Heres a link so you dont have to go find it....
http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=22604
http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=22604
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.
pxc said:LOL
The news hit anand with a link to ati's response and a whole new round of "it's not true!!!" has hit the internet.
Did you know:
1. You can't trust hardocp benchmarks (apparently timedemo demo1 can't be trusted when it's printed on hardocp, even though it was run at id with ATI and NVIDIA present)
2. NVIDIA optimized the Doom3 engine. Hmmm, I thought John Carmack wrote it.
3. Both ATI and NVIDIA cheated in the benchmarks. A funny comment since only ATI texture cheating (colored mipmaps change the results) is mentioned in the [H] article.
4. The benchmarks were *mine* since I pointed how it was run. LOL Texas was pretty hot and I only got 1/2 my normal frequent flyer miles. Sorry Kyle and Carmack, you're exposed.
5. 4GB of memory with a PCI-E and P4 3.6GHz invalidates the benchmarks. That dull blade didn't even bother to get past page 2.
I learned a lot, did anyone else?
Fortunately there is some common sense in the thread, but it's still funny to read anyways. A couple of those guys obviously haven't even read the article, or just didn't understand it. You're looking at skull bone 5-6" thick in that thread.
TyP3-R said:Heres a link so you dont have to go find it....
http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=22604
Roach said:Synthetically it is, real-world is a different matter.
pxc said:LOL
The news hit anand with a link to ati's response and a whole new round of "it's not true!!!" has hit the internet.
Did you know:
1. You can't trust hardocp benchmarks (apparently timedemo demo1 can't be trusted when it's printed on hardocp, even though it was run at id with ATI and NVIDIA present)
2. NVIDIA optimized the Doom3 engine. Hmmm, I thought John Carmack wrote it.
3. Both ATI and NVIDIA cheated in the benchmarks. A funny comment since only ATI texture cheating (colored mipmaps change the results) is mentioned in the [H] article.
4. The benchmarks were *mine* since I pointed how it was run. LOL Texas was pretty hot and I only got 1/2 my normal frequent flyer miles. Sorry Kyle and Carmack, you're exposed.
5. 4GB of memory with a PCI-E and P4 3.6GHz invalidates the benchmarks. That dull blade didn't even bother to get past page 2.
I learned a lot, did anyone else?
Fortunately there is some common sense in the thread, but it's still funny to read anyways. A couple of those guys obviously haven't even read the article, or just didn't understand it. You're looking at skull bone 5-6" thick in that thread.
^eMpTy^ said:I don't understand why people have to go bashing benchmarks. They put HardOCP, id, ATi, and Nvidia in a room...and benchmarks came out...how could you possibly deny the importance/fairness of those benchmarks...it's just silliness...nothing more than the old concept: if you don't like it, deny it...
enyx said:I'm the biggest Doom III fan you'll meet, seriously, I've been addicted since '93... but it's still just ONE GAME.
enyx said:http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_14696.html
... I've just about lost it with that company, publishing something like this over a grand total of SEVEN fps charts.
Whatever.
There are only two ways of looking at this situation, and their companies really... either A) You believe they're both out to deliver a great gaming experience and reasonable prices, to give to the gaming industry and stay successful.
Or, B) They're both a bunch of unethically boundless liers whom twist and manipulate the truth for their sole benefit, playing dirty and taking any means to damage someone else who holds any slight possibly of being competetive.
I live in Canada, do you know how much an 6800 or an X800XT costs up here? 800 DOLLARS. Plus 15% taxes, hey... lets drop a grand on a damn video card. Even online, in American funds, it's friggin' insane.
Too much money for TOO LITTLE. Not worth it. Not worth ONE game, 7 CHARTS of benches.... 30 hours of gameplay and a speratic multiplayer experience thereafter... no, that's bullshit.
I'm the biggest Doom III fan you'll meet, seriously, I've been addicted since '93... but it's still just ONE GAME.
They are reporting HardOCP's results. I saw no changes to the results Kyle posted. Are you calling Kyle a liar?enyx said:Or, B) They're both a bunch of unethically boundless liers whom twist and manipulate the truth for their sole benefit, playing dirty and taking any means to damage someone else who holds any slight possibly of being competetive.
rancor said:Both sides do it dont try to make ATi look like a rose, its bussiness, business is dirty, if a company is afraid to get dirty well thats when that company is going to go down.
The 6800LE, if the tech report review is accurate, is pretty affordable for the performance. $199 isn't out of line for something generally faster than the 9800XT. And prices on both the x800 and 6800 lines will drop continuously over the next couple of months.Lord of Shadows said:I predict that graphics cards will get continuously larger and only the three riches kings of the world will be able to afford them.
enyx said:amd vs. intel
nvidia vs. ati
creative vs. _blank_
:/
pxc said:They are reporting HardOCP's results. I saw no changes to the results Kyle posted. Are you calling Kyle a liar?
Yes, it is only one game. Yes, NVIDIA is bragging about it, just like ATI bragged last September about Valve HL2 results and more recently about Far Cry results (pre-1.2). That's the PR game both companies play. But it's no reason to only get angry at one company about it. Hate the game, not the player.
tornadotsunamilife said:creative vs. hercules vs. terratec vs. zalman
enyx said:What? Who here owns a post-creative card on the totem pole up there? I personally have never heard of those two last companies. And hercules most certainly not with sound. All I see everywhere is Creative.
Ever since they killed Aural & A3D... it's been nothing but Sound Blaster from where I can see.
It's called a disclaimer for a reason. Without the wording, some wacko shareholder could come back next year and sue NVIDIA. It would be frivilous of course, but the wording deflates a potential case to nothing because it constitutes a warning about relying on that information for stock/financial purposes. If Doom3 were recalled, for example, the press release would be considered misleading and nvidia could be sued if it caused any movement in the stock price, real or imagined.OldPueblo said:Let me break it down for you "We are badasses because of this and this but oh bear in mind that next week it could be the complete opposite."
enyx said:1024Mb Video cards, here we go!
Damn, I'm not even supporting a side and your flaming me. I've played with the 6800 Ultra, 6800GT, x800 XT, and the x800 Pro, and I have personally not seen a big enough performance gain over my 9800 Pro. Granted I only play games in 1280x1024 4xAA, 4xAF but overall the 5-10 FPS I gain out of all my games does not warrent a $500 price tag.^eMpTy^ said:Dude have you been reading all these benchmarks lately? They're all real world...
OldPueblo said:Let me break it down for you "We are badasses because of this and this but oh bear in mind that next week it could be the complete opposite."
OldPueblo said:This just in, updated benchmarks.
Doom3 at 1600x1200 / 32AA / 32AF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GeForceFX 6800 Plutonium Magnum--------|8========D - 23FPS
ATI Radeon Nuclear Maximum Extreme----|8=======D - 22.999FPS
BitBoys Gigawatt Meglabyte Quintuple-----|888888========D - 69FPS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roach said:Damn, I'm not even supporting a side and your flaming me. I've played with the 6800 Ultra, 6800GT, x800 XT, and the x800 Pro, and I have personally not seen a big enough performance gain over my 9800 Pro. Granted I only play games in 1280x1024 4xAA, 4xAF but overall the 5-10 FPS I gain out of all my games does not warrent a $500 price tag.
You need to relax and understand not everyone is going to throw down $400+ in order to gain a few fps here and there, especially considering a lot of the features these cards have aren't even going to be taken full adantage of until we see games specifically designed for them in a year or so, by that time we'll have a whole new bunch of cards to bitch about.
The Batman said:I see you don't live in the US [or if you do you've lead a sheltered life], land of the frivilous lawsuit.
It is necessary to use such a disclaimer, but it has nothing to do with you or any end-user of nVidia products.OldPueblo said:My point is not that there is no point in using a disclaimer. It's that it would have generally been unnecessary to have such a detailed and moronic disclaimer if they had just waited for Doom3 to actually hit the market and then be proven on all machines everywhere, if that's the case. I am in the US (says under the name FYI) though I do also enjoy the perks that come with a sheltered life.
You're welcome, and anything that results in fewer lawsuits can only be a good thing, IMO!OldPueblo said:WOW. I was unaware that there even was such a thing as a known "forward-looking statement disclaimer" and even more so that something would be necessary regarding a video game launch. I hereby withdraw my pointed head and say thanks for the info. See how easy it is guys? Being wrong isn't so bad if we learn something.![]()
Pair O' Noyas said:It is necessary to use such a disclaimer, but it has nothing to do with you or any end-user of nVidia products.
Its only purpose is to deny shareholders (in this case of nVidia shares) the right to claim that they were damaged by being led to believe that this information would specifically and certainly enhance the value of their holdings in nVidia, and to deny them this claim as a basis for litigation in Federal court.
This is a:
"Cautionary Statement for the Purposes of the 'Safe Harbor' Provisions of the 'Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995' (quoted below)."
This is what is commonly known as a "forward-looking-statement disclaimer." These are boilerplate paragraphs added to press releases and other such information to shield the issuer from such (unreasonable) claims.
Such a disclaimer is included specifically to satisfy:
TITLE I--REDUCTION OF ABUSIVE LITIGATION
Sec. 102. Safe harbor for forward-looking statements.
'(c) SAFE HARBOR-
'(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), in any private
action arising under this title that is based on an untrue statement of
a material fact or omission of a material fact necessary to make the
statement not misleading, a person referred to in subsection (a) shall
not be liable with respect to any forward-looking statement, whether
written or oral, if and to the extent that--
'(A) the forward-looking statement is--
'(i) identified as a forward-looking statement, and is
accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important
factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those
in the forward-looking statement;'
A "forward-looking statement" is one which could be construed as predicting (hence it is "forward-looking") the appreciation of holdings in a company.