NVIDIA back to old tricks..

Sharkfood · 02-26-03, 03:51 PM

Hey guys, check the bottom posts of this page at B3D-
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewto...=4488&start=80

NVIDIA is preventing people with review samples from running 3DMark03.

Now we know why HardOCP had the big schpeel on how they refuse to use 3DMark03. It wasn't a personal choice- they were just trying to save face while abiding by NVIDIA's commandment of "use 3DMark03 = no more boards" policy.

This is as bad as the situation that occurred back with Riva3D publishings a good Voodoo5 review and was asked to yank it else possibly lose future review sample boards.

When an IHV uses review sample availability to dictate what test suites a reviewer can use to test their products it invalidates any such results as earnestly being a "review" This explains why we see such disparity between benchmark results and end-user obtainable performance. An NViDIA review will be nothing but hand-picked tests with hand-picked settings as any deviation from such will result in the source unable to obtain review samples. So it's provide manipulated/inaccurate information, or don't review at all.

Bravo NVIDIA for breaking your previous record of being the slimiest of slime. I didn't think they could get any lower than they have in the past but they have managed to sink even worse. An impressive effort to say the least..

John Reynolds · 02-26-03, 04:05 PM

You know, I had a very long post all nice 'n typed out, talking about a few things I've never publically discussed before. But then a little bird called wisdom told me to shut up.

Does any of this surprise anyone? Or are our memories really that short?

Babel-17 · 02-26-03, 04:12 PM

Wow. I'm reminded of how one review site (long time ago) went out of their way to go out and buy their own hardware as they were sick of getting cherry picked review samples that came with many dubious vendor restrictions as to how it could be reviewed.

nVidia shoots self in foot imo. FAR better to say there's a driver issue they are working on (darkly hinting at FutureMark bias) and SUGGEST reviewers include a "take the numbers with a grain of salt, nVidia drivers traditionally ramp up in performance over time ...." yadda yadda caveat.

It's like nVidia is just giving away talking points to be used against themselves.

Sharkfood · 02-26-03, 04:34 PM

Well what Wavey was describing makes perfect sense. Obviously an IHV *should* provide a set of rules or guidelines to help the lesser knowledgable website reviewers take the steps needed to show the product in it's best light.

"Guidelines" can be ignored or otherwise discarded. "Restrictions" are contractual agreements made off verbal understandings between two parties. It appears NVIDIA is placing restrictions as opposed to guidelines now.

But putting *demanding restrictions* by use of blackmail.. this pushes the envelope of the dubious and surreal.

And no, it doesnt surprise me from NVIDIA. They have a long and colorful history of such tactics that have been simply denied by their list of fans/supporters for years. I truly do not see this being such an issue of even comparable scale from other IHV's though. You dont see ATI demanding what tests/results are to be used by holding future review samples "hostage" otherwise. Heck, even HardOCP still get's review sample hardware even after the last ATI review (8500) was done almost completely by the NVIDIA PR department (i.e. "here, use this quakifier program and post xyz results!").

opus512 · 02-26-03, 04:37 PM

Review sites should be getting their review boards from manufacturers like eVGA or Creative, Hercules, etc., not directly from the chip maker like nVidia, would take care of a lot of this problem. I would like to see nVidia threaten to cut off a board maker now that they have a viable alternative in ATI, heh.

opus512 · 02-26-03, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharkfood

And no, it doesnt surprise me from NVIDIA. They have a long and colorful history of such tactics that have been simply denied by their list of fans/supporters for years.

*Harumph!*

Been saying that for years

SirPauly · 02-26-03, 05:59 PM

None of this is surprising considering nVidia's past and nVidia's take on 3dmark:2003.

This had to be a tough call for Dave.....and I believe him on his convictions on benching for the most part. However, to receive a GeForceFX he had to play some kiss-kiss and sacrifice his convictions about benching some-what to receive one for his readers. Kiss-kiss has no logic. To me there is no difference benching in a preview or a review and your convictions about benching should be the same, imho. If he offers I would of refused nVidia's wishes for a review and agree to nVidia's wishes in a preview doesn't make any sense to me, but I believe him. What makes sense to me is simple: there is only a few GeForce FX's right now and Beyond3d wants one to preview for their readers. Nothing wrong with that and glad that I know that nVidia placed that restriction on websites.

This may backlash on nVidia because they don't have the crown anymore. You can bully many when you have the baddest 3d product on the planet -- - you sound like a coward when you don't, imho. I see fear from nVidia like never before.

LaMont Sanford · 02-26-03, 06:21 PM

Who really cares?
3mark 2003 isn't really a DX9 benchmark from what I understand, and I really care more about REAL GAMES, like UT2003, Unreal 2, and Doom3.
The whole 3dmark thing has turned into a bullshit benchmarking cult anyway.
"I OCd everything till my case melted and then I got 20K 3dmarks!"
<spankspankspankSPLAT>

A pointless hobby for kids too young to soup up cars.......

Apoch003 · 02-26-03, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LaMont Sanford
Who really cares?
3mark 2003 isn't really a DX9 benchmark from what I understand, and I really care more about REAL GAMES, like UT2003, Unreal 2, and Doom3.
The whole 3dmark thing has turned into a bullshit benchmarking cult anyway.
"I OCd everything till my case melted and then I got 20K 3dmarks!"
<spankspankspankSPLAT>

A pointless hobby for kids too young to soup up cars.......

Feelgood???

People use 3dmark and other benchies to compare graphics quality, different cards, and so forth. There is a genuine need for benchmarking programs.

DX9 is very much a part of 3dmark2003... The fourth 'game' is dx9. Plus the ragdoll tests, pixel and vertex shaders 2.0.
What planet are you from that you say it isn't?

DaveBaumann · 02-26-03, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirPauly
However, to receive a GeForceFX he had to play some kiss-kiss and sacrifice his convictions about benching some-what to receive one for his readers. Kiss-kiss has no logic. To me there is no difference benching in a preview or a review and your convictions about benching should be the same, imho.

IMO, this is my only chance to get to look at an ultra board, possibly any 5800 board at all. Board vendors relations are not B3D's strong point, and in many ways they are merely a necessary evil - being a technology based site the ideal for us would just be to recieve reference boards, but won;t happen so we need to look to the vendors to get some products (and reviews are a nice source of hits!). Given the scarcity of FX's my guess it would be a long time before B3D could get to look at one, if at all - at least this way we get to lay the cards on the table prior to widespread release.

And don't take this out of context.

SirPauly · 02-26-03, 06:51 PM

Dave,

Exactly....and understand.

Quote:

And don't take this out of context.

Dave, I don't appreciate being told what to do and you know that. It's not like I blab around tons of sites on the Internet. Relax.

Apoch003 · 02-26-03, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveBaumann

IMO, this is my only chance to get to look at an ultra board, possibly any 5800 board at all. Board vendors relations are not B3D's strong point, and in many ways they are merely a necessary evil - being a technology based site the ideal for us would just be to recieve reference boards, but won;t happen so we need to look to the vendors to get some products (and reviews are a nice source of hits!). Given the scarcity of FX's my guess it would be a long time before B3D could get to look at one, if at all - at least this way we get to lay the cards on the table prior to widespread release.

And don't take this out of context.

"IMO..." is the best sour cream substitute out there!
"this is my only chance..." and you blew it buddy!
"board vendors relations are many ways merely a necessary ideal for us..."
"..it would be a long time before B3D could lay the cards on the table.."

hee hee hee hee!

John Reynolds · 02-26-03, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveBaumann
Given the scarcity of my [sex life] it would be a long time before [i] could get [laid], if at all - at least this way we get to lay the [long, hard] cards on the table prior to [my] widespread release.

And don't take this out of context.

John Reynolds · 02-26-03, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirPauly
I don't appreciate being told what to do and you know that.

Oh, just STFU.

incandescent · 02-26-03, 07:26 PM

LaMont Sanford, for the individual user, 3DMark and other synthetic benchmark tests are usefull in gauging system upgrade effectiveness. I don't necessarily care about how my system compares to some other guys, but I do like to run these tests everytime I upgrade hardware to compare to old config.

SirPauly · 02-26-03, 07:27 PM

Hehehe.......I understand to some extent the responsibility Dave does have. I also appreciate the time he did take explaining his view to me as well. It's not like the old Voodoo lounge and Voodoo Technology days so long ago I kindly remember; Gamers of all ilk sharing views.

John,

Don't start on me because I am really, really good at giving posters the good old-fashioned poster kick in the crotch. You being the old man around here.....I am not going to give you any slack.

Or....I can start writing with one sentence paragraphs once again.

John Reynolds · 02-26-03, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirPauly
John,

Don't start on me because I am really, really good at giving posters the good old-fashioned poster kick in the crotch. You being the old man around here.....I am not going to give you any slack.

Or....I can start writing with one sentence paragraphs once again.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, son.

And it's ilk, not a damn moose.

SirPauly · 02-26-03, 07:36 PM

So true.....ilk not elk.......I did catch the wording but not in enough time for you to bust me on this. Bastard!! LOL!!

Moose sharing gaming views on the Internet, hehe.

Babel-17 · 02-26-03, 07:41 PM

Lol, I got so tired of adding "Edit: spelling" to my posts as I corrected mistakes I added it to my sig a day or two ago.

Ailuros · 02-26-03, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveBaumann

IMO, this is my only chance to get to look at an ultra board, possibly any 5800 board at all. Board vendors relations are not B3D's strong point, and in many ways they are merely a necessary evil - being a technology based site the ideal for us would just be to recieve reference boards, but won;t happen so we need to look to the vendors to get some products (and reviews are a nice source of hits!). Given the scarcity of FX's my guess it would be a long time before B3D could get to look at one, if at all - at least this way we get to lay the cards on the table prior to widespread release.

And don't take this out of context.

Just a question though, once you're here: will you include in your review Fablemark for instance? While I am hardly interested for the time being how a card scores in 3dmark2k3, I am interested how it handles stencilops for obvious reasons.

Incadescent,

Fred has a point. I might not agree with the idea of an IHV directly or indirectly restricting what software will or will not be run, but it isn't the end of the world for me either. Frankly how often exactly has Dave used MadOnion/Futuremark applications in his pre-/reviews? (here's to say that I more than often ignore them anyway...)

I understand the unethical part of the story, but I trust that B3D and it's stuff will be able to present a brilliant review, even without 3dmark2003.

As far as dx9 hardware and the according dx9 software concerns, I think the R500 will deal with it exeptionally well

02-26-03, 03:51 PM	#1
Sharkfood Registered User Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 3,213	NVIDIA back to old tricks.. Hey guys, check the bottom posts of this page at B3D- http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewto...=4488&start=80 NVIDIA is preventing people with review samples from running 3DMark03. Now we know why HardOCP had the big schpeel on how they refuse to use 3DMark03. It wasn't a personal choice- they were just trying to save face while abiding by NVIDIA's commandment of "use 3DMark03 = no more boards" policy. This is as bad as the situation that occurred back with Riva3D publishings a good Voodoo5 review and was asked to yank it else possibly lose future review sample boards. When an IHV uses review sample availability to dictate what test suites a reviewer can use to test their products it invalidates any such results as earnestly being a "review" This explains why we see such disparity between benchmark results and end-user obtainable performance. An NViDIA review will be nothing but hand-picked tests with hand-picked settings as any deviation from such will result in the source unable to obtain review samples. So it's provide manipulated/inaccurate information, or don't review at all. Bravo NVIDIA for breaking your previous record of being the slimiest of slime. I didn't think they could get any lower than they have in the past but they have managed to sink even worse. An impressive effort to say the least..

02-26-03, 04:12 PM	#3
Babel-17 "Say what?" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New York, USA Posts: 16,886	Wow. I'm reminded of how one review site (long time ago) went out of their way to go out and buy their own hardware as they were sick of getting cherry picked review samples that came with many dubious vendor restrictions as to how it could be reviewed. nVidia shoots self in foot imo. FAR better to say there's a driver issue they are working on (darkly hinting at FutureMark bias) and SUGGEST reviewers include a "take the numbers with a grain of salt, nVidia drivers traditionally ramp up in performance over time ...." yadda yadda caveat. It's like nVidia is just giving away talking points to be used against themselves. __________________ "As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests." –Gore Vidal “No matter how imperfect things are, if you’ve got a free press, everything is correctable. Without it, everything is concealable.” -Tom Stoppard

02-26-03, 04:37 PM	#5
opus512 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Cherry Capitol of the World, Bitch! Posts: 71,456	Review sites should be getting their review boards from manufacturers like eVGA or Creative, Hercules, etc., not directly from the chip maker like nVidia, would take care of a lot of this problem. I would like to see nVidia threaten to cut off a board maker now that they have a viable alternative in ATI, heh. __________________ We're all Nero, and we're all playing cheap plastic Chinese fiddles. When the Rebels become the Tyrants, Revolution takes on a New Meaning. The only truth that I fear is the dominance of opinion over thought, of partisan ideology over compromise, of emotional self righteous morality over intellectual reasoning. "We must always take heed that we buy no more from strangers than we sell them, for so should we impoverish ourselves and enrich them." --- Sir. Thomas Smith, England, 1549.

02-26-03, 07:26 PM	#15
incandescent Steaming Pile of Bureaucracy Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 3,192	LaMont Sanford, for the individual user, 3DMark and other synthetic benchmark tests are usefull in gauging system upgrade effectiveness. I don't necessarily care about how my system compares to some other guys, but I do like to run these tests everytime I upgrade hardware to compare to old config. __________________ welp

02-26-03, 07:41 PM	#19
Babel-17 "Say what?" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New York, USA Posts: 16,886	Lol, I got so tired of adding "Edit: spelling" to my posts as I corrected mistakes I added it to my sig a day or two ago. __________________ "As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests." –Gore Vidal “No matter how imperfect things are, if you’ve got a free press, everything is correctable. Without it, everything is concealable.” -Tom Stoppard

02-26-03, 04:05 PM	#2
John Reynolds Registered User Join Date: Oct 2000 Posts: 4,680	You know, I had a very long post all nice 'n typed out, talking about a few things I've never publically discussed before. But then a little bird called wisdom told me to shut up. Does any of this surprise anyone? Or are our memories really that short?

02-26-03, 04:34 PM	#4
Sharkfood Registered User Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 3,213	Well what Wavey was describing makes perfect sense. Obviously an IHV should provide a set of rules or guidelines to help the lesser knowledgable website reviewers take the steps needed to show the product in it's best light. "Guidelines" can be ignored or otherwise discarded. "Restrictions" are contractual agreements made off verbal understandings between two parties. It appears NVIDIA is placing restrictions as opposed to guidelines now. But putting demanding restrictions by use of blackmail.. this pushes the envelope of the dubious and surreal. And no, it doesnt surprise me from NVIDIA. They have a long and colorful history of such tactics that have been simply denied by their list of fans/supporters for years. I truly do not see this being such an issue of even comparable scale from other IHV's though. You dont see ATI demanding what tests/results are to be used by holding future review samples "hostage" otherwise. Heck, even HardOCP still get's review sample hardware even after the last ATI review (8500) was done almost completely by the NVIDIA PR department (i.e. "here, use this quakifier program and post xyz results!").

02-26-03, 05:59 PM	#7
SirPauly Registered User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: New England Posts: 5,473	None of this is surprising considering nVidia's past and nVidia's take on 3dmark:2003. This had to be a tough call for Dave.....and I believe him on his convictions on benching for the most part. However, to receive a GeForceFX he had to play some kiss-kiss and sacrifice his convictions about benching some-what to receive one for his readers. Kiss-kiss has no logic. To me there is no difference benching in a preview or a review and your convictions about benching should be the same, imho. If he offers I would of refused nVidia's wishes for a review and agree to nVidia's wishes in a preview doesn't make any sense to me, but I believe him. What makes sense to me is simple: there is only a few GeForce FX's right now and Beyond3d wants one to preview for their readers. Nothing wrong with that and glad that I know that nVidia placed that restriction on websites. This may backlash on nVidia because they don't have the crown anymore. You can bully many when you have the baddest 3d product on the planet -- - you sound like a coward when you don't, imho. I see fear from nVidia like never before.

02-26-03, 06:21 PM	#8
LaMont Sanford Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 141	Who really cares? 3mark 2003 isn't really a DX9 benchmark from what I understand, and I really care more about REAL GAMES, like UT2003, Unreal 2, and Doom3. The whole 3dmark thing has turned into a bullshit benchmarking cult anyway. "I OCd everything till my case melted and then I got 20K 3dmarks!" <spankspankspankSPLAT> A pointless hobby for kids too young to soup up cars.......

02-26-03, 07:27 PM	#16
SirPauly Registered User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: New England Posts: 5,473	Hehehe.......I understand to some extent the responsibility Dave does have. I also appreciate the time he did take explaining his view to me as well. It's not like the old Voodoo lounge and Voodoo Technology days so long ago I kindly remember; Gamers of all ilk sharing views. John, Don't start on me because I am really, really good at giving posters the good old-fashioned poster kick in the crotch. You being the old man around here.....I am not going to give you any slack. Or....I can start writing with one sentence paragraphs once again.

02-26-03, 07:36 PM	#18
SirPauly Registered User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: New England Posts: 5,473	So true.....ilk not elk.......I did catch the wording but not in enough time for you to bust me on this. Bastard!! LOL!! Moose sharing gaming views on the Internet, hehe.