OMG HARDOCP REVIEW OF UT2003 AND FILTERING

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by bloodbob, Jul 21, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nelg

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Toronto
    Blackwind, after looking at this thread it seems to me that Kyle is very carful to avoid using the word “cheatâ€￾.
    http://www.hardforum.com/showthread...ge=15&highlight=3dmark and cheat&pagenumber=1

    Q.
    A.
    When Guru3d was making similar remarks as Kyle was about the usefulness of 3Dmark03 I wrote the following, just change Guru3D to [H].
     
  2. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,142
    Likes Received:
    1,673
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Well on the plus side it looks like there is a lot of interest in this thread at least. As of this posting it's just tickling the 13k view count in 5 days or so!

    Methinks some people ARE getting the message. :)
     
  3. Althornin

    Althornin Senior Lurker
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    5
    What ARE you talking about?
    How about you read my last post, where i quote [H] saying apples to apples is closest when its full trilinear, and that balanced isnt close enough - then i show you screenshots of balanced and "quality" with UT2K3 optimizations on (look just about the same).

    If you call that unsupported, then its obvious that you are merely here to ignore that evidence which you dont like - not here to actually indulge in a real honest conversation.

    Please, tell me whats so "unsupported"? Other than your argument that "kyle said thus-and-such" with no quotes or links to back it up, i dont see anything here labeled as fact that is unsupported. Please respond to the issues at hand - no more trying to cover up your lack of evidence with sour grapes and straw man attacks.
     
  4. Randell

    Randell Senior Daddy
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    London
    we're on page 22 haven't you worked out yet that's not going to work?
     
  5. Blackwind

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    ??

    I have never once stated any of the information regarding Bilinear or Trilinear was unsupported. what I HAVE stated was directly, the opinion of [H] as a whole was unsupported. You sir do not have to share my opinion. No one here does. But unless the moderators here are more hot air then substance, you will respect that opinion. The very same way I will respect yours. Simply because you are itchy for a fight does not mean I need to entertain it. Continued attempts at sckewing what I HAVE said is absurb. And you wonder why things are said about B3D forum members on [H]?

    Done with dinner. Out for drinks.
     
  6. Bolloxoid

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find Kyle's "3dmark is destroying our community" statement hysterically funny.

    Of course, there's nothing particularly funny about the way he can absorb such an absurd idea and begin championing the cause of a certain hardware company so enthusiastically.
     
  7. Blackwind

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Whew

    :shock:

    Uh huh.

    You have the patience of Buddha. :p
     
  8. Atomahawk

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if this was posted on front page of [H] web sight July 18th and written by Kyle.

    http://www.hardocp.com/newsarchives.html?news=SnVseSwyMDAzLDUsNDA=

    NVIDIA Driver Changes:
    Kyle "We have had some long and very candid conversations with a lot of the top brass from NVIDIA this week. At the forefront of those discussions a topic that has been on everyone's mind. We have wanted the straight story on the 3DMark fiasco and NVIDIA wanted to talk about solutions so it would not happen again. Here are three slides from an internal presentation that are worth a thousand words, so I will let them talk for themselves.

    Your thoughts on these new NVIDIA Optimization Guidelines are more important than our editorializing on it currently, but surely we will be doing that soon. Please feel free to share your opinions because we certainly want to hear them."

    What was interesting was, we were invited to discuss this, and when we did no where do’s he admit to any cheating though he starts off by calling it a fiasco and the reason for seeing them, 2 months after the fact. LOL. He also mentions the slides as Nvidia’s admittance to cheating which I certainly can not see (but apparently he can), and I questioned him on it. Stating that we have no idea when these were made, who made them, under what context, and what the speaker was saying at the time of the presentation. Thus no concrete evidence that Nvidia admitted to anything, and that he was putting words in Nvidia’s mouth.

    Also I asked , “since they never got a clear admittance of wrongdoingâ€￾ and were having this nice candid discussion with the top brass at Nvidia. Did they ask about Shadermark , The Fraps comment made by Nvidia, 3d mark 01, UT 2003, Splinter cell etc. My point being, they have this nice long conversation and they never questioned or brought up any issue that has been plaguing Nvidia’s credibility. (this post was deleted wonder why).

    If you care to read the whole thread that ensued from the article or power point pictures you can find it here. http://www.hardforum.com/showthread...9a3ae&threadid=642149&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

    The reason for this long post is simple, this was the last time Kyle discussed 3dmark 03 and cheating and no where do's he say Nvidia cheated besides saying "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 think so, he may try in a round the bout way indicate it, but to say it out right, somethings holding him back. Either of 2 things comes to mind, he can't admit he took the wrong position and was wrong or he can't say so for un certain reasons, you be the judge
     
  9. kemosabe

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,001
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    I went back and reread that entire thread this afternoon, and Kyle's meanderings elicited a familiar reaction...

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Fred da Roza

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    2
    Isn't this really proof that Kyle applied a double standard (if any more was required). Clearly Kyle knew both ATI and nVidia cheated (although he won't actually say nVidia did). But because, in his opinion, publicly exposing nVidia’s cheats would not have a positive effect (like he claims it did for ATI), he didn’t. Even if we were to assume his premise (no effect on nVidia, positive with ATI) was correct, he applied a different standard strictly on the basis of who was cheating. Regardless of the outcome that is the essence of a double standard.

    Now Kyle and Blackwind would argue that 3Dmark03 is not a game. Well, unless something has changed, UT2003 is. In his Quack editorial Kyle concluded:


    Aren’t the driver “optimizations†nVidia used for UT2003 game specific? Didn’t nVidia also sacrifice image quality for speed while misrepresenting what their card was delivering? Isn’t UT2003 a game that is widely used for benchmarks that people trust? Oh how times have changed.

    He goes on to say:

    I agree!!! I also think it is important that consumers be armed with this type of information when evaluating their next video card purchase, especially when the information is ethically obtained. So why weren’t the nVidia UT2003 cheats exposed?


    As a side note I would like to say I have never seen any intentional bias in Brent’s evaluations and his conduct in [H] forums.
     
  11. WaltC

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    BelleVue Sanatorium, Billary, NY. Patient privile
    (phrase in italics added by me for context, clarity.)

    Yep, Fred--good quote. Right out of the horse's mouth.
     
  12. brent_anderson

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Whew

    :D

    I had to register to say this is the funniest thing I have read in a long time! Maybe since I have been reading Terry Pratchett recently is why!

    Sometimes it is amazing how worked up we get over stuff. 3dfx all over again, man I hated to see them go down, it still hurts!

    "22bit is just as good as 32 bit, why are you looking around anyway, you should be fraggin'" :wink:

    Thanks for the LOL....

    Brent

    Oh-yea, NVIDIA is optimizing, ("COUGH,cheating,COUGH"), and got caught at it! (again). And based on the past statements Kyle made during the Quake/Quack thingy, IE: "Quake 3 is widely used as a benchmark, so cheating, ("COUGH,optimizing,COUGH"), should NOT be accepted!" (or something like that), he has painted himself into a corner and I do not know how he is going to get out gracefully.

    Too bad really, I kind of like the dude and his site, even if it is 1/3 students. Ahhh, to be young again…..
     
  13. demalion

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    CT
    Re: My take

    I outlined that in detail by specifying what your commentary requires to be ignored to hold together. I then proceeded to outline my view of the relationship between the things you seem to ignore (while listing them) and the article, and point out how your portrayal of the article as something unrelated to them (describing the article as just being a comparison of IQ, without the context of fps/performance comparisons and hardware comparisons that the article was specifically concerning) depends on that relationship not existing.

    If you understand my outlining of the relationship of those factors, then you can see why I'm saying your portraying the article as simply a matter of image quality comparison, without further context as people are criticizing, depends on ignoring it.

    There is a useful "level of review" that selectively emphasizes and outlines a particular facet of what I outlined.

    There is not a useful "level of reviewing" that selectively takes into account just one facet without taking the relevance of the underlying factors into account.

    Now, an individual review might get by without taking the complete picture into account, but that's a case of ignorance (in the author or the review/article) sufficing by chance. In this issue, that chance isn't panning out.

    You are proposing that I'm talking about a useful "level of review" in the context of what they emphasize and go into detail about in a review, when I'm continually trying to make it clear that I'm talking about a "level of reviewing" concerning what is taken into account. Simplifying the way you look at things just makes you prone to fail to take things into account...a reviewer does not have an excuse for that. Simplifying the way you present things is something else entirely.
    Until you take the time to separate them, your only insisting that outright wrong evaluations aren't possible if someone really believes them. The "opinions are like a..." example I mentioned.

    This commentary looks completely nonsensical. Banning people for disagreeing you is not "very open". Your simply saying that in contradiction to extensive examples of behavior, attitude, and reactions, and clear contrast to, for example, Wavey here at B3D (Dave Baumann) makes a mockery out of the concept of "very open". If you persist in saying things like this you are making conversation impossible. I mean, come on....banning, thread deletion...you are just making yourself look blind.

    Of course, if you really hold this opinion, you have every right to defend and support it by pointing out how the opposing opinion is incorrect. But, you're not doing that at all, you're just repeating your evaluation, and holding everyone else to a standard of conduct you completely fail to apply to Kyle. Accusing Extremetech of writing their article as retaliation for not getting to bench Doom 3, and of B3D of being a mouthpiece for this ET tantrum, as Kyle (and, I think, Steve) did, is a deeper insult than any I've seen levelled at Kyle, and with less justification to boot. But was Kyle banned from these forums?

    What kind of sense does your "very open" comment make? You're going to have to do some work to establish that you are making sense, you don't just get out of the burden of proof by believing something, you have to have some sort of objective indication relevant to the issue.

    You keep saying that, but you don't seem able to include Kyle. Since you are being targetted only because you are defending Kyle's stance and the way other members of the site are falling into line behind it, your finding it important does not clarify things, just makes your defense more puzzling.

    Umm...the focal of the article was responding to an allegation that there is a problem in the way UT2k3 was used in a hardware review. You're excluding the relationships I discussed again.

    Yes, it does. When they fail to face them...they're...failing. That's what has become tougher...not just the task, but what is required to do a good job in order to succeed at the task. [H] can't seem to accept being bluntly told they are failing, at all.

    Another thing, you seem to take [H] as referring to everyone who posts at [H] for some reason. As far as I'm concerned in criticism I've levelled at [H], it means Kyle, foremost, and Steve and Brent and Pelly (I haven't noticed that he has yet, actually) when their viewpoints seem to coincide with what I'm criticizing. It only applies to general forum posters when they do the same, though the forum population seems likely to have such members in greater proportion due to the moderation policies. Outside the specifics I've mentioned for your converstion here, it doesn't mean you, and it is confusing when you comment as if it did at certain points.

    This statement doesn't make sense. Assuming you mean knowing about the UT2k3 targetting while using 3dmark03 targetting as substantion for 3dkmark03 being unsuitable for benchmarking, which is my current understanding of what Kyle has said to be true, your simply stating you don't find that suspect doesn't accomplish anything for exhibiting what reason you have for that opinion.

    Well, I didn't argue to establish an agenda in their reviews, I referred to their accusations of agenda's in others. My mention of the Ut2k3/3dmark 03 issue, as just above, might seem to imply an agenda, but I'm just stating my understanding of the situation and why I think there is a problem with it. Again, I don't see what point your saying you don't consider there being an agenda accomplishes in terms of supporting itself.

    And they didn't use them. And that's where we are.
    This is supposed to be the bare minimum of webmaster/reader interaction, not something brought up as remarkable. Doesn't address all the comments along those lines that resulted in bans, and thread and post deletions.
    Non sequitor, AFAICS.
    Do you have any clear indication and discussion of support for this assertion to bring to the table to counter the observations about moderation and things Kyle has said that have already provided, or do your maintain your opinion is significant merely because you hold it?
     
  14. Atomahawk

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0

    You now mention were criticizing your opinion! What the $%#@ , did I miss something were we talking about religion or philosophy here? I thought we were talking about facts, as it pertains to [H] not mentioning clearly and coherently they thought Nvidia cheated. And they [H] thought it wrong!
     
  15. Yonex

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    To call Kyle anything

    even closely related to open is a total and complete joke.

    Ask me about my ban? Ask me why I was banned for on topic, relevant, non flaming, straightforward, questions?

    Particularly the ones relating to Kyle's post that he knew about these driver issues months ago but did nothing because it would do no good.

    As I pointed out then and again now.
    That can only lead to 2 conoclusions:

    Originally posted by FrgMstr
    I have said it before and I will state it again, this situation is not as simple as Quack was a couple years ago. The game is totally different and quite honestly, all the bitching and complaining in the world is not going to change NVIDIA's actions. It is a DONE DEAL.

    Originally posted by FrgMstr
    Exposing Quack changed things, I knew months ago exposing what NVIDIA is doing would not change the way they are doing anything. At that point, I decided to move forward and not waste our energy spinning our wheels. I can only wish, as much energy would have been put into solving the problem as there has been about griping about it and exposing it.

    Why is it a done deal? What is it about nvidia that makes them unable to be approached with this information?

    Why would bringing this information public not have an impact?

    When did you know this information?

    What do you know Nvidia is doing?

    How could readers spend the same amount of energy solving the problem?

    This is the part that blows me away. Here you state you knew what Nvidia was doing months ago. What? You knew about his months ago and said nothing to us? If this is true I am stunned. How could you possibly know this and not post it on your front page and seriously look into re-evaluate at the very least the most recent reviews?

    You continued to post flawed benchmarks?

    I want to make sure I got this right. That is huge news.

    Originally posted by FrgMstr
    Exposing Quack changed things, I knew months ago exposing what NVIDIA is doing would not change the way they are doing anything. At that point, I decided to move forward and not waste our energy spinning our wheels.

    How could you know about this for months, Kyle and not tell us? Whether it would change a damn thing with Nvidia is irrelevant. We your readers would have known.

    Please tell me how the person that is so "OPEN" banned me for that.

    Since these posts he has now come out with the infamous, I talked to Nvidia about it and they are changing. What? Didn't you just say ,and I quote,"I knew months ago exposing what NVIDIA is doing would not change the way they are doing anything." He has painted himself in a corner with double speak and those of us that paid attention caught it.


    I challenge anyone to find a single factual mistake in anything I have posted.
     
  16. Fred da Roza

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    2
    LOL, I must have missed that small print.

    The rest was too sarcastic.
     
  17. Pete

    Pete Moderate Nuisance
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,925
    Likes Received:
    315
    Why do you people bother? The past few pages have made it painfully obvious Blackwind doesn't interpret the evidence [H] presented the way many of us do, nor does he care to understand why many of us view Kyle in such a negative light. This is just one large rhetorical run-around--no need to continue wasting forum space on it, IMO.
     
  18. Atomahawk

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the flag may I use it sometimes? LOL
     
  19. Reverend

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    24
    Agreed. I went to sleep last night with this thread at page 16 (I think) and I was amazed to find an additional 100 or so posts 8 hours later that has served no answers to the majority that was seeking it.

    I have expressed my opinions about what I think [H] is about, what B3D is about, what I think is the difference between the [H] forums and ours and , perhaps, how [H] and B3D may differ when it comes to their respective intentions for having a website per se and a website with a forum. In case anyone missed it, it is at http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=644163&perpage=15&pagenumber=7 (there was a mistake in my post... B3D isn't in the 17000+ bracket... we're in the 12000+ bracket... Dave corrected me :) ).

    I'm going to lock this thread as I feel that those seeking answers from poor old Blackwind will not get any. This thread would stand if Kyle chosed to seek time out from his busy schedule and priorities to answer some of the puzzles presented by some in this thread... he hasn't done that, neither has Brent, nor do I think either will ever. Because what is most important is to hear it from Kyle himself, instead of a person (Blackwind) that apparently sees Kyle's POV and position, hasn't and won't likely happen, sorry guys.

    Let me know if I should create a new forum called "Kyle".
     
  20. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,079
    Likes Received:
    648
    Location:
    O Canada!
    One final note.

    On the subject of Epic's involvement with this take note of the following from Rev's post in which he first mentions this: "a few days ago I'd asked Tim Sweeney if Epic approves/agrees to what NVIDIA's drivers are doing in UT2003."

    The bold is not immediately obvious, but pertinent.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...