OMG HARDOCP REVIEW OF UT2003 AND FILTERING

[AzBat]

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.

Ummm, settle down Beavis. I've read every statement in this thread thank you. You're the one that first started posting here saying things other than what anybody here had read before. So your view is the dissenting one, not ours. Anyway, re-read my post. I was looking for "official" proof other than the forums. So not just from the front page, but also from editiorials, articles, reviews or previews. I understood that your proof was from threads on their forums, but I wasn't interested in that. If you don't have any other proof then fine, but at least state it as so.

Kind regards,

Tommy McClain

 

[Atomahawk]

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.

Here is another good read for you Blackwind and read the whole thread, and remember the subject, they apperently had a nice candid chat with Nvidia, purposely to address the topic of 3D mark 03 as they say. So unless you want to continue putting words in Kyles mouth you may want to just drop the point and say [H] never admitted Nvidia did anything wrong and Nvidia never admitted to doing anything wrong. I remember that thread VERY well because that's the one that got me banned. Because of what? Because he didn't like the fact that I asked him why they went their for that particular reason and came back with 3 slides that say nothing about the fact and a clear statement from Nvidia about it.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=1659eb274993508bd442df2b4880226c&threadid=642149

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

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.

It's been tried. All that happens is that people get insulted publicly and banned from making any comments at [H]. Kyle doesn't want any assisting, even though it's been offered by the very people Brent came to learn from.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

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.

Have you not been following all of the assistance that Dave was offering to [h]? Which of course just went ignored for the most part, followed later by banishments, etc.

You can't assist someone that doesn't want assisting.

 

[Blackwind]

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.

How is one supposed to supply proof that something wasn't said? By having on record every statement made. If you do not then you can not prove your claim. I in the same vein apparently need to supply all the statements for you. That takes time. It would be stupid of you to believe otherwise.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

How is one supposed to supply proof that something wasn't said? By having on record every statement made. If you do not then you can not prove your claim. I in the same vein apparently need to supply all the statements for you. That takes time. It would be stupid of you to believe otherwise.

Heheh....yeah, that's a good one.

Oh wiat....you're serious?

No, you do not need to supply all the statements for me. Just one.

Here's my proof to you.

www.hardocp.com. Ther's the record of everything that was said.

It's all there...or the lack of it.

 

[Blackwind]

It's been tried. All that happens is that people get insulted publicly and banned from making any comments at [H]. Kyle doesn't want any assisting, even though it's been offered by the very people Brent came to learn from.

You do realize Kyle and Brent are two differant people right? I can not speak for either. I can only suggest you get in touch with them. Brent would be easier seeing he reads here.

Here is another good read for you Blackwind and read the whole thread, and remember the subject, they apperently had a nice candid chat with Nvidia, purposely to address the topic of 3D mark 03 as they say. So unless you want to continue putting words in Kyles mouth you may want to just drop the point and say [H] never admitted Nvidia did anything wrong and Nvidia never admitted to doing anything wrong. I remember that thread VERY well because that's the one that got me banned. Because of what? Because he didn't like the fact that I asked him why they went their for that particular reason and came back with 3 slides that say nothing about the fact and a clear statement from Nvidia about it.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=1659eb274993508bd442df2b4880226c&threadid=642149

hehe. Read it? You apparently have not. You have noticed I've already posted several times right? I've been following it since it began.

 

[Forbidden Donut]

How is one supposed to supply proof that something wasn't said? By having on record every statement made. If you do not then you can not prove your claim. I in the same vein apparently need to supply all the statements for you. That takes time. It would be stupid of you to believe otherwise.

Ok then, here is my proof:
link 1
link 2

Having sifted through everything contained in both links, I can assure you that nowhere in their does [H] say that NVidia was cheating in 3dmark or that NVidia cheating in 3dmark was wrong.


Your turn.

 

[Forbidden Donut]

Heheh....yeah, that's a good one.

Oh wiat....you're serious?

No, you do not need to supply all the statements for me. Just one.

Here's my proof to you.

www.hardocp.com. Ther's the record of everything that was said.

It's all there...or the lack of it.

Poo. Joe beat me to it...now my post looks all old and dated

 

[WaltC]

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.

What is so unbelievable about this is the level of contradiction.

First he says "If you want to compare the Quack situation to this, which is in no way apples to apples, so be it." OK, so if it's not the same thing why did Kyle himself describe the 3DMK03 scandal on the front page of [H] as "Quack2" on more than one occasion? It's very true that the Quack thing and the 3DMk03 thing are not remotely comparable for a number of significant reasons. It's also true that Kyle's own characterization of the 3DMK03 scandal on his website was to call it "Quack2". I'd love to hear his explanation on why he did *that*...

He pats himself on the back with:

"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."

(I'm sure Kyle got thank-you's galore from ATi for all of the "help" he provided them. *chuckle*) So, OK, why can't he "help" nVidia in the same fashion? He says:

"This situation with NVIDIA is not same and I think trying to do the same with them would simply be wasted resources."

In other words--let's just refrain from "helping" nVidia as we helped ATi, and let's concentrate on "helping" FutureMark by destroying the credibility of their benchmark software, if we can. Kyle is such a "helpful" person....

"Also to argue about synthetics and cheating in them would simply undermine our position taken on them in February of this year."

Translated: We said earlier this year we didn't like synthetic benchmarks, and nVidia doesn't like them either, so if we talked about nVidia cheating 3DMk03 that would hurt the case we're making for everyone to dump 3DMk03.

"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."

Ah, such a friendly attempt by Kyle at answering a question from one in his "community." Translated: "[H], love it or leave it."

Such a friendly, helpful chap... I'd really like to thank everyone who has taken the time to quote these comments--I had no idea things like this were being said in a forum at [H]. It's really opened my eyes--thank you. Whereas before I had only suspicions, now I have certitude.

 

[Blackwind]

How is one supposed to supply proof that something wasn't said? By having on record every statement made. If you do not then you can not prove your claim. I in the same vein apparently need to supply all the statements for you. That takes time. It would be stupid of you to believe otherwise.

Ok then, here is my proof:
link 1
link 2

Having sifted through everything contained in both links, I can assure you that nowhere in their does [H] say that NVidia was cheating in 3dmark or that NVidia cheating in 3dmark was wrong.


Your turn.

So basicly you just demonstrated you're lazy? Bravo. See that nifty search button up there? Search, FrgMstr (kyle) and Brent. EVEN BETTER! Search FrgMstr and place the word cheat on the other side! (gasp) filtering! Alright! Have fun. Most definitely an F for effort.

Same buddy sent me another link. I'm vey sure it doesnt say what you want but have fun reading.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=617736&highlight=cheat

 

[Forbidden Donut]

So basicly you just demonstrated you're lazy? Bravo. See that nifty search button up there? Search, FrgMstr (kyle) and Brent. Have fun. Most definitely an F for effort.

Ok, I have now redone my search using your criteria and have come up with more links!!

link 1
link 2

Phew, ok. Now, after being slightly less lazy, I can assure you that neither of those two links contain any information where [H] says that NVidia cheated in 3dmark or that their cheating in 3dmark was wrong.

On a mostly related note, I apologize for my side of the argument being easier to defend. Nature of the beast. And semi-seriously, I don't know what more you want me to do...I've been following this whole thing closely on MANY sites since it broke, and I have no desire to go through all the posts again to rediscover what I already know to be true...trust me, I've read those posts before.

edit: To my credit, I WAS non-lazy enough to type out those url tags all by myself.

 

[digitalwanderer]

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."

huh

i never said that

Do you know the real explanation for why it's never been reported on the main page? I feel it is a fair question as it kind of can be considered important news that your readers seem a tad un-informed about. (At least from their flame mails to me. )

 

[Blackwind]

and another link. Apparently my buddy isnt working. And I sure can't search for all this on this conference call.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=613531&perpage=15&highlight=cheat&pagenumber=1

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Phew, ok. Now, after being slightly less lazy

Not nearly as lazy as someone who relies on "buddies" to get links for him, and can't even pull quotes out of them once he gets them.

 

[Forbidden Donut]

and another link. Apparently my buddy isnt working. And I sure can't search for all this on this conference call.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=613531&perpage=15&highlight=cheat&pagenumber=1

Ok...haven't re-read the whole post yet, but the first page provided me with some nice material.

Here is where you have to see the difference between GAME benchmarking and SYNTHETIC benchmarking.

This is what ET said about what they found, "During our analysis of Game Test 4, we paused the benchmark, went into the free-look mode, and moved "off the rail" in the 3D scene. Once we did that, serious drawing errors were readily apparent. We interpreted these results to indicate that nVidia was adding static clip planes into the scene. These static clip planes reduce the amount of sky that the GPU has to draw, thus reducing the pixel shader workload and boosting performance."

Do you see a problem NVIDIA doing this for this synthetic benchmark? What they do is draw the scene more efficiently as they know what is going to exactly happen in the scene. All the pixels that you can see, are still there and rendered properly. The problem here is to ponder, is NV cheating or are the optimizing for this specific application? Seeing that 3DMark is not based on a game engine and cannot be "played" what is wrong with them making it work better and more efficiently?

There was more to his post, but I think this is pretty much all that was needed.

So anyways, blackwind, you were saying?

 

[Blackwind]

On a mostly related note, I apologize for my side of the argument being easier to defend. Nature of the beast. And semi-seriously, I don't know what more you want me to do...I've been following this whole thing closely on MANY sites since it broke, and I have no desire to go through all the posts again to rediscover what I already know to be true...trust me, I've read those posts before.

edit: To my credit, I WAS non-lazy enough to type out those url tags all by myself.

No apology neccessary. While you may believe it to be true I believe it not to be the case. Kyle and crew have made their expressions of displeasure. I'd also think you would have voiced that much louder then with only 122 or so post.

 

[Blackwind]

Ummm, settle down Beavis.

Kind regards,

Tommy McClain

I have black hair. There ends the resemblance.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Same buddy sent me another link. I'm vey sure it doesnt say what you want but have fun reading.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=617736&highlight=cheat

you are kidding right? Here's some quotes from Kyle:

So to directly answer your question, I am not sure how one can cheat at altering the score of a benchmark that obviously has no value to begin with. The real losers here are the persons that actually think that the 3Dmark03 score really means something. The overall 3Dmark03 score is absolutely useless for gauging anything about video hardware when it comes to evaluating real world gaming situations. BUT, if it was a real game and NVIDIA was pulling this BS, we would be happy to see their asses publicly whipped. If NVIDIA goes there, I think we will obviously know who is smoking the hallucinogens then.

Because he doesn't like 3DMark 2003, it's allright to cheat on it. If Nvidia was cheating it would be a big deal, but as you can't cheat on a benchmark Kyle doesn't like, they'd be no reason to call Nvidia on it, right?

1. Actually NVIDIA has said nothing directly to me on this issue as I have not discussed it with them. Unless you count circumstantial evidence, I don't think you have proof that it is not a bug. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this. Also I might add even after ATI got caught red-handed with the Quack driver issue their final official response was that it was a bug. ATI's Rick Bergman, Senior Vice President, Marketing and General Manager, Desktop, told me that directly to my face in a meeting. It was my opinion that they were cheating and still is.

So Kyle thinks that Quack was a definate cheat even though the game rendered both timedemo and game identically. Nvidia outputing low quality shaders, not clearing buffers, and inserting static clip planes is okay because 3Dmark2003 has "no value". Lowering filtering quality in UTK is now okay because they "can't see the difference". Rendering timedemos differently is okay because "you can't see it".

At no time does he say that he is disappointed in Nvidia for cheating - in fact he denies that they do any cheating at all.

 

[Blackwind]

doh