R520 benchmarks - Hardware Analysis
- Thread starter Sxotty
- Start date
- Status
<Why is there no "edit" button on this forum> 
Also I think that if both parties here would have acted a little differently the entire war could have been prevented. Sander could have approached ATi with the benches before he put them online, and - the other way around - ATi could have contacted Sander personally to discuss the benches (and his article) direcly after he put them online. They might have found a solution for this issue without damaging eachothers reputations.
But, then again, I guess Sander wanted to "surprise" ATi, and ATi simply wanted nothing to do with him after the "surprise", deciding to attack the benches (and Sander) via R3D and DH (until the post from Andrzej that is).
Because of the responses on both sides, both ATi and Sander were drawn into very defensive polarized positions... and usually actual truth and being reasonable is the first thing to go under those circumstances.
Besides what I said in my previous post: not coming out in the open, but fighting the war in the shades via 3rd parties always makes things worse i.m.o... personally I am for either fighting things out head to head in public, or fighting things out in private... but please leave others out of the actual battle.digitalwanderer said:How do you think that made things worse than a totally phony and intentionally skewed "preview" done out of spite?
Also I think that if both parties here would have acted a little differently the entire war could have been prevented. Sander could have approached ATi with the benches before he put them online, and - the other way around - ATi could have contacted Sander personally to discuss the benches (and his article) direcly after he put them online. They might have found a solution for this issue without damaging eachothers reputations.
But, then again, I guess Sander wanted to "surprise" ATi, and ATi simply wanted nothing to do with him after the "surprise", deciding to attack the benches (and Sander) via R3D and DH (until the post from Andrzej that is).
Because of the responses on both sides, both ATi and Sander were drawn into very defensive polarized positions... and usually actual truth and being reasonable is the first thing to go under those circumstances.
digitalwanderer said:
Being right can cover a lot of sins (i.e. the benchies were reasonably accurate). I suspect the muttering at ATI would have been loud, but not public, in that case. If he'd put his numbers up, as they exist, with a whole lot less 'tude, just a "hey, gotta source, I dunno". . .then my guess is the ATI guys would have fingered their email chain, but in the end decided to stick with something more bland in response "these numbers do not reflect the reality that we have tested in our labs and that the whole world will see soon enough" or somesuch. No, I really do think it all came together for "the perfect storm".
I really dont think that you can compare the 2 sides in this. Sander stepped both feet into this knowing where it would lead. ATi have not been at war with him at all. They have been far more reserved than they have the right too. Aside from a couple of quotes there has been nothing. I dont understand how that makes it a war.Firefox said:
Sander's "base" is starting to crack: http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/49047/
Props to IRQ Conflict over at EB.
Props to IRQ Conflict over at EB.
What evidence is there then? I haven't seen any yet, I've only seen claims up until now.The Baron said:
Unless you can hand me the actual benchmark results from ALL pre-production R520 hardware in combination with ALL R520 pre-production drivers, used combination with his timedemo's - option 3 still is a possibility.
And as long as we haven't seen independant benchmarks from other reviewers, option 4 is - how slim the actual chance may be - also still a possibility.
Sander could really help us clear option 3 up, if he'd just simply ask his source for the board revision, drivernumber and actual system setup used, and released the timedemo's to the public... the lack of that information indeed doesn't make things look good for him up untill now.
Jah, could you try to be a little less biaseddigitalwanderer said:Any other questions?
Well, there is absolutely no denying that is theregeo said:
The most logical answer to question nr one is that Sander actually believes/believed his benches are correct... there would have been no other way for him to actually get away with it, so its either that or he planned not to get away with it...digitalwanderer said:The one problem I have with that is what in the world made Sassen think he could get away with this or think it would be a good thing for him and his site?
Unless he was counting on ATi not coming forward with those e-mails he sent, in which case I just gots to laugh harder.
About the second remark: I am still NOT convinced about the context of that email because we have still not seen that context/background. Sander stated he was misquoted, and - lets face it - we are dealing with a PR department here. I will draw my conclusions on this email after I've seen the entire thing, at least if we'll ever get to see it. I know for a fact that things can sometimes really look ugly if there not in prespective and you don't have all the actual information.
You want evidence? There you go. He's ignored every call to release his methodology. If you're trying to convince people that you're right, or at least the maligned party, that should be the first thing you do. But he hasn't, which leads me to believe he's hiding something.Firefox said:
Three seems wrong because I can't imagine driver bugs (this close to launch) or clock variances that would cause results like he was getting. Four is certainly wrong; see my previous comments regarding X850XTPE versus Pro scores.
I actually welcome Andrzej's post, as it gives me the opportunity to no longer hold back with certain information. Rest assured that my reply is on its way, I just want to make sure I don't miss any of the details. As the crux of the matter is usually in the details. All I can say now is that I had to correct quite a few of Andrzej's ‘inaccuracies’ which I’ve now set in stone by providing full transcripts of emails or quotes from emails which do put the majority of his comments in a rather different light, but there simply is no getting around the truth I’m afraid. I also welcome the fact that given his statement and my upcoming one, the reader himself can now make up his mind what to think of all this.
Regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
Regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
ssassen said:
Honestly, if most of this soap opera merely pertains to why ATI chose to cut you 'out of the loop' the majority of readers here simply won't care. Receiving review samples from companies is a privilege, not a right, something you seem to have confused in your head for whatever reason. And personally, at this stage, I think you're just trying to garner sympathy by casting yourself as the innocent martyr devilishly wronged by the big, bad IHV after having chosen to use your site as a rather unprofessional bully pulpit.
So, that said, please stop dodging questions pertaining to what readers here really want to know (i.e. how those benchmark scores were generated) and leave the soap opera elsewhere.
Big Bertha EA
Newcomer
John Reynolds said:
Could not agree more John. Nobody wins a pissing contest and in this case, the damage is already done by HWA...
John,
Rest assured I won't be repeating myself again but will be offering full disclosure on a lot of issues. But I'm supportive of the suggestion of the other gentleman, it might be a good idea to get the popcorn out and get a fresh pot of coffee ready, this won't be a single paragraph reply I'm afraid.
Regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
Rest assured I won't be repeating myself again but will be offering full disclosure on a lot of issues. But I'm supportive of the suggestion of the other gentleman, it might be a good idea to get the popcorn out and get a fresh pot of coffee ready, this won't be a single paragraph reply I'm afraid.
Regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
Either post the timedemos along with exact settings used or don't bother. Gah. How hard is that.
Can we move on beyond the email history? If not, can we consider the issue unresolvable and rid ourselves of this mess?
What were the exact system specs, software versions, driver versions, hardware versions, and time-demos used to obtain the numbers in question? Where can the world obtain the time-demos used?
What were the exact system specs, software versions, driver versions, hardware versions, and time-demos used to obtain the numbers in question? Where can the world obtain the time-demos used?
Well? Out with it already. Quit telling us about how much it will change things and just present it already.ssassen said:
Yeah, I'm starting to think so too.geo said:
Let's just let this thing play out. I prefer more information to less anyway, even if it's all useless. Hopefully within the ashes of this thread something definitive will come out. I would like the time demo information made available as well mind you, but not to the exclusion of the email thread if Sasser truly feels that there is information contained within that would in any way defend him.
Hey, I'm all for giving him enough rope to hang himsel....I mean, I'm all for letting him explain his position however and as fully as he wants to.
- Status