Feeding BS?

S

Skrying

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
2,851
Lately, the front page of [H] has been filled with nothing but constant ATi bashing. Some of it, true some of it false, and all of it filled with bad tries at humor trying to cover someones ass when they find out they were wrong.

Recent things such as the "X1K's not supporting full SM3.0" make me laugh very hard. Did you guys even take the time to read into it that vertex texture fetch is not even a requirment for SM3.0. Research, its easy, there is a SM3.0 SDK afterall.

What I find most appaling about it all is the total lack of research. Another thing recently comes to mind, [H] decides they will say some more about availbility issues from ATi, this time the X800GTO, which is indeed instock at Newegg, as reported now. Though, from my understanding only a search for "GTO" was done, and not even the full card name or several tried combinations. WTF! You're running a big time website here, you do more than one search.

The total and complete lack of any effort it seems to do research before posting is laughable. Do your research first, post second. Now reverse this. Its your job to report facts, not post up what you believe is facts, and then find out through maybe some simple research that what you posted is wrong. And then say that ATi simply "claimed" this.

What has happened to this place. Its completely lost any firm stance on anything, and seems it has to choose a product/company one at a time in order to retain its sense of pride. I dont think I've seen Kyle without a fight against some company for awhile now, seems you need something to fight against in order to be seen as [H]ardcore.

Oh well, I'm done with this place. Its done a nose dive faster than any place I've ever seen. Good luck in the future, and good luck on maybe finding an easier way to do proper research. You're total lack of effort, as it seems, is appaling no matter who it hurts, be it ATi or any other company or product.
 
And it has also been full of posts like this. Which will cause another flame war. :rolleyes:
 
[H]ard|OCP aint happy with ATi. And they will continue to bash and cry till one of two things happens. ATi fixes their shit or they, [H], get sued outta business. lol its true.
 
Ouch!.. I can't say I fully agree with you, can't say I fully disagree with you either.. There has been a little "Let's Bitch Slap ATI" going on around here of late.. OK, alot of it.. ATI has kind of deserved it, in all honesty.. They have taken this bad mouthing alot further than they used to around here.. Maybe I'm just getting old..



edit: I am fully with the OP on the less than stellar investigative reporting going on around here lately... Especially the front page rants..
 
The frontpage have gone downhill latly, but i hope it turns a bit more serious when the sites redesign goes live. If it stays like this the reporting from it will be just as trustwurthy as the inq.

Just have to wait for the first whql certified drivers for the x1k line, when they arrive i expect Kyle to rip MS a new one since they aint even following there own standard :p
 
18 months ago full SM30 was known to use vertex texture fetch. How could ATI have missed it? http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/nv40/index.php?p=5 That was one of the major new features of SM30.

Even Xenos (the R500 Xbox 360 GPU) supports it:
XENOS capabilities… 4K instruction slots (shared between VS and PS), greater than 500K maximum number of instructions executed, has instruction prediction, 64 temporary registers, 512 consant registers (shared between VS and PS), has static flow control, has dynamic flow control, had a 4 dynamic flow control depth or 2^23 if nesting, has vertex texture fetch (dependant fetches and all formats), ...
Click to expand...

No one but ATI is saying it's optional, for obvious reasons.
 
Spank said:
The frontpage have gone downhill latly, but i hope it turns a bit more serious when the sites redesign goes live. If it stays like this the reporting from it will be just as trustwurthy as the inq.

Just have to wait for the first whql certified drivers for the x1k line, when they arrive i expect Kyle to rip MS a new one since they aint even following there own standard :p
Click to expand...


Wow, now that is downright low. We misreport something for 30 minutes and we at INQ standard. Damn, that hurts.
 
Jbirney said:
read the spec and show us where it says its required...
Click to expand...


We spent a pretty good bit of time with the spec yesterday before the post on the subject and quite frankly we left a bit confused on the actual requirement. That is one of the reasons that we posted the information as a question and not as a statement of fact.
 
Jbirney said:
read the spec and show us where it says its required...
Click to expand...
I was hoping someone would ask me. :D :D :D :D

The vertex shader 3.0 model supports texture lookup in the vertex shader using the texldl texture load statement. The vertex engine contains four texture sampler stages, named D3DVERTEXTEXTURESAMPLER0, D3DVERTEXTEXTURESAMPLER1, D3DVERTEXTEXTURESAMPLER2, and D3DVERTEXTEXTURESAMPLER3. These are distinct from the displacement map sampler and texture samplers in the pixel engine.
Click to expand...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/e...rs/ShaderModel3/VertexTextures.asp?frame=true referred from the main DX9 Vertex Shaders page http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/e...geShaders/VertexShaders/vs_3_0.asp?frame=true

Maybe my eyes are going bad, but I don't see the word "optional" anywhere in those pages. The VS3.0 spec includes vertex texture lookup, ATI doesn't support it. Very clear now, isn't it? Don't you hate being lied to?
 
pxc said:
Maybe my eyes are going bad, but I don't see the word "optional" anywhere in those pages. The spec includes vertex texture lookup, ATI doesn't support it. Very clear now, isn't it? Don't you hate being lied to?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that simple because if it was as obvious as your quote suggests then surely there wouldn't be as much controversy.
 
pxc said:
The VS3.0 spec includes vertex texture lookup, ATI doesn't support it. Very clear now, isn't it? Don't you hate being lied to?
Click to expand...

And please point out where in the complience section that is required? Maybe my eyes missed that..
 
Jbirney said:
And please point out where in the complience section that is required? Maybe my eyes missed that..
Click to expand...
LOL, MS gives minimum requirements in the specs.
 
tornadotsunamilife said:
I don't think it's that simple because if it was as obvious as your quote suggests then surely there wouldn't be as much controversy.
Click to expand...
The only controversy is caused by ATI. MS's DX9 specs are very clear.
 
i dunno but i dont really remember hardocp's news posts and announcements being so subjective rather than objective
 
I'm a little disappointed in the last rant...but far from ready to give up on this site :D

I also like how this thread is seeming to be allowed as if to accept the gto mistake.
A mistake because *gasp* this site is run by a human....or a glitchy robot...but either way...

I think all of us have jump the gun every now and then.
 
Lately said:
has been filled with nothing but constant ATi bashing..
Click to expand...

it could be because ati dropped the ball(s?) on the X1K..

Skrying said:
Recent things such as the "X1K's not supporting full SM3.0" make me laugh very hard. Did you guys even take the time to read into it that vertex texture fetch is not even a requirment for SM3.0. Research, its easy, there is a SM3.0 SDK afterall.

What I find most appaling about it all is the total lack of research
Click to expand...

now if only you would do as you say :rolleyes:

Skrying said:
Oh well, I'm done with this place.
Click to expand...

you still haven't left? :confused:
 
Yeah, I guess letting the world know that X1800XL and CrossFire are finally in stock is bashing to? We give credit where credit is due buddy.
 
And quite frankly I am waiting till Monday to make up my mind on their overall performance. It will be interesting to see what is for sale, and what is not. If they are looking good, we will sing their praises for picking up when it is most needed.
 
It is true, HardOCP has always been hard ;) on video card makers when they are sucking. They gave nvidia a good telling off when the FX had poor performance, when the drivers did not have a full trilinear option, etc. It just so happens that ATI has not been doing so hot post-9800 series and HardOCP has been calling them every step of the way (as they did with NV during the FX series).
 
tranCendenZ said:
It is true, HardOCP has always been hard ;) on video card makers when they are sucking. They gave nvidia a good telling off when the FX had poor performance, when the drivers did not have a full trilinear option, etc. It just so happens that ATI has not been doing so hot post-9800 series and HardOCP has been calling them every step of the way (as they did with NV during the FX series).
Click to expand...

It would just be a nice touch if the opinions were laced with a *touch* of fact. Giving it to the man when you don't know what it is you're talking about is pretty embarassing. Doing it multiple times is shameful.
 
tornadotsunamilife said:
The problem with the r4xx series was?
Click to expand...
availability on high end parts. Nothing was wrong with the hardware on any of the series, or performance on the x800 and up though (x700 performance wasn't very hot).
 
R1ckCa1n said:
Yes, two one sentence posts, which still had a hint of skepticism compared to a three paragraph butt rape earlier in the day.
Click to expand...

To be fair, they already failed on the "same day announced....same day available"

Granted 3 days...not bad. But if shipments end quickly....back to paper launch hating status.
 
Well, let's do a fair comparison of that gen shall we? Both products paper launched was a bad beginning, x800xt pe and 6800uee seemed non-existant for most of the year, both cards had similar performance, 6 series brought us sm3.0, x series brought us sm2.0b (it did the job but failed ot get recognised by developers and was more of a denial for ati due to lack of sm3.0 support) pure video broken on most 6 series cards, x850xt/pe came out on top as a refresh.

It's a bad summary I know. It was quite a bad year when you look back on it (and I'm sure I must some things out) but a plus was flagship cards ahd big performance boost over last gen performance cards.
 
If you admit to your own mistakes it makes you a better person.

What would happen if nobody ever spoke up about anything?

People normally ask questions before they pull the trigger, but WTF is the most common before they fire. :D
 
tornadotsunamilife said:
The problem with the r4xx series was?
Click to expand...

Extremely poor availability on high end XT parts and nothing to truly compete with 6800GT & 6600GT until the battle had already been won by NV. That's just on the performance end too, not until just today was ATI able to release a card that competes on the feature end with the 6800 series released back in July of last year.
 
tranCendenZ said:
Extremely poor availability on high end XT parts and nothing to truly compete with 6800GT & 6600GT until the battle had already been won by NV. That's just on the performance end too, not until just today was ATI able to release a card that competes on the feature end with the 6800 series released back in July of last year.
Click to expand...

I didn't want a GT for my second computer. I wanted an ultra. (I think both cards are awesome) But I couldnt' find one.

Availability was pretty bad too for nvidia...granted...not as bad as the x800xtpe but still bad.
 
tranCendenZ said:
That's just on the performance end too, not until just today was ATI able to release a card that competes on the feature end with the 6800 series released back in July of last year.
Click to expand...


OH...almost forgot. x800 series now have a form of Transparency AA. Maybe nvidia should catch up on that too ;)

like a year ago...the difference between an x800 and 6800 ultra were pretty slim...and it still continues.
 
tornadotsunamilife said:
6800uee seemed non-existant
Click to expand...
nvidia said that the 6800UE was not an official product before the 6800U was launched, leaving it up to individual companies to offer it. IOW, there was no "6800 UE" product from nvidia. eVGA took preorders at least twice and fulfilled those. It was a very limited edition, unofficial product.

I don't think nvidia is blameless. They should be bashed for giving out review samples (press editions) of a product that wasn't going to be widely offered (cough, ATI, cough). To their (minor) credit, they did explain how it would be available before products were actually launched.
 
It's pretty funny seeing how the tables have turned lately. I remember around the time of the whole FX fiasco, HardOCP was constantly being refered to as an "ATI bitch" because they FX cards did so damn poorly (and I can speak from firsthand experience on that, the FX 5700 Ultra sucked more dick than Linda Lovelace compared to the o-so-overclockable 9800 Pro). Now that ATI has been dropping the ball left and right on X1800 and Crossfire avaliablility, paper-launched the suckfest that is X800 Crossfire, and just in general using hardware review sites as free advertisements for non-existant hardware.

They have every right to be pissed.

Nvidia took their licks from the FX series, and learned from it. The "Dustbuster" debacle told them we wouldn't put up with loud, bulky cooling solutions, the whole "trilinear optimization" controversy told them they need to be honest with their customers (and ATI was found to be using one anyways after causing the ruckus), and the poor avaliablity of high-end parts taught them we don't like to wait for our toys.

So what did they do?

They delivered a product that stomped anything else on the market, had a very quiet single-slot cooling solution, and was avaliable in large quantities at multiple vendors on the day of the launch. ATI has done none of these with this launch on the high end, and [H] can point out the bullshit that gets tossed up by ATI at this point.

But hey, if you want your generic reviews that feature cookie cutter testing and little actual real-world performance, or reviews that show a card you can't fucking buy get 1500 more Penismarks© than the 7800GTX, go read Anandtech or something. Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

Penismarks© and the Penismark© suite of testing products are trademarks of the Sgt.SweatySac Consortium©, and may not be reproduced in any written or electronic form without a signed legal release from my testicles. I will warn you that they don't often get along and like to slap each other during the day.
 
OldBoy said:
It would just be a nice touch if the opinions were laced with a *touch* of fact. Giving it to the man when you don't know what it is you're talking about is pretty embarassing. Doing it multiple times is shameful.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we just made it all up. Especially the part about not delivering on multiple products over the last year when they missed their OWN deadlines. We are bastards. :rolleyes:
 
SgtSweatySac said:
What can I say, I'm bored.

I should probably save that to a text file or something, I'd probably come in handy at whatever the next flameworthy thread is.
Click to expand...


Actually not a bad idea.....thanks for saving me even more time. :)
 
I agree that Kyle and Brent are not "fan boys" of any kind. And I can understand mistakes with the whole GTO thing, also I am glad to see they gave credit to ATi when Crossfire parts finally came to market. But one thing still irks me, the blatant misinformation in Brent's "ATi Answers". For example, GI on R420 is clearly supported in Far Cry which is not what Brent said, Brent even went as far as to make an attempt at a minor slam "We all know how well that turned out, basically no developers used it in their games, instead opting for the Shader Model 3.0 implementation, and one example is FarCry. CryTek added in a patch the ability to do geometry instancing using the Shader Model 3.0 implementation and not ATI’s specific implementation that only works on their hardware and is not part of the DirectX standard.", we all did know how it turned out, Far Cry supported ATi's way and all was well. In kind of defeats the purpose of the post when his main example simply is not true. In addition he wrote "While the technique is very intriguing from a technical standpoint the fact is that ATI lacks a major Shader Model 3.0 feature in hardware.", but clearly the feature in question is an optional feature and not by any means a "major" feature (I wished he would have explained how this was a major set back for ATi). Even Dave at Beyond3D was confused by this post. While I appreciate Brent's and Kyle's honesty/opinion, I think for the future you guys might want to consider just slowing down a bit and make sure all your facts are correct and valid. I want to point out that I still love hardocp (and Kyle and Brent), I think they do a great job. Just I guess I was a little disappointed with the quality post Brent turned out. I know he's better than that. I hope that make sense. I am sorry if I offended either one of you, I really didn't mean to, I am just trying to voice my small opinion.
 
Moofasa~ said:
I agree that Kyle and Brent are not "fan boys" of any kind. And I can understand mistakes with the whole GTO thing, also I am glad to see they gave credit to ATi when Crossfire parts finally came to market. But one thing still irks me, the blatant misinformation in Brent's "ATi Answers". For example, GI on R420 is clearly supported in Far Cry which is not what Brent said, Brent even went as far as to make an attempt at a minor slam "We all know how well that turned out, basically no developers used it in their games, instead opting for the Shader Model 3.0 implementation, and one example is FarCry. CryTek added in a patch the ability to do geometry instancing using the Shader Model 3.0 implementation and not ATI’s specific implementation that only works on their hardware and is not part of the DirectX standard.", we all did know how it turned out, Far Cry supported ATi's way and all was well. In kind of defeats the purpose of the post when his main example simply is not true. In addition he wrote "While the technique is very intriguing from a technical standpoint the fact is that ATI lacks a major Shader Model 3.0 feature in hardware.", but clearly the feature in question is an optional feature and not by any means a "major" feature (I wished he would have explained how this was a major set back for ATi). Even Dave at Beyond3D was confused by this post. While I appreciate Brent's and Kyle's honesty/opinion, I think for the future you guys might want to consider just slowing down a bit and make sure all your facts are correct and valid. I want to point out that I still love hardocp (and Kyle and Brent), I think they do a great job. Just I guess I was a little disappointed with the quality post Brent turned out. I know he's better than that. I hope that make sense. I am sorry if I offended either one of you, I really didn't mean to, I am just trying to voice my small opinion.
Click to expand...

If you have issues, I would suggest you mail him and use proper paragraph structure. Maybe some bullet points to highlight what your real QUESTIONS are. As for what you are getting at, I still have not seen 100% proof on how optional it is. So no, I don't understand some of what you are saying or asking or both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top