• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Here's what AMD didn't want us to see - HAWX 2 benchmark

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Scali said:
To be exact, it was AMD's mail asking people NOT to use the benchmark, which triggered the HardOCP post which started all this: http://hardocp.com/news/2010/10/20/benchmark_wars
Click to expand...
Nvidia asked reviewers TO USE the benchmark, which they co-wrote. And they literally dropped off overclocked 460's at reviewers doorsteps at the last minute. Not to mention the "review guides" Nvidia is infamous for. Don't act like Nvidia is some innocent entity. They wrote the book on dishonest practices, and I suspect as they bleed more and more market share, they will take things to even more dishonest levels.
 
AnandThenMan said:
Nvidia asked reviewers TO USE the benchmark, which they co-wrote. And they literally dropped off overclocked 460's at reviewers doorsteps at the last minute. Not to mention the "review guides" Nvidia is infamous for. Don't act like Nvidia is some innocent entity. They wrote the book on dishonest practices, and I suspect as they bleed more and more market share, they will take things to even more dishonest levels.
Click to expand...


AMD has review guides too...you know that right?

And it's not like AMD didn't push DX11 tesselation benchmarks when NVIDIA had no hardware..AvP or DIRT2 anyone?
 
Folks, a plea for some civility if you will.

If you make it personal or take it personal then odds are that you are not enjoying yourself here, and we want you to be here because you enjoy being here.

Please keep the content of your posts on-topic and not inflammatory or flame-baiting. Seriously guys, you are making baby Jesus cry.

Moderator Idontcare
 
Red Storm said:
You should read the link you provided. It clearly states, "Yesterday we got an email from NVIDIA about a new H.A.W.X. 2 benchmark and the company encouraged us to use it on upcoming reviews."
Click to expand...

Yea I read that.
Then I read the next line:
"Today we got an email from AMD asking us not to use it on upcoming products."
And apparently THEN they posted this article, as I said.

I think you should read the link as well.
 
Scali said:
I think you should read the link as well.
Click to expand...
Would you find it acceptable if AMD assisted a game dev to make a demo that purposely used a code path that crippled performance on Nvidia hardware, and then asked reviewers to include it as part of their benchmark suite? Also, any offer Nvidia made to the dev to help improve performance would be denied.

All good?
 
Well, let's put it this way:
If you are a hardware company, what is more suspicious?
When you offer people hardware and point them to new benchmarks because you WANT them to benchmark your products against the competition?
Or when you send reviewers emails saying that you DON'T want them to compare your products against the competition?
 
AnandThenMan said:
Would you find it acceptable if AMD assisted a game dev to make a demo that purposely used a code path that crippled performance on Nvidia hardware, and then asked reviewers to include it as part of their benchmark suite? Also, any offer Nvidia made to the dev to help improve performance would be denied.

All good?
Click to expand...

Okay, I see that in your head it is already decided that nVidia has deliberately crippled performance on AMD's hardware.
Apparently in your head there is no possibility that AMD's hardware might actually perform considerably worse regarding certain aspects of the DX11 standard.

As long as you are not doing anything nasty, I have no problems with making benchmarks and games that show off the latest features on new hardware.
I fully supported ATi with their Radeon 9700, and 3DMark03, Half-Life 2 and various other games, which pushed SM2.0, making GeForce FX look like the underpowered piece of you-know-what that it really was.
Nothing wrong with that. As soon as nVidia came out with the GeForce 6-series, their SM2.0 was up to snuff, and all those benchmarks and games worked fine as well, because there was nothing nasty about them, no crippling nVidia.
 
Last edited:
AnandThenMan said:
Would you find it acceptable if AMD assisted a game dev to make a demo that purposely used a code path that crippled performance on Nvidia hardware, and then asked reviewers to include it as part of their benchmark suite? Also, any offer Nvidia made to the dev to help improve performance would be denied.

All good?
Click to expand...

I would find it acceptable if AMD or Nvidia did that. (I'd be worried about their competitive spirit if they didn't try)

What I would be worried about knowing, as a consumer, is whether or not my trusted review site(s) complied.

You guys are familiar with the story of the parable The Scorpion and the Frog?

The story is about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river.

The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown as well.

The frog then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming them both.

When asked why, the scorpion explains, "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."
Click to expand...

It is foolish to expect either business entity to be anything but the scorpions they aim to be.

At the same time I expect my trusted reviewers to let me know when something is afoot so I am not the stupid-ass frog of the story!
 
Scali said:
Okay, I see that in your head it is already decided that nVidia has deliberately crippled performance on AMD's hardware.
Click to expand...
I'm going by pattern of behaviour. Nvidia has in the past (Batman AA etc.) indeed intentionally caused lower performance on AMD hardware. In the case of Batman AA, ATI cards actually do all the rendering passes, but never benefit from the output. Using the hardware ID hack, performance stays the same, but anti-aliasing is performed identically to an Nvidia card.

Nvidia has set the precedent, they can't be trusted.
 
AnandThenMan said:
I'm going by pattern of behaviour. Nvidia has in the past (Batman AA etc.) indeed intentionally caused lower performance on AMD hardware. In the case of Batman AA, ATI cards actually do all the rendering passes, but never benefit from the output. Using the hardware ID hack, performance stays the same, but anti-aliasing is performed identically to an Nvidia card.
Click to expand...

I have already commented on this numerous times, even having to argue with people who don't even understand what deferred shading is.
Short version: you're wrong.
 
Scali said:
I have already commented on this numerous times, even having to argue with people who don't even understand what deferred shading is.
Short version: you're wrong.
Click to expand...


I have noticed at trend.
AMD PR makes a claim.
The claims gets debunked.
AMD fans still use original (now debunked) claims as a "fact".
Makes you wonder...
 
Idontcare said:
I would find it acceptable if AMD or Nvidia did that.
Click to expand...
I personally don't find it acceptable at all, especially from the game dev.
I'd be worried about their competitive spirit if they didn't try
Click to expand...
That's one way to look at it. Or, a company may just be confident enough in their hardware that they don't need to resort to tricks and cheats. Ultimately, the market will decide what is correct.
At the same time I expect my trusted reviewers to let me know when something is afoot so I am not the stupid-ass frog of the story!
Click to expand...
Me too. Which is why I am disappointed that Ryan Smith used an overclocked 460, even after stating that it explicitly goes against review policy.
 
Cool!

Weak geek fights! Or more like a kitten/bitch slap fight.

Thanks for the entertainment.....and all the angst about a video card, something that doesn't matter one whit in life.

Makes you wonder who shills for whom seeing who is taking what side in the petty arguments above.


Thread-crapping is not acceptable.

Moderator Idontcare
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AnandThenMan said:
I've tested the scenario myself. You are wrong.
Click to expand...

So you tried a hack and gave it a look, and figured "Hum, okay, I think this looks like it's supposed to be looking"?
Do you even know how the hack works, and why it works?
Do you know what it is you're supposed to be testing in the first place?
 
Scali said:
So you tried a hack and gave it a look, and figured "Hum, okay, I think this looks like it's supposed to be looking"?
Do you even know how the hack works, and why it works?
Do you know what it is you're supposed to be testing in the first place?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Since the Game of the year edition is out you can see the hack allows exactly the same AA quality.
 
Idontcare said:
It is foolish to expect either business entity to be anything but the scorpions they aim to be.
Click to expand...

I agree!

Personally expect both do be disingenuous and it is not what they do say but what they do not say. Personally expect both to shine lights on what they do well and cast shadows on their competitors and shine lights back on themselves. The idea of good guy vs bad guy are really more-so illusions and they're corporate entities, and what is best for the company's self interest.
 
GaiaHunter said:
Yes.

Since the Game of the year edition is out you can see the hack allows exactly the same AA quality.
Click to expand...

I already said it was trivial for the developer to make it work on DX10.1 hardware in another thread.
You didn't answer my questions though:
What does the hack do, and how do you test if it works?
 
Scali said:
So you tried a hack and gave it a look, and figured "Hum, okay, I think this looks like it's supposed to be looking"?
Click to expand...
No. I compared the identical save point/location between Nvidia and ATI cards. One with the hack, one without. Without, the ATI card had no anti-aliasing. With the hack, it did, and the screenshot was identical to the Nvidia card. The frame rate on the ATI hardware remained identical with or without the hack. The only difference is AA was applied vs. not.

I don't know if I still have the screenshots, I doubt it. But I'm not the only one that did these tests, it's easily repeatable.
 
AnandThenMan said:
No. I compared the identical save point/location between Nvidia and ATI cards. One with the hack, one without. Without, the ATI card had no anti-aliasing. With the hack, it did, and the screenshot was identical to the Nvidia card. The frame rate on the ATI hardware remained identical with or without the hack. The only difference is AA was applied vs. not.

I don't know if I still have the screenshots, I doubt it. But I'm not the only one that did these tests, it's easily repeatable.
Click to expand...

You don't understand.
I'm asking you if you understand why the hack would work.
Because once you understand why the hack works, the rest is easy to explain. As long as it doesn't, you'll remain stuck in your fantasy world that this is all nVidia's evil-doing.
 
Scali said:
You don't understand.
I'm asking you if you understand why the hack would work.
Because once you understand why the hack works, the rest is easy to explain. As long as it doesn't, you'll remain stuck in your fantasy world that this is all nVidia's evil-doing.
Click to expand...
I know exactly why the hack works. The vendor ID check is nullified/moot, so the rendering path no longer jumps over a stage, and the proper output is realized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top