OMG HARDOCP REVIEW OF UT2003 AND FILTERING

[WaltC]

....
Kyle's response -

1. I think at this point, saying anything will really mean nothing. I think actions are is needed to make an impact. I think that by the end of the year, we will have more tools for properly evaluating video cards than we have ever had before. We will be putting our foot down instead of saying we are going to do it.

2. Absolutely, but whether you like it or not, the hardware companies are going to be gaining more and more control over the content.

Just a couple of quick points, BW...

In number 1 Kyle's saying they don't have enough "tools" at their disposal to be able to properly "evaluate video cards"....OK, then fine--hopefully this will mean no more 3D card reviews from [H] until the end of the year when [H] has enough "tools" to "properly" do the job. Of course I suppose it also means that [H] will strip all archived 3D-card reviews out of the website and declare them all invalid--since obviously they haven't had enough tools to "properly evaluate" the 3D cards they've already reviewed. Out of the horse's mouth, indeed... Meanwhile, I guess we can tune into sites which have enough tools on hand to "properly evaluate video cards"--like B3d, for instance. Right?

In number 2, Kyle seems to be saying that there are no rules--except those mandated by the 3D card companies and we should all forget about pesky little things like APIs--because the "hardware companies" are going to be doing just whatever they please. Hmmmm....I wonder how that might be received in the 3D-game development community...? Yea, that's really going to work well--mmmhmmm....somebody buys a DX9-compliant board from company A and a game requiring DX9--only to find out they need a 3D card made by company B to run the game. Right. That'll fly like a lead balloon. Sure.

(Do you really think he understood the question when he answered it this way?)

Edit: typos

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

So educate me with a link or two. Or you can continue to dodge the salient points. Your choice.

Already provided. I would suggest in the future rather then accusing to actually go get the facts first.

Nothing in there from Kyle to support your claim. Mostly just insults aimed at B3D. Please show me what post in that thread says he's disappointed by Nvidia cheating on benchmarks.

I notice how many people he banned who didn't agree with him, along with the occasional sarcastic comments and invitiations for people to stop reading his site. I also noticed the tone of the posts you made there...

 

[Atomahawk]

Links?

If they've actually come out and said "It's wrong" that's fine but I'm still curious why this was never mentioned on the main part of the site. All they (Kyle to be precise) seemed to do was launch unwarranted attacks against Extremetech and Beyond 3D.

Personally I think 3dMark (all variants) is good for one thing, showing off my graphics card.

Ok we can agree on UT2K3, still curious why Kyle never mentioned it earlier though.

I have a better suggestion. How about straight from one of the "horses mouths?" Ask Brent. The reason given for not posting on the front page is and I am paraphrasing at this point due to time contraints, "we don't want to be a part of the fiasco."

Threads I am aware of and have read and followed.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=629987&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

Just to prove what Kyle really thinks about the 3d mark fiasco and Synthetic Benchmarks in general, and this from your posted link.
So to say that he said it was wrong, is quit interesting that he depicts his feelings in his own words.

Re: Gaming situation

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BrainPimp
It gives the appearance there is something else going on at the [H] and you don't want to admit it. Your words say one thing, your actions are saying something else much louder and we don't understand because you have never been like this in the past.

My 2 cents and I think what several other members here think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That was then, this is now. The world of video cards and evaluation is much different now. I am most likely a bit different person than I was two years ago as well. Yes, things change and I am sorry that you do not respect our actions. There are enough people arguing about things they can't change and wanting to point fingers of blame. I have chosen what I think to be the right path for HardOCP and its readers.

If you want to compare the Quack situation to this, which is in no way apples to apples, so be it. We dove head first into that situation because we thought we could get the ball moving on changes that needed to be made. And I think we did exactly that. I think we also motivated ATI to give much more attention to their driver sets, which we can all be thankful for today. We did not do this alone, but we certainly made the first move when others had the exact opportunity but not the balls to pull it off. This situation with NVIDIA is not same and I think trying to do the same with them would simply be wasted resources. That is my opinion. Also to argue about synthetics and cheating in them would simply undermine our position taken on them in February of this year.

I am sorry that you see it the way you do. If you do not trust our content or question or motives I would suggest that you never visit our page again or rely on anything we publish. There are tons more sources on the web and I would suggest you use them. Many of those sites are showcased on our news page every day of the year encouraging you to do so.

 

[Blackwind]

Exactly, the fiasco is knowing about it and not telling their readers the truth. Then lie about their findings, or at least contradict that peformance AF is 'ok' now when they went to great lengths here to say it wasn't:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDQ0LDI=

I kind of look at it this way. It's like declaring a three ring circus is coming to town when in fact you have a one eyed thief, a three legged camel and a women with a really hairy back. I mean really, some of things with ATI and Nvidia SHOULD be looked at and addressed. But are they really the end of the world? Is it lies all lies because someone doesn't say tomato the way you do? I mean really. [H] made it plain, the cheating wasn't cool. They didn't like or condone it. But people chose to behave like a mob and get all up in arms because they didn't shout it from the front page. (gasp) No front page?! They must condone it! They believe its ok! Wait wait! They are getting PAID by the Evil Doers! Yea, and I have a 50 room mansion on the moon. I'm in cahoots with the US goverment to keep you off my secret moon base.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Exactly, the fiasco is knowing about it and not telling their readers the truth. Then lie about their findings, or at least contradict that peformance AF is 'ok' now when they went to great lengths here to say it wasn't:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDQ0LDI=

[H] made it plain, the cheating wasn't cool. They didn't like or condone it.

You keep saying this, but where in editorials, articles or reviews does [H] say this?

I kind of look at it this way. It's like declaring a three ring circus is coming to town when in fact you have a one eyed thief, a three legged camel and a women with a really hairy back. I mean really, some of things with ATI and Nvidia SHOULD be looked at and addressed. But are they really the end of the world? Is it lies all lies because someone doesn't say tomato the way you do?

Oh right, so now it's not a big deal and nothing we should be fussed about. Kind of like putting clip planes into benchmarks or replacing trilinear. It's not like it's costing lives, and there are children starving in Africa...

 

[Blackwind]

Just a couple of quick points, BW...

In number 1 Kyle's saying they don't have enough "tools" at their disposal to be able to properly "evaluate videos cards"....OK, then fine--hopefully this will mean no more 3D card reviews from [H] until the end of the year when [H] has enough "tools" to "properly" do the job. Of course I suppose it also means that [H] will strip all archived 3D-card reviews out of the website and declare them all invalid--since obviously they haven't had enough tools "properly evaluate" the 3D cards they've already reviewed. Out of the horse's mouth, indeed... Meanwhile, I guess we can tune into sites which have enough tools on hand to "properly evaluate video cards"--like B3d, for instance. Right?

In number 2, Kyle seems to be saying that there are no rules--except those mandated by the 3D card companies and we should all forget about pesky little things like APIs--because the "hardware companies" are going to be doing just whatever they please. Hmmmm....I wonder how that might be received in the 3D-game development community...? Yea, that's really going to work well--mmmhmmm....somebody buys a DX9-compliant board from company A and a game requiring DX9--only to find out they need a 3D card made by company B to run the game. Right. That'll fly like a lead balloon. Sure.

(Do you really think he understood the question when he answered it this way?)

(sigh) There are a multitude of threads on this topic, this being one of them. Due to the title of the thread my buddy/I thought it appropriate. This has been discussed and responded to by both fugu, Brent and Kyle numerous time through out. I would go as far ro suggest you missed the ENTIRE point of this thread in particular.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Not really, once you make a stance then you stick to it, they went to great lengths in that above article to say 'balanced' AF is not good enough, but then change their mind and this recent article and say 'we don't notice a difference now'.

Add to that Brents comments here, I think you come to the conclusion they:

1) Don't know what their talking about
2) They lie
3) All of the Above

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4772&highlight=anisotropic+filtering

 

[kemosabe]

Kyle's response -

1. I think at this point, saying anything will really mean nothing. I think actions are is needed to make an impact. I think that by the end of the year, we will have more tools for properly evaluating video cards than we have ever had before. We will be putting our foot down instead of saying we are going to do it.

2. Absolutely, but whether you like it or not, the hardware companies are going to be gaining more and more control over the content.

That's an amusing quote. Do you think that what he wrote on his front page in his May 15 [H]ardnews edition reflects the mindset of someone who prefers to say nothing based on conjecture?

(bold emphasis mine)

3DMark Invalid?
Two days after Extremetech was not given the opportunity to benchmark DOOM3, they come out swinging heavy charges of NVIDIA intentionally inflating benchmark scores in 3DMark03. What is interesting here is that Extremetech uses tools not at NVIDIA's disposal to uncover the reason behind the score inflations. These tools are not "given" to NVIDIA anymore as the will not pay the tens of thousands of dollars required to be on the "beta program" for 3DMark "membership".


nVidia believes that the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra is trying to do intelligent culling and clipping to reduce its rendering workload, but that the code may be performing some incorrect operations. Because nVidia is not currently a member of FutureMark's beta program, it does not have access to the developer version of 3DMark2003 that we used to uncover these issues.

I am pretty sure you will see many uninformed sites jumping on the news reporting bandwagon today with "NVIDIA Cheating" headlines. Give me a moment to hit this from a different angle.

First off it is heavily rumored that Extremetech is very upset with NVIDIA at the moment as they were excluded from the DOOM3 benchmarks on Monday and that a bit of angst might have precipitated the article at ET, as I was told about their research a while ago. They have made this statement:


We believe nVidia may be unfairly reducing the benchmark workload to increase its score on 3DMark2003. nVidia, as we've stated above, is attributing what we found to a bug in their driver.

Finding a driver bug is one thing, but concluding motive is another.

Conversely, our own Brent Justice found a NVIDIA driver bug last week using our UT2K3 benchmark that slanted the scores heavily towards ATI. Are we to conclude that NVIDIA was unfairly increasing the workload to decrease its UT2K3 score? I have a feeling that Et has some motives of their own that might make a good story.

Please don't misunderstand me. Et has done some good work here. I am not in a position to conclude motive in their actions, but one thing is for sure.

3DMark03 scores generated by the game demos are far from valid in our opinion. Our reviewers have now been instructed to not use any of the 3DMark03 game demos in card evaluations, as those are the section of the test that would be focused on for optimizations. I think this just goes a bit further showing how worthless the 3DMark bulk score really is.

The first thing that came to mind when I heard about this, was to wonder if NVIDIA was not doing it on purpose to invalidate the 3DMark03 scores by showing how the it could be easily manipulated.

Thanks for reading our thoughts; I wanted to share with you a bit different angle than all those guys that will be sharing with you their in-depth "NVIDIA CHEATING" posts. While our thoughts on this will surely upset some of you, especially the fanATIics, I hope that it will at least let you possibly look at a clouded issue through from a different perspective.

Further on the topics of benchmarks, we addressed them earlier this year, which you might find to be an interesting read.

We have also shared the following documentation with ATI and NVIDIA while working with both of them to hopefully start getting better and more in-game benchmarking tools. Please feel free to take the documentation below and use it as you see fit. If you need a Word document, please drop me a mail and let me know what you are trying to do please.

To anyone with common sense, this was a blatant attempt to discredit ET while acting as a Nvidia mouthpiece. Had he chosen to say nothing, he would have just let ET and Nvidia iron out their differences. Instead, he goes out of his way to create a mischievous motive for the action of a third party which he happens to disapprove of, then conveniently claims he is not in a position to conclude anything. Extremely amateurish. In fact, he probably exposed himself to legal action with those slanderous comments, and the fact that you wouldn't interpret it that way will not make Kyle's problem go away.

 

[Blackwind]

Oh right, so now it's not a big deal and nothing we should be fussed about. Kind of like putting clip planes into benchmarks or replacing trilinear. It's not like it's costing lives, and there are children starving in Africa...

That is the second time someone here has attempted to place words in my mouth I have never stated. I have been clear from the start, I as a consumer DO care about what is occuring. I do not on the other hand choose to be a performer in that three ring circus.

 

[WaltC]

I already provided to what I believe is the most precise thread on the topic.

BW, you linked me to a 10-page thread. Presumably, based on what you've said here, you know exactly in which *post* or *posts* it is where Kyle blames nVidia for the 3DMk03 scandal because it attempted to cheat the benchmark, and calls on nVidia to stop cheating. I'd like you to link or quote the passages in those posts where this is done. Not interested in paraphrasing--but would like an exact quote to that effect. (I knew it would be well hidden if it exists at all--but this is getting ridiculous.)

Probably because I actually READ the site? I'm also not picking and choosing posts and skewing them. I am asking absolutely no one here to agree with me. None. I am asking that the facts be presents accurately. I am a reader of both these sites and would do the very same there at [H].

I don't understand you. Are you saying that all of the voluminous quotes posted in this thread at B3d, directly taken verbatim from the [H] forums, are contradicted in other [H] threads by the very people who wrote the comments quoted in this thread?

If so, how do you know which quotes to believe? *chuckle* Any insight on your formula in that regard would be appreciated.

Kyle did not state this. It was a forum member.

Oh, yea--Kyle did "nothing" but talk about the "B3d police" and "B3d agendas" and stated flatly that he didn't visit B3d because of "vicious personal attacks" on himself and ban Dave B. and ridicule the Rev (without even attempting to answer the Rev's politely phrased questions, I might add.) Right--sure--your curiosity had nothing to do with "anything" Kyle said regarding B3d on those forums. Certainly...

I'm really not sure what the reasoning was behind that comment and to be honest I do not recall readind it either.

It was what is known as a "rhetorical" question--because the answer was so obvious. But--OK--you didn't understand it--I can accept that. Don't know how to phrase it any more simply, however.

 

[AzBat]

Exactly, the fiasco is knowing about it and not telling their readers the truth. Then lie about their findings, or at least contradict that peformance AF is 'ok' now when they went to great lengths here to say it wasn't:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDQ0LDI=

[H] made it plain, the cheating wasn't cool. They didn't like or condone it.

You keep saying this, but where in editorials, articles or reviews does [H] say this?

I would like to know as well. Personally, I believe the forums should not be the place to be making official announcements or publicly making official positions. A technology site like [H] main purpose, traffic and revenue source is from the front page and any editorials, articles, reviews or previews it releases. Anybody that wants to get their official position on any topic need to look there and not the forums.

Blackwind,

The burden of proof about [H] and Kyle's official position on 3DMark03 lies with you as you have stated something other than what many here have seen stated officially. I look forward to seeing your proof, but if it's just forum messages, then it's not something I'm(and others) will really be interested in.

Tommy McClain

 

[Blackwind]

Not really, once you make a stance then you stick to it, they went to great lengths in that above article to say 'balanced' AF is not good enough, but then change their mind and this recent article and say 'we don't notice a difference now'.

Add to that Brents comments here, I think you come to the conclusion they:

1) Don't know what their talking about
2) They lie
3) All of the Above

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4772&highlight=anisotropic+filtering

There is a far cry differance between being ignorant and stupid. I do not believe Brent or Kyle to be stupid, or any other [H]ard staff member. You may choose to believe what you would like but it does not make it fact. Not one person here was born all knowing but learned and gleaned information over time. Some soon then others. With a variety of topics. Brent included. For someone who clearly demonstrated on [H] they did not know what they were talking about doomtrooper, you apparently believe believe yourself to be all knowing. Brent is not infallable and obviously is seeking to do his job as a card reviewer the very best that he can. Hence his presence here.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

That is the second time someone here has attempted to place words in my mouth I have never stated. I have been clear from the start, I as a consumer DO care about what is occuring. I do not on the other hand choose to be a performer in that three ring circus.

How else should the following be interpreted? If this isn't trying to belittle the opinions of those who disagree with Kyle, then what is?

I mean really, some of things with ATI and Nvidia SHOULD be looked at and addressed. But are they really the end of the world? Is it lies all lies because someone doesn't say tomato the way you do? I mean really.

I notice you still haven't supplied links that support your claims of Kyle's stance of being disappointed with Nvidia's cheating.

 

[Blackwind]

Blackwind,

The burden of proof about [H] and Kyle's official position on 3DMark03 lies with you as you have stated something other than what many here have seen stated officially. I look forward to seeing your proof, but if it's just forum messages, then it's not something I'm(and others) will really be interested in.

Tommy McClain

Actually, no the burden is not mine. You as the accuser must OBTAIN your proof. You apparently missed every statement I've already made and I highly would suggest re-reading the entire thread to better understand.

1) I have never stated it was on the front page. In fact it has not.
2) While you may not be interested unless it was on the front page, others have questioned whether it was stated AT ALL. Hence the link.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Hardly, thats why I have been a member of B3D a long time during its off and on love affair with the internet.
Brent came here to learn, stated it many times in the early days, so no he is not some 'Super Reviewer' that does not make mistakes.
Yet when a website does a complete review about apples to apples then turns around and contradicts their own conclusions later, well trust is certainly something that can't be said about their staff.

Lets be clear here, I used to talk to Brent alot with PMs here, and respected him alot..but slowly I saw him change,,as though he thought he knew it all now.
The people that make up this forum are some of the most technically capable people on the net, besides my head butting with Reverend I do respect his technical knowledge and review quality.

This site tells it like it is, unlike others.

 

[Blackwind]

I notice you still haven't supplied links that support your claims of Kyle's stance of being disappointed with Nvidia's cheating.

I also note you have not read my response which was at this very moment I do not have time. The link that WAS provided was through a friend following this thread. It is not my responsibility to provide you entertainment. As an accuser I'd suggest going and getting it yourself. Otherwise, show patience.

 

[Forbidden Donut]

I also note you have not read my response which was at this very moment I do not have time. The link that WAS provided was through a friend following this thread. It is not my responsibility to provide you entertainment. As an accuser I'd suggest going and getting it yourself. Otherwise, show patience.

It becomes difficult to provide evidence of something when the claim is that it is not there. I can't provide you with evidence that I've scoured the forums over and over again only to find that no one at [H] ever, in fact, stated that what NVidia was doing was wrong (referring to 3dmark, not ut2k3) or that they were, in fact, artificially inflating the score. I can assure you I've done it...but how am I supposed to prove it? You, on the other hand, are claiming that they have. You, on the other hand, can scour their forums and come up with something a little more tangible than I. It's the nature of the argument.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I notice you still haven't supplied links that support your claims of Kyle's stance of being disappointed with Nvidia's cheating.

I also note you have not read my response which was at this very moment I do not have time. The link that WAS provided was through a friend following this thread. It is not my responsibility to provide you entertainment. As an accuser I'd suggest going and getting it yourself. Otherwise, show patience.

As I said previously, I read this thread and there was nothing here to support your claim. I suggest you check your evidence before you fling it out to support your viewpoint. Going by what [H] has put in their articles and editorials, there is no evidence to support your claim. You telling me to "get it yourself" just shows that you don't have any evidence to support your claims either.

If you think you are supplying me with "entertainment", you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I also note you have not read my response which was at this very moment I do not have time. The link that WAS provided was through a friend following this thread. It is not my responsibility to provide you entertainment. As an accuser I'd suggest going and getting it yourself. Otherwise, show patience.

Erhm...

How is one supposed to supply proof that something wasn't said?

Don't cop out of this Blackwind. You've been asked several times to provide evidence to back up your claim of what they said.

You said above that Kyle and Brent weren't stupid.

Neither are we.

 

[Blackwind]

Hardly, thats why I have been a member of B3D a long time during its off and on love affair with the internet.
Brent came here to learn, stated it many times in the early days, so no he is not some 'Super Reviewer' that does not make mistakes.
Yet when a website does a complete review about apples to apples then turns around and contradicts their own conclusions later, well trust is certainly something that can be said about their staff.

Lets be clear here, I used to talk to Brent alot with PMs here, and respected him alot..but slowly I saw him change,,as though he thought he knew it all now.
The people that make up this forum are some of the most technically capable people on the net, besides my head butting with Reverend I do respect his technical knowledge and review quality.

This site tells it like it is, unlike others.

I'm glad to hear that. My point is simple. Cut Brent some slack. He is doing the very best that he can and is also a member of the [H] staff. If this organization is as open as you would all claim it to be then assist rather then condemn their efforts in the most constructive way.