Worst offender yet....

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
XFX (formerly known as Pine) is nVIDIA's worst board partner IMHO. Everyone else produces very good quality products and has a reputable background. Do you know why PC Chips and their sattelite companies/brands are infamous throughout the PC component world ronnn?

I like your logic. If a substandard nv card is produced with misleading advertising - why blame the board maker. If there is an unlabeled, accurate graph produced that could be construed as misleading - for those who have problems interpreting graphs - why just more examples of how evil ati is. Is slow times for nv right now - so the battle ground has shifted to the inconsequential. When does this pre-launch hype end and nvidia actually releases these cards so the price wars can begin?

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
That's because you don't have a point thilan29. The slide was discussing current (at the time) products, not former products.

About nVidia's own performance, that's not what the slide was all about. Try reading what the slide actually says instead of what you want it to mean!

So what exactly was the point you were trying to make by saying "typical ATI PR BS"?? Someone else linked to NVidia doing the same thing and you tried to be anal about it and say "well it IS true isn't it?". So the exact same way...(if the numbers from the graph are in fact true) then why is the slide from the OP BS?? You have no actual proof that the numbers are BS but you call it that.

Your argument is that the numbers look skewed because of the scaling and make ATI look better? SO WHAT??? Doesn't make them false right? IN THE SAME way, NVidia skewed their slide by failing to mention their own lack of performance. Sure what they wrote about the 9200/9250 may have been true but it wasn't the whole story right?? Just as the slide from the OP may not actually be lying but wasn't telling the whole story. You seem to love defending NVidia and don't admit that they do the EXACT same thing. Anyone that knows a bit about how those companies work will tell you that they both do the same thing.

And as to your last sentence...I NEVER said the slide was about their own performance (even though if they are comparing performance they SHOULD include their own)...I just said they weren't telling the whole story...which BOTH companies are guilty of. Actually both MARKETING departments from each company do that.

Do you honestly actually believe that NVidia doesn't bend the truth a bit in their marketing slides or at least don't give the whole story??

Things don't have to be false or lies to be bullsh!t, and nVidia even at their PR worst are a damn sight more honest and less misleading than ATi has been since 2002.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: ronnn

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
XFX (formerly known as Pine) is nVIDIA's worst board partner IMHO. Everyone else produces very good quality products and has a reputable background. Do you know why PC Chips and their sattelite companies/brands are infamous throughout the PC component world ronnn?

I like your logic. If a substandard nv card is produced with misleading advertising - why blame the board maker. If there is an unlabeled, accurate graph produced that could be construed as misleading - for those who have problems interpreting graphs - why just more examples of how evil ati is. Is slow times for nv right now - so the battle ground has shifted to the inconsequential. When does this pre-launch hype end and nvidia actually releases these cards so the price wars can begin?

The baord maker, not nVIDIA (or ATi) is the one who makes the decision about how much memory to place on the card. My logic is just fine, thanks.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Things don't have to be false or lies to be bullsh!t, and nVidia even at their PR worst are a damn sight more honest and less misleading than ATi has been since 2002.

If you ignore the whole "blatant cheating at 3DMark03" thing and that "totally broken GF6 video processor" thing, sure.

If you're expecting much in the way of honest, unbiased information from a PR department from either company... I have a bridge you might be interested in. You can find plenty of misleading PR information from either company, and most of their board partners.

 

[Gstanfor]

But the thing is, nVIDIA never lied or exaggerated about 3DMARK03. They flat out stated they would optimize for it, and they did. As for the *NV40* broken video processor - it's still capable of more than an r42x/r43x card is - and both ATi and nVIDIA took until this current generation to fully deliver on their video promises.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
But the thing is, nVIDIA never lied or exaggerated about 3DMARK03. They flat out stated they would optimize for it, and they did.

I'd have to go back and find the exact press releases, but I'm pretty sure they denied having extra optimizations for it at first. They certainly didn't admit until someone proved it that they hardcoded the drivers to detect the benchmarks and implement static clipping planes (which they took out eventually, but things like handcoded shader replacement stayed). That's about as blatant a 'cheat' as you can get.

As for the *NV40* broken video processor - it's still capable of more than an r42x/r43x card s - and both ATi and nVIDIA took until this current generation to fully deliver on their video promises.

Good try at the deflection there. ATI didn't promise far more than they actually delivered, and didn't promise a 'fix' that never materialized.

 

[Gstanfor]

Go back and check the press releases if you'd like. And yes, the cheats were blatant, just like they promised.

I haven't downloaded the new purevideo (not important to me), but it would be very interesting to set an NV40's device ID to that of say a 6600 and then try purevideo out. Pretty good way of determining if it really is a hardware fault or not.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Go back and check the press releases if you'd like. And yes, the cheats were blatant, just like they promised.

"like they promised"? Uh, what?

Extremetech breaking the story

We discussed our findings with nVidia before we published this article, and the company's Direct3D driver team is currently investigating the problem. At press time, the company's engineers believe that the anomalies we're seeing are the result of a driver bug.

nVidia believes that the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra is trying to do intelligent culling and clipping to reduce its rendering workload, but that the code may be performing some incorrect operations. Because nVidia is not currently a member of FutureMark's beta program, it does not have access to the developer version of 3DMark2003 that we used to uncover these issues.

Over the coming days, nVidia will be exploring the issues we raised. We will post nVidia's findings as soon as it makes them available to us, along with any additional testing details if the company releases an updated driver.

(emphasis added)

Um, yeah. A "driver bug".

Futuremark report detailing the cheats

TR posting about the joint NVIDIA/FM news release a bit later

First, this agreement does not, from what I read, have anything to say about NVIDIA's use of custom clipping planes in 3DMark03, nor does it address failing to do back buffer clearing. Those optimizations, which require an application's viewpoint or camera to be "on rails," probably do not apply here.

NVIDIA removed those optimizations.

I haven't downloaded the new purevideo (not important to me), but it would be very interesting to set an NV40's device ID to that of say a 6600 and then try purevideo out. Pretty good way of determining if it really is a hardware fault or not.

Because I'm sure they still have it deliberately disabled even though it works fine?

You've gotta be pretty deluded to not see NVIDIA as having done some pretty nasty things from a PR perspective in the last few years. At least IMO. Far worse than drawing up some misleading graphs.

 

[thilanliyan]

thanx for those links Matthias

 

[Gstanfor]

you'll need to go back earlier than that. nVIDIA stated that 3DMARK03 was an application that could be easily and aggresively optimized for and thats what they were going to do.

In any case this is software cheating, and is correctable, unlike claiming (on TV) that 9700 supports DDR-II "just like nv30", and failing to mention that the DDR-II is being run by the card in DDR-I comatability mode (and yes, there is such a mode, go check the JEDEC DDR-II specification)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Things don't have to be false or lies to be bullsh!t, and nVidia even at their PR worst are a damn sight more honest and less misleading than ATi has been since 2002.

nVidia at their PR worst is Rollo. AEG and nVidia's in house Viral Marketing
:thumbsdown:

but i forget . . . you excuse that crap and nitpick a minor graph of unknown origion.
:roll:

i vote nVidia's Guerrila Marketing as "Worst offender yet...."

 

[RobertR1]

Is this the sort of non sense that got you banned off B3d???

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: RobertR1
Is this the sort of non sense that got you banned off B3d???

it really helps to know who you are talking to . . .



edit: or is it to whom are you addressing?

really

:frown:

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Things don't have to be false or lies to be bullsh!t, and nVidia even at their PR worst are a damn sight more honest and less misleading than ATi has been since 2002.

nVidia at their PR worst is Rollo. AEG and nVidia's in house Viral Marketing
:thumbsdown:

but i forget . . . you excuse that crap and nitpick a minor graph of unknown origion.
:roll:

i vote nVidia's Guerrila Marketing as "Worst offender yet...."

When have I ever excused Rollo or the AEG? I encourage you to read my signature carefully...

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: RobertR1
Is this the sort of non sense that got you banned off B3d???

No, proving Baumann wrong one time too many in public did that (him "ATi has no shader replacements!" me "explain Doom3 and the Humus Doom3 shader incorporated into ATi's drivers then...")

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Things don't have to be false or lies to be bullsh!t, and nVidia even at their PR worst are a damn sight more honest and less misleading than ATi has been since 2002.

nVidia at their PR worst is Rollo. AEG and nVidia's in house Viral Marketing
:thumbsdown:

but i forget . . . you excuse that crap and nitpick a minor graph of unknown origion.
:roll:

i vote nVidia's Guerrila Marketing as "Worst offender yet...."

When have I ever excused Rollo or the AEG? I encourage you to read my signature carefully...

in that Big AEG thread . . . where else? it appeared you didn't think it was such a big deal for nVidia to use it

and i encourage you to read what YOU just wrote one more time:

nVidia even at their PR worst are a damn sight more honest and less misleading than ATi has been since 2002

and let me again remind you: that nVidia at their PR worst IS Rollo. AEG and nVidia's in house Viral Marketing.

 

[Gstanfor]

Rollow was a bad apple. Chalnoth, Auiluros & ChrisRay have all acted ethically. You are trying to tar & feather the AEG on the basis of just one member.

Personally the AEG doesn't really worry me that much. I'd prefer it didn't exist, but I'm not troubled that it does. They have no influence whatsoever on me or my views.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
In any case this is software cheating, and is correctable

Oh, so that makes it okay then? Well, you shouldn't have any problems with the X1900 Crossfire vs 7900GTX SLI graph since it's "correctable".

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
unlike claiming (on TV) that 9700 supports DDR-II "just like nv30", and failing to mention that the DDR-II is being run by the card in DDR-I comatability mode (and yes, there is such a mode, go check the JEDEC DDR-II specification)

AFAIK, the 9700 core DOES support DDR-II and they showcased an ENGINEERING SAMPLE equipped with memory "fresh from the labs" simply to demonstrate the advantages of faster ram. That's all. At the time, they were working closely with memory manufacturers to finalize the specs for GDDR3.


How about Nvidia claiming WMV9 decode acceleration for NV40 and NV45? We all know how THAT turned out.

NV4x's Video Processor - What Happened?

NVIDIA originally told us [Anandtech] that they would have a driver which could take advantage of the processor 2 weeks after the launch of the GeForce 6800 Ultra. We even pressured NVIDIA to work on getting support for the Video Processor in the DiVX codec, since it's quite popular with our readers. The launch came and went, as did the two weeks with nothing from NVIDIA.

I [Anand Lal Shimpi] personally emailed NVIDIA every other week from May until August asking for an update, with no official or unofficial response as to why nothing had happened with the illustrious Video Processor. Finally, when 23 out of the 35 slides of the NVIDIA press presentation about the GeForce 6200 featured the GPU's "Video Processor", I had had enough. It was only then that NVIDIA came clean about the current state of the Video Processor.

As of the publication of this article [October 11, 2004], NVIDIA still has not answered our questions of whether or not there is any hardware encoding acceleration as was originally promised with NV40. So, the feature set of the Video Processor on NV40 (the GeForce 6800) was incomplete, only in its support for WMV9 acceleration (arguably the most important feature of it).

So give it a rest already, neither company is perfect.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Rollow was a bad apple. Chalnoth, Auiluros & ChrisRay have all acted ethically. You are trying to tar & feather the AEG on the basis of just one member.

Personally the AEG doesn't really worry me that much. I'd prefer it didn't exist, but I'm not troubled that it does. They have no influence whatsoever on me or my views.

AEG is Viral marketing [period]

and i have more problem with nVidia actively persuing it than a silly graph of UNknown origin,
theInq admits:

SOMETIMES things just tip up in our inbox and we?ve no idea where they come from.

i can tell you 'where' . . . they made this one up . . . the source is evidently NOT ATi.

wish i could say the same about nvidia's Bad Apple.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
As for the *NV40* broken video processor - it's still capable of more than an r42x/r43x card is - and both ATi and nVIDIA took until this current generation to fully deliver on their video promises.

Two folks at nVidia told me over the phone that the NV40 PVP would work and would accelerate WMV, but they did not have the statistics of how much at which resolution. Which either means they advertised a feature that was not there (you would assume they would test their features) or someone knew it was not working and passed on through ommission, a lie. nVidia is higher on the scale of vendor BS because of that than ATI or Matrox.

 

[Gstanfor]

It still acclerates 99.999% of all available consumer movie content. Thats good enough for me, especially since I don't care about movie palyback in the first place. I bought the card as a 3D accelerator, not a DVD/entertainment unit replacement - my mulitmedia DVD recorder handles that task quite nicely.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
It still acclerates 99.999% of all available consumer movie content.

That's great. But their PR department told everyone that it would do a hell of a lot more than that, then they reversed themselves several months after the cards had been launched. Some people did care about that feature, and bought the cards partially because of it. Either their PR department was just making crap up, or their engineering department was lying to PR. Or they're just inept.

you'll need to go back earlier than that. nVIDIA stated that 3DMARK03 was an application that could be easily and aggresively optimized for and thats what they were going to do.

Source? I couldn't find anything of the sort.

In any case this is software cheating, and is correctable

Uh, what? They BLATANTLY cheated in a benchmark. Then they strongarmed Futuremark into changing their position on 'optimization' (or at least that's what it looked like to me). That's about as scummy as you can get.

Now, I don't mind 'optimization' so much, even in benchmarks. Shader replacement is pushing it, but reality is that the shaders are interpreted by the drivers to fit the hardware, and they work with developers to make similar optimizations in real games. Building static clip planes into the driver and ignoring backbuffer clears is completely unacceptable in a video benchmark. Those are completely unrealistic "optimizations" that you could never make in a real game, and lead to deceptive benchmark results that do not reflect the true performance of the hardware/drivers. They knew exactly what they were doing.

, unlike claiming (on TV) that 9700 supports DDR-II "just like nv30", and failing to mention that the DDR-II is being run by the card in DDR-I comatability mode (and yes, there is such a mode, go check the JEDEC DDR-II specification)

If you're going to lambaste ATI for this (which had pretty much zero impact on anything; I can't recall people saying "buy the 9700Pro for its DDR2 support!"), you should be incredibly pissed off at NVIDIA for the whole PVP debacle, where they marketed the PVP as a big selling point of the product and then it didn't work as advertised.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Typical ATi PR bullsh!t - what more is there to say?

those numbers could very well be realistic. the problem is the scale of the graph

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Typical ATi PR bullsh!t - what more is there to say?

those numbers could very well be realistic. the problem is the scale of the graph

Did I *ever* comment on the actual numbers in this thread???

 

[Gstanfor]

A little more ATi PR bullshit blown out of the water...

B3D - ATI caught in the (marketing) act again...

read in conjunction with this thread:

B3D - RD580 - Significantly Improves Graphics Performance - page 3