The Rydermark Thread (TM)

[Geo]

In effect, so far, I'd agree with you. But I still think the only effective manner to encourage the press (of any stripe) to make sure they have their ducks in a row is to publicly embarrass them when they are irresponsible. Everybody makes mistakes, sure, but there are different kinds of mistakes.

What would be really pernicious about this article, should it prove to be made entirely from whole cloth, is of course NV did have some real "scandals" with _pp in the increasingly distant past. So for some people it's going to be like hearing Uncle Joe the recovering alcoholic is back on the bottle --they are liable to just cluck sadly and accept its true.

 

[trinibwoy]

Well fortunately across the boards most people seem to be viewing this with the high level of skepticism expressed here. For the people gullible or uneducated enough to swallow this whole, what could Nvidia possibly say to assuage their concerns that hasn't already been mentioned in this thread?

Though this post is interesting, I think this guy posts here as well - http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1029640513&postcount=8

I've been following the devellopment of Rydermark 2006. It's a highly anticipated next gen benchmarking program.
If this proves to be true it would explain many things. But it being the Inquirer... let's wait and see before starting the lynching fair deal?

Ominous aye

 

[_xxx_]

Elmo Is Evil. Naughty naughty boy!

 

[jb]

I'll probably be crucified for saying this but I never quite understood why there is such vehemence towards NVIDIA for they're forcing of precision hints. Yes, if this has to do with a benchmark that influences the sales of video cards, then there is a case but we're not talking about 3DMark.

/me grabs the pitchfork

Well put your self in the role of the developers, would you want some one else changing how your game looks for the sake of a few more FPS? And if by their forcing it caues some IQ degradation, who do you think the average customer that bought your game is going to blame? The will see this as your fault as very large % of the people that by games don't know a dam thing about _pp hints, shaders, ect. If the developer ask for something to be in full precision, then it should. Forcing a change is just NOT good for anyone. Morally speaking of course

 

[KimB]

Forcing partial precision everywhere in games would have a horrendous effect on image quality. We've seen some instances of this already where partial precision is overused. I seem to remember Far Cry had some issues along these lines some time ago.

 

[Nelsieus]

Conspiracy theories re G80? Like what? Certainly there will be spec rumor-mongering, as there always is. But "conspiracy theories"? I hope if Faud doesn't have anything at all to back up this story that NV rips him a new one in public for gross irresponsibility, much like ATI ripped Sander Sassen a new one. I see a bright line difference between run of the mill spec rumor-mongering, as Inq typically does, and this kind of thing.

Fuad attacking nVidia is nothing new, and I'd be appauled if nVidia actually swooped so low as to respond to Fuad's FUD. In fact, that would actually make nVidia look even worse.

TheINQ is not the same as a credable website. We see ATI and nVidia launching emails all that time at small mis-prints or inaccuracies from the reputable hardware sites. They're not going to bother with theINQ, though; that should be obvious.

The truth is, nVidia doesn't get involved with theINQ, nor do they give them the time of day that theINQ desires. I have a few of my own conspiracy reports on why theINQ hates nVidia so much (and actually with a few facts to base it), but I think that's a whole different thread.

Anywho, I haven't seen any of the big boys mention anything about what Fuad alleges. I guess Fuad prefers it that way, though. *Shrugs

 

[Tim Murray]

I have a few of my own conspiracy reports on why theINQ hates nVidia so much (and actually with a few facts to base it), but I think that's a whole different thread.

Never attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence. With Fudo, it's the latter.

 

[compres]

Never attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence. With Fudo, it's the latter.

Can't agree more.

 

[Nelsieus]

Never attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence. With Fudo, it's the latter.

Yes, and I accede incompetence to be a guise of malice, as in this case. As in, the distinct line between the two has been blurred, as only Fuad could do.

 

[nutball]

The overarching impression I get from Fudo stories is that they've been through translate.google.com several times, both the way in to his brain and on the way back out. He seems unique amongst Inq reporters for that. At least Charlie D is sometimes accurate and, failing that, entertaining.

 

[Jawed]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=31800

Oh look, there's NVidia contacting L'Inq. Not for the first or last time, either.

Jawed

 

[trinibwoy]

That response was to a very different type of article - one with facts !

 

[Jawed]

I'm responding to Nelsius's ranting.

Jawed

 

[Nelsieus]

I'm responding to Nelsius's ranting.

Jawed

How does Triniboy's response not apply?

* Nvidia's PR chap contacted us and said that "NVIDIA began shipping the GeForce 7300 GT card in the Asia Pacific region only."

From what I see, nVidia released a statement, not a refutation of anything that was alleged by Fuad. There was no invalidation of theINQ on nVidia's part towards "7300GT being paperlaunched," which reitterates my prior comments about nVidia not stooping to that level.

Secondly, I see no reference to anything other than some "nVidia PR chap." If the basis of "my rant" (which I presume you read) was that Fuad cannot be trusted, then I think it should be clear that perhaps we need more identification than some nVidia PR guy. Much less, a quote that couldn't also be found on something like the press release of the GPUs actual launch.

 

[OpenGL guy]

Yes, if you advertise full precision support, you need to support at least FP24 or FP32.

Please show me where in the caps you specify "full precision support". SM 2.0 requires at least FP24 precision, unless a particular instruction has _pp on it in which case you can use FP16. SM 3.0 requires FP32 precision, unless a particular instruction has _pp on it in which case you can use FP16. Obviously, I am referring to the pixel shader here as vertex shaders are always FP32 I believe.

 

[sonyps35]

Well they (INQ) said they're gonna do a IQ comparison in relation to this story, correct? If that ever happens, anyway.

 

[Jawed]

Nelsius, you asserted that NVidia never has and never will deal with L'Inq. You're wrong. Multiple times.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25036

etc.

Jawed

 

[Sharkfood]

I'm really concerned about the attitude and direction this discussion seems to be following...

An IHV has been accused of providing falsified benchmark performance due to unfair IQ comparisons and the only retort has been discussions of 'what defines DX 9.0' or character defamation of the source reporting it (or in this case, relaying it from the makers of a benchmark).

What ever happened to objectivity and hypothesis proving? Are these only things specially reserved to occur based on the target being accused? I've seen very similar accusations towards other sources that instead result in long threads of tests, theories, screenshots, code snippets, downloadable test programs, quotes, and other forms of research. Why has this process changed? Is it times have changed or selective process based on target?

It seems the INQ is reporting second-hand information from the makers of Rydermark expressing that FP32/FP24 is disallowed (how it's disallowed isn't specified- whether the attempt fails or is ignored) by one IHV and allowed/utilized by another. I'd expect such a trivial accusation to be more in-depth explored to see if there is any relevance to the accusation... explored in more forms than "surely someone would have noticed by now!"

Speaking objectively, there have been a massive number of occasions where such things were surely NOT noticed by benchmarking websites and/or developers.

Of course, we'll all have our own personal opinions/biases when discussing such things. I'm just troubled by the directions being led from such a thing. I'd expect "driver bug" or "benchmark developer must be having problems" kinds of things... things more objective and along the lines of analytical minded folks or the more objective crowd.

 

[Nelsieus]

Nelsius, you asserted that NVidia never has and never will deal with L'Inq. You're wrong. Multiple times.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25036

etc.

Jawed

No, I asserted that nVidia would not deal with theINQ on conspiracy issues where radical accusations are brought against them or their products. Do you know why? Because nVidia, nor ATI, want to shift any attention to whatever is being reported that could potentially hurt their reputation.
They can correct the big hardware sites, who are usually respectful if/when they make a big mistake, but the chances of Fuad dropping the article at nVidia's request is very minute.

So then perhaps nVidia could release a statement discrediting theINQ's report? Well, why now? This isn't the first time we've seen controversy from theINQ, and I don't recall watching nVidia stand up to them before, ever discrediting them via a seperate report (publically) in the last year-and a-half that I've been frequenting the community.

So far, all you have presented is nVidia stating that the Geforce 7300GT would be shipping first in Asia, and commenting that the "Nforce4-SLI Intel Edition supports Dual-Core Pentium CPU's only if they come from the Extreme Edition family."

I'm not even quite sure how you are associating those above two examples with the accusation that their Geforce lineup of GPUs are potentially not compliant with DX9, as Fuad mentions in his article.

 

[Nelsieus]

I giggled

I guess that means he doesn't buy it either...
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1072446&page=2&pp=20