That is true MDE, but the 6800 is an earlier design. Things usually get better as you move forward in time.
That is true MDE, but the 6800 is an earlier design. Things usually get better as you move forward in time.
Ice, I'm honored you've picked my thread to spread your very first FUD.
Although you as an unknown poster on a forum BBS have an unbelievable amount of credibility in terms of business strategy, and probably know what nVidia should do better than they do, I guess we'll all just have to wait for them figure out what you already know.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,572
- 10,208
- 126
Well, for one, because it's not the same level of offload, because it would actually be offloading a different task. Hopefully my theory is wrong, of course, but based on the testing methodologies displayed in posts here, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. (Lower CPU utilization, and increased GPU temps would be evident in either case.)
It would be much akin to claiming that one's motherboard included a "hardware firewall", only because it performed packet-filtering in firmware at an NMI or SMM level on the host CPU, but used "hardware accelerated" PCI scatter-gather DMA to transfer the packets to/from RAM from the NIC buffers over the PCI bus, thus technically making it "hardware". (Hmm, I hope that's not the case with NV's firewall implementation either.. it was just a hypothetical example, really. Btw, does anyone know how NV's "hardware firewall" really works?)
No, I don't work for ATI. But it's like if you bought a car, and the normal braking system didn't really work, but the parking brake did, so the mfg did an "update retrofit" to "fix" the issue, that cross-wired the brake pedal to the parking brake. Yeah, sure, it probably will still stop the car, but it's not exactly the same, and not what the customer paid for, if that is indeed the case.
I already have seen some evidence that the in-development NVDVD filters/codecs/whatever, have better picture-quality and lower CPU utilization during DVD playback than other purely-software solutions. However, that information clearly pre-dates this whole 6800 AGP PVP debate.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because we'll all have to see, but I'm presenting this information now, so that people will have a much clearer picture of what is already out there, so that they can potentially discern if NV tries to pull a fast one here, using a different product under development as a CYA for a hardware malfunction. I'm not saying that they would, but they could, and other companies have pulled similar stunts in the past. I'm just trying to add more information to create a clearer picture, that's all. (The comments in the other thread that report that NV allegedly suggested obtaining the updated NVDVD player when it is released to "fix" the 6800 AGP PVP issue do seem to indicate a cause for concern in this regard. The end user should not be forced to pay extra to make the features in their original hardware work properly.)
Btw, it would be a valuable thing indeed, to be able to simultanously utilize the PVP to do the encoding/decoding, and then use the shader units to filter/process the video stream. (ATI's "VideoSoap" technology does something similar in terms of shader-based filters, but still uses the host CPU for compresssion/decompression tasks, I think.) To be able to reduce/eliminate that load via the PVP on a 6800, would be invaluable for a HTPC/PVR-type setup, which I'm sure that a lot of people purchased their 6800 cards in expectation of using them that way.
All the difference in the world. It would clearly show whether or not "NV wired the brake pedal to the parking-brake mechanism" (to use my poor analogy), and you wouldn't ever be able to notice that, unless you looked "under the hood".
No, additional functionality would definately not be a bad thing, so long as there was no lack of the original level of functionality promised.
No offense, but what the H does ATI have to do with any of this? This isn't an ATI vs. NV debate, no matter how much you would like it to be, I'm sure.
@keysplayr2003 and Rollo:
Actually, what I wrote was not meant as some kind of insult (as which you clearly have taken it)!
It's just an argument speaking against your claims. In a discussion, there should be allowed arguments from at least two points of view, shouldn't there?!
And if my argument is not valid, then disprove it objectively!
Yes, this was my first post and yes, I really did pick your thread for it, because it's about an issue I'm very interrested in and, in fact, because I very much hope you're right.
But I never would have thought that in a forum, which first seemed so competent and objective, I would get such insulting and useless comments, just because it's my first post in this (!) forum...
Actually, what I wrote was not meant as some kind of insult (as which you clearly have taken it)!
It's just an argument speaking against your claims. In a discussion, there should be allowed arguments from at least two points of view, shouldn't there?!
And if my argument is not valid, then disprove it objectively!
Yes, this was my first post and yes, I really did pick your thread for it, because it's about an issue I'm very interrested in and, in fact, because I very much hope you're right.
But I never would have thought that in a forum, which first seemed so competent and objective, I would get such insulting and useless comments, just because it's my first post in this (!) forum...
Virtual Larry:
Ah. So some original level of functionality was promised? Where? Was it a percent of cpu offload? Specific functionality in specific areas of silicon?
Or was it more along the lines of
How about "most of the computation intensive work"? What's "most"? What's "computation intensive"?
I'm not trying to be a lawyer here, but your post implies there is some specific level of performance advertised, I don't think there ever was?
What do you care? You paid for "Super Duper PIP" you ended up with it, how were you damaged?
BTW- these arguments are metaphorical only; I am in no way agreeing with what Virtual Larry has stated. Like I said, I can't quote stats or give details.
Ah. So some original level of functionality was promised? Where? Was it a percent of cpu offload? Specific functionality in specific areas of silicon?
Or was it more along the lines of
So it provides "acceleration"- what's the "original level" promised by that?
How about "most of the computation intensive work"? What's "most"? What's "computation intensive"?
I'm not trying to be a lawyer here, but your post implies there is some specific level of performance advertised, I don't think there ever was?
To what end? If you couldn't notice, why would you care?
You'd be wrong about that, I only picked the 9700>9800Pro example because it was the first that came to mind where a chip wasn't significantly changed, but slightly improved.
I'm not a huge fan of this analogy, but I have a better one. What if you bought a PIP tv that promised "Super Duper PIP realism from transistor X9" and the PIP didn't work at all. Then, a few months later, you get the "Super Duper PIP" but it's from transistor X10.
What do you care? You paid for "Super Duper PIP" you ended up with it, how were you damaged?
BTW- these arguments are metaphorical only; I am in no way agreeing with what Virtual Larry has stated. Like I said, I can't quote stats or give details.
I agree with Virtual Larry, if Nvidia is somehow working around the situation by using shaders then while I am less inclined to be angry, I am annoyed because this VP was supposed to be a dedicated system and I would feel annoyed that Nvidia are just putting a bandaid on the system to keep those that object quiet. (heres m car analogy); its like a car manufacturer promising a cup holder only for the car to actually have no cup holders. The buyer is annoyed, and so the manufacturer just carves out a cup holder in the centre console. While, it works and is a cup holder, its just not the same. hmmm not that good is it? 
Ice:
My point was that you're not in a position to speculate why nVidia hasn't released info on this yet, nor am I.
The only people who can are nVidia management, and I doubt they'll make their rationale available to us.
As far as "buying time" goes, like I said, if it's close enough a guy like me sitting in his rec room in the Midwest has seen what's coming, you will soon.
I think we can all agree on that. Who knows? Maybe ATI will come up with a killer sound solution for their boards and fill the void.
@Rollo:
Well, ok, maybe I just was to pessimistic... It just sounds to good to be true!
I still consider it strange they would hold back with it while such a storm is blowing in their faces...
@VirtualLarry:
Actually (to stay with your analogy) if the car which uses the parking-brake behaves exactly like it would with "usual" brakes and if it was just as durable, why should it really matter?
I have to accede you're right if you wanted to encode and play at the same time, but actually nVidia's advertisement never stated you could that at the same time...
To be honest, I would even be satisfied, if nVidia managed to get some DEcoding improvements working, it's at least better then nothing (yes, I am rather pesimistic)...
Well, ok, maybe I just was to pessimistic... It just sounds to good to be true!
I still consider it strange they would hold back with it while such a storm is blowing in their faces...
@VirtualLarry:
Actually (to stay with your analogy) if the car which uses the parking-brake behaves exactly like it would with "usual" brakes and if it was just as durable, why should it really matter?
I have to accede you're right if you wanted to encode and play at the same time, but actually nVidia's advertisement never stated you could that at the same time...
To be honest, I would even be satisfied, if nVidia managed to get some DEcoding improvements working, it's at least better then nothing (yes, I am rather pesimistic)...
rbV5
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2000
- 12,632
- 0
- 0
Why do keep answering for something you haven't followed, don't particularly care for, and don't seem to really have a handle on?
Nvidia promised up to 95% offload of the CPU work by the VPU...get it? Christ, they made plenty of claims of functionality over the last 7 months since it was touted as a primary feature at the card launch.
Well rbV5, because it's one way I can give back to the board and help put people's mind at ease about something that seems to be bothering them.
I have a friend at nVidia who was nice enough to share their solution to this problem with me on the condition I not divulge the specific statistics. He did say he didn't mind if I told you that you will be getting the advertised functionality out of your cards soon.
Some people here seem glad to have some word that their wait is almost over.
You, on the other hand, have used it as an opportunity to accuse me of flaming ATI (which I haven't) and questioning why I post this at all.
Your answer:
I lucked into some info I thought people would want to know, rather than waiting and wondering.
It could be that since I don't particularly care about WMV I should have stayed out of it, but I think I'd rather be a friend to the people who wanted to know than oblige you. Make sense, whiney man?
rbV5
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2000
- 12,632
- 0
- 0
Of course WMV decoding is but a small part of the advertised prowess of the programmable video processor, and I'll be happy if they get it working as advertised. Nvidia could have saved everyone alot of grief by just being upfront about the state of their hardware.
Your right, you should have stayed out of it, you don't know what you're talking about. The little insults you sprinkle throughout your posts concerning this issue are quite typical for you however, just like the need for attention you seem to satisfy by starting threads like this.
Now calm down everyone!
Of course it's understandable that it's getting emotional, since everyone here believes he has been betrayed and been played for a sucker by nVidia, but don't forget that it's nVidia's we're upset about and let's stay factual here!
At the end of November at the latest we will know if Rollo was right or not, and I very much hope he was!
Of course it's understandable that it's getting emotional, since everyone here believes he has been betrayed and been played for a sucker by nVidia, but don't forget that it's nVidia's we're upset about and let's stay factual here!
At the end of November at the latest we will know if Rollo was right or not, and I very much hope he was!
You're right in that I'm not a video encoding devotee, but I can read the tech specs as well as the next guy rbV5. They done taught me to read when I was ma-tric-u-latin' at them there colleges. :roll:
Like I said, some people seem glad to get some real info that a fix is coming soon.
Others, like rbV5, think I have some hidden evil agenda. Think about it rb: what could I possibly gain from the time I've spent on this? You have issues, rbV5.
Remember when I got a 6800NU before they were really available? I spent hours benching it so people could see what it would do on a typical gamers system?
When I got the SM3 patch a month or two early and spent a bunch of time benching it so you guys would know what's coming?
When I got Doom3 the week before it came out and benched it on 3 cards so you guys would know what you're getting?
When I posted my unlocked 6800NU benches?
Etc.
I do this stuff because I like AT and the people here. (for the most part anyway) I don't "get" anything out of it other than the satisfaction of helping my fellow man.
Sheesh. I even first downloaded and benched that "Step into Liquid" thing for YOU
when you wanted to know the dropped frames on an nV40.
Yet here you are. Flaming away at me. You're quite a guy rbV5.
Originally posted by: aonic
Thanks for all the things you have done for us Rollo
You're most welcome, happy to help in what small ways I can.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,572
- 10,208
- 126
Originally posted by: Rollo
Ah. So some original level of functionality was promised? Where? Was it a percent of cpu offload? Specific functionality in specific areas of silicon?
Or was it more along the lines ofWhere are you quoting that from? Reference please.
However, that clearly is only referring to motion-compensation offload, and only to decompression. It has already been thoroughly documented that NV claimed that the PVP would provide for *programmable* (not just "motion-compensation"), *encode* and *decode* accelleration, of both DVD/MPEG-2, as well as WMV content, as evidenced by quotes in the other thread.
Yes, there was a specific type of functionality advertised. You're not going to pin me down to any sort of specific percentage of CPU utilization, because they didn't go into that much detail, but the basic functionality (but not level of efficiency) was advertised.
So you can't accuse them of not stopping "within 100ft", but you can accuse them of not having a functional primary braking system. (Well, if the allegations are true, that is, that the hardware in question is non-functionality, and at this point, there doesn't seem to be any conclusive proof, but there certainly is a large amount of circumstantial evidence and benchmark results to support it.)
In my mind, therefore, it's not a question of the 6600 simply having a shorter stopping distance than the 6800, which appears to be the way that you are framing things, but of whether the 6800 has a primary braking system at all, or whether it has to resort to a secondary system to achieve the results that the primary system was originally designed to handle, and that (apparently) functions properly in the 6600.
You're right. Someone that can't tell whether the features that they paid for work or not, either in a video card, or a car, shouldn't even be buying such a thing. They should walk or ride a bike or something, or make due with Intel Extreme graphics instead.
But if they purchased a top-of-the-line performance automotive hot-rod from their dealer, brand-new, and found out that the blower on the top of the hood didn't work, or the nitrous-injection in the trunk didn't either, then - well, the customer certainly has a right to complain, even if the car still manages to cruise at the speed limit of 60MPH on the highway smoothly.
That's not an accurate analogy. A better one would be that they figured out a way to engage the blowers on the hot-rod, which improved performance slightly, but still didn't fix the nitrous tank in the trunk, because the lines were accidentally fused shut during manufacture.
Or in the case of your analogy - that enabling transistor X10 to provide PIP functionality, prevented the television from properly being able to recieve "cable-ready" channels at the same time. Thus, when the television was advertised as supporting "cable-ready tuner and PIP feature", you find out that due to a defect and a workaround, now you only get one of the two. However, the model introduced onto the market six months later, and selling for less, allows use of both features at the same time. Wouldn't you be upset?
I just want to get to the factual "core" of the issue in this controversy. I have no allegence (favoritism or monetary or otherwise), towards ATI or NV. I just find this to be an interesting technical mystery, that perhaps I can offer my skills at getting to the bottom of it.
I hope that perhaps the "RivaTuner guy" will chime in too at some point, he seems to understand NV hardware at a very, very low level.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,572
- 10,208
- 126
Thank you Rollo, I will await the outcome, if indeed the "advertised functionality" is working, and they didn't just simply change the definition of what that covers in the meantime.
That's why I was bringing up the shader-accelerated (apparently? since it was working before the 6800 was publically released) NVDVD/NV codec information, since I had also "lucked into" that information.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
So, no matter what Nvidia does to get the feature to work, whether it is a workaround or not, they are still in the crapper in your book. Truth of the matter is, as long as it gets the job done, you shouldn't care what method is used to get it there. It is very "strange" for lack of a better word that you would care.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,572
- 10,208
- 126
This isn't simply about just a single hardware feature, it's also about the public integrity of a corporation too. So in that manner, if a similar-but-not-exact-replacement is offered, that's good, but that's still not the same.
It's like if someone killed my pet, and purchased an "equivalent" replacement for me at a pet store.
Yes, it's similar. Yes, it can "fetch" and "roll over" the same way. No, it's not the same.
So indeed, if NV doesn't get *the* PVP in the 6800 AGP *working*, then even if they happen to offer a software DVD player add-on that can use GPU shaders to enhance the video stream during playback, yes, in my eyes they will indeed still be "in the crapper" (your term).
Likewise, it seems very strange to me that you wouldn't care whether or not what you paid for worked or not. Do you regularly purchase cars that don't work either? Even stranger, is when you seemingly question me, simply for being concerned about this issue.
I've paid for non-existant/non-working hardware features in the past (on my motherboard), and I don't want to see any more of that same sort of behavior proliferating in this industry.
PS.
Here's my four-step guide to making money in the technology industry:
1 - promise features, hype them like they were the second coming and the key to personal salvation
2 - release product, in limited quantities at first, sell for big, big bucks
3 - eventually customers find out that features don't work, tell them they will work in the next revision
4 - profit!!!
(repeat as desired until rich beyond wildest dreams)
You're an in teresting person Virtual Larry.
The point I was trying to make to you is that if in use the end result is achieved, and you don't have to do anything different to achieve it, you're not really out anything.
Why is this about the "public integrity of a corporation"? Pretty difficult to pin that down, don't you think? Whose definition of integrity? We've already seen people here who say they don't care how the job gets done as long as it is, they would directly contradict you?
I don't think any of us can say at this point that the PVP on every nV40 functions as originally advertised. The specs on the upcoming fix for this problem and what I've been told lead me to believe they are. I may be proven wrong, I'm not associated with nVidia or it's OEMs in any way. In any case, I hope I'm right and we'll all see sooner rather than later.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter