Andrzej Bania from ATI about the Hardware Analysis Review

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Duvie

I am not sure if talking to you is any better then talking to the toilet. I guess if I plunge it enough the sh^t that is clogging it will finally go down...

Agreed. After all dingo, you're the one with the word "crazy" in their name. We have to "assume" that a persons screen name reflects something about the person who chose it. So therefore, we must "assume" that you are crazy, or a dingo, yes? Then it all snowballs from there I suppose.

Keep on plungin Duvie! If that doesn't work, call Roto-Rooter.

there is no need to diss a username - that is more "personal" and quite unnecessary . . . and have you ever heard the expression: "Crazy like a fox"?

i don't agree with Duvie at all - except that we should wait until the benchmarks are really 'confirmed' - THEN we can say ATI or Sanders is 'full of $4it'.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Why bother with a press release when actual numbers will be out in a few weeks from reputable web sites? Would be a waste of time.

It is a laughable suggestion. Imagine in the future an obscure website claims they have the benchmarks (imaginary) for G80/R600 just before their release. Does that mean ATI/Nvidia would break their own NDA and walk right into their trap ?

Yeah if that happened then I'd have to start publishing more leaked benchmarks from my imaginary insider source in Taiwan to coerce nVidia/ATi into breaking their NDA's and giving us results early.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Ackmed
You are really not helping your cause to be a mod, Duvie.

I dont see any reason why not. He has provided a well thought logical argument thus far. He hasn't flamed anyone. So far, without the occasional noob posting in there, this is actually a REAL argument not just useless flames and numbers being spewn about.

I personally think DUvie makes a great point.

If ATI we so upset about this, why would they send someone to post on a forum. Even in spite of that lawsuit they are in, im very sure ATI has plenty of power to bring up charges on false information. Not to discredit the guy in the forums, and i know he cant provide proof of his claims (which is what makes the situation so controversial), but until ATI provides evidence against this, or until Sander provides evidence for his side this argument has reached a moot point.

We simply do not know enough yet.

-Kevin

He has not made a good argument. The ATi rep said he would bring everything out in the open, if Sanders wanted to. Sanders hasnt accepted, what does that tell you? The simple facts are, we dont know how fast the R520 is. Taking up for someone like Sanders though is pretty foolish after the comments he made.

Hasnt flamed anyone? How about calling someone an ASS? Seems like a flame to me.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Duvie
Hard to explain to someone who thinks we assume to much by taking his word for the review, yet he assumes all the rest of the ATI/Sander story as being a nailed down conclusion he is lieing to spite ATI....

All I have to say is show some real proof he has lied..If not be quiet!!!! Wait for some professional reviews by the big sites and maybe uyou will accpet those if they come out the same or close to.

We don't need 'proof' that he lied [the 'burden of proof' lies with Sanders]. . . there is sufficient reasonable doubt that the benchs are not to be trusted [period]

If the glove don't fit, you MUST acquit! You guys should vote for me as mod, I'm fair and balanced like Fox News. Fo sho!

and you have the benchmarks to prove it.

 

[crazydingo]

A_Pickle observations at Sander's own website : http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/49047/

Originally posted by: A_Pickle
"...What does Sander have to say about this?"

With luck, it could come to a mature end. He's wrong. Tons of websites around the world are disagreeing with him, which brings forth the typical idea:

If 99% of the world thinks you're an idiot, you probably are.

Now, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but based on the other cards benchmarked in that review, other findings from different websites are completely different. This is the entire benefit of having multiple benchmark sites, is so that each can counter or verify the other's findings. If, when the R520 is released on a wide scale, we see it perform as it does according to Sander's benchmark, then I will quietly lay my arguement down, and admit Nvidian superiority.

As of now, though, an X850 XT PE doesn't get beaten by a 6800 GT. Even moreso, the X850 XT PE often beats 6800 Ultra's in SLI. That's not what Sander's benchmark shows, but that's what benchmarks ALL OVER THE REST OF THE WEB say.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/geforce-7800gtx/index.x?pg=7
- Here the X850 XT PE performs perhaps, at most, 2 frames per second below the GTX. At 1600 x 1200, the X850 in fact SURPASSES the 7800 GTX.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/radeon-x800xl/index.x?pg=4
- In 1600 x 1200 here, WITH 4x AA and 8x AF, the X850 XT PE gets 60+ FPS. According to the HWA benchmark, it gets under 20.

http://www.thetechzone.com/?m=show&id=320&page=6
- Interestingly, on this 1600 x 1200 benchmark ALSO with 4x AA and 8x AF, the X850 XT PE gets 60+ FPS. Once again, HWA says under 20.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/2005-17gpu_14.html
- Here, once again on Far Cry, at 1600 x 1200 4x AA and 8x AF, the X850 XT PE gets about 60 FPS. In the HWA bench, it gets under 50.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/2005-17gpu_13.html
- On Doom 3, 1600 x 1200 4x AA and 8x AF, the X850 XT PE gets 30 FPS, where on HWA it gets below 20.

http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/re...JsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMjQ2JnVybF9wYWdlPTc=
- On Doom 3, 1600 x 1200 4x AA and 8x AF, the X850 XT PE gets about 40 FPS, where here it gets below 20.



Quote: Michael Hill, Admin
"...Supreet...Tom's Hardware? Come on now..."

It's a trusted review site. All the same, there are no contrary benchmarks I posted above from Tom's Hardware, just to show.
______________________________________


Quote: PCGEEK, HWA Member
"...its all good ATI sucks and Nvidia rocks. just go to the Nvidia ones bro there all that matter..."

Once again, a blatantly idiotic statement with no fact to back it up, and completely ignoring the fact that Nvidia had to invent a brand new architecture just to come out with something that beats the X850 XT PE. Oh, I forgot. Every benchmark site but HWA is utter crap. Silly me.
______________________________________


Quote: Blue, HWA Member
"...I see ATI POSTING PRIVATE E-MAILS ALL OVER THE WEB FOR REVENGE..."

I see ATI covering their behind from a slanderous site. These e-mails would be used as evidence in court, why shouldn't they be now? If they contain evidence that reveals the truth, so be it.
______________________________________

Quote:
"...Actually if you look at the HL2 scores the X850 XT PE beats the 6800 GT at every resolution - it is beaten at every resolution by a pair of 6800 GTs in SLi...."

Actually, it frequently tops two 6800 ULTRA's in SLI. Unfortunately, everyone else's benchmarks are st00pid and untrustworthy, since they're all ATI lovers.
______________________________________

Quote: Super XP, HWA Member
"...ATI knows what they are doing, and those beta drivers are not ready to take full advantage of ATI's new cards..."

Very good. ATI is a multi-billion dollar corporation that was chosen over Nvidia to head the graphics processing methods of both the console systems the Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Revolution.

Probably one of the few things we'll EVER agree on, Super.
______________________________________

Quote: Nemesis Z, HWA Member
"...So, once again, NVIDIA > ATI..."

Once again, you fail to provide any evidence to your statement, and you stand against a number of PROFESSIONAL websites that not only would disagree with you, but they're disagreeing with Sander. I guess you two must still be correct, and everyone else wrong.
______________________________________

Quote: Sander Sassen, HWA CEO & Founder
"...ATI actually started a smear campaign..."

You didn't? You didn't, for ten seconds think that MAYBE the scores you recieved weren't a liiiittttllle off?
______________________________________

Quote: Sean Costello, HWA Member
"...I say hats off to Sanders for getting the info, i dont know why they make such a big deal outta it when it was an experimental model, i think..."

It's a huge deal. ATI is, in a few respects, somewhat counting on the next few months to be something of a rebuttal to Nvidia's domination over the past few months. The main thing that's killed ATI is it's lack of a dual GPU solution to counter Nvidia's. Frankly, if I were ATI, I'd be just as p**sed.
______________________________________

Quote: Michael Hill, HWA Member
"...The educated will prefer your unbiased and honest reviews and stand by you. Those who call you foolish, have just been sucked into the garbage themselves, so losing their support isn't much of a loss anyway..."

That's the entire point of benchmarking. There's more than one benchmarking site out there. This has the effect of inadvertantly creating a system of checks and balances, e.g, when one site is posting results that twenty other sites are not, in all likelihood, the twenty other sites have results that are closest to or identical to the actual results.

You seem to disagree with this notion, your above statement seems to presume that HWA is a lone man standing amongst a city of wrong people. You are deluding yourself if you think that way. Give it up.
______________________________________

This is ridiculous, and you are standing like Enron right now. You are wrong. Tons of other sites have far different benchmarks, and you've totally p**sed off a multi-billion dollar company and a number of your own members, myself included. Not that you care, but you have.

Admit you're wrong, because it is stupid as hell to continue going on this tangent of idiocy.

 

[xtknight]

We have no reason to take Sander's benchmarks as the truth. You don't prove that he lied, you prove that he's right. Right now I see no reason to believe him. He didn't even do the benchmarks himself for god's sake. The only way to disprove Sander's benchmarks is to break an NDA. Doesn't sound real practical does it? I don't even know why there's an argument on this, because it's so blaringly obvious the burden of proof is on Sasser. Just ask any court, they'll tell you what the deal is. He brought the data to the table, and he proves it or nobody believes him. He can't prove it? Too bad then, no one should believe him (I don't know why anyone does). I'm not even trying to be anal on this. When HE says the data is provided AS IS, that means you read it at your own risk and don't assume it to be completely true. You can tell he's just some pissed off guy with a bone to pick with ATI. Everything up until the release of the card is pure speculation. I'll have to agree with Ackmed on this one (when does that happen).

Wait...do you hear that? That's the sound of dead-on benchmarks coming from an Unidentified Taiwan Source (UTS) on which you should base your future buying decisions. This just in: R580 performance. http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/munky/r580-benches.jpg Prove it wrong, or take it as god's word!

 

[Greenman]

Fun read, but Sanders numbers shouldn't even be mentioned, they?re irrelevant. The relevant point is that Sanders got his feelings hurt and responded by trying to damage ATI. He presents himself as a journalist, he claims to be a no holds bared writer of the truth. He then goes on to explain that he did this to punish ATI for excluding him from their tech day. Does that sound rational to you? Does that sound like something a professional would do? How many CEO?s are going to read his words then call marketing and say ?we have to get this guy onboard??
The guy has way to much ego, and not enough common sense.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo
How could he "prove" his benches anyway?

If we knew where they came from (let's say Asus) would that prove anything? No.

If he posted some pictures of the hardware or screenshots of the scores would that "prove" anything? No.

We basically take all posted benchmarks on the web on blind faith anyway, unless we buy the hardware and replicate the test.

not quite.

we take many trusted sites - of which HA is not on my list - and compare their many benchmarks to give ourselves a reasonable picture. . . we do not pick a single self-admitted axgrinder using a dubiously leaked benchmark from a untrustworthy liar who was willing to break their NDA.

 

[jevans64]

I too rely on several sites to get benchmark information from. Having said that...

The FIRST video card maker ( ATi, nVidia ) to come out with an AGP version of a NEXT GEN. card gets my money. :laugh: :laugh:

No allegiance here ( see sig ). :laugh:

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Their reply is a JOKE.

QWould ATI seriously bring 100 of Europe?s top press to a Technology Day where they can run whatever benchmarks they choose if we thought that we were going to lose?"

Errr, did they not invite the press for all their product launches (e.g. Rage, Radeon VIVO, 8500) that did lose? :roll:

Yeah I'm sure there was no release party for all their second/third best products from days gone by.

Whatever happened to the guy who wants to believe a story and discuss it as fact? Lets discuss this one as fact and wonder if Nvidia can respond or will they revert to the old way of perfecting their drivers?

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: crazydingo
Come on now its obvious some people want to believe Sander's numbers no matter what; Sander has an obvious rift with ATI, wasnt invited, threatened, wrote the article as per his threat, didnt conduct the tests himself, accused everybody on the invitee list as being biased

Yeah ! sure we can still believe Sander's numbers.

*EDIT* As the ATI official said, they invited Nvidia fansites too. So it'll be interesting to see the outcome of their set of benchmarks. :thumbsup:

i don't think it's about that at all. only a few extremists *want* ati to fail. most of us would not have our day ruined whether ati came out ahead or behind.

it's about all those ridiculing sanders, when they have no evidence to support it.

his benches showed ati's card to be competetive. he believes those #'s to be accurate representations of a pre-release r520 running xt clockspeeds using a release candidate driver. does anyone have any info that proves this false? nope, nada... so why this whole "guilty until proven innocent" mentality?

belive in those #'s or not, that's everyones choice, but don't convict him until the evidence supports it. that's not taking sides, that's simply the reponsible action to take. i don't know why so many people have a problem with this...

on a side note, i would agree the *way* he delivered the information comes across as a knee-jerk reaction (there were certainly many other ways to deliver the info in a more... objective manner), but that's a seperate issue than whether the benches represent what he claims or not...

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Duvie
Heh. I like ATI. I would have gotten an ATI for my current machine if I didn't want to do the quadro mod. I think ATI video looks better. My opnion ofcourse but I think ATI fans in here were hurt from the get go about what appears to be disappointing numbers...nevermid the numbers can improve with more mature drivers....nevermind ATI neds to be a lot better to justify the cost out of the gate....That is not Nvidia's fault or Sander's fault...get over it and wait for AT, techReport, Xbitlabs, and other sites to review it. Dont take it so personally...

Its not a matter of your likes or anybody elses'. Sander accused all those who were invited (including Anandtech) as being biased or were sold out to ATI. There in lies the reason to be upset with Sander.

The numbers are a different matter altogether. Until Anandtech comes out with their own article, nobody knows. But we know that we cant believe those numbers from Sander.

So he was hurt for not being involved. I still dont think he would justify himself falsifying numbers to get back. If the reviewes come out and makes his look like night versus day he will have some explaining to do. Why waste your name for this? why take the chance of being sued and trust me you cannot always shield yourslef by saying someone else told me this....Doesn't always work and the gamble could have been financially costly.

I say we wait. I have always said that....I however dont think ATI fans should be called "stupid", "foolish" or whatever cause they see numbers from someone who has done credible reviews in the past and choose to belive them. Many of them have still said they will wait to see other reviews....

I dont see how ATI fans come into this. Sander accused everybody who was invited as being biased, being a staunch supporter of Anandtech I find that as "talking out of his ass". When he has made such foolish comments, I have no reason to believe anything else he has to offer. Simple as that. I'll wait for my anandtech review when it is published.

I dont agree with that but it wouldn;t be the first time one sited didn;t say that aboiut another......

<<well he did just send scripts to some of his AIB mates, and they did the benchmarkin. he has no way to prove how real they are. so he maynot think hes false, (he cant even say) those guys that did the benching could of set him up for a big fall......who knows!>>

I know this, but it deosn't make him any less culpable....He would be risking his neck. i think he must trust the ppl doing the reviews for him. Must be some sort of a relationship here...

Still nothing has been introduced to directly contradict what he has posted....Until then the numbers are real and anyone has the right to believe them without being called "stupid" or "foolish"...

so WHY are YOU taking Sander's side?

I am not... I just dont think ppl have said anything to disprove anything he has done to this point. I have seen personal attacks, a bunch of assumptions, and no data to refute it...Maybe these things wont be able to be proved for awhile, but I dont like the tone of the ATI fans at attacking those who care to even consider these....

So in that case I will stand up for him only so far as to say to ATI fans...show me the proof...otherwise be quiet and we will wait until the big review sites chime in.

You do realise that you are asking ATI to break their own NDA just to prove a "hurt" psycho's article ? Doing that would set a precedent that if yo uwant ATI or Nvidia to break their own NDA, stir up a controversy.

I still find all the people who stand up for Sander as 'funny', ask Anandtech or ANY other website's editors or staff and which side they would support and you'll get only one answer. (Ofcourse not including those dutch websites who were hand in hand with Sander in this controversy)

I am telling the ATI fans to show me the proof he is lieing beyond inuendo...I know ATI guys wont launch numbers...I didn't ask for that....

So now it is a dutch conspiracy????

You guys really need to start proving the claims you make befoire you wildly throw out accusations....Really....

as do you . . . really . . .
:roll:

so your mind is already premade up to believe him

fine

This Sander guy just did Ati a favor - everyone is arguing about the x1800, even before the official launch. Even the guys from the CPU forum are joining the fight. But I dont think he'd falsify the results to make Ati look bad, because if the real benches are completely opposite, he'd be the laughingstock of pretty much everyone. His numbers could still be wrong, but I dont think he would intentionally make the x1800 look bad in light of the possible consequences.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: crazydingo
Come on now its obvious some people want to believe Sander's numbers no matter what; Sander has an obvious rift with ATI, wasnt invited, threatened, wrote the article as per his threat, didnt conduct the tests himself, accused everybody on the invitee list as being biased

Yeah ! sure we can still believe Sander's numbers.

*EDIT* As the ATI official said, they invited Nvidia fansites too. So it'll be interesting to see the outcome of their set of benchmarks. :thumbsup:

i don't think it's about that at all. only a few extremists *want* ati to fail. most of us would not have our day ruined whether ati came out ahead or behind.

it's about all those ridiculing sanders, when they have no evidence to support it.

his benches showed ati's card to be competetive. he believes those #'s to be accurate representations of a pre-release r520 running xt clockspeeds using a release candidate driver. does anyone have any info that proves this false? nope, nada... so why this whole "guilty until proven innocent" mentality?

belive in those #'s or not, that's everyones choice, but don't convict him until the evidence supports it. that's not taking sides, that's simply the reponsible action to take. i don't know why so many people have a problem with this...

on a side note, i would agree the *way* he delivered the information comes across as a knee-jerk reaction (there were certainly many other ways to deliver the info in a more... objective manner), but that's a seperate issue than whether the benches represent what he claims or not...

you answered yourself - the way he delivers the article as an anti-ati editorial casts doubt on his unverifyable benchmarks on unknown "equivalent" systems . . . i say they should be completely disregarded [for at least that unprofessionalism] . . .

and munky . . . my point is that Sanders has NO consequences for himself or his web site . . . after all they are not *his* benchmarks.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Duvie
Hard to explain to someone who thinks we assume to much by taking his word for the review, yet he assumes all the rest of the ATI/Sander story as being a nailed down conclusion he is lieing to spite ATI....

All I have to say is show some real proof he has lied..If not be quiet!!!! Wait for some professional reviews by the big sites and maybe uyou will accpet those if they come out the same or close to.

We don't need 'proof' that he lied [the 'burden of proof' lies with Sanders]. . . there is sufficient reasonable doubt that the benchs are not to be trusted [period]

why is the burden of proof on sanders? he came out with a "claim". anyone refuting that claim has been unable (due to nda) or unwilling. there is no burden of proof on sanders.

what 'reasonable doubt'? that ati PR spinsters say "it's fake"? what else would you expect them to say? "yea, we're sorry.. we snubbed him, and our product is second-rate.."? :roll:

he said what he said, explained how he obtained the inf, and no one has disproved it. the logical thing, again, is to wait a few weeks and let the story reach it's own (correct) ending..

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: munky

This Sander guy just did Ati a favor - everyone is arguing about the x1800, even before the official launch. Even the guys from the CPU forum are joining the fight. But I dont think he'd falsify the results to make Ati look bad, because if the real benches are completely opposite, he'd be the laughingstock of pretty much everyone. His numbers could still be wrong, but I dont think he would intentionally make the x1800 look bad in light of the possible consequences.

Please learn how to trim your quotes.

And we're not necessarily saying that he intentionally falsified these benchmarks, just that they are unreliable and inaacurate and he should have known better than posting them. He let the chip on his shoulder get in the way of his better judgement.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

We simply do not know enough yet.

-Kevin

Yes we agree, little info given on test setup and test conditions. So really is like any set of numbers we see in the inquirer, except the inquirer has the integrity to admit up front that it is not a review. These numbers could be totally accurate, but accurate about what? Now ATi has specifically said they will best current hardware with reviewers testing anyway they want, including a nvidia fansite (don't think they meant anandtech ) Very broad statement. They cetainly have raised the bar here.


edit: Actually I am in shock that Ati made these statements. I assumed the first set were just a way to prepare us for lower speed, so as to clear the way to discuss new features. So I was an idiot or Ati is using an especially devious way to lower expectations, though I am not quite sure how that would work. This type of statement must also have the effect of killing sales of any of their current line. Very strange couple of days for sure.

 

[M0RPH]

Another thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned. You guys are all arguing that Sander wouldn't publish bad info because it would kill his reputation. By that same token, what ATI partner who has these cards and has obviously signed an NDA would put their status with ATI at risk? Who in their right mind would jeopardize their whole business by breaking NDA and giving benchmarks to some guy to publish on a website weeks before the NDA is to be lifted? It just doesn't make much sense.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Duvie
Hard to explain to someone who thinks we assume to much by taking his word for the review, yet he assumes all the rest of the ATI/Sander story as being a nailed down conclusion he is lieing to spite ATI....

All I have to say is show some real proof he has lied..If not be quiet!!!! Wait for some professional reviews by the big sites and maybe uyou will accpet those if they come out the same or close to.

We don't need 'proof' that he lied [the 'burden of proof' lies with Sanders]. . . there is sufficient reasonable doubt that the benchs are not to be trusted [period]

why is the burden of proof on sanders? he came out with a "claim". anyone refuting that claim has been unable (due to nda) or unwilling. there is no burden of proof on sanders.

what 'reasonable doubt'? that ati PR spinsters say "it's fake"? what else would you expect them to say? "yea, we're sorry.. we snubbed him, and our product is second-rate.."? :roll:

he said what he said, explained how he obtained the inf, and no one has disproved it. the logical thing, again, is to wait a few weeks and let the story reach it's own (correct) ending..

you keep answering yourself

Q: why is the burden of proof on sanders?
A: he came out with a "claim"


Q: what 'reasonable doubt'?
A: 1. it is UNverifyable
2. it has no known author or stated method of testing
3. no one else supports his [single] claim of an errant "ati board partner"

Q: he said what he said, explained how he obtained the inf
A: Doesn't matter it is UNVERIFYABLE and we're back again to the burden of proof being on him.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: munky

This Sander guy just did Ati a favor - everyone is arguing about the x1800, even before the official launch. Even the guys from the CPU forum are joining the fight. But I dont think he'd falsify the results to make Ati look bad, because if the real benches are completely opposite, he'd be the laughingstock of pretty much everyone. His numbers could still be wrong, but I dont think he would intentionally make the x1800 look bad in light of the possible consequences.

Please learn how to trim your quotes.

And we're not necessarily saying that he intentionally falsified these benchmarks, just that they are unreliable and inaacurate and he should have known better than posting them. He let the chip on his shoulder get in the way of his better judgement.

Unreliable? Potentially yes since their is obvious history between ATI and sanders...

Inaccurate? Shut it up and prove it!!! really I am tired of ppl saying it is inaccurate when you haven't given any proof. now when anyone states this I will bombard them with prove it!!! Skeptical is fine. Wait to see other reviews is suggested. Call a person a liar when you have no proof is wrong and I wont let it go without calling you on it....

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Another thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned. You guys are all arguing that Sander wouldn't publish bad info because it would kill his reputation. By that same token, what ATI partner who has these cards and has obviously signed an NDA would put their status with ATI at risk? Who in their right mind would jeopardize their whole business by breaking NDA and giving benchmarks to some guy to publish on a website weeks before the NDA is to be lifted? It just doesn't make much sense.

no one . . . THAT is why i don't trust Sanders . . .

think about this for a moment: perhaps that "ati board partner" was trying to make ati look GOOD?

:Q

(!)

:shocked:

the r520 might be a real dog





not






maybe

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: munky

This Sander guy just did Ati a favor - everyone is arguing about the x1800, even before the official launch. Even the guys from the CPU forum are joining the fight. But I dont think he'd falsify the results to make Ati look bad, because if the real benches are completely opposite, he'd be the laughingstock of pretty much everyone. His numbers could still be wrong, but I dont think he would intentionally make the x1800 look bad in light of the possible consequences.

Please learn how to trim your quotes.

And we're not necessarily saying that he intentionally falsified these benchmarks, just that they are unreliable and inaacurate and he should have known better than posting them. He let the chip on his shoulder get in the way of his better judgement.

Unreliable? Potentially yes since their is obvious history between ATI and sanders...

Inaccurate? Shut it up and prove it!!! really I am tired of ppl saying it is inaccurate when you haven't given any proof. now when anyone states this I will bombard them with prove it!!! Skeptical is fine. Wait to see other reviews is suggested. Call a person a liar when you have no proof is wrong and I wont let it go without calling you on it....

damn! again?

it is INACCURATE because we have ZERO idea of the testing methodology nor even if the tested systems were equivalent. . . . the REST of the benchs including the XTPE are "suspect" and out of line with other reviews. . . .


it does not meet the MINIMIUM for even a preview



:roll:

boring in o/cing?

:roll:

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Inaccurate? Shut it up and prove it!!! really I am tired of ppl saying it is inaccurate when you haven't given any proof. now when anyone states this I will bombard them with prove it!!! Skeptical is fine. Wait to see other reviews is suggested. Call a person a liar when you have no proof is wrong and I wont let it go without calling you on it....

Yes, innacurate. Crazydingo has already shown you the post from the other forum where someone went through and checked his X850XT numbers against other reviews on the net and they were pretty far off. If these numbers are inaccurate then why shouldn't I assume that the rest is innaccurate?? Now if he could at least document the testing methods then maybe I might not be so inclined to believe that they are innacurate... but he can't do that, now can he?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Duvie

Inaccurate? Shut it up and prove it!!! really I am tired of ppl saying it is inaccurate when you haven't given any proof. now when anyone states this I will bombard them with prove it!!! Skeptical is fine. Wait to see other reviews is suggested. Call a person a liar when you have no proof is wrong and I wont let it go without calling you on it....

Yes, innacurate. Crazydingo has already shown you the post from the other forum where someone went through and checked his X850XT numbers against other reviews on the net and they were pretty far off. If these numbers are inaccurate then why shouldn't I assume that the rest is innaccurate?? Now if he could at least document the testing methods then maybe I might not be so inclined to believe that they are innacurate... but he can't do that, now can he?

Yeah and I can find big descrepancies between AT and tomshardware in cpu reviews...I have seen big differences from AT and Xbitlabs from Techreport to Xbitlabs, etc...Sometimes numbers are bad or hard to compare based on driver set, other hardware configurations, methodology, resolution and settings, scripts of where in the game the beches are taken,etc...TOO MANY VARIABLES...What one man thinks is optimal settings another man bitches about....I dont put stock in anything at this point until I see proof he has lied in these test and another review site refutes what he says.

You guys can find any reason to attack him if you want. The fact is, that just makes his numbers skeptical which I agree they are. however to say there are defacto inaccurate is a stretch you cant prove....

Again prove he LIED IN THIS SET OF BENCHES..You guys already said he sent the scripts to others to run. PROVE THEY are LIEING....

You guys really are a sad bunch. I hope your pillows are not soaked with the tears you seem to be flowing from this overplayed initial set of ONE mans benches.....The e-penises must be shriveled up at this point...

Get over it. If he is a liar we will know in good time. Will this effect anyones purchase of the cards? NO!!!! They wont even be released for a bit longer. Then according to reports I have read after the launch (mostly a press edition) they will be hard to come by anyways. If the numbers are a farce there is plenty of time to get the story straight. You guys can sleep again, trust me....

LOL!!!!

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Duvie

Inaccurate? Shut it up and prove it!!! really I am tired of ppl saying it is inaccurate when you haven't given any proof. now when anyone states this I will bombard them with prove it!!! Skeptical is fine. Wait to see other reviews is suggested. Call a person a liar when you have no proof is wrong and I wont let it go without calling you on it....

Yes, innacurate. Crazydingo has already shown you the post from the other forum where someone went through and checked his X850XT numbers against other reviews on the net and they were pretty far off. If these numbers are inaccurate then why shouldn't I assume that the rest is innaccurate?? Now if he could at least document the testing methods then maybe I might not be so inclined to believe that they are innacurate... but he can't do that, now can he?

That's the ball game folks, that guy over on those forums really laid the sh!t out so you didn't even have to find the reviews yourself or rely on previous readings to catch that. At the very least we should be seeing greater than X850 performance.

 

[apoppin]

no need to PROVE they are lying, Duvie . . . the person who supplied the benchs IS a LIAR [or do you consider breaking an NDA as an 'insignificant white lie'?] . . .

we just need to DISregard the benchs due to lack of proper methodology or documentation . . . that's all