quality behaves as it is represented. This can include aniso tools and some games, along with screenshots. UT2k3 is not one of those games. The [H] rebuttal to the concerns of ATI (among others) focuses on answering this from the perspective of screen shots and game play, while ignoring that the question is related to the foundation of that representation and the factors discussed above concerning how they are applied to hardware reviewing.

Note: As I've said before, I think another card that can be done similar disservice of this type is the 5200 when compared to the 8500 without bilinear filtering being selected. Given the performance hit of AF and the performance of the card (as long as it compares price wise to the 8500-9200 cards instead of the 9600), this is a necessary factor for consideration along with the shader performance comparisons and other performance characteristics.

Addressing Kyle's stance as I understand it:
Knowing this for "months" in advance and "behind the scenes" just makes you a witting accomplice in the misrepresentation.
Attacking an application's use as a benchmark for not being "applicable to gaming" (in your opinion, without establishing objective factors about that opinion being valid) and supporting that opinion with how it is being targetted and is therefore inapplicable to games in general, while knowing specifically how another application you yourself are using for benchmarking is being intentionally targetted in the same way, and still proposing the use of the latter without even mentioning it, just makes you hypocritical.
Thinking the image quality difference is insignificant yourself, based purely on limited selection of screenshots and with no objective criteria established to indicate their usefulness while supporting them as a universal representation (remember, hardware review, not UT 2k3 review), doesn't give you the right to speak for more than your eye sight and the particular still screen shots used to support it, or indicate anything to counter observations of how the particular screen shots are lacking.
These are things that objective criteria, and objective discussion of your provided examples and what might be wrong with them, are used to evaluate. Someone criticizing you for proposing your subjective evaluation of limited cases and your basis for selecting them as universally representative of an issue, does not require anything more than disagreement.
Deleting, ignoring, or muting someone as an alternative to discussing objective criteria they present, by proclaiming them as having an agenda, is simply avoiding dealing with that disagreement, it does not make you any more "right".


The "size" of your web site doesn't change this, or make you any more or less "human" and potentially mistaken as anyone else. Your conduct does. Maintaining that as a factor in your discussion seems a rather meaningless proxy for the discussion. That's popularity, and it comes and goes without direct association to merit. Confusing this with anything else just encourages comparisons to politics and politicians.

 

I agree to an extent with the points you raise...

however... I moderate a software based tech site and I can't for the life of me ever imagine writing within the forums (at least in the public section) about a particular member who is banned, for what supposed reasons they were banned and post inflamatory remarks that member and the related website...

Kyle has placed himself... as others maintain.. in the public eye with his website/articles/editorials and comments around the web...

overall the reputation one member of the internet community garners is based on various factors... and from where I stand it is extremely bad form to publicly bad mouth a banned member even when the member did not technically deserve to be banned from the content of their posts... t

his is not a one off instance... there are numerous knowledgeable members of the hardware community that have been banned/chastised or otherwise censored on the very same forums that are ruled with an 'iron fist' for lack of a better term...

I completely respect the rights of Kyle and members of his board to moderate and edit as they please within their guidelines... it is after all their home on the web... and their right to conduct themselves as they see fit...

I also agree that bad mouthing a member... especially of another website's community who does not post here... or does not do so regularly... is bad form...

I suppose an apology in advance should be extended by myself to the administrators and moderators of this site for any inflamatory remarks in this post towards members of this and/or any other forums online... I do not wish to make this site look bad in any way/shape or form... a lot of what I have learnt about gpu's and related technologies has been due to ghosting here for several months and I appreciate the opportunity to participate here...

however... it is irksome to see a respectable member of the hardware community not be allowed to participate in discussion of issues that they are well privy to on another forum

 

I see a large differance. ATI cheated in a game. Quake. This Effected actual game play. Nvidia cheated in a benchmark. Arguable not the same.

 

So the UT 2003 AF issue that full trilinear can only be force on the R300 but not the NV3x isn't a cheat?

 

Even if you want to use that weak argument, UT2003 is a game. So there goes your argument. Even in that case he knew for over 2 months (according to him) and didn't say anything. If you felt what Kyle did is was morally correct, why did you embellish how he approached ATI? At a certain point, when the evidence is so overwhelming, reasonable people have to be willing to admit they made a mistake. Can you honestly say you are being reasonable?

Edit

And by the way he starts off by saying "We all know that Quake3 is one of the most utilized 3D benchmarks". So clearly has a problem with misleading benchmarking. Both 3DMark03 and UT2003 are very popular benchmarks.

 

I think you guys are being soft on Kyle especially since he would not extend the same attitude towards any of you. He'd simply ban you then talk about you behind your back on his little forums. He is helping nVidia rip off users and practically stealing money from computer users all around the world. And he has admitted he has known of these issues before they broke to the public so it's even worse on his part having this knowledge yet continueing to mislead and help nvidia steal money from people.

He obviously has struck a deal with Nvidia for some type of compensation, money, special perks whatever the case may be he is now an extension of Nvidia's marketing dept. and as such is partially responsible for ripping people off all over the world.

He does not deserve any of your apologies, he deserves to be exposed for the shill he has become.

 

Let me try to explain. We are all aware that "Triliner filtering and its relatively well documented how its achieved." I think we can lay that babe to rest. What has been brought into the spot light is that effort has been brought to light that apparently Nvidia is not performing TRUE Trilinear in UT2k3. Again, we can lay that babe to rest. No one in contesting that. Now there are two train of thoughts stemming from this, why? And why do consumers not have the choice within the Dets to override this "optimization?" Many members here and [H] are asking the same thing. Kyle and Brent have chosen a slightly different path in getting there. Simple.

I would respond by stating my opinion, I personally do not see the level of IQ being loss...as a loss. I do not see the IQ diminishment while in play. This is a FPS after all where my concentration is not neccesarily on IQ. I would also temper that statement by stating I WOULD like a new Det that allowed me FULL Trilinear control. Thank you Nvidia and Epic for looking out for me, but I can handle this given the tools. Make sense?

You would really have to clarify on "we." Do you mean WE as in official members of B3D? Or do you mean WE as in the B3D forum community? If the former, no, you are correct, you as official B3D personnel have not. If the latter, yes, you have allowed those seeds planted here. Hence the very title of this thread. Standing by doing nothing while in a position to curb it is the point of "guilt by association."

 

When you say you don't see the IQ diminishment in play - Does this mean you have a 5900 and have played UT2003 extensively using both the bi/trilinear mix and full trilinear using AntiDetector and can't tell the difference?

Not knocking your opinion here (Hell, I wish I had a 5900 to do this exact same experiment on), but I'm just curious.

 

To be precise, no at this time I do not own one. I did on the other hand have both a 9800 Pro and a 5900 Ultra in hand for three weeks to play with trying to decide which I wanted to go out and buy. I have 5 workstations, two are my main machines I use for gaming. I also used these at a LAN party to get a better idea of how they would perform. I decided to buy the 9800 Pro. Hope that answers your question. I will also state IQ in UT2k# is not important to me. IQ in Morrowind is.

I'd suggest reigning in your lose emotions. I never stated you were a "fanperson" or other. If guilt is weighing on your mind, seek another target. I'm not it. I will completely disagree AND agree regarding an apples to apples comparison. I stated from the very beginning, the hardware and methods are different. Simple. I DO believe you can TRY and compare a Washington Apple to a Granny Smith. They are both apples. You may have your opinion that [H] is hishonest. This does not on the other hand make it fact

 

I think I've already stated this but will state again, I have been a reader of B3D for well over a year and a half. No, I was not banned from another forum. I am very much open to opinions of why I may be wrong. I would temper that by stating, my opinion is mine. You neither have to like it or agree with it.

 

Good. And that was the point I was making - I wasn't the one trying to point guilt, blame or culpability to this.

Like the rest of [H]'s readership, Brent had no course for getting there since he has already stated he was not aware of any of this before we brought it up. Kyle has since stated that I was banned because he didn't like the way I presented information to his editors (although myself and Brent have had many discussion about this both prior and post those forum posts), however he didn't see fit to inform his editors of the issue in the first place, which could have prevented his editors being put in that position. Personally it would seem imperative that I inform other staf if I was aware of such issues in order to stave off such issues before they arise - but thats just me I guess. I wouldn't mind know how he knew this as, AFAIK, nobody knew miplevels could be shown in UT2003 until Rev ased Tim Sweeney and the 2225 patch became availabe to make the feature useful.

 

Re: My take

I found your post to be both excellent and informative. I understand that you may find my comments inconsistent I would suggest asking me directly what you are unclear on. I'd be happy to try and clear that up. Evaluating image quality equivalency is "simply be a matter of opinion in regard to appearance" is true to a point depending on what level of review you are attempting to accomplish. Simply becuase [H]'s review was not done in the fashion or methods you would care for them to use does not on the other hand make them wrong. In fact, I'd wager, none of the persons here who complain about it have ever taken the time to sit down, write a note, detail a better way, and sent it to Brent or Kyle. They ARE open. They do not consider themselves beyond improvement. They are very open to suggestions.

The points you highlighted in the first color section are exactly what I find important and many others do as well. I believe we are in agreement on that. I understand UT2k3 is not the only tool to use but was the focal point of this article. Your mention of the 5200 and a 8500 comparison kind of demonstrated the problems reviewers are facing.

I did not find Kyle's knowing or not knowing suspect. I do not find Brent or Kyle's reviews agenda ridden. I agree with you that there may have been BETTER ways of doing it. This has been voiced within the forums at [H]. Someone even posted within this thread Kyle's response. They are very open to readers suggestions. After all, readers are why they are in business.

 

JFYI, there is new article on ixbt.com (probably soon on english on digit-life.com) which compares R9800Pro & 5900, and the "problem" with trilinear@UT2003 is covered (both cheats of NV, and the "hack" way of enabling AF/trilinear on R300)

 

I wonder if they had read this or the original forum thread discussing the entrie issue before putting that up...

 

Swanlee, just because Kyle is an ass to us doesn't mean that we automatically have to degrade ourselves to that level.

 

You know, I can understand this conclusion and see its justification, but I don't agree with the literal idea that he's a shill. I think it portrays him in a light that is too cold and calculating to fit the facts as I've seen them develop. I think the situation is a bit more complex than that:

(Briefly--what follows is my own opinion) I think Kyle has personal friendships with people working for nVidia. I think these friends of his have cultivated a relationship over a period of time. Kyle has been invited into the company on numerous occasions, invited to meetings, introduced to people in the company he is told are the "higher ups", and basically treated very well. I would imagine they've also taken him out to eat meals, provided a few very minor perks and other things, slipped him review samples "exclusively," (which is why Kyle thought the D3 preview thing was such a big deal), and just generally made him feel like "one of the guys" at nVidia---made him feel like his opinions "mattered" and were "important" to them, etc. I think all of this has created an emotional response within Kyle to the effect that the guys at nVidia are his "true-blue friends."

And so, whenever he's faced with a situation in which which he might have to write something negative about what the company is doing--he simply cannot do it because *emotionally* he feels as if he would be betraying those friendships. That's why, IMO, when it came to light that nVidia had clearly cheated 3DMk03 Kyle's initial response was a vain attempt to shoot the messenger followed by irrational calls to people to "stop using benchmarks." He simply could not bring himself to "call on" nVidia to stop cheating--nope, that would have been tantamount to calling his friends liars and there was no way he was going to do that. He just couldn't do it.

Next we move to his practice of banning information presented in his forums which at least has the appearance of exposing something nVidia is doing that is patently dishonest. Same thing--Kyle feels in those cases as though he is protecting his friends and defending them. (Note that with the ATi "quack" issue Kyle had no problems allowing forum members to discuss it. Indeed, he's mentioned "Quack" several times during the recent events without regard for the fact that "quack" is ancient history.)Basically, it's a purely emotional response on Kyle's part. He's not thinking--he's feeling and reacting--which is why his positions are so contradictory and hypocritical on these issues (IMO, of course.)

Basically, Kyle is being used by his "friends" at nVidia who see a certain utility in subverting the content of his web site. He doesn't know that, of course, or see it that way. In his mind they genuinely like him and value his opinions and don't give a rat's tail about what he does with his web site. But I think the truth is that if Kyle didn't have [H] nobody at nVidia would give him the time of day. I also think that at some level intellectually Kyle knows this, but that his emotional need to be "in the loop" and to feel like he's "somebody" is too overpowering for his intellect to control. (Again, this is all just my opinion.) And so, the PR boys at nVidia play him like a violin.

In contrast, a "shill" to me is someone who is fully in control of his emotions and his intellect and always acts with a calculating shrewdness to bring about a targeted result. Therefore, although he's being used by nVidia, I would not label Kyle a "shill." A "dupe" I think would be a more fitting adjective to use.

I've written before about the enormous and amazing changes between the [H] and Anandtech coverage of the nv30U, and their subsequent coverage of nv35U. I think everybody would agree with me that at both of these sites there has been a 180-degree shift in sentiment and content which certainly cannot be attributed to a 180-degree difference between nv30U and nv35U. IMO, nv35U is only slightly better than nv30U, the biggest difference being that nVidia might actually be able to ship a few nv35U's into the mass market. Certainly, there is nothing there that deserves the shift in these sites from being correctly critical of nv30U to an almost complete inability to criticize nv35U at all. IE, something has been taking place behind the scenes that you or I will never be privy to. I think that what's happened is that nVidia PR has stepped up its efforts and these web sites have stepped theirs down. IMO, of course.

nVidia PR is orchestrated by some shrewd characters--characters who are--unabashedly--complete and utter nVidia shills because it is their bread & butter to be so. What they are particularly adept at doing it would seem is in enlisting 3rd-parties to become their mouthpieces--web sites such as I've mentioned. nVidia makes a habit of prosecuting its PR by proxy, if you will, as it feels this is more advantageous than making direct statements. Rarely does nVidia PR issue direct, simple statements on issues such as these.

I'm just thankful that we have technical web sites such as B3d which are true to themselves first, and know how to stay friendly with various companies while keeping them at arm's length--equally. Sites which see a certain utility in keeping their readers well informed, regardless of which way the cookie crumbles.

That's really all I have to say about the [H] issue as I've probably already said too much...

 

Waltc you are probably dead on, but I couldn't sit back and watch the issue tipped toed, the issue is so spelled out to me i just couldn't keep it in while other were showing restraint i felt at least one voice had to spell out wjhat was likely going on with np punches pulled. Plus the way he acts on his forum sometimes it feels good to lower yourself to their level and blast them.

 

Hmm. Thought provoking and plausible. I do know that Kyle had been speaking against the use of 3Dmark months before it was found out they were apparently cheating at it. I believe this point is missed throughout discussions regarding Kyle, Nvidia and 3DMark.

I think you are being overly harsh because you were dismissed for not knowing how to bind your tongue and follow the rules.