The way it's meant to be patched...
- Thread starter CorwinB
- Start date
/me eyes Humus' copper hat enviously as me fingers me aluminum hat...
/me pulls out me change purse and starts counting me pennies.
I'll probably get ripped for this, but i think quite a lot of people are overreacting lately. IMO Nvidia is hardly changing the rules as how large hardware/software companies have always operated. I, hitherto, have never seen a company, that has arguably slipped under heavy competition, openly admitting that it did and endorsing customers to go out and buy superiour competing products. Especially with hardware products, manipulating benchmarks, without any advantage to the customer, has a long tradition in the IT-sector (Standard works such as Computer Architecture have entire chapters devoted to it). This is in no way limited to Nvidia and Microsoft (arguably 3dfx didn't behave very different after TnT2, Geforce releases). What's new though, is the amount of publicity this topic is lately receiving (Something I really endorse, as seeing through ploys like this undoubtly seperates a good reviewer from the wannabe "guys with websites"). To sum it all up, i, however, in no way want to suggest that information like this [see thread] is unimportand, but i do hope that reviews @ beyond3d stay as objective as they are and don't slip in the "we wont accept XY products from now on direction".
Colourless said:
"I am not a number. I am a human being".
Anyway, why not use copper? It seems to be the favoured replacement for aluminium in chips - why not lunatic-fringe hats as well
[edit]Ahh I see Humus already has.... I wonder what that implies...
[/edit]StealthHawk
Regular
PiNkY said:
I don't think many people are asking for NVIDIA to come out and say "look, our products suck and are uncompetitive. Go buy ATI, it's a better use of your money." Rather, we would like it for the lies and PR games to stop. NVIDIA is entitled to try and sell its products. But the contradictions really need to stop. Do they think that the people who read their PR are so stupid that they don't remember things they said a few weeks or months ago :?
As far as my memory recalls, 3dfx did not act like NVIDIA at all. NVIDIA has always acted rather arrogantly and rashly. "FSAA is not important, nobody needs FSAA!" ...next drivers add FSAA support
Agreed. Solutions they could try :
- stay silent and swallow the pill instead of lying/cheating/throwing discredit on other companies (FutureMark/Eidos)
- issue factuals (even if sometimes funny) Press Releases to keep brand recognition up (they have been doing a lot of this lately, with "king of retail", "professional workstation king"... There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, provided they stick to facts and don't sling mud.
- use the TWIMTBP program to try to sign deals for exclusive content on NV hardware. *Not* crippling competitor products, but semi-exclusive bundle deals (IIRC, DroneZ for example was an exclusive NV bundle for a while), specific "NV-only" levels for download (wasn't there a "high-poly count Q3 level" a while ago, or something like that ?).
- Focus on nForce, which is, right now, the only excellent price/performance ratio Nvidia product
I think there is a lot they can do to keep afloat until NV40 ships. Of course, it could also be that they are really desperate because right now, they already know that NV40 won't be able to compete with ATI's next part (I suppose the IHVs know much more about each other's parts than the public does
). Or it could be that they know that NV40 will feature such huge performance increases that most people will forget about the past and buy their products anyway.I'd even be willing to allow them some of what they want, like reducing trilinear to a mixed mode, and some other quality reductions so long as they don't try to pass them off as full quality. If they want to stick a mixed mode in between bilinear and trilinear that's perfectly fine. If they want to have a "mixed mode" Aniso setting that's fine too. It's all about how you present it to the user.
This is pretty much their problem both on the technical side, and on the marketing side. At the best they are content to let you believe something they know is false, and at the worst they outright lie about their products. If Nvidia simply started treating people with respect, stopped lieing, and started talking frankly about their card, and what needs to be done to make it perform well (even if that means a reduction in image quality), I'm sure people would be willing to listen. Yeah, it might not go over well that it's slow unless you drop quality, but it'd go over a lot better than us finding out it's slow on our own *and* finding out that nvidia thinks it's ok to lie to us about it.
Nite_Hawk
This is pretty much their problem both on the technical side, and on the marketing side. At the best they are content to let you believe something they know is false, and at the worst they outright lie about their products. If Nvidia simply started treating people with respect, stopped lieing, and started talking frankly about their card, and what needs to be done to make it perform well (even if that means a reduction in image quality), I'm sure people would be willing to listen. Yeah, it might not go over well that it's slow unless you drop quality, but it'd go over a lot better than us finding out it's slow on our own *and* finding out that nvidia thinks it's ok to lie to us about it.
Nite_Hawk
Trilinear "quincux" filtering, so to speak?Nite_Hawk said:
saw this posted today
"I find it a bit odd that nobody has mentioned something...
The benchmark was already in Tomb Raider long before the v49 patch. In fact, it's present on the Tomb Raider cd in the retail box.
All you need to add is "-benchmark=paris3" on the command line, and you're off and running. Use the "settings" panel in the game launcher to configure whatever options you want.
Sure, the v49 patch added a few "convenience features", like a command line option to set the resolution and refresh rate. But there's really nothing in v49 that's not available in every other version of Tomb Raider. Well... except for some bug fixes and performance improvements.
Maybe NV doesn't like bug fixes and performance improvements?"
http://www.gamersdepot.com/index.asp
"I find it a bit odd that nobody has mentioned something...
The benchmark was already in Tomb Raider long before the v49 patch. In fact, it's present on the Tomb Raider cd in the retail box.
All you need to add is "-benchmark=paris3" on the command line, and you're off and running. Use the "settings" panel in the game launcher to configure whatever options you want.
Sure, the v49 patch added a few "convenience features", like a command line option to set the resolution and refresh rate. But there's really nothing in v49 that's not available in every other version of Tomb Raider. Well... except for some bug fixes and performance improvements.
Maybe NV doesn't like bug fixes and performance improvements?"
http://www.gamersdepot.com/index.asp
Anyone tried the "new" (says Released
03 September, 2003) v.52 patch from http://www.eidosinteractive.co.uk/support/patchinfo.html?ptid=67 to see what if anything changed?
03 September, 2003) v.52 patch from http://www.eidosinteractive.co.uk/support/patchinfo.html?ptid=67 to see what if anything changed?
A friend emailed me about this patch and said that the benchmark feature has been removed. I've yet to confirm this (haven't downloaded the patch yet) nor have I talked to Core Design.jpaana said:
If this is the case, we'll very probably continue to use V49 for reviews. Hope this is understandable to everyone.
If there's no changes then the results will be consistent with those in the 49 patch, hence 49 is still just as valid a patch.
Similar threads
- Locked