More IQ hacks from nvidia ?Farcry..

[CaiNaM]

please.. someone shoot me for continuing to debate with fanboi's who ignore logic or reason if it doesn't agree with their baised views...

Which of those two screenshots are done with the 56.64 and the 45.28 driver as was done on the Chinese website? I mean even if you sift through the entire thread to pull out the right versions not even one of them matches the spots that their shots were taken at.

Not to mention the site was testing combinations of both the patch combined with combinations of the two drivers, all the while being take at the same spot

i suppose since i don't know where that one spot it, it's possible that nvidia and/or crytek conspired to eliminate the reflection on that one pipe as it negatively impacted the performance of the game on an nvidia card. the idiots forgot to remove it from all those other places tho.. dumbasses... hard to figure how the hell they managed to even code the game in the first place.

How do any of the cases presented here match any of theirs? The closest one appears to be here but all that proves is that the 56.72s don't appear to be causing any degradation at all in version 1.0 of the program. Certainly, that lends a lot of credibility against nVidia cheating in general in Far Cry and I freely admit that.

However it still doesn't disprove the website's findings.

what, exaclty were the "website's findings"? please tell me, as i can't read chinese.. as i've said multiple times, i have no clue what the context of those screenshots were. my effort was to verify or refute the OP's claim that nv drivers caused the degredation as he claimed. i think i've conclusively shown that "more iq hacks from nvidia.." was BS, which was my intent.

Again I'll ask for correctly matching screenshots. Without them you can't prove or disprove the site's results and that is a fact.

and frankly, i'm not going to invest the time. i found out what i wanted to find out: that nvidia did not trade iq for performance by eliminating the ps2 refelctions between various drivers.

Why is that wrong? Are you claiming that in general ATi is just as suspicious as nVidia when it comes to cheating?

Besides, I've made it perfectly clear many times that I didn't automatically label nVidia as guilty on this one. Yes I suspected but the possibility of the patch causing it was always there too.

no, ati is above reproach. they only got caught a few times...

I'm still waiting on those correct screenshots to prove me wrong. If you or anyone else provides them I'll happily admit the results here are not able to replicate their results. Until then using hypothetical examples that approximate theirs is simply an invalid tactic.

and you'll wait a long damn time... the effort simply isn't worth it.. like i said, it's obvious the rendering effect was only removed from certain specific pipes in order to improve overall game performance..

i will have this to say tho.. the v1.1 patch definately causes multiple issues.. however, it's not a driver issue as the OP claimed. now, off for some :beer: , ;wine; , & :music: it's saturday night!

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Which of those two screenshots are done with the 56.64 and the 45.28 driver as was done on the Chinese website? I mean even if you sift through the entire thread to pull out the right versions not even one of them matches the spots that their shots were taken at.

The exhibited effects are the same.

Not to mention the site was testing combinations of both the patch combined with combinations of the two drivers, all the while being take at the same spot.

Quite frankly, we have no freaking clue what that site was testing.

However it still doesn't disprove the website's findings.

What were their findings? I assume you can speak the language...

Again I'll ask for correctly matching screenshots. Without them you can't prove or disprove the site's results and that is a fact.

I'll ask you to show me correctly matching screenshots on the chinese site. None of them match, if you look at the frame number in each image, it is different, possibly different enough from whatever demo they were playing back that a light source had been switched off. Since they don't match, I CAN refute the site's imaginary results (quite frankly, you don't know WTF the site is saying). If you're saying it's not the same area, I'm saying it's not the same frame in THEIR benchmark. Unless they are all the same frame, there is no reason to believe that that is what they are trying to show..

Why is that wrong? Are you claiming that in general ATi is just as suspicious as nVidia when it comes to cheating?

It's wrong because you are determining it's a duck without hearing it quack. Show me the evidence to support that this is an IQ hack situation. Try and prove a positive than to disprove a negative.

I'm still waiting on those correct screenshots to prove me wrong. If you or anyone else provides them I'll happily admit the results here are not able to replicate their results. Until then using hypothetical examples that approximate theirs is simply an invalid tactic.

I'm waiting for screenshots that prove you right, or have you none?

 

[BFG10K]

The reason my argument is a little better BFG

It isn't better at all. In fact it's quite invalid.

is that when you talk about running 10X7 4X8X UT2004, it's NOT cpu dependent.

It mostly is; if it wasn't the performance delta wouldn't increase when the resolution was increased.

Now, if you saying it's pointless to say a 5800Ultra and a 9700Pro and a 9800Pro all perform about the same at UT2004 10X7 4X8x because they all have sufficient power to run the game at those setting, I agree with you.

No, I'm saying it's invalid to start a thread claiming the cards are equal. They aren't equal, they are simply mostly CPU limited in the settings you constantly choose to use. There's nothing wrong with using the settings you use; the problem is claiming cards are equal based on those settings.

Where we disagree is when you say the 9700Pro or 9800Pro is better because they run 16X12 4x8X better than a 5800/5900, because no one playUT2004 at 16X12 4X8X on those cards, because it's too slow.

By your definition it's too slow. So once again your opinion is determining the validity of an argument and determining that I am a fanboy when it can't do either.

It's too slow for me too but that's beside the point; the point is your are passing off opinion as fact and ignoring the real facts.

When you point out some benchmarks where the 9700Pro is faster than my 5800U and is usable, I'll listen.

That's been done many times. You know this which is exactly why you continue to use 1024 x 768. How else do you explain your constant adjustment of settings to make it suit your argument?

 

[BFG10K]

please.. someone shoot me for continuing to debate with fanboi's who ignore logic or reason if it doesn't agree with their baised views..

I'm not a fanboy. It's not my problem you can't comprehend simple logic. It's also not my problem that you still fail to understand my position in this and are still jumping to invalid conclusions even while accusing me of doing the same thing.

suppose since i don't know where that one spot it, it's possible that nvidia and/or crytek conspired to eliminate the reflection on that one pipe as it negatively impacted the performance of the game on an nvidia card.

It's possible but I don't know exactly what they did. I mean bugs/hacks can exist in on place of the game but not in others. The real point is that your screenshots can't prove or disprove their screenshots.

What they can tell is that in version 1.0 of the game it appears that nVidia's drivers are not displaying any problems in the places you took screenshots, which is good news for them.

what, exaclty were the "website's findings"? please tell me, as i can't read chinese..

You don't need to read Chinese. If you can't understand the significance of their screenshots then you're either turning a blind eye or your have issues that extend beyond the scope of the thread.

my effort was to verify or refute the OP's claim that nv drivers caused the degredation as he claimed.

Okay, I admit you have done that. Based on your screenshots there is no evidence that nVidia's drivers are reducing the IQ. I freely admit that.

i think i've conclusively shown that "more iq hacks from nvidia.." was BS, which was my intent.

The original tone of your post(s) was they you were attacking the Chinese website, not the issue in general.

i found out what i wanted to find out: that nvidia did not trade iq for performance by eliminating the ps2 refelctions between various drivers.

Good for you. That doesn't make the rest of us ATi fanboys if we don't claim your shots can't disprove the ones at the website, because logically they can't. Using logic != fanboy.

they only got caught a few times...

Somebody not getting caught could actually be because they have nothing to get caught on.

i will have this to say tho.. the v1.1 patch definately causes multiple issues.. however, it's not a driver issue as the OP claimed.

I'd have to agree with you on this one. From your shots there doesn't appear to be any problems with the drivers; in fact the green floor looks a tad better in the later version. Also performance is up too, which is a good thing.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca

Originally posted by: ronnn

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
well, here's something you ati fanboi's

The final arguement in everyone of these threads is name calling. With the same usual band of suspects leading the charge. So when the NV40 and R420 are released, time to read other forums for more unbiased stuff, I think.

It's ironic you say that quoting CaiNaM, since he was at least willing to do some work to determine the truth, regardless of what the result was. It is only namecalling if you are a fanboi isn't it? If I say all you brits out there, a japanese person would be going out of their way getting offended at it.
Also considering the contents of the post, which you obviously didn't bother reading, it's a rather misplaced comment. Your post is a simple case of judging a book by its cover.


You are right I apologize, the term "you ati fanboi's" was not used as bait while trolling in this incident. I did read the whole thread, but really could not understand the big deal. It seemed at worst Nvidia was showing a willingness to continue to support their current product, even with the greatest being released in a few days. I was a little worried about that as I had reccomended a 5900xt to a friend a couple of months back (before the 9800pro dropped in price).

 

[BFG10K]

The exhibited effects are the same.

The same as what?

Quite frankly, we have no freaking clue what that site was testing.

Presumably they isolated a single pipe and were testing the shine factor on it (which is directly generated by shaders).

What were their findings?

That there was a degradation of IQ when cross-comparing the two application versions with the two driver versions. This generic IQ reduction pattern is followed by HardOCP and a few posts on the forums I've seen.

None of them match, if you look at the frame number in each image, it is different, possibly different enough from whatever demo they were playing back that a light source had been switched off.

The frames don't have to match, the shots just have to be in the same area. Similar to Cainam's shots in fact (i.e he used the same area for both sets).

Since they don't match, I CAN refute the site's imaginary results (quite frankly, you don't know WTF the site is saying).

Yes you can, just like I can refute Cainam's shots on the basis that they don't match theirs. Or am I not allowed to do this because I'm a fanboy? Like I said before, logic != fanboy.

It's wrong because you are determining it's a duck without hearing it quack.

I have heard it "quack"; the reduced IQ is the "quack".

Show me the evidence to support that this is an IQ hack situation.

Why do I need to show you evidence to a claim I never made?

I'm waiting for screenshots that prove you right, or have you none?

There is absolutely zero burden of proof on me because I never made a solid claim about anything. The only thing I claimed is that there is some IQ degradation going on and that nature of it is fishy. That's it.

If you want to diasgree with that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary then that's your problem, not mine.

If Cainam (or anyone else for that matter) wants to charge in and claim the site is BS then the burden of proof is on him. It's not my job to prove the Chinese website is correct if I never claimed it was or it wasn't. Likewise, I never claimed nVidia's drivers were cheating in this issue which means it's not my job to prove it one way or another.

 

[CaiNaM]

you know... in a sense you are right ronnn.. i probably played the "fanboi" card a bit much, but it wasn't a troll, rather a response.. frankly, i don't care whether nvidia is better at this or ati is better at that... i just speak out against misinformation and try to remain accurate.

certain people have a way of not only providing outright incorrect information, but nit-picking differences as well as exaggerating them just to put their card in a better light, and at times i get caught up in it.. my bad.

no sense being worried about your recommendation to your friend. at the time, the 5900xt probably was the best bang for the buck, and arguably still is. frankly, i like my nv35, it's a great card. it's just not as strong as my 9800p and 9700p when running ps2 shaders. in all other areas, it's pretty much give and take between the 3 cards (9700p being slowest, but not by a huge amount).

i think rollo said it best: Darn it BFG. When are you going to pull out the big guns, your famous "What would you rather ride across the country? A Galapagos Tortoise or a musk ox?! The musk ox is TWICE as fast!" argument? while that too, is a bit of an exagerration to drive home a point, the bottom line is that while one is a bit stronger than the other, at best the PS2 performance is mediocre from this generation of cards.

the saving grace is that ps2 shader usage is still mostly inconsequential in today's games. even farcry doesn't use those effects prominently. given the right setup, it will run well and look good on either of these cards (tho the v1.1 patch is not good on nv cards, imo as it introduces many issues).

 

[BFG10K]

Rollo also likes to use Doom III as evidence of the 5800's superiority and frequently links to benchmarks from it.

That gives you an idea just how consistent and stable his thought patterns are and the amusing irony I get whenever he calls me a fanboy.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
you know... in a sense you are right ronnn.. i probably played the "fanboi" card a bit much, but it wasn't a troll, rather a response.. frankly, i don't care whether nvidia is better at this or ati is better at that... i just speak out against misinformation and try to remain accurate.

certain people have a way of not only providing outright incorrect information, but nit-picking differences as well as exaggerating them just to put their card in a better light, and at times i get caught up in it.. my bad.

no sense being worried about your recommendation to your friend. at the time, the 5900xt probably was the best bang for the buck, and arguably still is. frankly, i like my nv35, it's a great card. it's just not as strong as my 9800p and 9700p when running ps2 shaders. in all other areas, it's pretty much give and take between the 3 cards (9700p being slowest, but not by a huge amount).

i think rollo said it best: Darn it BFG. When are you going to pull out the big guns, your famous "What would you rather ride across the country? A Galapagos Tortoise or a musk ox?! The musk ox is TWICE as fast!" argument? while that too, is a bit of an exagerration to drive home a point, the bottom line is that while one is a bit stronger than the other, at best the PS2 performance is mediocre from this generation of cards.

the saving grace is that ps2 shader usage is still mostly inconsequential in today's games. even farcry doesn't use those effects prominently. given the right setup, it will run well and look good on either of these cards (tho the v1.1 patch is not good on nv cards, imo as it introduces many issues).

Well I must admit that I found farcry rather choppy with a 9700pro at 1024 x 768 texture quality at medium all other settings at very high. I set anisotropic filtering to 4 and aa to medium - and for some reason it seems to be running smoothly now. Not sure what difference that made. Really though the bottom line is I like that game and am not sure if I would like it as much if the IQ was poorer. Thanks for explaining Rollo's comment to me, I never can understand that guy.

 

[YBS1]

I'm not wanting to get involved in the flamefest this has turned out to be over the "meat" of this thread, but just wanted to add a little observation. I get a chuckle everytime someone on these boards calls BFG an ATI fanboy. I've been here long enough to remember when he was called an nVidia fanboy, he's never appeared to me to be a fanboy, just passionate about what he feels is the better product. The difference between BFG and the people on the nV side of the fence calling him a fanboy is this...Two/three months from now if nVidia delivers a superior product I won't be suprised at all to see him singing nVidia's praises. However, if ATI delivers the superior product I somehow doubt I'll see the one's currently on nVidia's side do the same.

 

[nRollo]

The difference between BFG and the people on the nV side of the fence calling him a fanboy is this...Two/three months from now if nVidia delivers a superior product I won't be suprised at all to see him singing nVidia's praises. However, if ATI delivers the superior product I somehow doubt I'll see the one's currently on nVidia's side do the same.

No, the difference between me and BFG is I buy and like BOTH company's product and don't quibble about performance differences at setting no one would ever use, minor IQ differences you need to look at a still shot to notice, and clunky PS2 performance that just became an issue this month, on cards that will be obsolete next month.

I think that about sums it up.

 

[CaiNaM]

hehe.. it's funny.. why would someone be called a fainboi? because they tend to be "passionate" beyond reason about whichever product they happen to own?

point is some here are not on either "fence"; that's called being "objective"

besides, this thread has mostly been consisted as "sparks", not "flames"

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

What were their findings?

That there was a degradation of IQ when cross-comparing the two application versions with the two driver versions.

Really? So quote the site since you speak the language.

Yes you can, just like I can refute Cainam's shots on the basis that they don't match theirs. Or am I not allowed to do this because I'm a fanboy? Like I said before, logic != fanboy.

I never said you couldn't refute CaiNaM's shots, I said prove that the shots in the original comparison are actually accurate. Since logic has already proven your statements wrong (by your own admission), continuing to argue in the face of logic and fact counter to what you are stating == fanboy.

I have heard it "quack"; the reduced IQ is the "quack".

You mean the reduced IQ you just admitted above does not logically exist?

Why do I need to show you evidence to a claim I never made?

If you aren't making such claims, why are you saying things like:

As I already explained to you IQ issues in general are currently treated with more seriousness on nVidia products because of the scams they've pulled off in the recent past.

When there are no apparent IQ issues?

There is absolutely zero burden of proof on me because I never made a solid claim about anything. The only thing I claimed is that there is some IQ degradation going on and that nature of it is fishy. That's it.

Yes, and that is the proof I would like. SHOW ME this "some IQ degradation" in Far Cry 1.0 with the 45.28 and 56.64 dets.

If you want to diasgree with that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary then that's your problem, not mine.

The non-existant overwhelming evidence is precisely what I am trying to locate...

If Cainam (or anyone else for that matter) wants to charge in and claim the site is BS then the burden of proof is on him. It's not my job to prove the Chinese website is correct if I never claimed it was or it wasn't. Likewise, I never claimed nVidia's drivers were cheating in this issue which means it's not my job to prove it one way or another.

You're right BFG, it isn't your job to back ANYTHING you are saying up. I mean, gosh, why would we want you to do that? That might actually lend some credence to what you are saying.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: YBS1
I'm not wanting to get involved in the flamefest this has turned out to be over the "meat" of this thread, but just wanted to add a little observation. I get a chuckle everytime someone on these boards calls BFG an ATI fanboy. I've been here long enough to remember when he was called an nVidia fanboy, he's never appeared to me to be a fanboy, just passionate about what he feels is the better product. The difference between BFG and the people on the nV side of the fence calling him a fanboy is this...Two/three months from now if nVidia delivers a superior product I won't be suprised at all to see him singing nVidia's praises. However, if ATI delivers the superior product I somehow doubt I'll see the one's currently on nVidia's side do the same.

Especially if as expected in some quarters, the x800 xt is faster with less bugs (drivers will not need the same tweaking as old tech), but the nv40 has more features and considered somewhat more future proof. We will see a flip flop by many. And if the nv40 somehow has the highest futuremark 2003 score ...... , lets see who suddenly supports it and who suddenly states it is crap.

I have found BFG quite informative at times, but then I am an admitted idiot on these matters.
:beer:

 

[XRAYSPEX]

I have a 5900se by eVGA and just downloaded a 60.72 forceware driver off a link in this site. I don't mean it sent me to a web page to download the driver. I clicked on the link here and VOILA....the driver download started. I am afraid to install it though. Currently using 56.72. Are there any other lab rats out there who tried it already? (I'm such a coward when it comes to video driver changes). I don't have FarCry yet...(I will soon though). I came home the other day with Unreal Tournament 2004, Battlefield Vietnam, Rainbow6 Athena sword and Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004. The wife almost had kittens. I don't know what the kids are gonna eat (just kidding......................about the wife! LOL). So many games, so little time....and what's up with this update crap from the windows update site. Every time I update my video driver and then go to the windows update site I need an "nVidia driver update". I got sick and tired of doing it. When I updated to the 56.72 and went to the windows site and got their update, it "autorolled" the driver back to 53.03 after a restart. Boy was I mad! Probably just a check to see if the driver is WHQL certified (and the 56.72 is NOT according to the dxDiag) so it's just an update to please microsoft I guess. The 5900se runs Flight Simulator 2004 (even the water) pretty good on the "everthing turned up" mode. That is one videocard/processor intensive game. I'll tolerate down to about 28FPS and anything below that and somethings gotta give like lowering antialiasing settings, bilinear as oppossed to trilinear filtering..something to bring up the framerate to at least 28FPS.Let me now about this 60.72 driver if ya installed it.....that is if your screens not black now and you can even read this post..............

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Rollo also likes to use Doom III as evidence of the 5800's superiority and frequently links to benchmarks from it.

That gives you an idea just how consistent and stable his thought patterns are and the amusing irony I get whenever he calls me a fanboy.

As usual (at least lately) you miss the entire point of including the Doom3 benchmarks. I've never said the 5800 is "superior" and never would. I leave that hyperbole for you.
You see, I don't have any need to inflate my own ego with something as trivial as my choice of a video card, like some people here who feel the need to say their card's performance is "superior" 7 days a week.
I don't care if my cards performance isn't "superior" the only reason I respond to your unfathomable chest thumping at all is to refute your ludicrous claims of my cards "inferiority", because it loses at some benchmarks neither card can run in a usable fashion. (and don't start with that,"who am I to decide what's "usable" malarky- UT2004 is an online shooter and you don't play it at 16X12,4X8X if you want to win, or even see what's happening- you know it as well as I do)

I only include the Doom 3 benchmarks as one of many the 5800 runs as well as ATI cards. You've never seen upcoming games used by ATI? How about HL2, and Colin McCrae and Far Cry, which were both just released.

You are only right in that you can bet I'd never base any buying decision on a benchmark of a game that isn't out yet.

 

[BFG10K]

No, the difference between me and BFG is I buy and like BOTH company's product and don't quibble about performance differences at setting no one would ever use, minor IQ differences you need to look at a still shot to notice, and clunky PS2 performance that just became an issue this month, on cards that will be obsolete next month.

Please, don't pretend to be the innocent victim here. Under normal circumstances most people would question the validity of the threads and comments you've posted about the 5800 but since this is "call anyone a fanboy who bashes nVidia" territory it isn't being done. But you certainly haven't fooled me with your contradictory logic.

As usual (at least lately) you miss the entire point of including the Doom3 benchmarks.

The point for you is to illustrate the 5800U's superiority. Now personally I don't mind you using Doom III because it shows the NV3x's somewhat superior stencil performance and it's no secret that it's been designed that way. If you want to show its potential advantage in a currently theoretical situation that's fine by be.

The reason I have a problem with it is because when it comes to the small handful of PS 2.0 apps that have been released and show ATi in a good light you downplay them with inept comments such as going on about shiny pipes. Yet when it comes to a benchmark a year old from a game we don't even know when will be arriving you have absolutely no hesitation bringing it forward as evidence.

Not only that but you quibble about a few frames and claim they make no difference and also that today's cards are "unplayable" anyway when pretty much exactly the same thing applies to the Doom III benchmarks you're linking to.

Like I said before, if you think you've fooled everyone here with your "poor old me routine, I just like trying out cards" then you are sorely mistaken.

 

[BFG10K]

Really? So quote the site since you speak the language.

Here's a tip for you: enable images in your browser.

I said prove that the shots in the original comparison are actually accurate.

Why? I never claimed they were accurate (or inaccurate for that matter).

Since logic has already proven your statements wrong (by your own admission), continuing to argue in the face of logic and fact counter to what you are stating == fanboy.

It has done no such thing. You are trying to dump the burden of proof on me when it isn't me who is making the claims that require said proof.

You mean the reduced IQ you just admitted above does not logically exist?

The reduced IQ does exist but the exact IQ reduction has not been as yet reproduced from the Chinese website. Also according to Cainam's shots nVidia's driver doesn't appear to be the blame.

But that's fine since I never claimed the Chinese website was correct or that nVidia's drivers were cheating.

If you aren't making such claims, why are you saying things like:

Because of nVidia's past actions I do treat IQ issues more serious than ATi's yes. I've given you a statement and the evidence for that. If you think you can break it then you're welcome to try.

When there are no apparent IQ issues?

No apparent IQ issues? Have you bothered clicking on the links in this thread? Start with HardOCP and the move onto the nvnews thread.

Yes, and that is the proof I would like. SHOW ME this "some IQ degradation" in Far Cry 1.0 with the 45.28 and 56.64 dets.

Where did I say the drivers caused it? I said when the newest driver is combined with the latest patch the game is exihibiting IQ errors. That has been proven to be correct in no less that two places.

The non-existant overwhelming evidence is precisely what I am trying to locate...

Are you telling me you still can't accept the the IQ difference in general (which is what I claimed)? Or are you still hung up about the Chinese website and are still trying to pin something on me that I never said about it?

You're right BFG, it isn't your job to back ANYTHING you are saying up.

I made precisely two concrete statements in this thread and here are the direct quotes:

(1) There is a difference in IQ and there is a difference in benchmark results. Whether or not the Chinese website is trustworthy remains to be seen although HardOCP's and nvNews' comments do lend it some credibility. Something is definitely fishy here.

That is of course TRUE.

(2) It isn't; however nVidia have been caught red-handed many times cheating in the form of lowered IQ and thus a problem with nVidia is currently more suspicious than a problem with ATi.

Also quite TRUE.

The burden of proof on me is on exactly those two comments which just happen to contain self-generated evidence to back themselves up, so I have achieved the required proof. If you want to try to contest either of those two statements you are welcome to try.

If you want to contest something else then you are simply clutching at straws or generating complete strawmans since I never said anything else.

 

[nRollo]

Like I said before, if you think you've fooled everyone here with your "poor old me routine, I just like trying out cards" then you are sorely mistaken.

Good lord BFG. Why would I go from a "superior" Voodoo 2 to a Banshee? Why would I go from a TNT2 to a Rage Fury? Why would I go from a GF1 to a MAXX? Why would I go from a GF2 Pro to a Radeon 32, then to a VIVO, than back to a GF2 Pro? Why would I go from a GF3 to a 8500 to a then old V5? Why would I go from a 9700Pro to a 5800NU? Why would I go from a 9800Pro to a 5800Ultra? LOL- I even BOUGHT a V2 sli rig at Best Buy when they were selling as V1000s to put on my GF2 rig, even though a GF2 owns a V2 sli at everything, and I'd had about 8 Voodoo2s at that point already.

If this doesn't give you the idea "I just like trying cards" you are further from reality than even I thought. The fact of the matter is, I've gone from supposedly "superior" to supposedly "inferior" cards many, many, many times.
Where I work, it used to be a joke that I'd come in about once a month and say "Guess what I got?" to which my co-workers would laugh and reply "A new video card".
My wife has long since given up on trying to understand why we needed several video cards a year.

I just bought a Leadtek GF 2 for my son's computer off the FS/T, even though I just sold his Ti4200, and will probably give him my 5800Ultra within two months. And he doesn't even know the difference, and I don't use that computer.

So if you think I "don't like to try new video cards", as the goofs on daytime talk shows say, "You don't know me".

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Here's a tip for you: enable images in your browser.

Here's a tip for you: Translate the page or shut up.

Why? I never claimed they were accurate (or inaccurate for that matter).

Yet you continue to use them as the basis of your point. If you have no interest in proving that the basis for your point that there is IQ reduction taking place is accurate, then it undermines your whole point. How is that so hard to understand?

It has done no such thing. You are trying to dump the burden of proof on me when it isn't me who is making the claims that require said proof.

You aren't?

The reduced IQ does exist but the exact IQ reduction has not been as yet reproduced from the Chinese website.

It exists, I said prove it does. You can't even do that. There is really no point to continuing this discussion, as you won't even make an effort yourself to prove the situation. Put up or shut up IMO. I know you won't do either, that's what fanboyism is about.

Because of nVidia's past actions I do treat IQ issues more serious than ATi's yes. I've given you a statement and the evidence for that. If you think you can break it then you're welcome to try.

I'll keep that in mind next time you are dealing with anyone german, I mean, given the past actions of certain germans, we'd expect all germans are anti-semite racist warmongers. There is something to be said for the novel concept of "having an open mind".

No apparent IQ issues? Have you bothered clicking on the links in this thread? Start with HardOCP and the move onto the nvnews thread.

Yes, where do they say there are IQ issues with FC1.0 between different driver revisions. Point that out to me please. I see a lot of discussion regarding FarCry 1.1 vs FarCry 1.0, but nothing mentioning differences in driver revisions with *JUST* 1.0.

Yes, and that is the proof I would like. SHOW ME this "some IQ degradation" in Far Cry 1.0 with the 45.28 and 56.64 dets.

Where did I say the drivers caused it? I said when the newest driver is combined with the latest patch the game is exihibiting IQ errors.

Yes, so basically to sum up, all your posts in response to CaiNaM and myself since page three have been completely irrelevant, because you were intentionally talking about something we weren't, yet flaming us for stating the facts about something we weren't actually speaking about.

Are you telling me you still can't accept the the IQ difference in general (which is what I claimed)? Or are you still hung up about the Chinese website and are still trying to pin something on me that I never said about it?

I have yet to see any concrete reproducible evidence that there is any IQ issues between Far Cry 1.0 w/45.28 and 56.64 driver revisions. That was was we were discussing, if you couldn't read that or understand it, that is hardly my fault.

(1) There is a difference in IQ and there is a difference in benchmark results. Whether or not the Chinese website is trustworthy remains to be seen although HardOCP's and nvNews' comments do lend it some credibility. Something is definitely fishy here.

That is of course TRUE.

Well, yes, if you completely ignore the fact that HardOCP and NVNews weren't discussing the same things we were, which you chose to argue.

(2) It isn't; however nVidia have been caught red-handed many times cheating in the form of lowered IQ and thus a problem with nVidia is currently more suspicious than a problem with ATi.
Also quite TRUE.

No, this is not a fact, this is your opinion. That is subjective, and if you can't see that, then yeah, you are just one of those purchase-loyal tards who blinds themselves to any card they don't happen to own.

The burden of proof on me is on exactly those two comments which just happen to contain self-generated evidence to back themselves up, so I have achieved the required proof. If you want to try to contest either of those two statements you are welcome to try.

If you want to contest something else then you are simply clutching at straws or generating complete strawmans since I never said anything else.

I find it ironic that you are talking about me "generating complete strawmans" when it's rather clear now that you argued situation A (what CaiNaM and I were attempting to determine -- whether there were any IQ hacks or issues in 56.64 vs 45.28) with evidence from situation B (that Far Cry 1.1 has IQ issues). There are two parts to this thread:
1) The OP mistook the issues with the Far Cry 1.1 patch for driver hacks from NVidia.
2) The other possible interpretation was that NVidia had put some IQ hacks into their 56.64 drivers for Far Cry 1.0.
The latter is what CaiNaM and I were discussing, to which you argued, using evidence regarding situation A to try and make yourself look intelligent. In reality, you either were oblivious to the actual discussion (more likely, IMO, given your history of incapability of reading the thread you are participating in), or you intentionally ignored it to try and start an argument. I prefer to assume ignorance over malice, but I know that's not your cup of tea, so which was it?

 

[YurDad]

Wow, the guys with the Ati stock are working overtime with the approach of the Nv40.

 

[CaiNaM]

ok, after messing it with it further, here is the conclusion i've come up with.

1. there are no reduced effects (nor iq reduction) between the three drivers we discussed on either v1.1 or v1.0.

2. there are differences in effects once v1.1 is installed. these differences however are consistent across all 3 driver revisions discussed, meaning it's NOT a driver thing.

these differences are twofold.. first is the blotchiness in the reflected light on the floor textures (as shown in the hardocp shots). this does not affect ALL situations where there is just reflections, just certain ones. the "why" is inconclusive, as I don't feel inclined to spend further time assessing the situation. regardless of the degree, it's broken and needs to be fixed.

second, it appears the "flashlight" is broken w/ v1.1. while all the pipes remain "shiny" when reflecting light off a fixed source, pipes that are supposed to "shine" when the flashlight is used do not in the several areas i tested.

3. the "leaked" 60.72 seems to remove the reflections from EVERYTHING in v1.1 (incl the reflections from fixed light so urces). i didn't take the time to ck if it does so in v1.0. I've had this verified by other posts on other forums independant of mine, however 1 person says it works fine for them...

those are the FACTS. interpret them how you will. to me, it pretty much refutes w/o question the title of this thread.

personally BFG i think nitpicking over the interpretation of these FACTS and changing the argument is a little pointless, as in a day or two we will have something much interesting to "nitpick"

 

[Blastman]

originally posted by BFG10K

(1) There is a difference in IQ and there is a difference in benchmark results. Whether or not the Chinese website is trustworthy remains to be seen although HardOCP's and nvNews' comments do lend it some credibility. Something is definitely fishy here.

That is of course TRUE.

: originally posted by chsh1ca

Well, yes, if you completely ignore the fact that HardOCP and NVNews weren't discussing the same things we were, which you chose to argue.

I thought BFG10K comments and analysis were very good and precise.

The Hardocp review supports both what the Chinese site posted and what I claimed. Hardocp ran their review with the 56.64 ? and ? found missing lighting (shaders?) just like the Chinese site. So they actually did touch on the same thing as the Chinese site ?

image1 image2

Both those images are with 56.64 and no patch and they?re missing lighting/shaders, so, Hardocp supports the Chinese pictures that the later drivers (56.64) aren?t rendering stuff they?re suppose too. Hardocp didn?t test with the 45.28 so they didn?t catch the fact that there is a large performance boost going from the old driver 45.28 (which renders things correctly according to the Chinese site) to the later drivers 56.64.

CaiNaM posted pictures on page 4 that the 45.28 render correctly, supporting the Chinese pictures.

So, in summary, we have 2 supporting sets of pictures that the old drivers render correctly. And we have both the Chinese pictures and the Hardocp pictures that show the 56.64?s don?t render things they?re suppose too (lights/shaders) And? the 56.64s have a large performance boost over the older drivers which the Chinese site caught. .

I?d say overall my original claims were supported pretty good.

 

[CaiNaM]

lmao...

I thought BFG10K comments and analysis were very good and precise.

The Hardocp review supports both what the Chinese site posted and what I claimed. Hardocp ran their review with the 56.64 ? and ? found missing lighting (shaders?) just like the Chinese site. So they actually did touch on the same thing as the Chinese site ?

image1 image2

Both those images are with 56.64 and no patch and they?re missing...

try to at least be a competent fanboi. do you even bother to look at the pics you are referencing? see in the top corner of image1, where it says on the left photo version 1.0 and on the right photo version 1.1? little hint: the 1.0 and 1.1... those aren't driver revisions, they're patch revisions.... same with image2. yes, it's obvious why you find BFG's "analysis" "good and precise" lol...

i can't speak for him, but if i were bfg, i'd be pissed you were coming to my aid heh.

 

[Blastman]

those aren't driver revisions, they're patch revisions....

Can?t you read. I was refering to the 1.1 patch (that?s what we were talking about). No one said drivers revisions. They were run with the 56.64?s and no 1.1 patch.