moonboy403
Golden Member
- Aug 18, 2004
- 1,828
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: moonboy403
why r u guys arguing over something that nobody can prove right now?!
just live with the card (ati/nvidia) you have now...
this is like intel vs amd
Originally posted by: sisq0kidd
Originally posted by: moonboy403
why r u guys arguing over something that nobody can prove right now?!
just live with the card (ati/nvidia) you have now...
this is like intel vs amd
How can you prove that no one can or cannot prove it? Can you prove that?
I can't prove that you can't disprove or prove the others as they prove or disprove so I guess I have no point.
Carry on...
Originally posted by: Duvie
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....
Originally posted by: ronnn
Originally posted by: Duvie
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....
Thankyou for helping prove his review was at best a deception - as they were not tested on the same system in the same place with inadequate description of the settings used.
Originally posted by: Banzai042
3) Sander is very likely not just some angry little freak who is mad at ATI and posting known false benchmarks, because this is the same as comitting business suicide.
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Everyone aside from Duvie is missing this:
It is just like in the courts, he is innocent until proven guilty. We have no reason for or against the belief that Sander faked those benches except a post in a forum which also cannot be verified.
We can neither accuse Sander or Let him off the hook yet, neither side has sufficient evidence.
Concluding that since he broke NDA (or is associated with someone that did) is not accurate in the least. If i were to talk to someone who did drugs, does that automatically mean that i did them...Nope.
There is not enough evidence to go either way on this argument. Im not saying that ATI should release benches, but we simply have to wait. It may be hard for us, but think if the benches are different, think how hard it must be for ATI to hold back something they know that is way better than posted.
Everything will straighten out in time.
-Kevin
Sorry for the delay - but this kind of 'exchanging' is not really what we do
Although we were prepared for the situation - the timing was 'excellent' as we were away at an annual conference
We saw the numbers - contacted our benchmarking facility (4 top guys + hundreds of boxes) and asked them if they could 'place' the results
i.e. it is impossible to know exactly what was tested and in what environment (Sander 'sent away' for numbers - and 'numbers' is what he got back - so he says) but sometimes a 'pattern' can be recognizable
The one thing we knew 'the card' wasn't going to be, was a final version of the R520XT for reasons that I am not going to go into here - but which we will share with Baumann et al when they have the real thing in their hands
Once our guys confirmed categorically that it did not match the profile of an R520 series card - they then looked to see if the scores matched anything else
They don't
Anyway, the point is that we do not 'monitor & control' web forums - these things are fun because they are organic and grow in so many strange and unusual ways with little input from the vendors
However, continuing to see the same 'rubbish' being posted everywhere was something that I, personally, was not happy with
The same goes for Sander's desire to position himself as a martyr
He is a sharp-thinking, solid-built guy who certainly does not need 'looking after' - he knows exactly what he is doing and why
I think that the discussion with Sander should take place in front of a 'live studio audience' because then we can move the conversation around to any topic that presents itself - and people can see his face when he reacts to various questions
I am not talking about a 'popcorn opportunity' - but rather a chance to see a 'quick thinker' trying to work his way out of 'tight situations'
Anyway, I suspect that this will not happen
The bottom line is that much of what I have read was rubbish
<engages Super-Geek mode>
A famous TV character once said "It is a lie, and lies must be challenged" and that is the way I feel when I see this stuff
</end Super-Geek mode>
We are making final arrangements for the R520 Tech Day and we will be giving 100 of Europe's top publications access not only to the technology itself, as well as various whitepapers, presentations etc...
...but - most importantly - the people who actually design these chips
As far as possible, this will be a 'PR-free zone' because we want expert press to engage directly with out scientists to discover the truth
In this market, you either believe you have the roadmap or you don't - everything else is irrelevant
Despite all of the public rivalries between board partners, chip vendors and web sites...
...overall, this is a really friendly industry
CeBIT, earlier this year, was typical of the spirit within this industry, in that we had our nVidia counterparts over to our party and we joined their's the night after
Sure we 'go at it' by day - nVidia is a tough competitor - but after hours we get on fine with each other
The situation that Sander has created here with his 'I feel the need to write a column to drop your share price and I do not care if I have never seen the card' approach is not typical at all of the relationships that we have with the press or our competitors
As we move on to our Tech Day and new battles, he will not be able to let this go for several months - possibly years to come
In life, I would say that it is better to have a more positive purpose
Roll on R520, roll on Tech Day, roll on true numbers
Tom,
I must say you've made a total joke out of yourself with your latest 'update.' Quite frankly, I have had no problem whatsoever with the 1.13GHz Pentium III and I'm using the exact same motherboards (Asus, Via and i820 chipset as well as the old P2B) as I presume you're using. If you cannot refrain from posting erroneous and obviously biased reviews or updates or whatever you like to call 'em, then at least make sure your lab is correctly setup and all benchmarking and system assembly operations are performed by a person capable of doing so. If I had a faulty CPU I would check back with the manufacturer in the first place and have it replaced BEFORE telling the world of your 'mishaps' or posting any benchmarks. You're mis-informing your audience as well as making your own testing procedures as well as your ethics a joke!
From my point of view (just finished the 10th redundant SYSMark 2000 run on a i440BX):
There is NOTHING wrong with Intel's new Pentium III 1.13 GHz processor.
Do you really need all of this 'bashing' and controversy to be able to reach those 20 million hits you're so openly bragging about, if I were you I'd rather have half that and still have my journalistic integrity.
Hope you take this to hart this time, as you really should!
Sander Sassen
Siteleader at HardwareCentral
Heh, and we all know how that turned out.There is NOTHING wrong with Intel's new Pentium III 1.13 GHz processor.
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Everyone aside from Duvie is missing this:
It is just like in the courts, he is innocent until proven guilty. We have no reason for or against the belief that Sander faked those benches except a post in a forum which also cannot be verified.
We can neither accuse Sander or Let him off the hook yet, neither side has sufficient evidence.
Concluding that since he broke NDA (or is associated with someone that did) is not accurate in the least. If i were to talk to someone who did drugs, does that automatically mean that i did them...Nope.
There is not enough evidence to go either way on this argument. Im not saying that ATI should release benches, but we simply have to wait. It may be hard for us, but think if the benches are different, think how hard it must be for ATI to hold back something they know that is way better than posted.
Everything will straighten out in time.
-Kevin
Have I been in touch with a few of the AIBs prior to talking to him about the launch event? Well, yes. The condesending tone of his emails however are what motivated one of the AIBs to get me some early scores of the R520 architecture. The article wasn?t meant to smythe ATI, although the introduction outlines why I feel ATI has been rather difficult to work with, that is another story though.
The benchmarks provided are not knowingly false or meant to put ATI?s new architecture in a negative light, but provided AS-IS as they are run on a pre-production sample. In all honesty I?m glad that my article has attracted such massive attention, and that a lot of people, that includes me, are now eagerly awaiting the introduction of this new architecture and are curious as to how it performs. As mentioned the benchmarks we?ve posted were run on pre-production hardware and thus they could be far off from the actual performance of the R520 architecture.
Originally posted by: jasonja
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.
Can't EVER say anything good about ATI can you?
Originally posted by: Creig
And, of course, certain people here have latched onto this "benchmark" and are spreading it as gospel.
I think I'll just wait for actual post-launch reviews before I declare the R520 a success or failure.
Originally posted by: apoppin
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.