apoppin
Lifer
they only show the top of the chart.
imagine how long you'd have to scroll to see the entire chart.
:Q
Never before in history has a 1.4% performance advantage been shown with such staggering impact......
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, at least not today.
yet it's totally accurate
:Q
14,100 vs. 13,900
each line increment is 50 points
Yes, we know.
then why bash ati's marketing as PR bullsh!t?
edit: i mean ati's marketing IS PR BS . . . but how does this example show it more so than usual? What make this comparison chart stand out?
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Originally posted by: apoppin
then why bash ati's marketing as PR bullsh!t?
edit: i mean ati's marketing IS PR BS . . . but how does this example show it more so than usual? What make this comparison chart stand out?
I am going to assume you're joking and leave it at that.
OMG what is wrong with ATI???!!!
but on a serious point, marketing departments will always be just that, and comon nothing ATI and Nvidia have done can hold a candle to the almightly fabricators; Apple Computer, Inc.
but on a serious point, marketing departments will always be just that, and comon nothing ATI and Nvidia have done can hold a candle to the almightly fabricators; Apple Computer, Inc.
Yeah this was just a lighthearted poke in the eye of BOTH marketing machines of each company. I'm probably more partial to ATI right now but I am a very fair weather fan of each.
I couldn't resist posting that graph.....
I couldn't resist posting that graph.....
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And are you trying to say that this is "not" typical ATI PR bullsh!t? Of course it is. But then you felt the need to laydown no less than 3 links to show Nvidia PR bs? What is it that drives you man? This is a legitamit make fun of ATi scenario. Can't you deal with that? Both companies do it. But today, it was ATI's turn at bat. There was no reason to bring Nvidia examples in here except for the unwarranted single purpose of defending ATI. Please stop being so weird.
Are the numbers in the graph inaccurate? I mean how do you know that that their figures are bs? The graph shows both cards as being basically equal - so unless the 7900gtx turns out to be much faster - just can't see where the bs is? And no I am not defending Ati, as they certainly have been shown to use false or blatently decieving advertising, but this is a bad example that actually makes ati look honest. Of course that is if Ati actually released this graph (not sure why nvidia would give them an unreleased card). The well researched fanboy could find something better than this.
SpeedZealot369
Platinum Member
- Feb 5, 2006
- 2,778
- 1
- 81
That's pretty much correct - outside of the uproar caused by nVIDIA's Kyro comments (which ended up being proven true by time) and the NV30 8 pipelines claim, nVIDIA has NEVER spread FUD like this, pretty much everything they have said from nV40 onward has been true, factual and non exaggerated.
Okay, last slide first. The 5500 is FASTER than 5200, the 9250 is SLOWER than 9200, nVIDIA never compared performance betwen their products and ATi's they merely stated 9250 was slower than 9200 there is no FUD... just fact.
Same with the middle slide, unless you are trying to tell us all that 9250 is actually faster than 9200.... and I sincerecly hope you are not...
As for the first link, nVIDIA is quoting 3rd party comments - I suppose you are going to turn around now and tell us everyone quoted was lying...
Toonces
Golden Member
- Feb 5, 2000
- 1,690
- 0
- 76
I think the graph pointing to the disparity between the FX and Radeons in simply one game.
To base an entire PR presentation on the "fastest selling PC game in history" (Doom 3) and make claims as to its overall superiority of the nvidia cards through misleading graphs is what Creig is illustrating.
Its PR's job to spin every piece of information in favour of the company they are representing. This rightfully deserves ridicule from informed buyers who are not pursuaded by skewed graphs or insufficent sample sizing.
If ATI had released these slides but with only HL2 for benchmarking then it would, in turn, be guilty of misrepresentation of overall performance.
To base an entire PR presentation on the "fastest selling PC game in history" (Doom 3) and make claims as to its overall superiority of the nvidia cards through misleading graphs is what Creig is illustrating.
Its PR's job to spin every piece of information in favour of the company they are representing. This rightfully deserves ridicule from informed buyers who are not pursuaded by skewed graphs or insufficent sample sizing.
If ATI had released these slides but with only HL2 for benchmarking then it would, in turn, be guilty of misrepresentation of overall performance.
So you are saying that the scores given are wrong? Only a few days to go and we will see if you are right and the 7900gtx scores higher than the x1900xtx.
Please, show me in one of my posts, where I mentioned anything at all about the accuracy of the scores. The problem with ATi's latest piece of gutter propaganda is not the accuracy or lack thereof of the scores, it is the deliberate exaggeration of the comparative results. If ATi had presented the graph correctly scaled, covering the entire data range, there wouldn't have been an issue.
Personally, I strongly believe that nVIDIA, ATi and indeed ALL corporations/businesses should stick to discussing their product and only their product in press releases/presentations, and let the consumers reach their own conclusions (fat chance of that ever coming to pass unfortunately). Some businesses are more notorious than others when it comings to commenting on and misrepresenting competitors and their products; I'll leave it to to figure out where I think ATi fits on the scale...
akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,210
- 2,552
- 136
To all those saying typical ATI bullshit. This graph shown on the Inq doesn't show a source. So you can't say it's from ATI. I'm not a hardcore stickler for knowing how much each card outperforms what by what amount so I'm going to assume it's accurate. It is however misleading due to the way it was presented. But again, we don't know who made the chart. Usually in official presentations we see a whole series of slides showing graphs as well as marketing propoganda. Not just one graph.
The other thing is, if you said typical graphics card marketing bullshit it would be one thing but saying typical ATI bullshit implies other graphics card vendors (in other words nVidia) don't do the same thing. That would be a lie right there as nVidia uses the same exact tactics as ATI when showing slides and presentations that inevitably get "leaked" to the public. Heck, I'm 99% certain the charts were meant to be leaked.
The other thing is, if you said typical graphics card marketing bullshit it would be one thing but saying typical ATI bullshit implies other graphics card vendors (in other words nVidia) don't do the same thing. That would be a lie right there as nVidia uses the same exact tactics as ATI when showing slides and presentations that inevitably get "leaked" to the public. Heck, I'm 99% certain the charts were meant to be leaked.
I really don't see how results showing the cards in a virtual dead heat is misrepresenting anything (unless of course the cards were incorrectly benched). The section of the graph shown is correctly scaled, it just doesn't have a base line product to give perspective. Almost all reviews visually distort the differences between cards by showing only a section of the complete graph, this one is just a smaller section. I laughed when I saw it - sort of assumed it was dark humour. So if all this uproar is about nv's epenis looking soft...... its not like ati has this in their advertisements.
What ATI, Nvidia and most fanboys (I thought that Rollo would of posted in this topic by now) will never admit is that ATI and Nvidia are now producing video cards which are about equal in performance. You can't make a bad decision going with either so why argue over a few percent difference?
:thumbsup: The freaking 7900 is called the X7900gtx for petes sake. Is everyone so blinded that they cant see the glaring error? It was probably made by the anonymous tipster. WTF would ATI's marketing confuse 7900 with the x1900?
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Originally posted by: ronnn
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And are you trying to say that this is "not" typical ATI PR bullsh!t? Of course it is. But then you felt the need to laydown no less than 3 links to show Nvidia PR bs? What is it that drives you man? This is a legitamit make fun of ATi scenario. Can't you deal with that? Both companies do it. But today, it was ATI's turn at bat. There was no reason to bring Nvidia examples in here except for the unwarranted single purpose of defending ATI. Please stop being so weird.
Are the numbers in the graph inaccurate? I mean how do you know that that their figures are bs? The graph shows both cards as being basically equal - so unless the 7900gtx turns out to be much faster - just can't see where the bs is? And no I am not defending Ati, as they certainly have been shown to use false or blatently decieving advertising, but this is a bad example that actually makes ati look honest. Of course that is if Ati actually released this graph (not sure why nvidia would give them an unreleased card). The well researched fanboy could find something better than this.
I don't know if the numbers in the graph are accurate or inaccurate. And the words, "Their figures are bullsh!t." never came out of my mouth. The graph "numbers" show the cards basically equal. The graph "scale" and the way it was represented is where the BS lives. It is very, very obvious why the OP posted the graph. It was because the graph exaggerates to show a 200 point difference as, an ocean of difference. Maybe you're not defending ATI, but you're certainly trying to give me a hard time pretending not to see something this obvious. Why? No idea.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
What are you talking about? I already said above (Doesn't anybody actually read thread content anymore?) that I know both companies do this. It almost doesn't pay to even post if everybody just assumes and does not read. Lord have mercy!!!. :Q
Gstanfor seems to be biased. Very one sided. So what can we expect him to say?
The only thing we agreed upon is that the way the graph was represented in exaggeration was the thing to focus on here. Not the numbers which may or may not be accurate. But thats as far as I go.
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter