OMG HARDOCP REVIEW OF UT2003 AND FILTERING

[Atomahawk]

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.

Don't dodge the question with HEHE! Were in that thread do's Kyle or [H] explicitly answer the question in regards to Nvidia’s cheating and they felt it was wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by creedAMD
What did they admit screwing up?

Kyles response. Did you not read the slides? Is it not obvious to you? Please go back and read the problem statement and solution slides again.

He may put words in Nvidia’s mouth but doesn’t admit [H] felt it was wrong.

And you wont find any admittance to the fact there or any where because that’s not how Kyle feels about it, and it’s that simple. Either you offer proof or admit you have none.

 

[Blackwind]

And you wont find any admittance to the fact there or any where because that’s not how Kyle feels about it, and it’s that simple. Either you offer proof or admit you have none.

Riggggghhht.

 

[FUDie]

I think we can accomplish that provided SYSCO Corporation has all they need with the present write up and the details in it. The network and the capacity planning efforts are focal to their objectives and we are delivering IMO.

Huh?

 

[kemosabe]

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.

Indeed. Seems to me this is becoming a dead-end thread where we could spend hours dredging up old posts only to be told that "What Kyle said or didn't say was not necessarily what he thought. You are not in possession of the facts."

I elect to respectfully disagree with the position of our friend Blackwind until such time as he presents the type of clearcut evidence that he claims resides in one or several of those [H] threads.

Bonne chance, kemosabe!

 

[Althornin]

Blackwind, why can you not comprehend the nature of arguing your position?

To use an analogy, i'd like you prove that god doesnt exist! Oh wait, its IMPOSSIBLE. Just as it is impossible for anyone here to prove to that Kyle DIDNT say something without simply quoting everything he has ever said - which, by linking to the [H], they have effectively done...

You, OTOH, have the capability to easily disprove us. All you must do is provide a SINGLE link showing that he has said something. So please, cut tot he chase here, ok?


I'd also like to respond to your assasination attmept on me 4 pages ago:

Well, apples to apples is Impossible....not just difficult, but impossible. The difference in methods with current competing hardware makes it so. One still must strive to get as close as possible. Nice way to dodge the point though.

And the conclusion is not the point. When will you get it through your head that i am not some fanperson, intent on some ATI favoring review conclusion? My arguments dont exist because "my favorite company didnt win", they exist because what the [H] has done is intellectually dishonest!

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

You didnt state i was a fanperson: You sure implied it, by stating:

I have to ask, where on earth do you see an "unfair advantage to nVidia" with the conclusion of [H] continued recommendation of a 9800 over a 5900? I call that a very clouded opinion.

Now, this implies that i care more about which card was favored in the conclusion than i do about the methods. That makes me a fanperson - which i am not.
On your "agreement and disagreement": You stated that apples to apples was difficult but possible:

I stated it was near impossible, very difficult, a hard task to accomplish

problem is, it really is impossible...That was my point.
A further response to your "lose emotions" strawman attack is not nessesary.

But, i would like to remind you that simply because you do not think that what the [H] has done is dishonest, doesnt make it honest.
I'd like to see a rational argument from you, that doesnt skip over everything as you are prone to do (i cite the last 5 pages) that explains how realizing that you are doing a flawed comparison (kyle had the info two months ago, and he was the editor for the review) and not mentioning it is anything but intellectually dishonest.

 

[Blackwind]

I think we can accomplish that provided SYSCO Corporation has all they need with the present write up and the details in it. The network and the capacity planning efforts are focal to their objectives and we are delivering IMO.

Huh?

DOH. Sorry. I'm in IM with my team and in a conference call reviewing some items. I accidently copied my response from IM on the board and posted. DUH. Sorry

 

[digitalwanderer]

And you wont find any admittance to the fact there or any where because that’s not how Kyle feels about it, and it’s that simple. Either you offer proof or admit you have none.

Riggggghhht.

I agree with Atomahawk on this one and don't understand the basis for your sarcastic reply.

 

[Blackwind]

You didnt state i was a fanperson: You sure implied it, by stating:

I have to ask, where on earth do you see an "unfair advantage to nVidia" with the conclusion of [H] continued recommendation of a 9800 over a 5900? I call that a very clouded opinion.

Now, this implies that i care more about which card was favored in the conclusion than i do about the methods. That makes me a fanperson - which i am not.
On your "agreement and disagreement": You stated that apples to apples was difficult but possible:

I stated it was near impossible, very difficult, a hard task to accomplish

problem is, it really is impossible...That was my point.
A further response to your "lose emotions" strawman attack is not nessesary.

But, i would like to remind you that simply because you do not think that what the [H] has done is dishonest, doesnt make it honest.
I'd like to see a rational argument from you, that doesnt skip over everything as you are prone to do (i cite the last 5 pages) that explains how realizing that you are doing a flawed comparison (kyle had the info two months ago, and he was the editor for the review) and not mentioning it is anything but intellectually dishonest.

Seeing I have to get going to a dinner appointment I will leave it with this.

A) I do not find anything dishonest about what [H]ard has done in regards to UT2k3 or their efforts.
B) I do not believe ANY vendor has the right to adjust what is a setting on my video card.
C) I believe can accomplish a FAIR review of present offerings from both ATI and Nvidia, though it is very difficult.
D) I believe after the effort of doing such a review not everyone will be happy with your outcome of methods.

This does not make one dishonest or deceitful.

 

[Atomahawk]

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.

Indeed. Seems to me this is becoming a dead-end thread where we could spend hours dredging up old posts only to be told that "What Kyle said or didn't say was not necessarily what he thought. You are not in possession of the facts."

I elect to respectfully disagree with the position of our friend Blackwind until such time as he presents the type of clearcut evidence that he claims resides in one or several of those [H] threads.

Bonne chance, kemosabe!

I agree, at this point in time to continue would be pointless until Blackwind actually has something of value to include. At least Brent wouldn't allow Blackwind to put words in his mouth.

Blackwind wrote:
Heathen wrote:
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
_________________
Regards,
Brent

 

[digitalwanderer]

You didnt state i was a fanperson: You sure implied it, by stating:

I have to ask, where on earth do you see an "unfair advantage to nVidia" with the conclusion of [H] continued recommendation of a 9800 over a 5900? I call that a very clouded opinion.

Now, this implies that i care more about which card was favored in the conclusion than i do about the methods. That makes me a fanperson - which i am not.
On your "agreement and disagreement": You stated that apples to apples was difficult but possible:

I stated it was near impossible, very difficult, a hard task to accomplish

problem is, it really is impossible...That was my point.
A further response to your "lose emotions" strawman attack is not nessesary.

But, i would like to remind you that simply because you do not think that what the [H] has done is dishonest, doesnt make it honest.
I'd like to see a rational argument from you, that doesnt skip over everything as you are prone to do (i cite the last 5 pages) that explains how realizing that you are doing a flawed comparison (kyle had the info two months ago, and he was the editor for the review) and not mentioning it is anything but intellectually dishonest.

Seeing I have to get going to a dinner appointment I will leave it with this.

A) I do not find anything dishonest about what [H]ard has done in regards to UT2k3 or their efforts.
B) I do not believe ANY vendor has the right to adjust what is a setting on my video card.
C) I believe can accomplish a FAIR review of present offerings from both ATI and Nvidia, though it is very difficult.
D) I believe after the effort of doing such a review not everyone will be happy with your outcome of methods.

This does not make one dishonest or deceitful.

A) If all the evidence presented here can't convince you, I don't think it's worth it to try and change your mind. (However, you are wrong. )
B) Agreed
C) Who do you believe can accomplish such a FAIR review, or did you mean in general?
D) The point of a review isn't to make people happy, it's to accurately and fairly analyze/compare a product.

 

[WaltC]

1. Actually NVIDIA has said nothing directly to me on this issue as I have not discussed it with them....

As an aside, have you ever noticed how he says he's "not talked with nVidia" when it's convenient and how he says things like "I talked to them two months ago in a meeting about this very thing..." when it's also convenient to name drop? Heh...I daresay in the last invention of this kind I suppose he didn't realize that admitting prior knowledge of nVidia's UT2K3 partial trilinear mode substitution for full trilinear made it appear that he was a willing co-conspirator. Funny, too, how everyone else seems to have been told nVidia would *not* be using a performance-mode trilinear any longer and that the only reason it had ever been used in the first place was for debugging purposes. *chuckle* Man, I can't remember a company ever admitting to so many "bugs" in its drivers before! Seems to be the stock response: "Tell 'em it's a bug." Ah, such confidence that instills... "We aren't dishonest--heavens, no! We just make the buggiest drivers in 3D-card history--that's what it is!" Heh-Heh..."bugs" which just so happen to not be visible unless the 3DMk03 camera goes off track, and "bugs" which magically increase the speed at which the benchmark runs by ~30%...

 

[Brent]

You didnt state i was a fanperson: You sure implied it, by stating:

I have to ask, where on earth do you see an "unfair advantage to nVidia" with the conclusion of [H] continued recommendation of a 9800 over a 5900? I call that a very clouded opinion.

Now, this implies that i care more about which card was favored in the conclusion than i do about the methods. That makes me a fanperson - which i am not.
On your "agreement and disagreement": You stated that apples to apples was difficult but possible:

I stated it was near impossible, very difficult, a hard task to accomplish

problem is, it really is impossible...That was my point.
A further response to your "lose emotions" strawman attack is not nessesary.

But, i would like to remind you that simply because you do not think that what the [H] has done is dishonest, doesnt make it honest.
I'd like to see a rational argument from you, that doesnt skip over everything as you are prone to do (i cite the last 5 pages) that explains how realizing that you are doing a flawed comparison (kyle had the info two months ago, and he was the editor for the review) and not mentioning it is anything but intellectually dishonest.

Seeing I have to get going to a dinner appointment I will leave it with this.

A) I do not find anything dishonest about what [H]ard has done in regards to UT2k3 or their efforts.
B) I do not believe ANY vendor has the right to adjust what is a setting on my video card.
C) I believe can accomplish a FAIR review of present offerings from both ATI and Nvidia, though it is very difficult.
D) I believe after the effort of doing such a review not everyone will be happy with your outcome of methods.

This does not make one dishonest or deceitful.

E) I aint goin anywhere

i still read this forum among many other, i happen to like all the knowledge that can be learned from here, I still think this site is valuable for the community and in getting 'beyond3d'

there are a lot of smart people here

 

[Atomahawk]

And you wont find any admittance to the fact there or any where because that’s not how Kyle feels about it, and it’s that simple. Either you offer proof or admit you have none.

Riggggghhht.

I agree with Atomahawk on this one and don't understand the basis for your sarcastic reply.

You make it sound like agreeing with me is a bad thing! LOL

 

[Forbidden Donut]

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.

I'm not entirely sure what the implication here is, but I have been reading [H] for about 5 or 6 years now. I've only been registered on the forums for 2 years, and I've only made 120+ posts, but that doesn't mean I don't read. I made plenty of posts over there (in fact, I would guesstimate a majority of the 120+) concerning the 3dmark issues and the ut2k3 issues. I stated clearly that I didn't agree with sweeping it under the rug. I even exchanged a couple emails with Kyle concerning some of the more recent developments, and while I still don't agree with sweeping issues under the rug, I can accept the fact that [H] does things differently than I would in their place. That's their prerogative. That also doesn't mean I have to approve of it.

As a side-note, Kyle was very cordial in our email correspondence.

My post count doesn't mean anything in terms of how well informed I am. I don't usually feel the need to post a million times about something. I don't like debating things over the internet. It's not my style. Sometimes, like this time, I'm compelled to do so

 

[Althornin]

seeing I have to get going to a dinner appointment I will leave it with this.

A) I do not find anything dishonest about what [H]ard has done in regards to UT2k3 or their efforts.
B) I do not believe ANY vendor has the right to adjust what is a setting on my video card.
C) I believe can accomplish a FAIR review of present offerings from both ATI and Nvidia, though it is very difficult.
D) I believe after the effort of doing such a review not everyone will be happy with your outcome of methods.

This does not make one dishonest or deceitful.

In answer to (A) - nice way to dodge the bullet. Stateing it does not a case make. However, i've lined up MY case below. Feel free to refute it...
In answer to (B) mostly agree, however i do think that turning off features that will cause crashes/glitches is fine, IF the user is notified
(C) Agreed, but its not true apples to apples, ever. But its intellectually dishonest to not be as close as possible...
(D) Probably not. But the point of reviews isnt to "please" people, its to educate them.

When you get back, i'm looking forward to your response to the info i just dug up.

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

Moving to “Applicationâ€￾ mode, we are forcing the application itself to dictate the level of quality which will be used. Through using this mode and selecting Trilinear Filtering within the game, we are assured that this level of image quality will be used. Viewing the first image above, we finally see a situation where Trilinear Filtering is present in its full capacity. With this setting selected, the mip-map colors effectively meld with one another to create a smooth transition throughout the scene. Once 8X AF is selected, we are again presented with the level of image quality we have been searching for. Here, each color seamlessly blends into the next creating a very clean image. This is the setting that illustrates that "application" mode is the only true way to compare the NVIDIA cards with the ATI cards running Trilinear Filtering.

ATI vs. NVIDIA Comparison
Quality Settings

(Apples-To-Apples At Last)

As you can see above we have now found a level of image quality that we can say is "fair" for benchmarking. You can see the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra's image is now on par with the Radeon 9500 Pro by referencing the above mip-map paths and transitions. True Trilinear Filtering is enabled within the game along with maximum image quality settings. The 9500 Pro is running in "Quality" mode whereas the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra is utilizing "Application". Now that we know that NVIDIA is handling filtering in ways that we are used to, be it wrong or right, we can adjust and make sure that we have comparable frame rate data.

You will note that the above is from an earlier review at [H], in which they decide the only "fair" "apples to apples" comparison is nVidia's Quality to ATI's Quality.

Now, i bring exibit two:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7025&start=20

D3D tester renamed to UT 2003.exe-Bilinear/Trilinear

FX 5800 Balanced Mode From Beyond3D's Preview

D3D tester not renamed-Trilinear

So it has LOTS to do with it.

http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/gffxu/index.php?p=20

Oops.
How is it not intellectually dishonest to agree that balanced is not apples to apples, and then later use what is effectively balanced mode and call it a fair comparison???

 

[digitalwanderer]

And you wont find any admittance to the fact there or any where because that’s not how Kyle feels about it, and it’s that simple. Either you offer proof or admit you have none.

Riggggghhht.

I agree with Atomahawk on this one and don't understand the basis for your sarcastic reply.

You make it sound like agreeing with me is a bad thing! LOL

I didn't mean to imply that at all, I think you're absolutely correct and was just agreeing with you.

Sorry if I implied otherwise, I blame it on me new commitment to be a bit more subdued here...

 

[mondoterrifico]

Whew

Aside from the comedic value of Blackwind's posts this thread is way to long for such a cut and dry issue.

1)Nvidia are "optimizing" for a specific benchmark.
2)Some lame reviewers haven't the "tools" to be objective.
3)Nvidia said they weren't gonna do 1) any more but did.
4)Some lame reviewer said they were the Benchmark Slayer and talked of apples alot and how they would only compare apples or some such thingy.
5)Some lame reviewer forgot that he was the Benchmark Slayer and all about the apples.
6)Much banning occured for suggesting that apples be used.
7)Clearly a more suitable fruit needs to be chosen next time to avoid sticky situations such as the need for objectivity and thruthfullness.

 

[Blackwind]

E) I aint goin anywhere

i still read this forum among many other, i happen to like all the knowledge that can be learned from here, I still think this site is valuable for the community and in getting 'beyond3d'

there are a lot of smart people here

Thank God.

On another note, I'll cease to even attempt to apply facts to an otherwise purely speculative and very much unsopported conversation here. Like you, I'll keep readin and learning what I can where I can.

I'm home. I'm dressed. I'm off to dinner.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I'll cease to even attempt to apply facts to an otherwise purely speculative and very much unsopported conversation here. Like you, I'll keep readin and learning what I can where I can.

I'm home. I'm dressed. I'm off to dinner.

I hope you enjoy your dinner. When you come back could you please just address the issues asked of you rather than dance around the question?

 

[Atomahawk]

And you wont find any admittance to the fact there or any where because that’s not how Kyle feels about it, and it’s that simple. Either you offer proof or admit you have none.

Riggggghhht.

I agree with Atomahawk on this one and don't understand the basis for your sarcastic reply.

You make it sound like agreeing with me is a bad thing! LOL

I didn't mean to imply that at all, I think you're absolutely correct and was just agreeing with you.

Sorry if I implied otherwise, I blame it on me new commitment to be a bit more subdued here...

LOL, why change, your an emotional type, let it flow, LOL,
BTW, I was only kidding; I read enough of your post's to know that. Your apology is not accepted, because you had no reason to give one.