SiS Xabre pipeline shenanigans?

[Joe DeFuria]

Someone else posted this a second ago...now it's gone? Anyway:

http://www.digit-life.com/news.html?1324#1324

As indicated by our SiS Xabre 600 performance tests, this GPU features different rendering architecture than claimed by SiS: not 4 pipelines with 2 texture modules in each, but 2 pipelines with 4 texture modules in each.

The synthetic fill-rate tests do support the theory:

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/xabre/xabre600.html#p5

Would be interesting to see if if 2x4 is actually true. But then "who cares" right? Accuracy in specifications is just a guideline for PR, not something that really needs to be satisfied.

Hmmm....interestingly:

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/powercolor/xabre400/index.php?p=4

The first thing that we can see is that there is a large disparity between the single texture and multi-texture fill-rates. With four pixel pipelines and two texture units per pipe, we would expect to see a single texture fill-rate roughly double what is displayed there. Comparing the single to multi-texture rates, it would suggest a configuration of two pixels pipelines each with for texture units.

Did B3D ever follow-up with SiS on that question?

 

[Arun]

Website to nVidia: "We heard that one of your competitor's architecture is really 2x4, while it is claimed to be 4x2. What do you think of such practices?"

nVidia to Website: "We proactively discourage such PR nonsense. However, there has to be a line between lying and changing the terms. We firmly believe changing the signification of words is perfectly acceptable, as long as all words in the same sentence make sense together. Making a whole answer, or even worse, a review, make sense using those terms is however perfectly ridiculous. We think that what matters for the consumer is game performance, and our policy strictly encourage that. Seeing the subpar game performance of the Xabre 600, we are sadly required to say that SiS is lying and cheating to their customers."


Uttar

EDIT: I'd just like to add that, IMO, this is even more major than the NV30's 8x1 being 4x2. Because 2x4 is nearly *never* ( 20% of the time? )going to have the efficiency of 4x2. While 4x2 is fairly often going to get the efficiency of 8x1 ( 50% of the time? )

 

[Nite_Hawk]

If this is true, SIS should get nailed to the wall for it. I own an SIS based motherboard, but I have to say that I'm not really interested in buying from a company that basically outright lies about it's products.

Nite_Hawk

 

[cellarboy]

Frankly, just the name SiS on any product is enough to make me walk away.....

 

[RussSchultz]

I personally don't care if they say its driven by snake oil and pixie dust.

The performance in the end is the only thing that matters.

Of course, the SiS performance has never been anything to crow about...

 

[ben6]

I've been playing around with a Xabre400 again, after 6 months . Quite frankly, performance isn't everything, and I had hoped SIS improved their drivers more in 6 months. That's all I'm going to say on the matter

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Russ:

I really disagree. Performance is not the only thing that matters. A company that feels I'm incompetent enough not to notice them lieing to me is a company I'm not willing to do business with. Otherwise, I'll have no one to blaim but myself if I find out later on down the road that the chip/card/motherboard I purchased doesn't live up to my expectations.

Nite_Hawk

 

[Althornin]

I personally don't care if they say its driven by snake oil and pixie dust.

The performance in the end is the only thing that matters.

Of course, the SiS performance has never been anything to crow about...

'
How nice.
So you dont care if a company lies to you, its performance that matters?
Performance in what - todays games?
Ach. details could matter in how it performs in games 6 months from now.
Regardless, i think you are 100% wrong. Its not OK to lie to the consumer. your stance is one that allows such lies to continue to plague us - thanks.
I mean, why would you want honesty about a product you are going to purchase?

 

[ET]

Russ:

I really disagree. Performance is not the only thing that matters. A company that feels I'm incompetent enough not to notice them lieing to me is a company I'm not willing to do business with. Otherwise, I'll have no one to blaim but myself if I find out later on down the road that the chip/card/motherboard I purchased doesn't live up to my expectations.

Nite_Hawk

I'm sure that SiS doesn't care much how you feel about the specs. The number of people who are both knowledgeable enough to find a wrong spec, would actually buy the product in the first place, and care enough about a wrong spec so as not to buy it because of that is likely a completely insignificant percent of the buying public.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'm sure that SiS doesn't care much how you feel about the specs. The number of people who are both knowledgeable enough to find a wrong spec, would actually buy the product in the first place, and care enough about a wrong spec so as not to buy it because of that is likely a completely insignificant percent of the buying public.

I am continually baffled by this stance.

"Most consumers are ignorant enough of the truth, so the truth doesn't matter."

:?

 

[ET]

I am continually baffled by this stance.

"Most consumers are ignorant enough of the truth, so the truth doesn't matter."

:?

It's not really that baffling. IMO if a company judges that it can gain more sales by lying than it will lose sales then it will lie. You can argue with the morality, but not with the logic.

I do think that it's wrong. It would be much nicer if companies told the truth and the whole truth about their products. That said, on one hand I'm not yet convinced that SiS is lying, and would need more proof, and on the other hand I even if they did lie on this particular matter that won't matter much to me when buying their card. If they lied on features it might. That is, I'm bothered more by the low quality texturing by default of the Xabre than by the internal structure.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's not really that baffling. IMO if a company judges that it can gain more sales by lying than it will lose sales then it will lie. You can argue with the morality, but not with the logic.

Erhm....Of course, who would argue that lying about one's specs is done with the "logic" of it making more attractive / better sales?

Of course we're arguing about the morality of it!

That is, I'm bothered more by the low quality texturing by default of the Xabre than by the internal structure.

I'm bothered by both. You can argue over which is more important, and I might agree. That doesn't mean we should "pick and choose" what it's "OK" to lie about.

 

[ET]

Of course we're arguing about the morality of it!

Were we? I thought we were rather arguing if the morality of it mattered.

That doesn't mean we should "pick and choose" what it's "OK" to lie about.

We always do, though. Everyone lies. Not every lie has the same significance. For example, my favourite computer dealer lies sometimes. He'd say "the shipment has been delayed" when he means "I forgot to order what you wanted," for example. But he doesn't inflate prices, he doesn't try to push inferior hardware on people just to get rid of stocks or because of some promotion, and he does care that people get good computers. So...

I look at it this way: what companies say doesn't matter. I don't judge a card by what the company says. I believe that those who do are mostly OEMs and fanboys. I judge a card by the reviews I read. When a company lies, that doesn't mean to me that I should not buy its products. All it means is that I need to check them more carefully before making a decision.

Also from my POV as a consumer, the internal structure of the card isn't interesting. It's interesting to me from a technological standpoint, but not as part of a purchasing decision. Therefore I see lies about it as minor compared to things that directly impact my experience. It's a practical matter. If I think that a product is good, not getting it because the company lied about some detail does more damage to me than to the company.

 

[RussSchultz]

ET sums it up better than I can.

But, before you put words in my mouth I'd prefer companies not misrepresent the information they share with us, but items like the one we're bickering about now are inconsequential. Its performance in the intended application completely overshadows whether its a 8x1, a 1x8, a 4x2 or whatever.

I personally have no interaction or dependance on the pixel pipeline architecture. If it plays the games I want at the speeds I want for the price I want and can perform all the advertised features, I personally don't care whats under the hood.

 

[antlers]

Actually, the point of wanting to know about the pixel pipeline architecture is not just for technological interest; it is to understand what performance characteristics it is likely to have on different types of games, including games not yet created.

You want to know what it is for the same reason you want to run synthetic benchmarks: existing games might not reveal all the performance characteristics that are significant over the lifetime of the card.

If you are not taking the internal architecture into account when you are making your buying decision, you are not interested in making an educated buying decision.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If you are not taking the internal architecture into account when you are making your buying decision, you are not interested in making an educated buying decision.

Bingo.

I want to make as informed a buying decision as I can. And any product spec that gets in the way of me being properly informed is just plain wrong.

I'd prefer companies not misrepresent the information they share with us, but items like the one we're bickering about now are inconsequential.

Right...again...let's just pick and choose which lies are "worhty" of bickering over.

Here's my suggestion for picking and choosing:

If an item is deemed worthy enough to fudge by a PR department for it's PR Value, then I'd say it's worthy enough to bicker over.

 

[RussSchultz]

You obviously put more stock into what the PR and marketting teams have to say than I do.

If it meets my expectations in terms of performance, stability, etc, I'm satisfied.

But now that you guys have said said all you've said, I feel bad because:
-I'm stupid for making ignorant decisions
-I'm morally wrong, because I'm favor of lying

Do you guys really have to be so denigrative to share your opinions?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You obviously put more stock into what the PR and marketting teams have to say than I do.

No, I don't. I do expect a certain level of accuracy though. When a spec says "8 pipelines", I expect that I'll have to do research to find out how effective those pipelines are in real-world apps.

I don't expect to go running in circles wondering if new drivers will improve certain scores....only to find out later that if it was more accurately represented as 4 pipelines, it could have saved ME time and effort figuring things out.

If it meets my expectations in terms of performance, stability, etc, I'm satisfied.

Interesting. From where I sit, expectations are set more or less by the specs. And if NV30 were stated with a 4x2 pipeline, rather than 8x1, then it WOULD be much closer to meeting my expectations. That's the point.

But now that you guys have said said all you've said, I feel bad because:
-I'm stupid for making ignorant decisions

Sorry you feel that way, but that's not what we said.

We said you're not interested in making an educated buying decision. That doesn't make you stupid...it makes you "not interested." We're not claiming you're stupid....we just don't understand why you're not interested in having specs as accurate as possible?

-I'm morally wrong, because I'm favor of lying

No, again, that's not what we said. (And you tried to preface your earlier arguments with US not putting words in your mouth?)

You're obviously not in FAVOR of lying...you just appear indifferent to it. Again, much to our confusion...

Do you guys really have to be so denigrative to share your opinions?

Do you really have to interpret our comments that way?

 

[RussSchultz]

I'm sorry Joe, but when somebody says:

your stance is one that allows such lies to continue to plague us - thanks

That is saying I support lying, and/or that what I'm doing is morally wrong.

And when I've clearly outlined what is important to me in making buying decisions and why (the end result, rather than the specs), and somebody replies with

you are not interested in making an educated buying decision.

when quite obviously I am interested in making an educated buying decision because I'm going beyond what's written on the back of the box and looking at its real world application performance, is downright irritating.

While I admit I engaged in a little hyperbole, I think the point stands: you do not have to invalidate an opinion to share your own opinion.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'm sorry Joe, but when somebody says:

your stance is one that allows such lies to continue to plague us - thanks

That is saying I support lying, and/or that what I'm doing is morally wrong.

If we're going to be completley accurate, I would say that it indicates your passive support for lying. You be the judge on to what degree thats more acceptable than active support of lying, and its place on the morality scale.

...when quite obviously I am interested in making an educated buying decision because I'm going beyond what's written on the back of the box and looking at its real world application performance, is downright irritating.

What we don't really understand, Russ, is that more or less by definition, incaccurate specs makes it more difficult to judge application performance. Benchmarks don't tell all, particularly because we can't benchmark every single application and future applications. You can't expect a set of benchmarks to tell you how a card works in all situations, or how it might perform in other situations. I round out my expections of a card using specs, "real-game" benchmarks, and synthetic tests.

Do you simply ignore on-box specs, and recommend that everyone should as well? (Honest question.) Because that's the only way I can see you having a consistent argument. If that's your argument then fine, your point stands and I simply strongly disagree with it.

If you think that a combination of specs and benchmarks should be considered (as I do), then I merely contend that your line of reasoning is not consistent. So I guess that's the ultimate question for you: should you, I, and consumers, just ignore specs completely, and not use them in any part for the basis of a decision?

While I admit I engaged in a little hyperbole, I think the point stands: you do not have to invalidate an opinion to share your own opinion.

Of course, I don't have to. But when I don't see an arguement as consistent (doesn't make sense to me), I probe more deeply. That way, I can get a complete understanding and fleshing out of your opinion, so that I know what I'm agreeing or disagreeing with.