ATI A Cheater

[stardust]

forget it jiffylube i see what you are saying, and i think its fair in ur opinion. tired of going back and forth between the 2 posts only to have people read that single post about the 2 picture differences.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Lar's actions in that review are not what I would call ATi bashing by an stretch of the imagination. Maybe they are cheats and maybe they're bugs; the point is that he pretty much only mentioned them without jumping the gun.

Personally, I found the overall subject header "Questionable optimizations in ATi's drivers?" to set the tone for the entire section, and this is further shown by the comparisons that are done and rather whom the section focuses on. It seems to me to be simply nothing more than scouring apps for problems with ATI's drivers. Remember also that this piece was done due to NVidia's accusations, which are of course targeted to damage their competitor, or at least (at this point) bring them to their level. Unfortunately, they chose to ignore the idea of using a reference image which would have cleared up the issue a lot faster.
When you look at the broader picture, what does ATI gain by optimizing to worsen image quality in one or two scenes in Aquamark3?
Compare this with NVidia's blatant cheating in 3dMark03 which actually netted a hefty result, and you have a great perspective on why I think even bothering to comment on NVidia's complaints is irresponsible. Listen, yes, comment on, only if you actually find these are true allegations. Not if they might possibly be true. Not even if they are somewhat true. Only if you can say definitively that they are true. That's where I'm coming from. If you disagree, that's cool, it's really a non-issue anyway.

 

[Matthias99]

DefRef... how do I put this politely? Drop dead. I'm trying my best to be fair and unbiased here, and you come out trashing me as a fanboy (worse, an uneducated fanboy). I don't even *OWN* an ATI card -- I'm still using a Ti4600 I got over a year ago, although I've been kicking myself since then because I didn't spend the extra cash for a RADEON 9500 (I've since realized I vastly prefer AA/AF to higher resolutions). If this was USENET, you'd be kill-filed, but unfortunately the best I can do here is try to ignore you whenever possible.

If anything, I was trying to stick up for THG, which gets an unusually bad rap around here. They've got their issues, just like any review site, but some of the other posters were trying to make it sound like Lars was attacking ATI with a single-minded fury and making up wild accusations about their products -- which, if you read the article fully, he's really not doing.

I think it is fair to say that in the latest generation of cards, NVIDIA has been much more aggressive (out of necessity) with driver optimizations than ATI. Certainly nothing in the same league as NVIDIA's 3DMark03 debacle has come up with ATI's drivers in the last 1-2 years, and so I feel justified in giving them the benefit of the doubt on what appear to be minor rendering glitches in AM3. I want to know what both companies are doing in their drivers, but it would take more to convince me of conscious wrongdoing on ATI's part than NVIDIA's right now. Specifically, more than a few inconclusive screenshots, a known UT2K3 engine issue, and unspecified problems in Halo.

Pete, thanks for posting an intelligent, non-incendiary reply for me (apparently you actually *read* my post) while I was out of town.

 

[ROTC1983]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mem
Always makes me laugh when I see all these Nvidia v ATi threads,do you guys have big shares in their stocks or something ,anyway I buy a video card on what I think is best value for money/performance for the price at the time,I`ve no loyalty to any particular brand.

^
|
|
|
|

What Mem said!

Another one agrees with mem

 

[Genx87]

People have been investigating AM3 IQ. Hell, Lars himself did a large, critical write-up of the 51.75's in AM3.


Yes of Nvidia not ATI.

nV released the 51.75's to reviewers for benchmark purposes, therefore the drivers are fair game for IQ comparos. I don't see any "back peddling, excuses, and finger pointing" regarding the current accusations, I just see people trying to get to the bottom of things. Every site that has put out a 5700U review has promised a follow-up article focusing on IQ, so we'll soon know who's blowing smoke

Yes, but nobody took the time to think "hmm maybe these are bugs of the beta drivers?". Every single bug was a cheat........................now when ATI has a possible problem it is time to take the slow road and make sure everything is ironed out before they insult the great one. It fits the definition of a double standard.

Given nV's recent history, how could you NOT expect people to assume the worst? Do you even know what happened when 3DM03 came out, and the ensuing in-depth reviews and constant IQ comparisons?


What you mean the single instance they got busted on 3dmark03? A non-playable synthetic benchmark? Whoopie do......................ever since then the flood gate of witching hunting has been in full force in the ATI camp. I remember the days of quack. But I dont automatically assume ATI is cheating whenever something like this comes up.


Yes, there's a feeding frenzy of people quick to label Lars an idiot, but why not add something constructive rather than bitching about these fanboy conspiracies or lamenting the state of the AT forums?

Sometimes people need a slap of reality in thier lives. Pointing out the obvious double standards being put forth on these iq issues maybe some fanbois will wake up.

)? What's the reason for this whole post, other than to compete with Genx87 for the most irritating and groundless defense of nV?

If you consider my pointing out people's double standard irritating, then by all means I am quite an irritant.

My God, DefRef and Genx87 are really serious. I can't compete with zealots, so I'll stop trying.

yes yes we are the zealots, you are the level headed thought provoking type. ::

DefRef and Genx87, why you choose to overlook the many, many misteps and false steps nV has taken this year is beyond me, but good luck with your crusade to convince everyone that nV is beyond reproach and anyone who points out ways to improve the top dog is just a jealous, jabbering sheep.

Where have I said they werent beyond reproach? I am just pointing out the obvious double standards and providing an alternate view. Just because you cant stand the idea that nvidia isnt the evil empire and ATI the best thing since slice bread, doesnt make anybody here a fanboy.

Can you honestly tell us you will consider both options from nvidia and ATI on your next upgrade cycle?

But consider this in defense of the DefRef and Genx87 type posts-maybe these are just a reaction to the onslaught of crap in the 2 forums I've mentioned and many others.


Couldnt of said it better myself. I am a pretty level headed person. But when I see the crap being spewed in 1 direction only, I am going to offer an alternative opinion. Many on here apparently cant stand the idea that people could possibly think ATI isnt the end all. That IMO is sad. The double standards are equally as sad. And this recent possible problem with ATI just points out the double standards in a big way.

I can be a little bullish on my comments. But sometimes I just feel the need to let people have it. No offense intended of course.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Genx87


Given nV's recent history, how could you NOT expect people to assume the worst? Do you even know what happened when 3DM03 came out, and the ensuing in-depth reviews and constant IQ comparisons?


What you mean the single instance they got busted on 3dmark03? A non-playable synthetic benchmark? Whoopie do......................ever since then the flood gate of witching hunting has been in full force in the ATI camp. I remember the days of quack. But I dont automatically assume ATI is cheating whenever something like this comes up.

For the love of god, please stop turning it into an argument with sides!!! There are no "camps" or, at least there certainly should not be. This isn't a war, and none of us are on the payroll of any of these companies (or at least, I hope nobody here is). Turning it into an "us or them" discussion is exactly the kind of animosity that we don't want to create here. Just please clearly, concisely, rationally discuss VIDEO without mentioning "camps," "fanbois," "fanATIcs," "nVidiots" and other such branding in posts.

I can be a little bullish on my comments. But sometimes I just feel the need to let people have it. No offense intended of course.

And also, try to keep the smugness content to a mininum. Perhaps you didn't mean it here, but try not to come off so arrogant. No offense of course .

 

[reever]

es, but nobody took the time to think "hmm maybe these are bugs of the beta drivers?

Speaking of beta drivers, Gen, you still haven't explained the large framerate increase which goes hand in hand with fog rendering errors through multiple revisions of drivers with RTCW, is that also a "bug"? A "bug" that has been in and still is in every 45-50 series driver, which never seems to get fixed, which for *some* reason makes RTCW framerates jump 20-30 percent?

 

[Genx87]

Speaking of beta drivers, Gen, you still haven't explained the large framerate increase which goes hand in hand with fog rendering errors through multiple revisions of drivers with RTCW, is that also a "bug"? A "bug" that has been in and still is in every 45-50 series driver, which never seems to get fixed, which for *some* reason makes RTCW framerates jump 20-30 percent?

Can you point me to a link that proves rendering fog is the cause of the jump? Also can you point me to a link that shows this issue still exists? The last time you dropped a link on this subjest the reviewer noted nothing about fog issues but did say there were some anomolies with the rendering. Speaking of bugs making it through revisions. Doesnt ATI have a filtering bug with UT2K3 that has been known for over a year? A bug that has beenin and still is in every Cat release?

The reason I ask is because RTCW is based on the Quake III engine afaik and Nvidia is very very good with opengl.
The other reason I ask is because I played rtcw a little on my GF4 and noted no problems like this.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: Genx87
People have been investigating AM3 IQ. Hell, Lars himself did a large, critical write-up of the 51.75's in AM3.

Yes of Nvidia not ATI.

Tell me you don't see ATi screenshots here. And tell me ATi has given people nearly as much reason to be suspicious as nVidia. I don't think a few blurry floor textures compare to hard-coded clip planes, but that's quite obviously still a matter of debate. Basically, nV has many glaring IQ errors (the different colored sea floor in AM3, missing fog, clip planes). ATi's are much more subtle. Thus reviewers may not spot the difference in smoke density/color or texture opacity ATi's purported cheats reveal, but it's damned easy to see the different-colored wooden base in 3DM03's point sprites test, and the curiously overcast sky in Mother Nature, and the missing fog in multiple games, and the strangely dark floor in AM3, and even the too-bright buggies in AM3.

Yes, but nobody took the time to think "hmm maybe these are bugs of the beta drivers?". Every single bug was a cheat........................now when ATI has a possible problem it is time to take the slow road and make sure everything is ironed out before they insult the great one. It fits the definition of a double standard.

I think it fits the definition of context. nV gave people multiple reasons to suspect, and ATi has been clean as of late. Again, vigilance (for something as silly as 3D graphics) requires a lot of work, and most reviewers do not have the time or the financial inclination. And it's again hard to take nV's word that ATi is cheating when one of their three alleged cheats is outed as a config quirk within hours. One then wonders, are the other two allegations, one specific (UT2K3) and one vague (Halo), potentially similarly simply fixed?

Can you honestly tell us you will consider both options from nvidia and ATI on your next upgrade cycle?

Yes, and I'm a little puzzled I even have to say so. If you inferred that I won't from my previous posts, what can I attribute that curious (from my perspective) misunderstanding to? Your overzealous defense of nVidia? nVidia doesn't need you to stand up for it, they need to offer consumers better products (which they have). Just as I view nV with suspicion due to their false marketing and unimpressive product earlier this year, I view your posts with growing suspicion the more you ignore my detailed rebuttals and reply with more invective.

Like I said, you seem reasonable in other threads, but I don't think you acknowledged one of the many corrections or links to further reading I offered to your posts in the 9800XT/5950 review thread. So I began to take a very negative view of your intentions, as the evidence left me no alternative. I mean, you're reasonable when starting your 5700U thread, but then you pop into the thread on ATi's benchmarking pdf to basically troll against ATi without acknowledging the paper's valid points.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Like I figured, Pete, one of us was going to blow our lids on all of this controversey eventually. We try to be as impartial and considerate of both sides as possible, but many people just have to pick a side, and it gets very annoying. I'm impressed you kept your cool for so long - I vented against a few people here before...

What's worse is how some people defend fact with pointless accusations.

If there's one word that I think best sums up all of this recent "ATI is a cheater" hulabaloo, it's smokescreen. This is why it's so irritating, that many people can't comprehend that often in situations like this (nVidia being caught with cheats) the best defense is to attack the other guy's credibility.

Keep plugging away Pete, I agree with you completely on this issue!

 

[reever]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Speaking of beta drivers, Gen, you still haven't explained the large framerate increase which goes hand in hand with fog rendering errors through multiple revisions of drivers with RTCW, is that also a "bug"? A "bug" that has been in and still is in every 45-50 series driver, which never seems to get fixed, which for *some* reason makes RTCW framerates jump 20-30 percent?

Can you point me to a link that proves rendering fog is the cause of the jump? Also can you point me to a link that shows this issue still exists? The last time you dropped a link on this subjest the reviewer noted nothing about fog issues but did say there were some anomolies with the rendering. Speaking of bugs making it through revisions. Doesnt ATI have a filtering bug with UT2K3 that has been known for over a year? A bug that has beenin and still is in every Cat release?

The reason I ask is because RTCW is based on the Quake III engine afaik and Nvidia is very very good with opengl.
The other reason I ask is because I played rtcw a little on my GF4 and noted no problems like this.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon/r9800xt.html

"The Unreal II game has problems with fog on the v51.75 while in the RtCW some objects are light-struck (the problems with multitexturing and lightmaps?). As you can see, the driver 51.75 speeds up the GeForce FX family exactly in these games. There are some other problems with quality on these drivers. Look for more information in our September's 3Digest. "

The problem is still there with every revision of the det50's they used, along with the framerate increase.

And which error are you talking about with ut2k3? The detail texture one, or the new filtering method?(which is also used by Nvidia except NV doesnt use trilinear filtering, making it sort of a moot point), both of which are easily solved with a simple tweak or explanation anyway, something impossible with Nvidia's drivers, unless you want to use the 44.03 drivers which was the last optimization/new method free driver set, but you will have to survive the horrible speed

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: reever

Originally posted by: Genx87
Speaking of beta drivers, Gen, you still haven't explained the large framerate increase which goes hand in hand with fog rendering errors through multiple revisions of drivers with RTCW, is that also a "bug"? A "bug" that has been in and still is in every 45-50 series driver, which never seems to get fixed, which for *some* reason makes RTCW framerates jump 20-30 percent?

Can you point me to a link that proves rendering fog is the cause of the jump? Also can you point me to a link that shows this issue still exists? The last time you dropped a link on this subjest the reviewer noted nothing about fog issues but did say there were some anomolies with the rendering. Speaking of bugs making it through revisions. Doesnt ATI have a filtering bug with UT2K3 that has been known for over a year? A bug that has beenin and still is in every Cat release?

The reason I ask is because RTCW is based on the Quake III engine afaik and Nvidia is very very good with opengl.
The other reason I ask is because I played rtcw a little on my GF4 and noted no problems like this.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon/r9800xt.html

"The Unreal II game has problems with fog on the v51.75 while in the RtCW some objects are light-struck (the problems with multitexturing and lightmaps?). As you can see, the driver 51.75 speeds up the GeForce FX family exactly in these games. There are some other problems with quality on these drivers. Look for more information in our September's 3Digest. "

The problem is still there with every revision of the det50's they used, along with the framerate increase.

And which error are you talking about with ut2k3? The detail texture one, or the new filtering method?(which is also used by Nvidia except NV doesnt use trilinear filtering, making it sort of a moot point), both of which are easily solved with a simple tweak or explanation anyway, something impossible with Nvidia's drivers, unless you want to use the 44.03 drivers which was the last optimization/new method free driver set, but you will have to survive the horrible speed

Thank you reever. Maybe now Genx87 will at least admit to the 51.75 driver bugs as "facts", although methinks this still won't be enough evidence for him.

Or, he'll just go the other way again and say that this driver was a beta and doesn't deserve to be analyzed like this (despite the fact that it was submitted to reviewers for benchmarking).

 

[eklass]

Originally posted by: Rage187
^ thats because ATI is cheating to get the higher scores. My, how the tables have turned. SHAME on you ATI, I will never buy another one of your products, you CHEATING bastids. lol, the shoe just went on the other foot.

as long as i can still run BF1942 at 1600x1200 4x/16x and pull at least 30fps i don't give a flying F*** what ati does

 

[BFG10K]

This isn't directed at anyone in particular but keep in mind that pixel/vertex shading is often used to produce movement which invariably results in variances in things like lighting and gamma depending on when (not where) the screenshot is taken. Thus if you screenshot two boards in exactly the same place in an area that uses shaders in the scene then you're unlikely to get the same result. This also applies to other things like fog that moves.

If you disagree, that's cool, it's really a non-issue anyway.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not claiming these are cheats and in fact I personally have discounted most of them. All I'm saying that I don't believe Lars blew his mouth off about the issue and I don't consider that article to be biased at all.

 

[Genx87]

Thank you reever. Maybe now Genx87 will at least admit to the 51.75 driver bugs as "facts", although methinks this still won't be enough evidence for him.


Are you kidding me? I have always said the 51.75's were bug ridden. I wanted him to quantify his statements regarding every det 50.xx has issues with RTCW ever since the 40.xx series drivers. He showed me an issue with 51.75 which I have repeatedly said were bug plauged. Are we all on the same page here?

Or, he'll just go the other way again and say that this driver was a beta and doesn't deserve to be analyzed like this (despite the fact that it was submitted to reviewers for benchmarking).


Analyzed, yes. Proclaimed as cheats? That is about as riduculous as saying the new issues with ATI are cheats right out of the gate.

And tell me ATi has given people nearly as much reason to be suspicious as nVidia. I don't think a few blurry floor textures compare to hard-coded clip planes, but that's quite obviously still a matter of debate. Basically, nV has many glaring IQ errors (the different colored sea floor in AM3, missing fog, clip planes). ATi's are much more subtle. Thus reviewers may not spot the difference in smoke density/color or texture opacity ATi's purported cheats reveal, but it's damned easy to see the different-colored wooden base in 3DM03's point sprites test, and the curiously overcast sky in Mother Nature, and the missing fog in multiple games, and the strangely dark floor in AM3, and even the too-bright buggies in AM3.


Yes IQ errors on beta drivers. Sure we can look at them but to proclaim them as cheats is going over the top. How many of these supposed cheats were fixed in 52.16? I think that "will" answer your supsicions as to whether or not these were cheats.

And for the record I dont know if ATI's issues are cheats. I am awaiting further review and to tell you the truth even if they are "cheats". I wont consider them a big deal especially since it takes a team of people to study a series of frames to determine it. Nobody would ever notice this in real life.

I think it fits the definition of context. nV gave people multiple reasons to suspect, and ATi has been clean as of late. Again, vigilance (for something as silly as 3D graphics) requires a lot of work, and most reviewers do not have the time or the financial inclination. And it's again hard to take nV's word that ATi is cheating when one of their three alleged cheats is outed as a config quirk within hours. One then wonders, are the other two allegations, one specific (UT2K3) and one vague (Halo), potentially similarly simply fixed?


AFAIK the "only" reason Nvidia gave anybody any reason is because of 3dmark03. That really isnt "multiple" reasons, but a single one and the websites trying to fuel the fire and generate hits decided to take off on it.

As for the config hack, shouldnt ATi be doing this in drivers and not requiring people to hack config files to get thier hardware to work as intended?

Yes, and I'm a little puzzled I even have to say so.

I am just trying to gauge where you are on the spectrum. Since I havent heard you saying much of anything good about nvidia I was just trying to see if you are level headed enough to give Nvidia a shot on your next upgrade cycle.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Genx87
AFAIK the "only" reason Nvidia gave anybody any reason is because of 3dmark03. That really isnt "multiple" reasons, but a single one and the websites trying to fuel the fire and generate hits decided to take off on it.

It's not the *only* thing they did (they've had several driver sets where IQ and performance have flip-flopped a few times in certain games, and the "releasing buggy beta drivers to the press for benchmarking purposes" thing is less than ideal), but it's the biggest single thing you can point at, and IMHO it epitomizes what was wrong with their approach. As a programmer, I understand what they did, and I *know* that it was incredibly sleazy. It wasn't a mistake, it wasn't some general optimization effort that had an unintended effect, and it wasn't a bug. They purposefully designed and implemented a hard-coded hack which could serve no possible purpose other than to try and boost their benchmark scores in 3DMark03 (which they had already denounced publicly as an "unrealistic" benchmark). Did they expect nobody to notice that their scores had jumped 30% on that one test but *nowhere* else? To me, it shows that a) whoever made that decision was either an idiot, a slimeball, or both, and b) their priorities were completely in the wrong place at that point. The more time you spend creating hacks and "cheats" for benchmarks (and somebody spent quite a bit of time doing this), the less time you can spend fixing real bugs and improving performance in actual games. Plus, it looks really bad to be doing this on a benchmark where a) you're currently losing badly, and b) you've already said you don't care because it's not a good benchmark.

That said, I'm very pleased with what NVIDIA has been doing in the last few months -- the new driver optimization guidelines are a step in the right direction (although in an ideal world, they wouldn't have needed them at all), and they seem to be back on track in terms of dealing with their driver issues and focusing on across-the-board performance increases rather than just benchmarking. I'm not thrilled about them blowing up what *might* just be bugs with ATI's rendering into a huge scandal without better proof, but I guess it's their prerogative. They're up to the point now where their new drivers and their next generation hardware have a good chance to regain both the market lead and the general computing public's trust. It's all going to come down to NV40 and R400 next year.

As for the config hack, shouldnt ATi be doing this in drivers and not requiring people to hack config files to get thier hardware to work as intended?

Yes, but at least part of this is Microsoft and the game developers' fault, as the functionality for this is built into DirectX and a lot of games have issues with application vs. driver preferences. This is something that NVIDIA has an edge in, since they work very closely with at least some game developers to avoid these sorts of things. I agree that ATI should really focus on getting this straightened out, as it leads to a lot of issues.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not claiming these are cheats and in fact I personally have discounted most of them. All I'm saying that I don't believe Lars blew his mouth off about the issue and I don't consider that article to be biased at all.

Oh don't worry, I understood that. I just happen to disagree.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This thread really needs to die now. I swear I can't tell if I'm reading the Political forum or video forum anymore

 

[reever]

As for the config hack, shouldnt ATi be doing this in drivers and not requiring people to hack config files to get thier hardware to work as intended?

Shouldnt Nvidia be doing things in its drivers so people won't have to acquire anti-detection scripts to make their games work at the specified settings? Speaking of double standards...

 

[Genx87]

Shouldnt Nvidia be doing things in its drivers so people won't have to acquire anti-detection scripts to make their games work at the specified settings? Speaking of double standards...

Which "games" are these?

 

[reever]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Shouldnt Nvidia be doing things in its drivers so people won't have to acquire anti-detection scripts to make their games work at the specified settings? Speaking of double standards...

Which "games" are these?

ut2k3. The only way to get true trilinear filtering is to use an anti-detection script

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Simple solution to a problem that was invented by some @$$holes that have nothing better to do but stir up some sh!t.

Problem: Consumer needs video card to run his old/new/future PC games

Solution: Review sites bench the cards available to get a general idea of how specific cards might perform.


Problem made up: ATI/nVidia are "cheating"

Solution: Who gives a flying fvck.

SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM MADE UP BY THE @$$HOLES: Trust the review sites, one or two might not be accurate but all the sites put together should give you an accurate picture on both 3D performance and IQ of the said cards. Who cares if there is any so called "cheating"? If they cheat to the point where IQ is more than noticably affected, then that will be noticed and commented on and chances are if the IQ is poor enough it will stop consumers from buying such a card.

The whole concept of an issue with driver cheating is completely absurd, today's cards are so damn good we've got to dig so deep to find something that could possibly smell slightly foul, it makes me laugh at how retarded this situation truly is, if only everyone would just take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Seriously, why would anyone care about cheating at all? Just so they can be bigger fanboys and have reason to flame and defend their rediculously priced purchase? Heck, $400 a pop a top end video card is 2x as expensive as an entire gaming console, and the expensive cards are the only reason there exists fanboyism, otherwise you'd expect people to be going around and pimping their NIC card and CDBurner makers (OOOOoooOO EDIMAX AND MITSUMI OWN JOO!!!) but that doesn't happen because such parts are inexpensive to the point they are practically dispossable. Not too easy to recover from forking over several hundred for a video card. Get over yourselves, right now whatever decision you made/make can't be too wrong, both ATI and nVidia are doing fairly well as of late.

 

[Rogodin2]

I love Jesus but he doesn't make video cards-the closest equivalent is ATI because they cheat less and Jesus wouldn't cheat at all.

 

[Pete]

Yes IQ errors on beta drivers.
That's a convenient excuse. I don't entirely accept it, mainly because I'm still not comfortable giving nV the benefit of the doubt.

As for the config hack, shouldnt ATi be doing this in drivers and not requiring people to hack config files to get thier hardware to work as intended?
Well, it's either ATi or Epic who are to blame. Hopefully, now that nV has brought up the issue, a reviewer will contact Epic and ATi and find out.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Simple solution to a problem that was invented by some @$$holes that have nothing better to do but stir up some sh!t.

Problem: Consumer needs video card to run his old/new/future PC games

Solution: Review sites bench the cards available to get a general idea of how specific cards might perform.


Problem made up: ATI/nVidia are "cheating"

Solution: Who gives a flying fvck.

SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM MADE UP BY THE @$$HOLES: Trust the review sites, one or two might not be accurate but all the sites put together should give you an accurate picture on both 3D performance and IQ of the said cards. Who cares if there is any so called "cheating"? If they cheat to the point where IQ is more than noticably affected, then that will be noticed and commented on and chances are if the IQ is poor enough it will stop consumers from buying such a card.

The whole concept of an issue with driver cheating is completely absurd, today's cards are so damn good we've got to dig so deep to find something that could possibly smell slightly foul, it makes me laugh at how retarded this situation truly is, if only everyone would just take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Seriously, why would anyone care about cheating at all? Just so they can be bigger fanboys and have reason to flame and defend their rediculously priced purchase? Heck, $400 a pop a top end video card is 2x as expensive as an entire gaming console, and the expensive cards are the only reason there exists fanboyism, otherwise you'd expect people to be going around and pimping their NIC card and CDBurner makers (OOOOoooOO EDIMAX AND MITSUMI OWN JOO!!!) but that doesn't happen because such parts are inexpensive to the point they are practically dispossable. Not too easy to recover from forking over several hundred for a video card. Get over yourselves, right now whatever decision you made/make can't be too wrong, both ATI and nVidia are doing fairly well as of late.

Bunnyfubbles - good mentality: turn a blind eye to everything they do. This mentality works wonders in the political field as well .