Hardwareanalysis bench are fake

[Keysplayr]

Unfortunately, companies often put faith into project engineers/managers to do the best job possible. Who knows, there could be someone making all the wrong decisions. Look what happened at Intel with this Netburst 20 to 31 stage pipeline. Somebody at Intel had the authority to convince exec that this was the way to go. Mebbe the same thing is happening at ATI, although it seems to be so bad, it could almost be sabotage.

Just like they can make the right decisions. Look at the R300/ArtX. That turned out rather well for ATI. It would seem, as of this moment anyway, that ATI's 15 minutes of fame has ticked away.

 

[Tanclearas]

It never ceases to amaze me that some people on these forums actually respect you Rollo. I can't believe I'm even taking the time to respond. Honestly, I should just see if I can filter out all posts from you (or those in which you are quoted).

Originally posted by: Rollo
Nice try Ackie!

Fortunately you and a 12 post member saying "Those can't be real and anyone who thinks they are is just a big poopie head!" isn't enough to discredit the website's info.

Neither of you has offered any links to another website that refutes the benchmarks as proof of your allegations? Why should we take your word over the Hardware Analysis?

And why, exactly, should we take the word of Hardware Analysis? There exists no solid, irrefutable evidence that the benchmarks are real OR fake. Why are you asking for something of others that you yourself cannot provide?

Originally posted by: Rollo
ATI has some very good reasons to post that the benchmarks are fake, as they don't exactly portray their upcoming products in a very favorable light. (and they may be trying to sell off the rest of their stock before it totally tanks)

Indeed they do have good reason. No one really knows for certain how those benchmark numbers were ACTUALLY generated. All we have is some claimed general specs of the system used for benchmarking, and as stated above, no proof that the numbers were ACTUALLY generated with the real thing.

Originally posted by: Rollo
Did ATI tell us about the 16X12 at 60Hz limitation of their crappy multi-GPU pseudo-solution? No. We had to learn about it from Rage3d and Penstarsys.

There has been information available for a couple of days now that clearly explains that this is probably not true. And what exactly is with the "crappy multi-GPU pseudo-solution" comment? Clearly anti-ATI sentiment being expressed here, and not particularly subtle either.

Originally posted by: Rollo
Did ATI tell us about their insider trading antics? No. We had to wait for all the lawsuits to become public record.

At this point in time, these are accusations. Lawsuits do not automatically make people guilty. I'm not saying they're innocent, but you are clearly assigning guilt. Thank God you're not a judge (are you?).

Originally posted by: Rollo
Did ATI tell us about their insider trading a few years ago? No. We had to see them convicted of it and paying $900,000. in fines.

The insider trading was more than "a few years ago". Although the charges were brought forward in 2002/03, the charges were regarding events that took place in 1999/2000, and focused on the CEO of the time, K.Y. Ho. Keep in mind that Dave Orton testified against K.Y. Ho. Also, do not forget that Nvidia employees have ALSO engaged in insider trading. It doesn't mean that everyone that currently works at Nvidia is doing it. The insider trading comments are once again simply anti-ATI sentiment to try and demonstrate how evil ATI is.

As for the various "optimization" comments, both Nvidia and ATI have "a long history of misleading the public" as far as driver optimizations go. Some of the optimizations (by both companies) have been questionable. However, I believe that for the most part, both companies have been trying to provide speed optimizations that have little impact on visual quality.

There are some bad people out there that are looking to hide the truth from others. Some work for ATI. Some work for Nvidia. Others are right here on these forums.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: lavaheadache
Here is another link stating that the benches are fake. http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=3069

"This is a complete hoax - done with an OC'd X850, we think"

Done.

I'm not saying that Iam buying in to the BS I'm just adding fuel to the controversy

from the article:

I really don't know if we can trust the results published by Sander as you need to test a product in-house and not rely on 3rd party based beta engineerging products.

Sander - like Rollo - won't miss an opportunity to diss ati
:roll:

lets wait for the official benchmarks . . . personally i don't care as i am looking for the best bang-for-buck AGP part.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Ackmed
The smart ones already thought this.

Its the ignorant ones that jumped in head first thinking that they were real.

Nice try Ackie!

Fortunately you and a 12 post member saying "Those can't be real and anyone who thinks they are is just a big poopie head!" isn't enough to discredit the website's info.

Neither of you has offered any links to another website that refutes the benchmarks as proof of your allegations? Why should we take your word over the Hardware Analysis?

ATI has some very good reasons to post that the benchmarks are fake, as they don't exactly portray their upcoming products in a very favorable light. (and they may be trying to sell off the rest of their stock before it totally tanks)

ATI could be scrambling to wring more performance out their parts before their "launch" and not want us to see where they're at now?

Did ATI tell us about the 16X12 at 60Hz limitation of their crappy multi-GPU pseudo-solution? No. We had to learn about it from Rage3d and Penstarsys.

Did ATI tell us about their insider trading antics? No. We had to wait for all the lawsuits to become public record.

Did ATI tell us they had trilinear optomizations in their drivers now? No. We had to get it from the web.

Did ATI tell us of their application specific "optomiztions" for 3dMark? No. We had to learn it on the web.

Did ATI tell us about their application specific "optomizations" for the 8500? (Quack) No. We had to learn it on the web.

Did ATI tell us about the "trylinear" optomizations? No. We had to learn it on the web.

Did ATI tell us about their insider trading a few years ago? No. We had to see them convicted of it and paying $900,000. in fines.

Etc ad infinitum.

The fact of the matter is that ATI has a long history of misleading the public. I don't particularly care as I'm only interested in their video cards, but don't make it out like they're some outraged "innocents" looking out for the public welfare denouncing the only benchmark info we have at this point. :roll:

I wont try to correct the BS ur writing so many times cuz it would be waste of my energy.

 

[g3pro]

It's those damn nVidiots at it again with their fake benchmarks. We all know that ATi is faster, and I'll keep looking for a bench to show that. Because I'm objective.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Tanclearas
It never ceases to amaze me that some people on these forums actually respect you Rollo. I can't believe I'm even taking the time to respond. Honestly, I should just see if I can filter out all posts from you (or those in which you are quoted).

You are free to disregard me as you see fit Tanclearas. Perhaps those who read my posts and consider them see that I provide useful information from time to time, sometimes before anyone else? (e.g. I was the first on the web to post my experiences with nVidias shimmer fix)

Originally posted by: Rollo
Nice try Ackie!

Fortunately you and a 12 post member saying "Those can't be real and anyone who thinks they are is just a big poopie head!" isn't enough to discredit the website's info.

Neither of you has offered any links to another website that refutes the benchmarks as proof of your allegations? Why should we take your word over the Hardware Analysis?

And why, exactly, should we take the word of Hardware Analysis? There exists no solid, irrefutable evidence that the benchmarks are real OR fake. Why are you asking for something of others that you yourself cannot provide?

That is the point exactly. Since we have no proof to the contrary at this point, we have to consider the possibility that HAs benches are what they say they are: Accurate information posted to spite ATI.

Originally posted by: Rollo
ATI has some very good reasons to post that the benchmarks are fake, as they don't exactly portray their upcoming products in a very favorable light. (and they may be trying to sell off the rest of their stock before it totally tanks)

Indeed they do have good reason. No one really knows for certain how those benchmark numbers were ACTUALLY generated. All we have is some claimed general specs of the system used for benchmarking, and as stated above, no proof that the numbers were ACTUALLY generated with the real thing.

You capitalizing the word "actually" does no more to disprove the veracity of these benchmarks than Ackmed and Biatche saying anyone who believes them is "stupid". You have no proof to back your claims, so the HA findings have at least as much weight as your suppositions. To me they look possible, ATI has said their product will be "competitive" which is not "dominating".

Originally posted by: Rollo
Did ATI tell us about the 16X12 at 60Hz limitation of their crappy multi-GPU pseudo-solution? No. We had to learn about it from Rage3d and Penstarsys.

There has been information available for a couple of days now that clearly explains that this is probably not true. And what exactly is with the "crappy multi-GPU pseudo-solution" comment? Clearly anti-ATI sentiment being expressed here, and not particularly subtle either.

You're right. I chose my words very carefully to convey my meaning that I feel X8XX Crossfire sucks in comparison to SLI. If you still think I'm "hinting": "To me X8XX Crossfire looks like it blows goats and borders on being a fraudulent attempt to separate unwary consumers from their hard earned cash." Clear?

Originally posted by: Rollo
Did ATI tell us about their insider trading antics? No. We had to wait for all the lawsuits to become public record.

At this point in time, these are accusations. Lawsuits do not automatically make people guilty. I'm not saying they're innocent, but you are clearly assigning guilt. Thank God you're not a judge (are you?).

They may be innocent, but six plaintiffs are risking a lot of money on the assumption they are not. They also did just make restitution for the same thing earlier this year. You're right though, it's possible they were guilty last time and aren't guilty this time.

Originally posted by: Rollo
Did ATI tell us about their insider trading a few years ago? No. We had to see them convicted of it and paying $900,000. in fines.

The insider trading was more than "a few years ago". Although the charges were brought forward in 2002/03, the charges were regarding events that took place in 1999/2000, and focused on the CEO of the time, K.Y. Ho. Keep in mind that Dave Orton testified against K.Y. Ho. Also, do not forget that Nvidia employees have ALSO engaged in insider trading. It doesn't mean that everyone that currently works at Nvidia is doing it. The insider trading comments are once again simply anti-ATI sentiment to try and demonstrate how evil ATI is.

Pretty much works too, doesn't it? The nVidia engineers are long gone, the ATI profiteers keep on bilking the public.

As for the various "optimization" comments, both Nvidia and ATI have "a long history of misleading the public" as far as driver optimizations go. Some of the optimizations (by both companies) have been questionable. However, I believe that for the most part, both companies have been trying to provide speed optimizations that have little impact on visual quality.

The point was that ATI has a history of trying to scam the public that they don't always admit, even when caught. (e.g. instead they re-define "trilinear")

There are some bad people out there that are looking to hide the truth from others. Some work for ATI. Some work for Nvidia. Others are right here on these forums.

Vague allegations of agenda don't disprove anything I've said. What's your agenda?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
I wont try to correct the BS ur writing so many times cuz I can't, so I'll imply I could instead

Fixed.

 

[5150Joker]

I think those of you that think the benchmarks are fake because some whacky french site or ATi PR rep doing damage control say so, you need to pick option 4 for the poll I put up yesterday.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: g3pro
It's those damn nVidiots at it again with their fake benchmarks. We all know that ATi is faster, and I'll keep looking for a bench to show that. Because I'm objective.

Thank you, Señor Fanboi. I truly hope there was supposed to be a </sarcasm> in there somewhere.

It's apparent that there are people will go to any lengths to discredit an unfavorable showing of their favorite product/manufacturer.

Points of fact, however:

The R520, at launch, will be a 16 pipe card.
The core will be clocked at 600MHz.
What I've been told about the memory clock and the speeds I've been seeing differ, so I won't comment on that.
Same holds true for the VS.

Now, honestly, how much performance can you push out of this?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Ronin
The R520, at launch, will be a 16 pipe card.
The core will be clocked at 600MHz.
What I've been told about the memory clock and the speeds I've been seeing differ, so I won't comment on that.
Same holds true for the VS.

With new architectures, we don't have much idea (2.2 GHz A64>2.6 GHz P4). Even if it's not the fastest card, its features should be exciting.

 

[5150Joker]

I think until we see a unified shader architecture, this b.s. about "don't pay attention to pipe numbers" is just that, b.s. The 16 pipes is hindering the R520, if it had 24 or 32 there's no doubt it would keep up with a 7800 GTX or excel in performance. Face it guys, ATi introduced this thing because they couldn't produce the 24/32 pp versions in quantity and now they're re-working the design as R580.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: g3pro
It's those damn nVidiots at it again with their fake benchmarks. We all know that ATi is faster, and I'll keep looking for a bench to show that. Because I'm objective.

Thank you, Señor Fanboi. I truly hope there was supposed to be a </sarcasm> in there somewhere.

It's apparent that there are people will go to any lengths to discredit an unfavorable showing of their favorite product/manufacturer.

Points of fact, however:

The R520, at launch, will be a 16 pipe card.
The core will be clocked at 600MHz.
What I've been told about the memory clock and the speeds I've been seeing differ, so I won't comment on that.
Same holds true for the VS.

Now, honestly, how much performance can you push out of this?

how much? . . . we DO know for sure ati's r520 will be a competive card to nVidia's best so the r300 was no fluke . . . we just do not know the 'details' yet . . . we'll know exactly 'how much' soon enough.

 

[Ronin]

I have some details, but not enough to make a conjecture on performance. We'll see when I get a card, I suppose.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: malG
Benchmarks aside (lets say X1800XT performance is similar to 7800GTX), who in their right mind would spend an extra $150 for an ATI X1800XT at this point?

This is a pretty good point. Why would anyone spend more for the same performance on a rev1 product with 50% fewer pipelines, and higher power/heat?

That's exactly what I was thinking. Even though the performance isn't as disappointing as people are making a deal out of IMO. But if that price is correct, that's not going to sit well with me. In fact, when it retails, the x1800XT better be quite a good deal more powerful to warrant the extra 150 dollars of my hard earned cash!

 

[Muscles]

I'm just going to laugh so hard when all the "official" benchmarks come out on this mythical launch. I got a feeling all these ATI fanboys will be nowhere to be found. If it were me personally running a review site the last thing I would do is post ficticious benchmarks. There is a slim possibility they're fake but it's just too unlikely based on all the information we already know for sure on the card.

 

[nitromullet]

You are free to disregard me as you see fit Tanclearas. Perhaps those who read my posts and consider them see that I provide useful information from time to time, sometimes before anyone else? (e.g. I was the first on the web to post my experiences with nVidias shimmer fix)

You do post a lot of useful info, but i think that you should stop referring to the 78.03 drivers as a "shimmer fix", it did not fix the issue. I played about 8 hours of WoW over the past few days with the 78.03 drivers, 16xAF, LoD clamped, HQ, etc... and still the AF shimmer was present. I just wanted to point this out that to the rest of us that own a GTX, your claims of the shimmer being fixed (when I can see it's not with my own eyes) makes me question your credibility. You seem like a good guy overall, and I would think that you would rather be honest about the "fix" than let it tarnish your credibilty. Obvioulsy, I have just as much financially invested into my video card(s) as you do, so I don't want the shimmer to be there either, but no so much that I will choose to ignore it.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Ackmed
The smart ones already thought this.

Its the ignorant ones that jumped in head first thinking that they were real.

Nice try Ackie!

Fortunately you and a 12 post member saying "Those can't be real and anyone who thinks they are is just a big poopie head!" isn't enough to discredit the website's info.

Neither of you has offered any links to another website that refutes the benchmarks as proof of your allegations? Why should we take your word over the Hardware Analysis?

ATI has some very good reasons to post that the benchmarks are fake, as they don't exactly portray their upcoming products in a very favorable light. (and they may be trying to sell off the rest of their stock before it totally tanks)

ATI could be scrambling to wring more performance out their parts before their "launch" and not want us to see where they're at now?

The fact of the matter is that ATI has a long history of misleading the public. I don't particularly care as I'm only interested in their video cards, but don't make it out like they're some outraged "innocents" looking out for the public welfare denouncing the only benchmark info we have at this point. :roll:

Edited the rest of your post that wasnt even close to relevent, and just plain bias and flame bait. Trying to claim that you arent bias doesnt work anymore. You prove that with your actions.

Could the benches be real? Yes. Could they be fake? Yes.

I didnt say, "they cant be real", so dont put words in my mouth, again. Nor did I call anyone a name, like you claim. Yesterday you tried the same thing, and it didnt work there either. Try sticking to the facts, I know its hard for you sometimes. Either quote what I said, or dont make anything else up to help your agenda. Ok?

You claim there is no proof that they are fake, which is true. And there is no proof that they are real either. Not one single shred of proof. All we have to go by is one bias persons claim that they are. Its a poor hardware site, who has been clearly bias in the past, and in this "review" as well.

Could ATi be doing those things you claim? Yeah. Perhaps they dont want their stocks to tank. But do you really think that the newest card is just 4fps faster in HL2 at 1600x1200/4x/8x? I have a hard time believing that one. Maybe its true, maybe not. The fact is, we dont know. And beliving without any proof that they are real, is foolish to me.

The fact of the matter is, NV has a history long history of misleading the public too. Where did I "make it out like they're some outraged "innocents" looking out for the public welfare denouncing the only benchmark info we have at this point."? Again, dont put words in my mouth.

Tanclearas responded well enough for me to you. Try using some common sense in your misleading, and off topic posts next time please.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Ackmed
The smart ones already thought this.

Its the ignorant ones that jumped in head first thinking that they were real.

Nice try Ackie!

Fortunately you and a 12 post member saying "Those can't be real and anyone who thinks they are is just a big poopie head!" isn't enough to discredit the website's info.

Neither of you has offered any links to another website that refutes the benchmarks as proof of your allegations? Why should we take your word over the Hardware Analysis?

ATI has some very good reasons to post that the benchmarks are fake, as they don't exactly portray their upcoming products in a very favorable light. (and they may be trying to sell off the rest of their stock before it totally tanks)

ATI could be scrambling to wring more performance out their parts before their "launch" and not want us to see where they're at now?

The fact of the matter is that ATI has a long history of misleading the public. I don't particularly care as I'm only interested in their video cards, but don't make it out like they're some outraged "innocents" looking out for the public welfare denouncing the only benchmark info we have at this point. :roll:

Edited the rest of your post that wasnt even close to relevent, and just plain bias and flame bait. Trying to claim that you arent bias doesnt work anymore. You prove that with your actions.

Could the benches be real? Yes. Could they be fake? Yes.

I didnt say, "they cant be real", so dont put words in my mouth, again. Nor did I call anyone a name, like you claim. Yesterday you tried the same thing, and it didnt work there either. Try sticking to the facts, I know its hard for you sometimes. Either quote what I said, or dont make anything else up to help your agenda. Ok?

You claim there is no proof that they are fake, which is true. And there is no proof that they are real either. Not one single shred of proof. All we have to go by is one bias persons claim that they are. Its a poor hardware site, who has been clearly bias in the past, and in this "review" as well.

Could ATi be doing those things you claim? Yeah. Perhaps they dont want their stocks to tank. But do you really think that the newest card is just 4fps faster in HL2 at 1600x1200/4x/8x? I have a hard time believing that one. Maybe its true, maybe not. The fact is, we dont know. And beliving without any proof that they are real, is foolish to me.

The fact of the matter is, NV has a history long history of misleading the public too. Where did I "make it out like they're some outraged "innocents" looking out for the public welfare denouncing the only benchmark info we have at this point."? Again, dont put words in my mouth.

Tanclearas responded well enough for me to you. Try using some common sense in your misleading, and off topic posts next time please.

Ackmed, would you mind stop saying "Don't put words in my mouth.". It doesn't fly.
Anyone can read between the lines from your posts. It is too easy. We know which way you slant and that is fine. I don't have a problem with you supporting the current underdog which ATI seems to be in a huge way.

Every persons post carries a "tone" along with it. Deny it if you will, but it is so easly detectable. You should just put your 7800GTX up for sale and go with the 16 pipe cranked to the chones R520. Trust me, you will more than satisfied with it even if it is slower.

Can you tell the "tone" of my post here? I'm sure you can. It says, "Nvidia is currently ahead of ATI in almost every respect and they deserve the kudos that goes along with it. And ATI deserves a bit of ridicule for this poor excuse of a video card and xfire band aid they are offering." Just to make my tone clear.

 

[Tanclearas]

Originally posted by: Rollo
That is the point exactly. Since we have no proof to the contrary at this point, we have to consider the possibility that HAs benches are what they say they are: Accurate information posted to spite ATI.

You are doing far more than considering the possibility. You are trying to convince people in these forums that they are real. I am the one asking you to consider the possibility that they are fake, which obviously you will not do. Let me be clear. It is possible that those numbers are real. However, I believe that it is equally possible that the numbers are fake. I looked at them, but for the moment I am still going to stick with my "wait and see" attitude.

Originally posted by: Rollo
You capitalizing the word "actually" does no more to disprove the veracity of these benchmarks than Ackmed and Biatche saying anyone who believes them is "stupid". You have no proof to back your claims, so the HA findings have at least as much weight as your suppositions. To me they look possible, ATI has said their product will be "competitive" which is not "dominating".

My capitalization of the word was to stress that the only absolute fact is that we have no way of knowing how those benchmark figures were ACTUALLY generated. That is fact. That is the reason for the capitalization. The numbers might have been generated on the real thing, or they might not have been. We do not know how they were ACTUALLY generated. Clear?

Originally posted by: Rollo
You're right. I chose my words very carefully to convey my meaning that I feel X8XX Crossfire sucks in comparison to SLI. If you still think I'm "hinting": "To me X8XX Crossfire looks like it blows goats and borders on being a fraudulent attempt to separate unwary consumers from their hard earned cash." Clear?

Crystal. As long as everyone knows that this is opinion and not fact, fine.

Originally posted by: Rollo
Pretty much works too, doesn't it? The nVidia engineers are long gone, the ATI profiteers keep on bilking the public.

Once again, you have assigned guilt where none has been proven. You are prejudging people because others in their company were found guilty in the past. You are also assigning an "evil" tag to the entire company for the wrong-doings of individuals within the campany. Even if the current accused are found guilty, it doesn't mean that ATI is an evil company. At most it shows that ATI probably needs an Ethics Officer (or a more effective one).

Originally posted by: Rollo
The point was that ATI has a history of trying to scam the public that they don't always admit, even when caught. (e.g. instead they re-define "trilinear")

It is possible that ATI was trying to "scam the public", but I don't think so. I freely admit that this is my opinion (much like what you are providing is your opinion). I believe ATI was trying to explain why they made the optimizations they did. I also believe they made a mistake in not immediately releasing patches to permit people to remove the optimizations. I believe both ATI and Nvidia need to give the end-user the option of enabling/disabling such optimizations. Neither company has been particularly good at giving end-users that option. Does this make either company evil? No.

Originally posted by: Rollo
Vague allegations of agenda don't disprove anything I've said. What's your agenda?

No agenda. Sorry for being vague. Let me be clear again. You, Rollo, are intentionally trying to misinform and mislead readers of this forum by expressing "possibilities" and "accusations" as facts, and highlighting the failures of one company while ignoring those same failures by the other company.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Tanclearas

Originally posted by: Rollo
That is the point exactly. Since we have no proof to the contrary at this point, we have to consider the possibility that HAs benches are what they say they are: Accurate information posted to spite ATI.

You are doing far more than considering the possibility. You are trying to convince people in these forums that they are real. I am the one asking you to consider the possibility that they are fake, which obviously you will not do. Let me be clear. It is possible that those numbers are real. However, I believe that it is equally possible that the numbers are fake. I looked at them, but for the moment I am still going to stick with my "wait and see" attitude.

Originally posted by: Rollo
You capitalizing the word "actually" does no more to disprove the veracity of these benchmarks than Ackmed and Biatche saying anyone who believes them is "stupid". You have no proof to back your claims, so the HA findings have at least as much weight as your suppositions. To me they look possible, ATI has said their product will be "competitive" which is not "dominating".

My capitalization of the word was to stress that the only absolute fact is that we have no way of knowing how those benchmark figures were ACTUALLY generated. That is fact. That is the reason for the capitalization. The numbers might have been generated on the real thing, or they might not have been. We do not know how they were ACTUALLY generated. Clear?

Originally posted by: Rollo
You're right. I chose my words very carefully to convey my meaning that I feel X8XX Crossfire sucks in comparison to SLI. If you still think I'm "hinting": "To me X8XX Crossfire looks like it blows goats and borders on being a fraudulent attempt to separate unwary consumers from their hard earned cash." Clear?

Crystal. As long as everyone knows that this is opinion and not fact, fine.

Originally posted by: Rollo
Pretty much works too, doesn't it? The nVidia engineers are long gone, the ATI profiteers keep on bilking the public.

Once again, you have assigned guilt where none has been proven. You are prejudging people because others in their company were found guilty in the past. You are also assigning an "evil" tag to the entire company for the wrong-doings of individuals within the campany. Even if the current accused are found guilty, it doesn't mean that ATI is an evil company. At most it shows that ATI probably needs an Ethics Officer (or a more effective one).

Originally posted by: Rollo
The point was that ATI has a history of trying to scam the public that they don't always admit, even when caught. (e.g. instead they re-define "trilinear")

It is possible that ATI was trying to "scam the public", but I don't think so. I freely admit that this is my opinion (much like what you are providing is your opinion). I believe ATI was trying to explain why they made the optimizations they did. I also believe they made a mistake in not immediately releasing patches to permit people to remove the optimizations. I believe both ATI and Nvidia need to give the end-user the option of enabling/disabling such optimizations. Neither company has been particularly good at giving end-users that option. Does this make either company evil? No.

Originally posted by: Rollo
Vague allegations of agenda don't disprove anything I've said. What's your agenda?

No agenda. Sorry for being vague. Let me be clear again. You, Rollo, are intentionally trying to misinform and mislead readers of this forum by expressing "possibilities" and "accusations" as facts, and highlighting the failures of one company while ignoring those same failures by the other company.

And you, are trying to convince the very same people, that they are not true. How is that different than your accusation? I don't understand.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The R520 and Crossfire are both currently unreleased products, any information on the performance of these products should be taken with caution. As we've already expressed before, a 16 pipe R520 @ 600MHz does not sound promising, but you never know. The benches do tend to fit with our concerns but that does not make them real. We also do not know much about final Crossfire performance or features, so jumping to conclusions right now could make you look foolish.

 

[Tanclearas]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And you, are trying to convince the very same people, that they are not true. How is that different than your accusation? I don't understand.

Hmmm... My exact words were as follows....

It is possible that those numbers are real. However, I believe that it is equally possible that the numbers are fake. I looked at them, but for the moment I am still going to stick with my "wait and see" attitude.

Umm... Yeah... See how hard I'm trying to convince people that they are not true? Wow. I'm assigning equal possibility to the numbers being true as being false.

The only thing I'm trying to convince people to do is wait. Do not prejudge, nor accept everything posted to the web as truth.

I hope that helps you understand.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
The R520 and Crossfire are both currently unreleased products, any information on the performance of these products should be taken with caution. As we've already expressed before, a 16 pipe R520 @ 600MHz does not sound promising, but you never know. The benches do tend to fit with our concerns but that does not make them real. We also do not know much about final Crossfire performance or features, so jumping to conclusions right now could make you look foolish.

has that ever stopped anyone here before?

 

[lavaheadache]

lets wait for the official benchmarks . . . personally i don't care as i am looking for the best bang-for-buck AGP part. -Apoppin

I'm right there with ya apoppin, although if I have to I'll adopt pci-e, then I'll sell you my BFG 6800GT for cheap

 

[Pabster]

Everyone said the Crossfire rumors weren't true. It would be launched timely and would support similiar specs to nVidia's SLI, both of which have now been proven false.

ATi has a history of providing false and misleading crap. Marketing, as they say.

Also it is kinda funny to see the ATi fanboys start bring up IQ (as they always do). When ATi is ahead, it is raw speed. When they are behind, it is either IQ or some mythical feature floating out there...