Originally posted by: Rollo
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: orangat
Theres going to be a lot of red faces after the truth comes out (either way).
Personally I think they are fake after ATI officially called it an ouija board benchmark. But how much better can the real ones be, that is the question.
I dont see where most ppl who see numbers will have a red face...At least we dont blindly believe what we cant see cause we dont like what the numbers have shown....If he numbers are false then by all means the author of the article should be held responsible...
Well, if you're "quite certain" I guess we should believe you, not Sassen.
He's probably not "quite certain"....errrr......ummmmm........well.....................
you don't get it . . . still . . . the author set it up so he CANNOT be held responsible
i am quite certain now that the benchs are fake . . . by lying - ati has much to lose; sanders has nothing to lose
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Rollo
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: orangat
Theres going to be a lot of red faces after the truth comes out (either way).
Personally I think they are fake after ATI officially called it an ouija board benchmark. But how much better can the real ones be, that is the question.
I dont see where most ppl who see numbers will have a red face...At least we dont blindly believe what we cant see cause we dont like what the numbers have shown....If he numbers are false then by all means the author of the article should be held responsible...
Well, if you're "quite certain" I guess we should believe you, not Sassen.
He's probably not "quite certain"....errrr......ummmmm........well.....................
you don't get it . . . still . . . the author set it up so he CANNOT be held responsible
i am quite certain now that the benchs are fake . . . by lying - ati has much to lose; sanders has nothing to lose
why not? . . . i am just as believable after explaing my PoV . . . probably more since i have nothing to gain by crediting or discrediting ati . . . unlike sanders
only a fool would trust those benchmarks to make any purchasing decision today . . . oTOH, they may be real . . . i just don't think so for reasons i have stated
Originally posted by: Duvie
Rollo I think you were responding to Apoppin but the way you quoted it it doesn't come out looking that way...
Apoppin....
Explain to me how he has shielded himself from anything.....
Originally posted by: Duvie
Rollo I think you were responding to Apoppin but the way you quoted it it doesn't come out looking that way...
Apoppin....
Explain to me how he has shielded himself from anything.....
Originally posted by: Rollo
Originally posted by: Duvie
Rollo I think you were responding to Apoppin but the way you quoted it it doesn't come out looking that way...
Apoppin....
Explain to me how he has shielded himself from anything.....
You are correct, fixed!
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Duvie
Rollo I think you were responding to Apoppin but the way you quoted it it doesn't come out looking that way...
Apoppin....
Explain to me how he has shielded himself from anything.....
look at his article . . . the benchs are not his . . . they were [self-reportedly] given to him by an anonymous ATI board partner . . . IF [when] these benchmarks are shown to be fabrication, he simply has to claim that he was mislead by that "source".
elementary
doesn't he own that site?Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Duvie
Rollo I think you were responding to Apoppin but the way you quoted it it doesn't come out looking that way...
Apoppin....
Explain to me how he has shielded himself from anything.....
look at his article . . . the benchs are not his . . . they were [self-reportedly] given to him by an anonymous ATI board partner . . . IF [when] these benchmarks are shown to be fabrication, he simply has to claim that he was mislead by that "source".
elementary
Ok, I'll bite. What exactly do you think this declaration will spare him from? Prosecution? Degradation of character? His job at HA? Unless he owns the damn site. There isn't anything simple or elementary about what you suggest he is going to do. It will spare him nothing. He admitted in that email "lets see if we can drop that stock price shall we?" is a direct attack at ATI and I believe ATI can sue the crap out of him for that. Not for posting benches, but for posting benches for the intent of hurting a companies image with the intent of effecting it's stock price. BAD NEWS.
Originally posted by: apoppin
doesn't he own that site?Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Duvie
Rollo I think you were responding to Apoppin but the way you quoted it it doesn't come out looking that way...
Apoppin....
Explain to me how he has shielded himself from anything.....
look at his article . . . the benchs are not his . . . they were [self-reportedly] given to him by an anonymous ATI board partner . . . IF [when] these benchmarks are shown to be fabrication, he simply has to claim that he was mislead by that "source".
elementary
Ok, I'll bite. What exactly do you think this declaration will spare him from? Prosecution? Degradation of character? His job at HA? Unless he owns the damn site. There isn't anything simple or elementary about what you suggest he is going to do. It will spare him nothing. He admitted in that email "lets see if we can drop that stock price shall we?" is a direct attack at ATI and I believe ATI can sue the crap out of him for that. Not for posting benches, but for posting benches for the intent of hurting a companies image with the intent of effecting it's stock price. BAD NEWS.
and it appears that you are agreeing with me :Q
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: apoppin
doesn't he own that site?Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Duvie
Rollo I think you were responding to Apoppin but the way you quoted it it doesn't come out looking that way...
Apoppin....
Explain to me how he has shielded himself from anything.....
look at his article . . . the benchs are not his . . . they were [self-reportedly] given to him by an anonymous ATI board partner . . . IF [when] these benchmarks are shown to be fabrication, he simply has to claim that he was mislead by that "source".
elementary
Ok, I'll bite. What exactly do you think this declaration will spare him from? Prosecution? Degradation of character? His job at HA? Unless he owns the damn site. There isn't anything simple or elementary about what you suggest he is going to do. It will spare him nothing. He admitted in that email "lets see if we can drop that stock price shall we?" is a direct attack at ATI and I believe ATI can sue the crap out of him for that. Not for posting benches, but for posting benches for the intent of hurting a companies image with the intent of effecting it's stock price. BAD NEWS.
and it appears that you are agreeing with me :Q
I really don't know if he is the site owner.
and....
Huh? ok, what'd I miss?
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: apoppin
doesn't he own that site?Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Duvie
Rollo I think you were responding to Apoppin but the way you quoted it it doesn't come out looking that way...
Apoppin....
Explain to me how he has shielded himself from anything.....
look at his article . . . the benchs are not his . . . they were [self-reportedly] given to him by an anonymous ATI board partner . . . IF [when] these benchmarks are shown to be fabrication, he simply has to claim that he was mislead by that "source".
elementary
Ok, I'll bite. What exactly do you think this declaration will spare him from? Prosecution? Degradation of character? His job at HA? Unless he owns the damn site. There isn't anything simple or elementary about what you suggest he is going to do. It will spare him nothing. He admitted in that email "lets see if we can drop that stock price shall we?" is a direct attack at ATI and I believe ATI can sue the crap out of him for that. Not for posting benches, but for posting benches for the intent of hurting a companies image with the intent of effecting it's stock price. BAD NEWS.
and it appears that you are agreeing with me :Q
I really don't know if he is the site owner.
and....
Huh? ok, what'd I miss?
i don't either . . . i doubt it
you are saying ati can sue him . . . quite possibly . . .
what's there to disagree about? .. . Sanders can either: (1) be right or (2) be making it up.
i just say DISregard the results until the nda is lifted
Originally posted by: Duvie
I dont see where most ppl who see numbers will have a red face...At least we dont blindly believe what we cant see cause we dont like what the numbers have shown....If he numbers are false then by all means the author of the article should be held responsible...
Originally posted by: ronnn
Originally posted by: Duvie
I dont see where most ppl who see numbers will have a red face...At least we dont blindly believe what we cant see cause we dont like what the numbers have shown....If he numbers are false then by all means the author of the article should be held responsible...
No I myself find the numbers quite reasonable. Still I do not know the testing proceedure and what internal settings the games were at - ie was ati running sm2.0, 1.4 or 3.0 on splinter cell? Without anyone being able to replicate - the numbers can mean many different things. Not even a "similar" system was defined. Still if you want to support Rollo in his frequently stated belief that Ati is pawned again - be my guest.
Anand was hardly taking it easy on ATI, but he still contacted them directly to get a response. Knowing that Anandtech has specifically stated they are going under NDA for R520, ATI obviously still respects Anandtech for being honest, objective, and thorough.ATI's promise about X850 GPUs being sold a week after they were launched turned out to be empty as we still can't find any X850 based GPUs available for sale. Even after firing off multiple emails to ATI asking for resolution on the availability matter, we were met with nothing but silence. ATI had no problem answering other questions, but all of our queries about X850 availability have been left untouched.
Originally posted by: Duvie
Actually I am not supporting Rollos greater quest.
Originally posted by: Tanclearas
This Thread
Like Duvie, the majority of people I see in this thread fall into two categories. I definitely do not agree with his assessment that the two categories are ATI fanboys and level-headed people asking others to consider the benches as real. In reality, the two types are those that are asking that people only consider the benches as real, and those asking people to consider that the benches could be real or fake.
Even Sasser himself, with his follow-up post, has stated this. The only fact is that there is no way to verify the validity of the numbers. At this point, I am leaning towards believing that Sasser believes what he is saying. However, that doesn't make the benches any more valid/invalid than they were when this whole thing started.
I don't think I would go so far as to call someone that simply believes those numbers "stupid". I definitely would think someone was being pretty stupid if they based a buying decision on those numbers, especially considering the value of these cards.
What I do think is irresponsible and borderline stupid is jumping all over ATI's response to the benchmarks, with claims that ATI is deceitful and evil. Honestly, some people in these forums are bound and determined to roast ATI, regardless of what their response had been. I'll talk about that next.
ATI's Response
ATI really didn't have many options as far as responding to the supposed benchmarks.
1) Say nothing, or say, "We can neither confirm nor deny"
To many, this option would have simply been an admission that the numbers are in fact real. At the very least, there would have been an outcry from the community for ATI to respond in some way, so staying silent wasn't a realistic option. ATI had to say something.
2) Confirm the numbers
This would have definitely put the issue to rest, but this is the only option that ATI would not truly be able to select. Even if the numbers are real, if ATI confirms them, they would be, in essence, violating their own NDA and harming legitimate journalists and review sites.
3) Claim the numbers are fake
This is the option ATI went with. If the numbers are indeed WAY OFF, then this is the option ATI should definitely take. At this point, it simply remains to be seen whether they took the right option or not.
4) State the only known fact
As I have said several times in this thread, the only indisputable fact is that there is no way to know how the benchmarks came to be. From Sasser's post, even he does not know without any doubt how the numbers were created. I think this was probably the best general option for ATI. This would still have resulted in the ridiculous numbers of threads with people speculating about whether the numbers were real or not, but at least people couldn't accuse ATI of lying.
Sasser
The truly sad thing about Sasser is that he believes himself to be a journalist. A professional journalist would not behave as he has. It doesn't surprise me that he "didn't make the cut", as he put it (I'm sure those weren't ATI's words). It seems like he is more of a "shock reporter" than a journalist. In other words, someone that is only interested in publishing material that will get an emotional reaction out of people, rather than someone that finds an issue and thoroughly investigates that issue.
Anandtech has hardly been overly kind to ATI, but they haven't been cruel either. Take the X800XL article where Anand highlights ATI's availability issues, but demonstrates that he does more than just complain about it.
Anand was hardly taking it easy on ATI, but he still contacted them directly to get a response. Knowing that Anandtech has specifically stated they are going under NDA for R520, ATI obviously still respects Anandtech for being honest, objective, and thorough.ATI's promise about X850 GPUs being sold a week after they were launched turned out to be empty as we still can't find any X850 based GPUs available for sale. Even after firing off multiple emails to ATI asking for resolution on the availability matter, we were met with nothing but silence. ATI had no problem answering other questions, but all of our queries about X850 availability have been left untouched.
I believe this is why Sasser didn't make the cut. He is not a journalist. He is not looking to get to the truth, but rather he is looking to get an emotional rise. If I was in ATI's position, why would I want to invite someone that runs a second-rate site that is only interested in reporting shock-value news? That's definitely someone that doesn't make the cut for me either.
Originally posted by: Duvie
Actually I see 3 sets of ppl...
1) ATI fanboys who cannot take letting the Nvidiots rule the roost for the forseeable future..
2) The Nvidia fanboys who cant take letting the smaller underdog company like ATI besting heir beloved Nvidia
3) the ppl who err on the side of waiting for more...which I have said....try to avoid the personal attacks and assumptions made against Sassen that his numbers are lies without any proof to support that claim...the only one who really knows at this point is him, his AIB connection, and perhaps ATI....
Originally posted by: Duvie
On the other front....attackinging the validity of the ATI PR rep....turn about is fair play???...you want to assume liars and knowlingly deceptive practices by sassen then I can as well about the rep and what I believe would not be the protocol for handling an issue like this. Tends to lend credence to my claim it is meant as a smear campaign.
Originally posted by: Tanclearas
Originally posted by: Duvie
Actually I see 3 sets of ppl...
1) ATI fanboys who cannot take letting the Nvidiots rule the roost for the forseeable future..
2) The Nvidia fanboys who cant take letting the smaller underdog company like ATI besting heir beloved Nvidia
3) the ppl who err on the side of waiting for more...which I have said....try to avoid the personal attacks and assumptions made against Sassen that his numbers are lies without any proof to support that claim...the only one who really knows at this point is him, his AIB connection, and perhaps ATI....
With respect to point three, that category seems to be broken into two. Those who are saying the numbers could be real or fake, and those asking for proof that the numbers are fake. I honestly don't understand why there are people asking for proof that the numbers are fake when they themselves can provide no proof the numbers are real. What is so difficult to understand about that comment? I cannot prove the numbers are fake. You cannot prove the numbers are real. Sassen himself cannot even prove the numbers are real. The numbers cannot be proven one way or the other. I'm not asking you to prove they are real. You can't. Do not ask me to prove they are false. I can't. The numbers cannot be proven real or fake. The numbers cannot be proven real or fake. One last time, the numbers cannot be proven real or fake. I have accepted the fact that the numbers might be real and they might be fake. I do not believe it is possible to clarify that point further.
Originally posted by: Duvie
On the other front....attackinging the validity of the ATI PR rep....turn about is fair play???...you want to assume liars and knowlingly deceptive practices by sassen then I can as well about the rep and what I believe would not be the protocol for handling an issue like this. Tends to lend credence to my claim it is meant as a smear campaign.
I stated in my last message that I believe that Sassen believes what he is saying. I am not calling him a liar, nor assuming that he is one. I am accepting the fact that what he believes could be false (or could be real). There are, however, people here that are blatantly and openly accusing ATI of lying. I am not accusing Sassen or ATI of lying. The only thing that can be said is that someone has been deceitful. Perhaps it was ATI. Perhaps it was Sassen. Perhaps it was Sassen's source. I do not know who. You do not know who. You are the one assuming guilt here. Not I.
My comments regarding Sassen were with respect to him thinking himself a journalist. A real journalist would not publish information that could not be verified. A reporter probably would. No matter how you look at it, Sassen acted unprofessionally, and immaturely. Sadly, ATI chose to stoop to attacks against Sassen rather than make a statement and leave it at that. In that regard, I will admit to being dissappointed in ATI (at least their representative).
Originally posted by: Tanclearas
With respect to point three, that category seems to be broken into two. Those who are saying the numbers could be real or fake, and those asking for proof that the numbers are fake. I honestly don't understand why there are people asking for proof that the numbers are fake when they themselves can provide no proof the numbers are real. What is so difficult to understand about that comment? I cannot prove the numbers are fake. You cannot prove the numbers are real. Sassen himself cannot even prove the numbers are real. The numbers cannot be proven one way or the other. I'm not asking you to prove they are real. You can't. Do not ask me to prove they are false. I can't. The numbers cannot be proven real or fake. The numbers cannot be proven real or fake. One last time, the numbers cannot be proven real or fake. I have accepted the fact that the numbers might be real and they might be fake. I do not believe it is possible to clarify that point further.
Originally posted by: xtknight
Originally posted by: Tanclearas
With respect to point three, that category seems to be broken into two. Those who are saying the numbers could be real or fake, and those asking for proof that the numbers are fake. I honestly don't understand why there are people asking for proof that the numbers are fake when they themselves can provide no proof the numbers are real. What is so difficult to understand about that comment? I cannot prove the numbers are fake. You cannot prove the numbers are real. Sassen himself cannot even prove the numbers are real. The numbers cannot be proven one way or the other. I'm not asking you to prove they are real. You can't. Do not ask me to prove they are false. I can't. The numbers cannot be proven real or fake. The numbers cannot be proven real or fake. One last time, the numbers cannot be proven real or fake. I have accepted the fact that the numbers might be real and they might be fake. I do not believe it is possible to clarify that point further.
Well put, but it still won't get through some peoples' heads. And who exactly is saying he is flat-out lying? Nobody. We're too busy arguing semantics to be making claims. Besides, there is no problem with me saying [insert obligatory 'I think' here] Sander is lying. That's my opinion. I don't have to prove it. I couldn't care less if the person below me thinks he's right either. I don't care. He can believe an unidentified source if he wants to, but I won't.