Andrzej Bania from ATI about the Hardware Analysis Review

[moonboy403]

When is the NDA date???

 

[Duvie]

I still dont think that is a sign they are lying about the performance. They are unethical no doubt to release that info and potentially putting their arse in a sling if ATI catches wind of them. Whether to say unauthorized leak sources are uncredible then I guess just about every news major news story of the last 4 years was a lie and shouldn't have been followed up or believed.



I agree the metholody was not laid out....However prove anyone has LIED about the numbers being reported...Just do it....You keep taking this off on tangents and it doesn't prove the numbers are wrong or right. It only proves we need to wait for more.

The guy above wasted his time in searching for reviews since it is clear not even the GTX scores were the same and it is clear these custom "benchmarks" or scripts can be the difference...Does he find the spots in the demos that play out the strengths of the Nvidia card?? very wel could of. However I cannot tell that from this. We will have to wait until the AT, techreport and Xbitlabs do their own review...


Dont disregard anything. This should be fresh in the minds so when the first numbers come in and dont jive with this we will know.....Until then we have something to compare to . Like I said no one is going to buy anything off of these skeptical set of numbers...It just seems to make the fanatics shake violently and sh^t and p^ss themselves...I dont know why. They should if they feel so confident take great solice in the fact the day the NDA expires the truth will come down with a thunderous hand. Should have only said..."I will wait until a more credible site reviews it"...Enough said for most except the fanatically little boys with the hurt egos...

 

[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

 

[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...

 

[Duvie]

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...

LOL!!

And that sums up the craziness of any of this name calling slander, talk of conspiracies, and basically hurt feeling over ONE SET of numbers that may or may not be entrirely credible or done in good faith....

 

[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.

 

[Duvie]

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.

Be careful you dont take me out of context...I dont agree with deception....I dont think I proved anything other then reviews(the ones listed by the gentlemen above versus the sander's benches) from different sites, done by different ppl, on different systems, using upteen different variables can be hard to decipher. Lets be honest most reviewers get tied up in settings most of us dont even use. they test specific games and more particularly specific scripts of places in the demos that may not truly reflect the whole story.

I still cannot say one way or another anyone intentionally set out to defraud us the consumer with knowingly inaccurate info. I have no proof of that and would not suggest it. If you are trying to manipulate my words into that then I would respectfully ask you to read more closer what I have said and ask me to clarify if you dont thinkyou have comprehended what I have stated.

At this point I would say please refrain from summing up anything I have stated cause you obviously dont understand what I was saying...

 

[ronnn]

Nope you are right, I reread his piece presented in the same format as a review. He never explained where the x850xt pe numbers came from, but did present nice visual graphs showing all the results together. More disingenuous than total deception. My apologies.

Please don't become a mod.

 

[Banzai042]

As i said on one of the other threads I persionally think that Sander *BELIEVES* that these benchmarks are accurate. If you think about it logically, he has very good reasons to not post known false benchmarks on his website, as it opens him up to potential lawsuits from ATI, not to mention the incredible loss of reputation on the web. If people believe that he posts made up numbers then they won't respect him, if they don't respect him they won't really bother reading anything he says on his website, which means no traffic, which means no ads/sponsorship of his website which means it shuts down. In effect he is potentially gambling the future of his ability to post reviews on the web and have them read on this single article, and i doubt that even if he hates ATI enough to falsify something like this on the off chance that it will hurt them, it probably wouldn't be worth ultimately having the site go down entirely. Bottom line, it makes NO SENSE AT ALL to say that he simply made up these numbers.
The validity of these numbers IS however still open to debate. At the moment we do not have enough information to prove OR disprove that these numbers are false. It is entirely possible that they are not reprisentative of the R520 card and that Sander was simply so eager to believe that they are accurate that he posted them without truly questioning the likelyhood that they are not accurate. On the other hand it is possible that somehow Sander managed to find somebody willing to run his custom created benchmarks and give him the results, but even then we don't know enough about the controls on the experiment to know how accurate those are. These custom benchmarks also do prove convenient for him, as it makes it impossible to prove/disprove his benchmarks by comparing them to other benchmarks of videocards because nobody except for Sander and his anonymous source know what the settings are, so we can't reproduce them. It is just not possible to say that the benchmarks can't be true because they don't jive with other benchmarks, because it is extremely likely that it comes from another part of the game where different things are happening onscreen, and framerate can vary quite a bit between sections of games.
So yea, for those of you too lazy to read my entire post here are cliffs:
1) The benchmarks themselves may not be accurate, and there is absoloutely no way to verify their accuracy either way right now
2) Sander himself more than likely believes them to be accurate
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.

 

[M0RPH]

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.

I'll say it again. Sander excercised very poor judgement in posting these unverifiable benchmarks from some anonymous source who is clearly violating ATI's NDA. It seems likely that he has a bit of an inflated ego and his judgement was clouded by his bitterness at being snubbed by ATI. Let's take a look at his supposed email to ATI:


> From: Sander Sassen - Hardware Analysis
> [mailto:ssassen@hardwareanalysis.com]
> Sent: 08 September 2005 09:39
> To: Andrzej Bania
> Subject: Re: Editors Day

>
> So you're telling me I'm not invited is that it? I feel an ATI column
> coming
> up, lets see if we can drop the stock price shall we?
>
> Sander Sassen
> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com <http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/>

Source


He really doesn't seem like a very standup guy to me so I'm not sure why anyone is defending him.

 

[Duvie]

Got it right..."supposed"

I think these can be easily faked and I questioned the legitmacy of any PR rep for ATI that would release these...I do not believe these would be the channels a major company who very well may have a blackmail lawsuit would take. If this was legit I would see ATI not leak these but announce them as evidence in a lawsuit against sanders....

If they are in fact ATI PR boys and this is how they handle things like this, to me it proves the benchmarks are likely right. If they were false ATI would have bundled this evidence up with a lawsuit to get an injunction to shut down the site and publicly discredit his findings. Otherwise it is a smear tactic. On the other hand ATI has not looked like much of a company of recent so maybe this is how they handle things....



One thing to consider is he may had already had the numbers in hand or aware of them. I wonder how much of the emails we do not see...that is why as evidence such things as these are suspect...We dont know what was said in complete...we dont know if things have been omitted...

I still dont think this is how a major company would handle emails of this sensitive nature specially in terms of what was alledgedly stated and how they relate to the review that was released...

 

[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

 

[fierydemise]

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

QFT

 

[M0RPH]

Here's the latest from Mr Bania of ATI, taken from here:
(I've bolded a few lines that I thought were important, because I know some here don't like to read long posts)

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

 

[Dribble]

The post has had it's desired effect in that it brings doubt to the HA benchmarks which is all ATi wanted. However smearing like that is a dangerous game to play - the bench marks better back up what ati says and not HA or ATi will end up looking like a vindictive liar.

I'm not a fan boy of either company and I hope that ATi can take the lead again for a while to keep competition strong but to be honest looking at the hardware (2/3rds the pipes) and the response from their competitor (nvidia not bothering with 7800 ultra) unfortunately I'd be very surprised if the R520 is faster then the GTX. If ATi can spring a 24 pipe card then we might be getting somewhere....

 

[M0RPH]

Just one more thing that might give you another insight into Mr Sassen's character. A letter that he wrote to Tom of tomshardwareguide.com some years ago. It comes from here. In it he lambasts Tom for not being thorough and unbiased enough in his review, and he questions Tom's ethics and "journalistic integrity". Can anyone say 'HYPOCRITE'?

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

 

[BFG10K]

There is NOTHING wrong with Intel's new Pentium III 1.13 GHz processor.

Heh, and we all know how that turned out.

 

[TerracideDK]

Sander Sassen replies to ATI's accusations:
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1814/

Terra - The plot thickens...

 

[crazydingo]

The emails show Sander in even more bad light; a tantrum throwing kid. He keeps avoiding posting up the custom demo scripts, wonder why ?

 

[apoppin]

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

no . . it ain't like the courts . . . in America - in the REST of the world you are GUILTY until proven innocent.
:roll:

Did you guys read Sanderssen's reply?

his feelings were hurt
:roll:

anyway i found this relevant:

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.

a storm in a teacup

 

[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.

 

[Dribble]

To be honest whether Mr Sanderssen is right or wrong for ATi to get involved in a s**t throwing contest looks pretty bad. You'll always get journalism you agree with and journalism you don't. If they write something libellous then sue otherwise don't get involved, and certainly not at a personal level - releasing bits of private emails onto *pro*ATi forums in response to a negative review is pretty low.

If ATi had kept quiet then in a few weeks we'll all have definitive reviews of this hardware and this early review would have been quickly forgotten. Now it's a big issue for them - even if they are right they look like unprofessional bullies picking on small hardware review sites. If the HA review turns out to be accurate then people will have even less belief in ATi pr. In particular every time ATi want to rebuff something in the future people will just point back at this as an indication they can't be trusted.

 

[vision33r]

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?

Evidently there isn't much good to say about ATI until we see surprising results. I suspect the ATI R520 release party is going to be used to gather interests for X-mas and all the fanboys will wet the pants before real benchmarks are released and even if the final products tanks, ATI knew they got their money's worth and will promise making up with the R580 later on.

 

[vision33r]

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.

From a journalistic POV, it is already a failure even if the actual silicone is worthy.

 

[CaiNaM]

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.

actually i don't keep answering myself. you make excuses and go around in circles....

"the sky is blue"
"no it's not"
"sure it is"
"no it's not"
"prove it"
"i don't have to..."

it's a "he said", "she said" and to argue it is pointless. even moreso given the argument will be resolved by itself in a few weeks.

he provided information, which is not "unreasonable". could they be off? certainly. are they outside the realm of possibility? nope. and there is not word to the contrary. enuff said.

as far as your reply to munky.. again it's silly. he certainly does face some consequences. aside from him coming off as a complete idiot and his site losing any credibility he may have had.. this would open him up to slander. doesn't matter whether he got the info from someone else or not. he, being the messenger, would certainly be held accountable by at least the public, if not those involved.