Elite Bastards looks at Lars' ATI allegations.

TheGreatGrapeApe · Oct 25, 2003

Foe those of you following the recent FX5700/5950 and DET 52.16 vs ATI issue, here's a pretty in depth look at the issue by Elite Bastards (a pretty reliable site, along the lines of B3D and Digit-Life IMO).

Some nice animated comparisons. It appears that it's not as simple as some people think. Still need reference points I think.

<A HREF="http://www.elitebastards.com/page.php?pageid=2397&head=1&comments=1." target="_new">http://www.elitebastards.com/page.php?pageid=2397&head=1&comments=1.</A>

Personally stil waiting for ATI's reactions.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp (or internet account) ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new">RED GREEN</A> GA to SK :evil:

HardWareBoss · Oct 25, 2003

What happened to speed increase on 9600XT?

TheGreatGrapeApe · Oct 25, 2003

What are you talking about?

I don't remember their being anything that was only speeding up the R9600XT.

Are you talking about the respin or some particular questionable results/optimization?

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp (or internet account) ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new">RED GREEN</A> GA to SK :evil:

GeneticWeapon · Oct 25, 2003

Yea..Hanners, the guy who wrote it, is a mod at rage3d, and a regular at b3d. Today's his birthday

I've been a member of EB's forums for a while but I dont post often because it's kinda slow.

I help because you suck

GeneticWeapon · Oct 25, 2003

Hey...if Lars and Tom say ATi is cheating...who am I to say different?

I help because you suck

HardWareBoss · Oct 25, 2003

I thought I read somewhere when the specs of FX5700 where out that it was alot faster than 9600XT.

HardWareBoss · Oct 25, 2003

Where oh where is XGI?

GeneticWeapon · Oct 25, 2003

This is a thread about ATi cheating, not about the 5700U being faster then the 9600XT.

I help because you suck

TheGreatGrapeApe · Oct 25, 2003

Yeah, I remembered these guys from alot of your posts (when you were a little more active

).

The guy who wrote it is from Rage, eh? Maybe he's a PR plant.

BTW, according to Hexus the <A HREF="http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD02NDkmdXJsX3BhZ2U9Nw==" target="_new">NV's also have a shader precision banding issue in Aquamark3</A>, but yet there was no mention of that in Lars' review, he simply stated that previous issues had be addressed with the new DETs, which doesn't seem to be the case for some. But I guess it depends on where you focus your attention and how much.

Still waitng for an explination of WHY, not just pictues of what.

For now I'm 'satisfied' with both, but I do still have questions. I have a feeling thought that both ATI and nV are about to waste more PR dollars on this, which is nowhere near what we were talking about in the summer.

Did you see anything at B3D yet about all this? I'm gonna check here after poting this just to see. Speaking of a B-3D, bjorn3D has there very short 2 page review up also, nothing special IMO.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp (or internet account) ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new">RED GREEN</A> GA to SK :evil:

GeneticWeapon · Oct 25, 2003

<A HREF="http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8658" target="_new">http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8658</A>
<A HREF="http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8628" target="_new">http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8628</A>

I help because you suck

TheGreatGrapeApe · Oct 25, 2003

The funny thing is everyone is just noticing that first issue.

Heck how long has Digit Life been talking about this, at least since their <A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon/r9800pro-ue.html" target="_new">R9800UE review</A>.

I don't know that still seems like an issue with UT2K3 more than anything.

But the Aquamark thing is strange, I have to agree with nelg's statement in there, that it took a long time for people to really make a big stink about nV's major issues (heck how much did we keep talking about it?) yet this is immediately in the review, like the knowledge was there, but they were holding it in for PR effect. Strange.

I'd like to see some serious investigations into this, especially with some photoshop analysis. The thing is that it may ust be very subtle anomalies and might not be easily displayable the way the 3Dmk issues were.

Too bad B3D didn't do a review like the Tomb Raider one, but perhaps that's still to come.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp (or internet account) ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new">RED GREEN</A> GA to SK :evil:

GeneticWeapon · Oct 25, 2003

Too bad B3D didn't do a review like the Tomb Raider one, but perhaps that's still to come.

It is.

I help because you suck

GeneticWeapon · Oct 25, 2003

This might sound crazy to you, and I could explain, but it would be time consuming, but I believe Lars and Tom are Nvidia biased, and not big fans of ATi..

I help because you suck

TheGreatGrapeApe · Oct 25, 2003

Well I felt that after the VGA buyer's guide. But I like to try and think that reviewers especially of their stature keep an open mind. And after corresponding with Lars he seems pretty neutral in the real world, for some reason the reviews just feel 'off'. And the funny thing is except for the results, it's hard to simply put a finger on it. I think it may even have something to do with trying to be critical of ATI over the past litle while, just to have something to make it look balanced for fear of looking ATI-centric.

I don't know though, I think with any review you get a feel for a little bit of a slant, but that's because the reviewers already know the results while they are writing the reviews, but yet us as readers are slowly being revealed the results of their work. Perhaps it's that bias of foreknowledge that causes this feeling, simply because they know where this is all going and don't want to overplay items that we may think need mentioning but that they know mean little in the long run.

In any case at least THG get the Dang colour scheme right. Some review have the FXs' graphs in Red, and the ATI's in Green or Blue. Seriously people make an effort.

Anywho when used in conjunction with a select few other reviews I usually feel I can get a pretty solid picture of performance. But then again it's still all second hand info, and not as fun as running the benchmarks and demos yourself. Man I still get a kick out of that MASA flaoting skull DX9 demo.

Oh well, sleep beckons. Into mountains tomorrow to see a little of the colour on the trees and enjoy the extra hour of sleep when we get back (if we get back!). 😎

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp (or internet account) ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new">RED GREEN</A> GA to SK :evil:

eden · Oct 25, 2003

There was one time I felt Tom has an nV bias, and it was in his address regarding Asus joining ATi. TGGA disagreed, although I felt Tom was seriously not content with ATi. He almost implied they cheat over nVidia.

As for Lars, you would say so in the past, but aside from TGGA's theory which sounds very plausible (bias doesn't just come from results really), I feel the guy really has built back a rep for delivering the most neutral material.
When you think about it, the reason he showed the cheat analysis was because the convention happened just a few days ago and was pretty well clear on where to check to find the cheats reported. Who knows though, they COULD be bugs.
But I see the report as being ok and not "oh suddenly ATi cheats and it's everywhere already", because of the event that reported it. Those are real official and probably credible people from the companies, who reported the "cheats" found in their games.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

GeneticWeapon · Oct 25, 2003

Yep.
ATi cheats and decieves

I help because you suck

HardWareBoss · Oct 25, 2003

And Nvidia dosn't?

ufo_warviper · Oct 25, 2003

They both do according to this unreplied to post:

I wouldn't let ATi off the hook so easy phial and TKS. Even though the FX series of cards perform like sh!t right now, ATi currently has one of the most confusing, (may I say deceptive?) naming conventions I have seen in ages. Here have a look:

8500LE
8500
9000
9000 Pro
9100
9200
9500
9500 Pro
9600
9600 Pro
9600 XT
9700
9700 Pro
9800
9800 Pro
9800 XT

As much as I would like to say the above list is straightforward in terms of performance & features, I cannot agree. This list, which would seem logical to the average end-user is ludicrously far from accurate. I do not feel like going into all the details at the moment, because we all know approximately how the list should be arranged. I cannot say that ATi's naming schemes are less deceptive than nVidia's current bucket of crap cards. In fact, nVidia's FX line is far more accurately "numbered" in terms of relative perfomance than ATi's stuff. I'm not suggesting an FX card, far from it. But I've got to admit that I'm not impressed with either nVidia's(in the past with GF4MX line) and ATi's(current "R300" based line) marketting names for their products.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=37267#37267" target="_new">OFFICIAL PETITION - REPEAL SPUD'S BAN?</A>

Elite Bastards looks at Lars' ATI allegations.

Champion

Splendid

Champion

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Champion

Splendid

Champion

Splendid

Splendid

Champion

Champion

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Share this page