R520 benchmarks - Hardware Analysis
- Thread starter Sxotty
- Start date
- Status
We're actually pretty good with ATi & nVidia's histories here, it's you that is the more unknown quantity at this point and thus the focus of the questioning.ssassen said:
I'm confused as to why what benchmarks he used matters? Think they'll be looking at a oddly textured wall or whatever? All you guys prove is that you can't even read what he wrote or interpret it, either way. Have fun with your link site or pr poster or whatever that shit is, this whole thing is stupid. Banner ads have killed "journalism" as it's just a big PR posting hyperlink circle-jerk (I posted this in the deleted thread). A guy can't even give sekrit info. without being attacked by people mad because he went against the grain.
Then maybe you should _ask_ before saying it's a waste of time and there is no point to it?Ryano said:
rachaelsdad
Newcomer
There are still a lot of questions that still are unanswered. And as Sassen is unwilling to give us information about what the card actually tested then he should not be surprised that his information is seen as unreliable.
Why did you write ATI; that a test on their card would lower the stock? Either you already had the results or were willing to put anything up that would put ATI in a bad light. Unless you are a "seer" and are able to accurately predict that a supplier would run a test for you; and what the results would be.
Why can you not at least give the community exactly what the card was run on if as you say; the time trials were sent by you.
I read the entire thread before it was wiped out(at least for now) and can not remember why you think that it must be saved for what you wrote. It will probably all be brought back and there will be nothing but questions that were not answered by you in re the card and the testiing of the card and the methodology used and the trials that were used in the games.
I could have missed something but I do not recall any information about either how the card was run on what board at what AA or AF or quality. Nor do I recall you ever answering how you knew in the email that ATI would look bad before you ever had any numbers.
It is in human nature to look for the truth. Since we can get no information about the testing then it is only natural that your motives and integrity are questioned. If you are of unquestionable integrity then it would be much easier to accept the veracity of your results.
Why did you write ATI; that a test on their card would lower the stock? Either you already had the results or were willing to put anything up that would put ATI in a bad light. Unless you are a "seer" and are able to accurately predict that a supplier would run a test for you; and what the results would be.
Why can you not at least give the community exactly what the card was run on if as you say; the time trials were sent by you.
I read the entire thread before it was wiped out(at least for now) and can not remember why you think that it must be saved for what you wrote. It will probably all be brought back and there will be nothing but questions that were not answered by you in re the card and the testiing of the card and the methodology used and the trials that were used in the games.
I could have missed something but I do not recall any information about either how the card was run on what board at what AA or AF or quality. Nor do I recall you ever answering how you knew in the email that ATI would look bad before you ever had any numbers.
It is in human nature to look for the truth. Since we can get no information about the testing then it is only natural that your motives and integrity are questioned. If you are of unquestionable integrity then it would be much easier to accept the veracity of your results.
lopri said:
To some extent I agree with you--web sites which publish unverified/unverifiable rumors lacking any semblance of veracity certainly should be ignored by sites such as B3d. Where I disagree with you is in that I think B3d as a site most certainly avoids such topics completely as I don't see hide nor hair of this "story" published as a news item on the B3d front page.
You are talking about B3d reader opinions published by members of a B3d forum, though, and of course forums are the proper place to express opinions of all kinds. (An apt meaning for the word "forum" is "a place to be heard".) I think it's a big mistake to confuse what people say when expressing their opinions in a forum as "fact" in the first place. What's upsetting you are the opinions you see expressed, and the remedy is simple: don't read the forums if you don't like opinions and stick to the news pages for the facts such as they are reported.
I happen to think the educational value of a forum thread like this one is enormous. It illustrates so clearly how and why much of what is reported as "news" by some sites isn't news at all, but rather is crap, garbage, or propaganda (take your pick) which is published for a variety of reasons, all of them base, vain, and especially petty. In this particular case, the disclosure of the "personal communication" clearly indicates how base, petty and vain the backdrop surrounding the "news reported" actually was, and explains eloquently why none of us should pay attention to published "news" which in reality isn't news at all of any kind.
On a personal note, I find it slightly annoying that the people who publish unverifiable, unattributed rumor as fact might believe the majority of their readership too stupid to see through it, and amusing to see that the authors of this crap believe themselves to have far more influence in reality than they actually have, ever had, or ever will have...
It is the sites which stick to reporting verifiable, attributed fact (such as B3d and some others) which actually have real influence, and understandably and justifiably so, imo. A house built on fact is one built on a rock; a house built on innuendo, supposition, rumor, and propaganda is a house built on sand. Which do you think will survive the storms of scrutiny that inevitably come?
Last edited by a moderator:
If you're going to give "secret info," you'd best back it up with your methodology or else you're just a crank with an agenda like every other rumormonger.Ryano said:
Regeneration
Newcomer
I'm still looking for answers, DH is affiliated with ATI and that's not a secret. I'm really interested to know why Mr. Bania sent Zardon this email and for what purposes. I'm pretty sure ATI is having part in this "Flame Sander Headline".
My final question is: Why the hell ATI is flaming reviewer in DH headlines? I really dont care about the benchmarks and the results; but I do care to know why they are flaming people in the headlines? impudence.
My final question is: Why the hell ATI is flaming reviewer in DH headlines? I really dont care about the benchmarks and the results; but I do care to know why they are flaming people in the headlines? impudence.
<sigh>Regeneration said:
Just 'cause it's an old reflex, I gotta mention that DH is not affiliated with ATi. ATi doesn't run DH nor tell them what to do, even I know that.
DH is Allan's baby, no one elses. (Well, 'cept for all the admin/mods/members....if y'know what I mean.
)Just my little tidbit.
I think that posting the email was unjustified. Everyone knows you have said some stupid shit that gets blown out of proportion. Do not try and deny it b/c you know at some point you have.
I personally do not think it is that evil of Sander to post what he did. I think that he would have been better off to place a more prominent disclaimer type thing along with the article. However, I think that most of us honestly enjoy a little tidbit/rumor even if it is wrong.
I also do not think that it has the potential to do serious damage in anyway since it occured late in the game (i.e. the x1800s will be released to the light of day soon) thus there is not time for massive worry that this will destroy ATI...
Anyway this will be interesting to watch what happens. And if everyone stays relatively civil I see no reason to lock the thread. It might be fun to ressurect it after NDAs are lifted. Perhaps you can lock it until then if it becomes necessary.
I think that posting the email was unjustified. Everyone knows you have said some stupid shit that gets blown out of proportion. Do not try and deny it b/c you know at some point you have.
I personally do not think it is that evil of Sander to post what he did. I think that he would have been better off to place a more prominent disclaimer type thing along with the article. However, I think that most of us honestly enjoy a little tidbit/rumor even if it is wrong.
I also do not think that it has the potential to do serious damage in anyway since it occured late in the game (i.e. the x1800s will be released to the light of day soon) thus there is not time for massive worry that this will destroy ATI...
Anyway this will be interesting to watch what happens. And if everyone stays relatively civil I see no reason to lock the thread. It might be fun to ressurect it after NDAs are lifted. Perhaps you can lock it until then if it becomes necessary.
In my view, ATI's actions on this matter are only excusable if they are telling the truth about what's happened here.
If they aren't, some of the denizens of this place (and some other places, too, I'm sure), will make them pay a price for it, and will swing over to pumelling ATI and defending Sander (well, to a degree, at least, and while holding their noses over some elements).
Because at this point everybody is up to their knees in mud, but somebody (or entity) somewhere, is up to their eyebrows in it.
Soon we will know who. I have my horse for who that will be, but they haven't opened the payout window yet as the field is still in the homestretch.
If they aren't, some of the denizens of this place (and some other places, too, I'm sure), will make them pay a price for it, and will swing over to pumelling ATI and defending Sander (well, to a degree, at least, and while holding their noses over some elements).
Because at this point everybody is up to their knees in mud, but somebody (or entity) somewhere, is up to their eyebrows in it.
Soon we will know who. I have my horse for who that will be, but they haven't opened the payout window yet as the field is still in the homestretch.
Regeneration said:
Oh, come on...a site detects a fraud, exposes it with verification, enlightens you, and your response is to see the messenger shot?
Heh...
Sometimes, you know, "flames" are entirely justified, imo. If I have to choose between being Politically Correct and being accurate I'll take my chances with accuracy every time as I consider it a far superior virtue in every respect.Regeneration
Newcomer
digitalwanderer said:<sigh>
Just 'cause it's an old reflex, I gotta mention that DH is not affiliated with ATi. ATi doesn't run DH nor tell them what to do, even I know that.
DH is Allan's baby, no one elses. (Well, 'cept for all the admin/mods/members....if y'know what I mean.
So why he sent it to Zardon? I'm pretty sure Z asked for permission before he posted it.
Instead of flaming they could respond with benchmarks. I'm looking at these headlines and I feel really bad when I see everyone is flaming reviewer because of negative scores.
No, they couldn't respond with benchmarks because they are under NDA in regards to the card. Why he sent it to Zardon was something you'll have to ask him or Zardon, but I'll guess it's because he heard of Sassan's "preview" and wanted to point out that Sassan had an axe to grind.Regeneration said:
Regeneration
Newcomer
WaltC said:Oh, come on...a site detects a fraud, exposes it with verification, enlightens you, and your response is to see the messenger shot?
Heh...
Even if he made a mistake, He's not deserve to be flamed in Rage3D/DH/Etc.. This is ridiculous and humiliating. Especially when Mr. Bania provided only two emails instead of the entire conversation to prove it's not a joke. Looks like someone is trying to distort the truth.
Regeneration
Newcomer
digitalwanderer said:
ATI could break the NDA for a specific website, NDA is not an excuse.
- Status