Correct. Of course, they could be just blowing smoke up our collective asses. Wouldn't be the first time a large corporation has done so.Russ said:Cause ATI said so. Or that's what's been told to us by ATI I mean.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Correct. Of course, they could be just blowing smoke up our collective asses. Wouldn't be the first time a large corporation has done so.Russ said:Cause ATI said so. Or that's what's been told to us by ATI I mean.
hehehe..just a tad funnyeno-on said:Um, no. I'm not wrong. If what you said isn't what you mean, then learn how to say what you mean.
eno-on said:Um, no. I'm not wrong. If what you said isn't what you mean, then learn how to say what you mean.
What?razor1 said:look at this, they send DH an email that was a response to something totally different and ATi cuts and pasts that email and give it the DH saying this was the reason that HA wrote up an article on the r520. And to take it even further, they don't tell you that HA a few emails later where HA already understood the situation and stated they only want to review the card when it is ready. But by this time ATi's MM already had enough and told them to "piss off". Of course its ok if ATi puts a fist up someones ass, but isn't good when its the other way around?
So without resolving the situation, ATi goes out and shows the public half truths, by not telling exactly what happened and trash HA, and if the benchmarks are truelly false ATi has no need to do this.
eno-on said:What?
You are totally reading this differently than a logical person would putting the pieces together.
And even if you weren't, there is no basis for libel here on ATi's part. I don't need to read it again. You do, with less boogers in your eyes.
And this proves what, now?razor1 said:check the dates of the emails and the article timings you will see what I mean. What ATi has been stating happened close to 2 weeks ago not when the r520 article was released.
eno-on said:And this proves what, now?
Regardless, there is no basis for libel on ATi's part. I'm not going to argue this anymore. Your statement concerning this has no footing in reality, period. The only party that may have some legal issues shortly, is Mr. Sanders. The End.
razor1 said:Legally Sander can't be touched (unless he himself faked the benchmarks) since he wasn't under NDA the only person that can be touched is the person he got the benchmarks from.
ATi's marketing manager knowingly or unkowingly, I think he knew what he was doing because of the omission of certain emails, is the basis for libel. Because without proof of what the r520 article was really for (was it really to hurt ATi's stock prices, most likely but you have to be 100% sure thats what it was for) If the benchmarks are fake there was no reason to come out and bash Sander like that, he was killing himself pretty good and still is since he hasn't provided his benchmark scripts yet.
All ATi has to do is say they are fake here are the real ones when the NDA is lifted. Simple as that. But ATi has to go out and presue prosecuation of a guy that is scorned by ATi on numerous occasions. ATi is really known for this, did you read my comment at B3D about there Dev Rel?
eno-on said:Your view of the situation is twisted.
A person with even moderate skill at deductive reasoning would conclude that said benchmarks were not, in fact, supplied by anyone but Sanders himself. Or possibly accepted and printed when Sanders KNEW they were incorrect or invalid. The intent to mislead the public with false information in an effort to hurt ATi financially is apparent by his statements. And, if it is brought to court, Sanders MUST disclose his source for the benchmarks. Which again, I'm fairly sure was nothing outside of some arbitrary numbers pulled out of his ass.
I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. But, history does show Mr. Sanders as being something along the lines of a lunatic, in any case, and history has a bad habit of repeating itself.
Learn to put two and two together. Only very occasionally will it equal something other than four.
I'm just saying I trust ATI on this about as much as I trusted NV on the NV30, not very much.Russ said:Cause ATI said so. Or that's what's been told to us by ATI I mean.
Well like many other self-important editors (who I won't name), I contacted my reliable* insider friend that works at a Taiwanese graphics AIB and asked him to do a hardware analysis of ATi's new R520 wonder. So without further ado, here are some reliable* benchmarks:
As you can see, I too was not included in ATi's editor day shindig nor given a review sample but I taught them a lesson by getting these results from my reliable* friend at a Taiwanese AIB. Ha! That will teach ATi for not including my omniscient self in their events!
-Disgruntled Self-Important Editor
A friend of mine that does reviews over at HTPCnews has passed along conversations he's had with their ATI rep, based on that this childish display of "you suck" that ATI is currently playing doesn't suprise me at all.razor1 said:So without resolving the situation, ATi goes out and shows the public half truths, by not telling exactly what happened and trash HA, and if the benchmarks are truelly false ATi has no need to do this.
Is that max, minimuim or average FPS?Shifra said:
I'm pretty sure those numbers are cooked. Sarcasm can be difficult to get across on the intarweb.CrimandEvil said:Is that max, minimuim or average FPS?
Based on HardOCP's latest review those 7800 GTX numbers look kind of low.
eno-on said:How so? By stating his benchmarks erroneous or declaring his publications misleading? If Sanders published numbers that were false, both of these declarations are true.
If someone states false information about you or your service/product, you have no other recourse than to deny those statements.
Look, if the benchmarks are false, then Mr. Sanders went out of his way to maliciously attack ATi, and hurt them financially. That is illegal, and wrong.
Let's put it in smpler terms.
Your new girlfriend, with whom you haven't yet slept with yet, wants you to go down on her, without an immediate return on your investment 'down under'.
You pass on the invitation that evening.
The next night, you're ready to get all up in that, and you find she's not willing to do so because of your refusal to take care of her the previous evening.
You get angry at being denied the golden apple for having refused the copper kiwi, so you plot revenge.
You then spread rumors that shes a slut, and not as good a lay as your last girlfriend in a few situations, even though you haven't actually slept with her, and that you could drive a beoing 747 through her vagina, though most of your colleagues are having a hard time believing you've actually been near it.
Said girl then lets people know what actually happened, even though it may be slightly coloured even more in her favour than needed.
That's what I'm guessing happened, Make the connections where you need to.
Yeah I know, I'm just poking alittle fun.eno-on said:I'm pretty sure those numbers are cooked. Sarcasm can be difficult to get across on the intarweb.
I still think you are misreading the evidence.razor1 said:The whole problem is ATi took his emails out of context, from dates that don't correlate with the articles written, if you want to believe in PR BS, you are believing how they twisted the facts to thier favor. I don't see ATi being very truthful at all by not telling us the situation in its entirity by cutting and pasted certain emails. HA already understood they weren't going to the conference that was the last email before ATi closed the book on all relations.
CrimandEvil said:A friend of mine that does reviews over at HTPCnews has passed along conversations he's had with their ATI rep, based on that this childish display of "you suck" that ATI is currently playing doesn't suprise me at all.
eno-on said:I still think you are misreading the evidence.
And Shifra: This is a public forum in which to discuss what we are discussing. The topic we are discussing is relevant to the original post. So deal.
You are confusing 'spin' and 'trash' with the possiblity of "set the record straight" and "punish for being a spoiled brat and disseminating incorrect information".razor1 said:Its happened to developers before too, so this isn't something new to me. There is no reason to trash somelse if you know what is true and what is false, there was no reason to spin this at all it was very childish, and as ethics go both sides are at fault.
eno-on said:You are confusing 'spin' and 'trash' with the possiblity of "set the record straight" and "punish for being a spoiled brat and disseminating incorrect information".
Not saying this is 100% factual, just saying it is likely.
eno-on said:Put it this way:
An AIB partner gives Mr. Sanders some benchmarks (that are his own script) of NDA protected, not yet released hardware, because they think he is being treated unfairly (you think sapphire or another company like them gives two shits about Mr. Sanders?), knowing full well that if it were to come out, that ATi would find out who it is, and possibly ruin a multi million dollar partnership?
Even if the benchamrks WERE correct, yet ATi still took it to court saying it wasn't, the source would HAVE to be brought out.
Please. That's ridiculous.
I really don't buy it.
But time will tell.
Diseaseboy said:IF ATI had this "Super fast 7800GTX killer card" waiting in the wings in a few weeks why would ATI even care about all of this? We'll see, but I'm more inclined to believe Sander at this point. They are trying to save as many sales as possible right now from Nvidia. This is nothing more than damage control.
Another question to ask too........if the 520 series of cards are so dramatically faster why would you debut X800 based Crossfire 2 weeks before the 520? Why would they try to convince customers to buy another X800 series of cards when they can buy a 520 soon? I guess you can when the 520 isn't much faster than the X800.
I may not have a website but I still consider myself part of the online hardware community. I find it as an insult when a big company like ATI picks on the little guy.
Please don't call me a !!!!!!!- as I own an ATI 9600se, 2 X800XL cards along with my 6800GT's
I am more inclined to think ATI would have just shrugged this all off if they actually had a faster product. Because they didn't leads me to believe the numbers are not that far off.
Cal Civ Code § 45 (2005)
§ 45. Libel defined
Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.
Diseaseboy said:Here's another thought:
So why would ATI debut X800 Crossifire 2 weeks before the 520 if the 520 was as fast or faster than the X800 Crossfire? Maybe because it isn't......
Jonsey said:They need to have the motherboard support out for crossfire before they launch R520. So they'll launch it with X800's. Plus, the crossfire launch is very, very late. It would be embarrassing for them to launch the old tech crossfire GPU's after the R520's.
^eMpTy^ said:I think the embarrassment ship sailed a long time ago...everyone can tell that CrossFire is just a hack job compared to SLi...I think they're more concerned about just ordering things as logically as possible...and allocating their marketing resources as best they can...
But why go through the trouble of running overclocked and underclocked benchmarks, and completely ignoring stock clocksfurocious said:I believe in the article it said cards "clocked" at pro/xt speeds, implying that it was probably the x1800 XL downclocked and overclocked to clock match pro/xt.
^eMpTy^ said:I think the embarrassment ship sailed a long time ago...everyone can tell that CrossFire is just a hack job compared to SLi...I think they're more concerned about just ordering things as logically as possible...and allocating their marketing resources as best they can...