Nvidia Accused Of Cheating Again?

[Pitbul]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15502

No diffrence or much noticeable between Ps2.0 and Ps3.0?


"ATI IS MAKING hay while the sun shines after an article at Driverheaven more or less accused Nvidia of cheating. We referenced the web site article earlier today in our hardware roundup.
It's also worth looking here for background on this matter.

We said that what we saw when we were in Geneva with Nvidia was a clear difference between the code that was running PS 3.0 path and a referred system that was running PS 2.0 code.

ATI says that CryTek's representative told it that what Nvidia showed us in Geneva was a 2.0/3.0 path versus 1.1 path.

The key message is that Shader model 3.0 and 2.0 look exactly the same, the ATI representative added.

In a developers' mail that we also received, it added that there is a possibility that the 3.0 path might be slightly faster in same cases on some hardware - an obvious reference to Nvidia.

ATI also claims that its hardware will run faster then Nvidia's anyway and he added: "It's pretty much impossible to make a sm3.0 game look noticeably different to a sm2.0 game, which is why Nvidia was comparing the 2.0/3.0 path with a 1.1 path."

A CryTek representative responded on this matter with this answer: "Was Nvidia showing SM3.0 vs. SM2.0 or SM1.1?" He replied to his own question by saying that Nvidia was showing 3.0/2.0 vs. 1.1.

So the ball is now in Nvidia's half of the court, and I am the Bosnian net over which the balls are flying.
"

Me thinks someone just got bit in the ass for trying to twist words ::Cough:: nVidia and Crytek ::Cough::

[kaiweiler]

haha sucks for nVidia!
another step forward for ATI though
I think within the next little bit, a lot of nVidia users will be switching to the almighty ATI!

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by kaiweiler@23 April 2004 - 05:53
haha sucks for nVidia!
another step forward for ATI though
I think within the next little bit, a lot of nVidia users will be switching to the almighty ATI!

But do you know the numbers? 4/5 high end graphics cards ($150-$400 USD) sold are ATi cards. In other words, Nvidia sells significantly more low end products than ATi does.

Another thing--ATi has higher profit margins--so they earn more per card they sell than Nvidia; and that only makes sense, because Nvidia has to use much higher clocked DDR2-3 memory (such as 5700 U etc.) to compete with ATi's current offerings. For example: the current leader in graphics performance is the 9800XT, which uses DDR1, and it still beats the much higher clocked 5950 U.

[adamp2p]

here is the article that compares the images and shows nvidia cheating

[Skillian]

Well, that's pretty much confirmed that the R420 won't support PS 3.0 then

[atiVidia]

lol i care about framerates.

plus we can never really know who is the true winner until the games supporting the hardware are released, and both comps r benched under dx9.0C



also: it could be a driver issue. nvidia has always had problems with drivers...

[lynx]

Let's see if I've got this right.

100+ fps, a speed which the human eye can't process, and they spot 1 frame which is out of spec.

Oh, and who are the accusers? Oh yes, ATI.

Do me a favour, it's absolute bullshit.

[RGX]

Originally posted by atiVidia@23 April 2004 - 16:53
lol i care about framerates.

plus we can never really know who is the true winner until the games supporting the hardware are released, and both comps r benched under dx9.0C



also: it could be a driver issue. nvidia has always had problems with drivers...

Personally, I care about image quality. I can get quake to run at 500 FPS on an MX440 FFS.

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by lynx@23 April 2004 - 09:03
Let's see if I've got this right.

100+ fps, a speed which the human eye can't process, and they spot 1 frame which is out of spec.

Oh, and who are the accusers? Oh yes, ATI.

Do me a favour, it's absolute bullshit.

Sorry to correct you lynx, but I have to:

Driverheaven is the one who published these results.

If you take a moment (actually a few minutes) to read and interact with the entire article including the flash demos, and uncompressed images, you will see several instances where Nvidia's hardware produced images that are still not up to par with what currently available ATi hardware can produce.

What can we conclude from this? Well, a couple of things, that's for sure.

What this means in a game? Well for one thing, if you are getting 100 frames per second on a card that cost you over $400 USD, I am sure you would want every frame to be high quality.

In general, getting higher framerates of lower quality images does not equate to a better gaming experience (unless you are colorblind). So what? Well here is the real issue: when ATi releases its next generation hardware in a couple of weeks, and it can produce framerates at or equal (and possibly above or below by a few fps) the Nvidia offerings, folks will be sure to be looking at the image quality.

Nvidia has been hammered recently by the gaming community ([H]ardOCP, Anandtech, etc.) due to its hardware producing image quality less than ATi's hardware. So you can be sure folks will be looking and comparing this again.

[Pitbul]

Originally posted by lynx@23 April 2004 - 10:03
Let's see if I've got this right.

100+ fps, a speed which the human eye can't process, and they spot 1 frame which is out of spec.

Oh, and who are the accusers? Oh yes, ATI.

Do me a favour, it's absolute bullshit.

LMAO!!!, how many FPS that eye can see depends on the person. diffrent people can see the diffrence between diffrent FPS, but still irrelevant.

Driverheaven is making the claims, not ATI you jerkass, the only thing ATI has said so far is that there is not much if any diffrence between the picture quality between Ps2.0 and Ps3.0, and so far we haven't seen any proof of this being true or false because we haven't seen a side by side picture of a game running PS2.0 and PS3.0.

hehe your whole post screams out "nVidia Fanboy"