THG did nothing but REPORT the news,..
I'm just going to disagree with you a bit.
The title of the paragraph/section, <i>Questionable optimizations in ATi's drivers?</i> , and lead-in phrase to describe these anomalies bothered me though because it did imply they were cheats. Whether that was on purpose or not is my issue.
<font color=red><i>Earlier this year, NVIDIA drew a lot of flak over a number of questionable optimizations in their drivers for 3DMark 2003 - optimizations which could definitely be called cheats.</i></font color=red>
then there's this full-on accusation/partial qualification phrase that is similar to a page 1 mistake and page 25 retraction;
<font color=red><i>an optimization such as this seems more than a bit questionable and smacks of cheating - that is, if this behavior is the result of deliberate action on ATi's part and not a driver bug in the end. </i></font color=red>
This implies that they are questionable optimizations, meaning that they are a result of ATI direct decision to do this. As said above that is not the case.
Also notice that in the begining there is the statement that Randy Pitchford was mentioning that there were ATI optimizations detrimental to Image quality, but he won't back that up, and then way in the back (three pages later [not immediately mentioned]) that Lars noticed no such image quality reductions;
<font color=red><i>In Halo pixel-shader quality comparison screenshots, on the other hand, we could not corroborate any irregularities as alleged by Randy Pitchford.</font color=red></i>
Now why couldn't that statement have been made immediately following the allegations?
Perhaps it is just semantics, but considering the reaction it has garnered I'd say it's a significant misstep.
If Lars had just said, 'while compiling this review I noticed some strange things...' then that wouldn't make the association with nVidia's floptimizations. The way it was worded makes Lars appear at best as an unwitting pawn of nV's PR machine, at worst it makes him appear as a willing participant. And just like I reserved my judgement of the issues until ATI responded I'll reserve my judgement of these actions until I see equal space for ATI's response or I see no action to makeup for these misstatements.
Especially when it appears no effort was made to contact ATI about this.
Some people may see it as no big deal, I see it as a big step into the role of corporate PR extension (even if it is playing both ends against the middle).
As always, that's just my two frames worth.
- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK