nVidia and ATI are CHEATING!!!!!!

[Harabecw]

But do we really care?
We've seen the 1465129348159478534978154897152489 posts about cheat this, cheat that, that have nothing to do with real game performance. I'm sure those who bought Rad 9700's, Rad 9800's are happy as well as those who ordered the FX5900 will be happy.
Post here if you have a FX/R3xx card and you think it simply runs great with AA/AF in your games.

 

[Jeff7]

I've got a Radeon 9700 Pro. I rather like it.
Fast, great image quality...fast. I don't really care about 3dmarks; I just sort of ran those benchmarks to see the nifty graphics. The Codecreatures demo (check Google for this) is quite impressive too. If you want more than a slide show, you'll need a Radeon 9700-level videocard.

 

[Tab]

Nvidia supposedly has better Doom III Performence, 'nuff said.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Nvidia supposedly has better Doom III Performence, 'nuff said.

better or not, my 9800 made it look very playable.....


and in other games? its either 1600x1200@85hz with max everything or 1280x960@100

love this card.

JBLaze

 

[squidman]

From unreal, at highest possible graphic settings, 1024x768, 32bpp.

these are taken from ut intro, by fraps.
from fraps log:

2003-06-14 08:34:58 - Unreal2
Frames: 2843 - Time: 57406ms - Avg: 49.524 - Min: 33 - Max: 83 -4aa 16af

2003-06-14 08:37:20 - Unreal2
Frames: 3538 - Time: 57750ms - Avg: 61.264 - Min: 39 - Max: 99 -16af

2003-06-14 08:39:14 - Unreal2
Frames: 3720 - Time: 57484ms - Avg: 64.713 - Min: 44 - Max: 101 -16 quality af

2003-06-14 08:41:26 - Unreal2
Frames: 3705 - Time: 57937ms - Avg: 63.948 - Min: 48 - Max: 91 -2aa -2af, quality

2003-06-14 08:43:22 - Unreal2
Frames: 4095 - Time: 57703ms - Avg: 70.966 - Min: 53 - Max: 101 -no aa no af

 

[JonnyBlaze]

thats the into where all the guys are walking into the stadim right?

JB

 

[DaveSimmons]

But do we really care?

yes. my current card is a geforce3 and the card before that a geforce2, but nvidia's current lies and thuggery (using lawyers to blackmail futuremark into backing down) have left me with less respect for the company and much less willing to give them any money.

I'm seriously considering buying a Radeon as my next card even if the nvidia might (currently) be faster in the Doom3 pre-beta build. Assuming nvidia isn't cheating on it too, since most sites had only a tiny window of time to try it.

 

[Corporate Thug]

$550 for a video card? riiiight

 

[squidman]

nVidia prolly dreams about having a timemachine right about now...5200 - a TOTAL failure (price and performance reflect that ), 5600 - hlf-baked, 5800 - wasnt what hey expected, and 5900 is overrated, too. They busted out crappy vgas like a machine gun! That annoys the market immensely. And the company totaly forgot about nFOrce drivers!!! they gave us some crappy ass 2.42, that stayed on their site for 3 days, and then went back to archaic 2.03??! wtf? Where my drivers at?!

But, as muchb as i dislike nVidia, for its retarded and idiotic policies, it HAS to exist, in order to maintain pure competition between ATI. Otherwise, Ati would monopolize (it still kinda did with 9700 series - for there was no equal substitute) the market, and the cards would cost n amount of dollars. Im still disappointed that i paid 220 for my 9700, for it performs like a 150 dollar worth card. But what about the 600 (!!!!!!!) dollar 5900?! Its not THAT much faster! Yet it costs a lot. Gotta be a fool to buy that. 5900 should cost no mo' than 320.
Now nVidia jacked up the price for the performance-obsessed fools to pay, so it can compensate for its failures!
booooooo!

 

[Richdog]

Im still disappointed that i paid 220 for my 9700, for it performs like a 150 dollar worth card. But what about the 600 (!!!!!!!) dollar 5900?! Its not THAT much faster! Yet it costs a lot. Gotta be a fool to buy that. 5900 should cost no mo' than 320.
Now nVidia jacked up the price for the performance-obsessed fools to pay, so it can compensate for its failures!
booooooo! [/quote]



Heh its ridiculous isnt it, the 5900 is almost 3 times more expensive, yet delivers nowhere near 3x times the performance, more like 1.25x instead, its for people with more money than sense.

 

[jjyiz28]

Originally posted by: Harabecw
But do we really care?
We've seen the 1465129348159478534978154897152489 posts about cheat this, cheat that, that have nothing to do with real game performance. I'm sure those who bought Rad 9700's, Rad 9800's are happy as well as those who ordered the FX5900 will be happy.
Post here if you have a FX/R3xx card and you think it simply runs great with AA/AF in your games.

here's my analogy. 1999 ford came out with the 99cobra with stated horsepower being something like 320. chevy came out with the 99camaro with horsepower being 310-320. but under real world performance, the cobra comes nothing close to having a 10-15% drivetrain loss when its tested on the dyno while the camaro on the other hand is actually slightly underrated at 310. joe schmoe see's the hp numbers on both camaro and cobra, buys the cobra expecting it to be on par with the camaro, does a couple of street races and track races with the camaro and falls far short on being equal. joe schmoe feels deceived by ford.

my point is, most everyone is not computer literate when they buy a computer. the only thing they might know about is 3dmark, they see the score and have some sort of expectation on how it should perform, but in real life it does not.

most AT'ers here and other computer literate folks won't personally care about what scores you get with 3dmark what with the cheating going on. but what about the rest of the 95% that don't know sh!t?? nvidia is not hurting by this, check their stock prices before and after.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Richdog
Im still disappointed that i paid 220 for my 9700, for it performs like a 150 dollar worth card. But what about the 600 (!!!!!!!) dollar 5900?! Its not THAT much faster! Yet it costs a lot. Gotta be a fool to buy that. 5900 should cost no mo' than 320.
Now nVidia jacked up the price for the performance-obsessed fools to pay, so it can compensate for its failures!
booooooo!

Heh its ridiculous isnt it, the 5900 is almost 3 times more expensive, yet delivers nowhere near 3x times the performance, more like 1.25x instead, its for people with more money than sense.[/quote]


people have been known to pay 3 times as much for 25% improvement.

 

[zsouthboy]

I'm so sick of everyone now going through every game with an electron microscope because "They might be cheating"...

Play the damn game and don't worry about it! If the image quality is not up to par, complain.

Don't complain about BENCHMANRKS. NOT EVEN REAL GAMES.

</crappy rant>

My next card is whichever is at my budget when I buy again. Not which does the best in 3Dmark2millionand72.

<-neither pro-ATi or nVidia, or anyone for that matter. I own a Ti4600, however.

 

[yhelothar]

my 9700pro sucks.. see my thread

 

[Shamrock]

NVidia "jacked up" no kind of price, blame that on your manufacturers such as ASUS, MSI, and PNY, etc. And the last time I looked, the ATI card was JUST as expensive. I dont think you'll go wrong with none of the cards.

 

[squidman]

Originally posted by: jjyiz28

Originally posted by: Harabecw
But do we really care?
We've seen the 1465129348159478534978154897152489 posts about cheat this, cheat that, that have nothing to do with real game performance. I'm sure those who bought Rad 9700's, Rad 9800's are happy as well as those who ordered the FX5900 will be happy.
Post here if you have a FX/R3xx card and you think it simply runs great with AA/AF in your games.

here's my analogy. 1999 ford came out with the 99cobra with stated horsepower being something like 320. chevy came out with the 99camaro with horsepower being 310-320. but under real world performance, the cobra comes nothing close to having a 10-15% drivetrain loss when its tested on the dyno while the camaro on the other hand is actually slightly underrated at 310. joe schmoe see's the hp numbers on both camaro and cobra, buys the cobra expecting it to be on par with the camaro, does a couple of street races and track races with the camaro and falls far short on being equal. joe schmoe feels deceived by ford.

my point is, most everyone is not computer literate when they buy a computer. the only thing they might know about is 3dmark, they see the score and have some sort of expectation on how it should perform, but in real life it does not.

most AT'ers here and other computer literate folks won't personally care about what scores you get with 3dmark what with the cheating going on. but what about the rest of the 95% that don't know sh!t?? nvidia is not hurting by this, check their stock prices before and after.

Ah.....here we see what is called a "legit" cheat. Giving real (but unimportant) numbers instead of real ones. There are 2 of giving measure of cars horsepower: the net power output, and the "brute" power outpu. The "brute" is what u always hear in the commercial "we build a car to give 300+ horsepower". Tru. An engine without transmission shall provide that. But then comes the net power. Its the power that actua;;y is being recieved by the wheels. 15% loss is usual. Example. I rmember a Mitsubishi SUV sommercial while i was in US. 200 horses they said. but russians measure power in NET units, so i wasnt surprised at all to see that that SUV was only capable to give 150-160 horses when i read about it in magazine. Americans like big numbers, and car companies give em. Measure in kilowatts, please.
Also, remeber the audio power units for that matter! Isnt audio equipment cheating heaven? Sony XPLOD amp that i got for my car says "750 Watt Power". I thought: wow, kcickass! In truth - it was the PEAK power. The constant, however was about 100x2 RMS. 200 watt as opposed to 750??! Which one is more appealing for the customer?

So what im saying, is that whole market is built on cheating us into buying something. It becomes exceptionally noticeable once u travel round the world (and here i give hte props to Swedes: their commercials recieve Squidmans "Real talk" award )

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
my 9700pro sucks.. see my thread

Dont you find it a little odd that only "your" 9700P sucks? You cant get AA and AF working, but it works for everyone else? Maybe its a Win 2003 server OS thing. Is it supported?

 

[rbV5]

My Radeon delivers as promised and then some.

 

[jjyiz28]

Originally posted by: squidman

Originally posted by: jjyiz28

Originally posted by: Harabecw
But do we really care?
We've seen the 1465129348159478534978154897152489 posts about cheat this, cheat that, that have nothing to do with real game performance. I'm sure those who bought Rad 9700's, Rad 9800's are happy as well as those who ordered the FX5900 will be happy.
Post here if you have a FX/R3xx card and you think it simply runs great with AA/AF in your games.

here's my analogy. 1999 ford came out with the 99cobra with stated horsepower being something like 320. chevy came out with the 99camaro with horsepower being 310-320. but under real world performance, the cobra comes nothing close to having a 10-15% drivetrain loss when its tested on the dyno while the camaro on the other hand is actually slightly underrated at 310. joe schmoe see's the hp numbers on both camaro and cobra, buys the cobra expecting it to be on par with the camaro, does a couple of street races and track races with the camaro and falls far short on being equal. joe schmoe feels deceived by ford.

my point is, most everyone is not computer literate when they buy a computer. the only thing they might know about is 3dmark, they see the score and have some sort of expectation on how it should perform, but in real life it does not.

most AT'ers here and other computer literate folks won't personally care about what scores you get with 3dmark what with the cheating going on. but what about the rest of the 95% that don't know sh!t?? nvidia is not hurting by this, check their stock prices before and after.

Ah.....here we see what is called a "legit" cheat. Giving real (but unimportant) numbers instead of real ones. There are 2 of giving measure of cars horsepower: the net power output, and the "brute" power outpu. The "brute" is what u always hear in the commercial "we build a car to give 300+ horsepower". Tru. An engine without transmission shall provide that. But then comes the net power. Its the power that actua;;y is being recieved by the wheels. 15% loss is usual. Example. I rmember a Mitsubishi SUV sommercial while i was in US. 200 horses they said. but russians measure power in NET units, so i wasnt surprised at all to see that that SUV was only capable to give 150-160 horses when i read about it in magazine. Americans like big numbers, and car companies give em. Measure in kilowatts, please.
Also, remeber the audio power units for that matter! Isnt audio equipment cheating heaven? Sony XPLOD amp that i got for my car says "750 Watt Power". I thought: wow, kcickass! In truth - it was the PEAK power. The constant, however was about 100x2 RMS. 200 watt as opposed to 750??! Which one is more appealing for the customer?

So what im saying, is that whole market is built on cheating us into buying something. It becomes exceptionally noticeable once u travel round the world (and here i give hte props to Swedes: their commercials recieve Squidmans "Real talk" award )

i think its slightly different the way you compare watt power for speakers to car's HP ratings. when they state 750 wattpower, is that not true?? sure its true that its not constant power, but did they say 750 watt constant power??? no. but that is exactly what ford, and nvidia is saying. i don't know exaclty how much the 99cobra dynoed, but if it was far from the "usual" 15% drivetrain loss, how can they state the cobra having 320+ HP?? its straight out lie, just like nvidia with their futuremark score, its a cheat. your analogy about sony's amps, while underhanded in their approach, never did they flat out lie in their advertisement.

edit ==> trying not to go off tangent so just want to state again that people felt cheated from what ford said about power output of cobra, and computer illiterate folks will be cheated by judging their basis on 3dmark scores. again, from the original posts, who cares if they cheated as long as they didn't fubar up real world performance, be we are the minority. the whole population isn't made of computer geeks, remember that.

 

Radeon 9700 Vanilla. So far so good. And this is from an nvidia fan. Though I will be buying the new 5600 when its available.

 

[squidman]

i think its slightly different the way you compare watt power for speakers to car's HP ratings. when they state 750 wattpower, is that not true?? sure its true that its not constant power, but did they say 750 watt constant power??? no. but that is exactly what ford, and nvidia is saying. i don't know exaclty how much the 99cobra dynoed, but if it was far from the "usual" 15% drivetrain loss, how can they state the cobra having 320+ HP?? its straight out lie, just like nvidia with their futuremark score, its a cheat. your analogy about sony's amps, while underhanded in their approach, never did they flat out lie in their advertisement.

edit ==> trying not to go off tangent so just want to state again that people felt cheated from what ford said about power output of cobra, and computer illiterate folks will be cheated by judging their basis on 3dmark scores. again, from the original posts, who cares if they cheated as long as they didn't fubar up real world performance, be we are the minority. the whole population isn't made of computer geeks, remember that.

Naw, i totally agree with u! I was giving examples of other "lies (yes, i forgot to put "" - my bad ). Thats why i put Sony's power ratings as a "lie", and other stuff, too. It relates to this "cheating" thread, don't it? So that being said, where else are we cheated on the everyday basis?
-when buying a 17" monitor, that has 16" viewable surface
-when buying cleaning solutions that promise to clean better than anything out there, but for some reason, dont clean at all for you.
-super-duper motor lubricants that say, that your car will run for 100 km without a drop of oil left
-when on TV mr Bush says that US economy is doing fine
-when "miracle-weight-loss-pills" are advertised,
-and much much more.

What i think is that this cheating is normal...i mean, if YOU had a company, wouldnt you try to do whatever it takes to sell your shtuff? Now becomes obvious. I know this because right now, we are working on a commercial for our company here in Moscow. And its really hard to make our stuff to look more appealing, than it is, yet, without lying. But nVidia didnt advertise. It just busted out stuff. Ati was more hesitant, however, because it was already ahead of nVidia. nVidia hasnt had a release since what, 2002? Of course, it had to remind people of its power once again. And since it was done in a rush - we can see the results quite clearly.

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: jjyiz28

Originally posted by: squidman

Originally posted by: jjyiz28

Originally posted by: Harabecw
But do we really care?
We've seen the 1465129348159478534978154897152489 posts about cheat this, cheat that, that have nothing to do with real game performance. I'm sure those who bought Rad 9700's, Rad 9800's are happy as well as those who ordered the FX5900 will be happy.
Post here if you have a FX/R3xx card and you think it simply runs great with AA/AF in your games.

here's my analogy. 1999 ford came out with the 99cobra with stated horsepower being something like 320. chevy came out with the 99camaro with horsepower being 310-320. but under real world performance, the cobra comes nothing close to having a 10-15% drivetrain loss when its tested on the dyno while the camaro on the other hand is actually slightly underrated at 310. joe schmoe see's the hp numbers on both camaro and cobra, buys the cobra expecting it to be on par with the camaro, does a couple of street races and track races with the camaro and falls far short on being equal. joe schmoe feels deceived by ford.

my point is, most everyone is not computer literate when they buy a computer. the only thing they might know about is 3dmark, they see the score and have some sort of expectation on how it should perform, but in real life it does not.

most AT'ers here and other computer literate folks won't personally care about what scores you get with 3dmark what with the cheating going on. but what about the rest of the 95% that don't know sh!t?? nvidia is not hurting by this, check their stock prices before and after.

Ah.....here we see what is called a "legit" cheat. Giving real (but unimportant) numbers instead of real ones. There are 2 of giving measure of cars horsepower: the net power output, and the "brute" power outpu. The "brute" is what u always hear in the commercial "we build a car to give 300+ horsepower". Tru. An engine without transmission shall provide that. But then comes the net power. Its the power that actua;;y is being recieved by the wheels. 15% loss is usual. Example. I rmember a Mitsubishi SUV sommercial while i was in US. 200 horses they said. but russians measure power in NET units, so i wasnt surprised at all to see that that SUV was only capable to give 150-160 horses when i read about it in magazine. Americans like big numbers, and car companies give em. Measure in kilowatts, please.
Also, remeber the audio power units for that matter! Isnt audio equipment cheating heaven? Sony XPLOD amp that i got for my car says "750 Watt Power". I thought: wow, kcickass! In truth - it was the PEAK power. The constant, however was about 100x2 RMS. 200 watt as opposed to 750??! Which one is more appealing for the customer?

So what im saying, is that whole market is built on cheating us into buying something. It becomes exceptionally noticeable once u travel round the world (and here i give hte props to Swedes: their commercials recieve Squidmans "Real talk" award )

i think its slightly different the way you compare watt power for speakers to car's HP ratings. when they state 750 wattpower, is that not true?? sure its true that its not constant power, but did they say 750 watt constant power??? no. but that is exactly what ford, and nvidia is saying. i don't know exaclty how much the 99cobra dynoed, but if it was far from the "usual" 15% drivetrain loss, how can they state the cobra having 320+ HP?? its straight out lie, just like nvidia with their futuremark score, its a cheat. your analogy about sony's amps, while underhanded in their approach, never did they flat out lie in their advertisement.

edit ==> trying not to go off tangent so just want to state again that people felt cheated from what ford said about power output of cobra, and computer illiterate folks will be cheated by judging their basis on 3dmark scores. again, from the original posts, who cares if they cheated as long as they didn't fubar up real world performance, be we are the minority. the whole population isn't made of computer geeks, remember that.

Even though it has nothing to do with computers, you are spreading misinformation, and it must be stopped!!! Peak power (which you so eloquently refer to as brute power) is the power the engine produces with no accessories attached. It was used until the 1970's when they switched to rating cars in SAE NET horsepower, which is the power the engine produces in full production dress (alternator, ac, etc). Gross is no longer used by any automotive manufacturer, they are all legally bound to give you the NET number. The only way to get the rear-wheel horsepower rating of your car it to go to the dyno, as the manufacturers do not provide you with this number.

As for audio equipment you have proven you don't know what you are talking about in that department either. Home audio equipemt is measured in RMS Power, which is total CONSTANT music output power. Car audio however, is still free to use RMS as well as Peak Power ratings, which is the maximum amount of power output during a brief musical burst. There is nothing cheating about this rating, you just have to be aware which one you are dealing with. As for your little analogy, the peak power output isn't as far off as you think. The RMS power is 100 watts x 2 in stereo, but if you bridge the left and right channels, you would probably get close to 400 watts RMS at 4 ohms, assuming it is a decent quality amp. Peak power output is generally about double the RMS output (with a few notable exceptions, like Infinity) so 750 Peak is about right. I am looking forward to the day when car audio, like home audio, can only be listed in RMS Power.

As for the 99 Cobra, this was a mistake that Ford has admitted too, and is fixing with as many Cobra owners as it can find. In fact, Ford didn't even make a 2000 Cobra so it could fix the problems with the '99. I see no reason to assume Ford was trying to get away with anything, and it seems to be an isolated incident.

This is one bad thing about a public forum. Just because somebody posts something doesn't mean that it is in any way accurate. I hope you will more inclined to check your facts before you post in the future.