The Rydermark Thread (TM)

[trinibwoy]

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

I'm not sure why you expect people to take an objective stance on this when zero evidence was presented. Fuad also did not help his cause by presenting the article in such an incoherent and obviously mis-informed manner. The guy often seems to be totally cluless about the topics that he is reporting on. In order to take such a stance one would have to admit that the article has some legitimacy or credibility. As it stands, it does not.

I'm personally surprised that people are so willing to launch an investigation when the burden of proof has not been met. No screenshots, no specifics, no nothing.

And with regard to your request for indepth exploration, how much deeper would you like to go after much of the article was debunked in the second post in the thread? Where would you start?

 

[Geo]

Btw, for those who think this wasn't worth a thread in the first place, let me note that in the thread on this topic at AnandTech, there are multiple posts that say some variation of "The guys at B3D already discredited this" with a link back to this thread.

 

[Nelsieus]

Btw, for those who think this wasn't worth a thread in the first place, let me note that in the thread on this topic at AnandTech, there are multiple posts that say some variation of "The guys at B3D already discredited this" with a link back to this thread.

And HardForums, too:

(Edit) The fine folks at B3D are having a laugh at how stupid Fuad is, bringing up the same points as above: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31786

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1072446&page=1&pp=20

 

[Sharkfood]

I'm not sure why you expect people to take an objective stance on this when zero evidence was presented.

I'd say that's a very biased perception of what was presented.

It explains that the makers of Rydermark benchmark have mentioned there is a forced lower precision occuring with NVIDIA hardware and/or drivers.

If you don't consider relaying information as "evidence".. then I'd expect the same harsh-line be applied in the future also be applied similarly. That was my point.

I'm personally surprised that people are so willing to launch an investigation when the burden of proof has not been met. No screenshots, no specifics, no nothing.

This is the very double-standard that I strived to emphasize... this stance has changed dramatically.

The point being, a forum post by some anonymous source ("SlayahODeath") of liguistics attuned towards "(IHVC) is suxorz doodz!" can spur front-page, widespread website link attention.. comprehensive screenshot analysis, side-by-side or java applet tests, sample programs, code snippets and white-paper quality definitive resources.

A pretty specific accusation from a website, in reference to a benchmark, and with substantially more information from which to get a feel of the accusation is now getting the brush-off, character defamation attempts, and arguments that deflect away from the main accusation.

And with regard to your request for indepth exploration, how much deeper would you like to go after much of the article was debunked in the second post in the thread? Where would you start?

I'd start with the accusation that wasn't touched or disproved, but instead precisely the deflection tactics described above- what's the deal with FP32? Is FP16 forced, defaulting or incorrectly being applied when referencing/requesting FP32? And if so, under what conditions?

Yes, I agree the burden of proof lies on the accuser.. but this has *never* been the case here or anywhere else in the past.

A good change in ethic? Perhaps.. I'm just interested why the "good change" has suddenly occurred... and not too hopeful as I've only seen differing application of ethics in the past 10 years that vary only by the IHV in question.

 

[trinibwoy]

Sharkfood, you keep claiming that random guys posting accusations have gotten a lot of attention in the past. Please provide a specific example because I have no such recollection.

Also, please lookup the ExtremeTech expose on the original 3dmark clipping fiasco for an example of an article that deserves the kind of reaction you seem to expect. (I would post the link but I think that would be inappropriate) This Fuad piece is a complete joke in comparison.

Given that tier1 developers who know DX9 software and hardware as well as anybody else have been coding for Nvidia hardware for three years now, who exactly would you like to undertake this investigation into whether the hardware applies the correct precision? You dismissed the notion that people would've noticed this before, but with so many highly qualified people working on this hardware for so long don't you find it appalling that this issue is now being discovered?

 

[Jawed]

Nelsius, I wouldn't expect NVidia to respond to the article as it stands but if this story has any truth in it, then NVidia won't have any choice (though I doubt it'll be to the Inquirer). The fact is, the Inquirer has a pretty good record at forcing various hands, even if Fudo is a bit of a Basil Fawlty.

In the meantime, this subject's good for a laugh, and I'm glad the Inquirer's there to throw caution to the wind. It's much more entertaining to go round the houses on this stuff than if it never came to light.

Jawed

 

[Sharkfood]

Sharkfood, you keep claiming that random guys posting accusations have gotten a lot of attention in the past. Please provide a specific example because I have no such recollection.

Trilinear filtering ("brilinear" and even S3 with WHQL/trilinear), anisotropic filtering optimizations, LOD Bias shifts, texture compression, z-buffer optimizations, etc.etc.

All past fiasco's started out as accusations of substantially lesser detail/specifics, usually by random forum/anoymous sources, that eventually led to large degrees of research, analysis and conclusive end results.

Also, please lookup the ExtremeTech expose on the original 3dmark clipping fiasco for an example of an article that deserves the kind of reaction you seem to expect. (I would post the link but I think that would be inappropriate) This Fuad piece is a complete joke in comparison.

Comparing a finding from ExtremeTech vs. INQ is attuned with comparing football strategies in high-school with the NFL.

Im also unfamiliar if what ExtremeTech performed may or may not have been spurred from a lesser detailed initial source.

Given that tier1 developers who know DX9 software and hardware as well as anybody else have been coding for Nvidia hardware for three years now, who exactly would you like to undertake this investigation into whether the hardware applies the correct precision?

The same individuals that always partake in investigations when a different IHV is under scrutiny.

Perhaps that's the rub. Random resources "appear" and devote large amounts of resources when a particular IHV is under scrutiny. When other IHV's are under scrutiny, no such resources exist. Interesting observation.

You dismissed the notion that people would've noticed this before, but with so many highly qualified people working on this hardware for so long don't you find it appalling that this issue is now being discovered?

Not particularly. There have been enough cases of this over the past 10 years to make it more "status-quo" in business.

I'd equally retort that you dismissed the notion that people didn't notice this before, which a recount of history clearly shows similar.

I no longer find IHV, driver or website flaws in objectivity appalling... but instead just part of the overall dynamic of this form of information. I think most people that enjoy Beyond3D's reviews probably do so because of how they generally lack the more obvious flaws in objectivity while doing their best to remain 99.9% objective.

My observation was simply to point out how the handling of accusations can interestingly take different directions. If the times have changed, this is a good sign... but there have been enough double-standard in the past 10 years to be a little less than enthusiastic to arrive at that conclusion.

 

[Geo]

Guys, Fonzi is throttling the motorcycle here. . .

 

[Nelsieus]

Nelsius, I wouldn't expect NVidia to respond to the article as it stands but if this story has any truth in it, then NVidia won't have any choice (though I doubt it'll be to the Inquirer). The fact is, the Inquirer has a pretty good record at forcing various hands, even if Fudo is a bit of a Basil Fawlty.

In the meantime, this subject's good for a laugh, and I'm glad the Inquirer's there to throw caution to the wind. It's much more entertaining to go round the houses on this stuff than if it never came to light.

Jawed

It will have to go through the big boys (credable sites) before nVidia even thinks about commenting on it (granted it's actually true). But seeing the general response currently leads me to believe this issue will subside in the coming days (though I'm sure this won't be the last we hear about it from Fuad).

I'd say that's a very biased perception of what was presented.

It explains that the makers of Rydermark benchmark have mentioned there is a forced lower precision occuring with NVIDIA hardware and/or drivers.

The problem is the inconsistency, and the source (Fuad).

You wouldn't object to us critizing, let's say nVNews, for making up something like "XY Organization says ATI GPU's can't really do HDR."

For one, nVNews, I'd imagine, would be biased against ATI, and we already know x1k cards can do HDR.

Just like we know Fuad is incompetent, and Geforce 6 and 7 cards are DX9 compliant.

 

[Jawed]

Sharkfood, Rydermark isn't a benchmark until we can play with it.

Additionally, there's no evidence of _PP shenanigans in other hotly contested benchmarkable apps around. Sure, FEAR for example might be having all its complex shaders _PP'd against the dev's wishes but no-one's spotted it so far.

It's also worth pointing out that over the last year review webbies have lost their taste for IQ investigations. I think reviewers are just sick of the subject - and with the explosion in graphics card SKUs (pearl this, toxic that) there's even less time for the reviewers. Makes me sad, but there it is.

If there's the merest hint of evidence re:Rydermark, then you bet we'll be all over it.

Jawed

 

[Sharkfood]

Guys, Fonzi is throttling the motorcycle here. . .

Don't you mean the skiboat?

 

[Geo]

Don't you mean the skiboat?

Ach! My bad. I combined two eps there (there was one where he did something on a motorcycle in the parking lot at Al's).

 

[trinibwoy]

Guys, Fonzi is throttling the motorcycle here. . .

Whatever that means

 

[Jawed]

I never saw the one with the shark. Was Fonzi driving or jumping?

Jawed

 

[Geo]

I never saw the one with the shark. Was Fonzi driving or jumping?

Jawed

I screwed it up. Richie drove; Fonzi was on the skis.

 

[trinibwoy]

All past fiasco's started out as accusations of substantially lesser detail/specifics, usually by random forum/anoymous sources, that eventually led to large degrees of research, analysis and conclusive end results.

Well I guess I can't refute this unless you post a link or some other specific evidence. I recall lots of screenshots accompanying the brilinear allegations.

The same individuals that always partake in investigations when a different IHV is under scrutiny.

Perhaps that's the rub. Random resources "appear" and devote large amounts of resources when a particular IHV is under scrutiny. When other IHV's are under scrutiny, no such resources exist. Interesting observation.

Now I'm baffled to be honest. You imply that people put a lot more effort into investigating allegations against Nvidia's competitor(s). That is certainly not the case. Nvidia has certainly earned their guilty until proven innocent reputation and people's reactions typically fall in line with that.

 

[KimB]

The real problem with this whole thing is that there would be tons of problems in current games if nVidia was forcing FP16 indescriminantly. Even if nVidia added full-precision exceptions for the games we play to prevent image quality issues, you can bet your ass that the GPGPU community would be up in arms if FP16 was being forced by default.

 

[Sharkfood]

I screwed it up. Richie drove; Fonzi was on the skis.

Or.. on a deeper intellectual level, perhaps the association was due to how inappropriate "The Fonz" looked in shorts and on a set of ski's (versus in leather on a motorcycle) evaluates to Fuad talking about shader precision.

Now I'm baffled to be honest. You imply that people put a lot more effort into investigating allegations against Nvidia's competitor(s). That is certainly not the case. Nvidia has certainly earned their guilty until proven innocent reputation and people's reactions typically fall in line with that.

Hmm.. perhaps I'm not making my point clear, and I appologize as I do believe I'm not communicating it clearly.

Yes, once data erupts, the same condemnations and opinions result. My point was that *initial* handling of such accusations truly is perversely different. Example:

Subject:IHV-X is accused of inflating benchmark scores through arguably deceptive means of reduced IQ.
Response: "Nothing to see here! Move along! Somebody would have definately noticed by now. It's just impossible! Oh, and hey, DirectX doesn't even specify blah blah blah.."

Subject:IHV-Y is accused of inflating benchmark scores through aruably deceptive means of reducing IQ.
Response: "Wow, that's interesting. Could it be true? Quick- hit the compilers. Amass hundreds of screenshots widespread across dozens of applications. Write side-by-side html depications and java applets with mouse-over switches. Create 20x zoom/scaled IQ depictions. Spur a fury of website front-page links getting involved. Conduct interviews with IHV personnel. Write applications to test/show the condition. Hunt down any applications that might prove or disprove this hypothesis. etc.etc.etc."

 

[KimB]

Subject:IHV-Y is accused of inflating benchmark scores through aruably deceptive means of reducing IQ.
Response: "Wow, that's interesting. Could it be true? Quick- hit the compilers. Amass hundreds of screenshots widespread across dozens of applications. Write side-by-side html depications and java applets with mouse-over switches. Create 20x zoom/scaled IQ depictions. Spur a fury of website front-page links getting involved. Conduct interviews with IHV personnel. Write applications to test/show the condition. Hunt down any applications that might prove or disprove this hypothesis. etc.etc.etc."

This has never happened, nor will it. People don't jump at these accusations full-force just because they are made. They jump at them when somebody presents real evidence, or when somebody with real credibility makes a statement about them. The large amount of work in showing the problem only comes about if:
a) The evidence warrants spending time to investigate further, and
b) The problem is not fixed.

This sort of issue is not investigated widely when it makes no logical sense, is put forward by somebody without any decent reputation, is written in a way that shows the writer's obvious ignorance about the hardware, and is also posted with absolutely no evidence.

 

[Parousia]

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?

It depends. If a piece of hardware is really struggling to cope and that piece of hardware is selling decently then I probably wouldn't mind if the IHV makes changes which are evidenced visually but probably acceptably. Even without first informing me.

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?

I don't know, honestly. I figure it's 50/50 who they'll lay the blame at first ("crappy developers" or "crappy card"). Average customer probably don't really care where the fault lies, as long as that fault gets fixed. Yes?

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.

I presume you're assuming I work for a IHV (the "your fault"); I don't but that's besides the point. If the average customer don't know all that stuff, it is logical to assume they don't know who or what is to blame. IF they can spot errors in the first place - if this Inq story is true, we still don't know how noticeable the errors would be. For all we know, the Rydermark developers only discovered this by shader dumping and not by looking at the monitor, which if they did they may have missed it entirely. This is important IMO.

If the developer ask for something to be in full precision, then it should.

Yes, in a perfect world everyone must follow unwritten rules.

Forcing a change is just NOT good for anyone. Morally speaking of course

Hey, if the Inq story is true and the image quality suffers quite noticeably then I am against such changes. All I'm saying is that there are just not enough data and details to get overly excited about this.