nvidia=evil

[Def]

<< <<<Ignorant people automatically see the company on top as some how wronging them. It's the same mentallity that people get when they're less financially endowed than other people.>>>

And some ignorant people miss the point completely, this isn't about a company being big its about a company being a complete ass all the time.

<<<While some actions of NVIDIA, Intel(now more recently since losing marketshare) and MS(long history of this in particular) are not the most &quot;sporting&quot; of a company that is topdog at the moment, they certainly aren't the bad guy just because they happen to make a better product.>>>

What the hell are you talking about???, what does this have to do with Nvidia making better products, its about uncompetetive unfair practices like the Kyro II PDF file and wandering around computer shows like a dictator telling people that they better not dare show Kyro II boards or else, IMO companies should have to make a good product, put it on the shelf and make sure its better then the other cards on the shelf not try to stop the better cards getting to the shelf in the first place. Sure they can be underhanded and do nasty uncompetative things that in the end hurt everyone buying graphics card but if they get caught then they better also be ready to make enimies. >>



I'll respond to these two thinnly disguised insults against me. You're actually reaffirming my statements with your childish behavior.

The first assertion you quoted was about how people blindly pledge devotion to &quot;The Underdog&quot;. They attack the &quot;ruthless company on top&quot;, trying to over throw the tyrant of the industry. How is a company that puts together a marketing presentation that was supposed to remain internal being an ass? That .pdf article is stating the same things people on this thread are. It merely pointed out shortcomings in their competitor's product. Sure, they could have been &quot;nicer&quot; about it, but I'm sure they don't give a rat's ass about their competitor's feelings. They didn't say things like &quot;The KryoII is a piece of trash.&quot; They said things like &quot;The drivers don't have questionable stability when compared to ours.&quot;

You also confuse nVidia using their position to leverage companies to support their product line as &quot;being an ass&quot;. nVidia cannot command or tell any other company to change its internal policies. They can make requests pertaining to their product line to try to market it the best they can. You mistake their &quot;requests&quot; as threats and commands. Sure, if a company constantly turns its nose up at nVidia, you can be sure they won't put them on their list of valued vendors. That's only natural. nVidia determines how and to whom it will sell its chips, not you, not me.

Think of an example. A car dealership sells Ford cars for years and years. It makes them loads of money, and they get a good relationship with Ford. Because of this relationship, they get new cars a few months before alot of other dealerships. Suddenly, they decide to sell Kia's products. Well, this directly competes with some of Ford's low-end line. Ford will not want to send as many of their products to this dealership where they will be given direct competition on the showroom floor. They will still send them cars to sell, but they'll probably get them about the same time all the other dealerships in the nation get them. Look at it from the eyes of another car dealership, wouldn't they feel wronged if they had been loyal to Ford for all these years, and the one selling both Kia and Ford still gets preferential treatment over them?

I really don't see how you guys can view these actions as underhanded and uncompetitive. nVidia is using its position to try to leverage its product line to the forefront. That's competition in my book. They're not making death threats. The business world is not Candyland.

 

[Leon]

Def-I wouldn't even bother responding to this trash

Leon

 

[Octoberblue]

By far the most interesting test should be how well the Kyro peforms in an nvidia chipset mainboard compared to how it peforms in intel, amd, via etc. The Kyro II, the Kyro III, by the end of the year we should have tons of comparisons to see whether Nvidia tries to cripple other cards in their systems...

It'll be an interesting thing to watch, that's for sure.

 

[jobberd]

<<<how can you say that nvidia can't create a competitive product? if it wasn't for nvidia, i doubt powervr and the kyro2 would have existed>>>

????...would you like to shed some light on that statement jobberd because it makes no sense to me. PowerVR were making vid cards before Nvidia, there architecture is totally different to anything Nvidia has ever used. So how could Nvidia have brought about PowerVR or Kyro's existence??

existed is a bad word, but the general meaning of what i said is correct. Without nvidia, the marketplace would have been much less competitive, and I bet the video cards of today would be generations behind. You cannot deny that fact. The pressure that Nvidia put on companies forced them to compete to survive, or die away. Because of this, extraordinary technological leaps and bounds have been made. Sure, powervr would have probably still been around, but their technology would have been much inferior to what it is now. THAT is what i meant when i said they never would have existed

<<<well, one of the reasons that the Radeon performs as good as it does is because of its hyper-z, which is similar to tile base rendering. Therefore, adding tile base rendering to a radeon would not have as much of a profound impact as it would if you incorporated it onto a geforce2.>>>

If Radeon had TBR it'd be at least twice the speed it is now.

I never said it wouldnt, but if the Geforce2 had TBR it would be even more twice the speed that it is now. It would gain more of a performance boost from TBR

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Outstanding post... that is one of the best point by point refutations I ahve seen in these forums.

 

[PotNoodle]

?Sure, powervr would have probably still been around, but their technology would have been much inferior to what it is now. THAT is what i meant when i said they never would have existed?

Personally I would take KYRO to be proof that PowerVR are following their own development cycle, rather than market forces ? afterall if they were to follow NVIDIA then they should have released a chipset with T&amp;L now, however they didn?t, and going by the number of people who appear to have purchased KYROII this does not appear to have harmed them.

However, PowerVR are also driven by different market concerns as well, for instance their relationship with Sega being one of them. While NVIDIA were introducing GF256 in the PC market space, with the first consumer T&amp;L unit, PowerVR had already delivered Naomi2 to Sega ? a system that has a more advanced T&amp;L unit that GF256. I wouldn?t at all surprise me that it?s a derivative of this T&amp;L unit that ends up in their next chipset.

Consumer PC?s are not the only driver of 3D development ? PowerVR have already proved this in both the console and Arcade space; ATI and NVIDIA are also about to show this in the console space.

 

[ZuIu11]

Until computer technology is at a dead end standstill, and no innovations can possible be produced or thought of, there will always be the market leader, and the market trailer. Every company wants to be king, makes sense doesn't it? Nvidia does have an edge in the market for video cards, however they are in no way a monopoly. Nvidia still has no TV-out solution that can match ATI's. ATI still holds much of the OEM market, although the appearance of GeForce cards in new systems is gaining. Can Nvidia be blamed for a lack in competition? You have a large company such as Nvidia, with a large Research and Development Department, with well payed engineer's of COURSE you're going to have to expect they will lead most innovations... you can't blame them for that. If high payed engineers want to keep their BMW's and their Rolexes, of COURSE they are going to want to milk the industry for all it has to offer..... its called common sense.

 

[Teasy]

<<<I'll respond to these two thinnly disguised insults against me. You're actually reaffirming my statements with your childish behavior.>>>

Childish behavior? thats a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black isn't it. All I said was that some ignorant people miss the point sometimes, is it ok for you to suggest people who dislike Nvidia are ignorant and yet not ok for me to say that people that completely miss the point of a dicussion are ignorant? BTW what two insults? as for AFAICS I only made one comment that can be seen as an insult to you.

<<<The first assertion you quoted was about how people blindly pledge devotion to &quot;The Underdog&quot;. They attack the &quot;ruthless company on top&quot;, trying to over throw the tyrant of the industry. How is a company that puts together a marketing presentation that was supposed to remain internal being an ass? That .pdf article is stating the same things people on this thread are. It merely pointed out shortcomings in their competitor's product. Sure, they could have been &quot;nicer&quot; about it, but I'm sure they don't give a rat's ass about their competitor's feelings. They didn't say things like &quot;The KryoII is a piece of trash.&quot; They said things like &quot;The drivers don't have questionable stability when compared to ours.&quot;>>>

Wrong, why not try reading the PDF file before you assume things of it. It doesn't just suggest that the Kyro II has unstable drivers, at times it completely lies about Kyro II. These lies were supposed to be used to train marketing staff (or *educate* marketing staff as Nvidia put it) so that they could spread the same melicious lies to stop manufacturers, OEM's, and retail outlets from buying Kyro II chips. Nvidia themselves admited they were ashamed of the PDF file so even they don't think its a fair document, but they'd still have used it if they hadn't been caught.

<<<existed is a bad word, but the general meaning of what i said is correct. Without nvidia, the marketplace would have been much less competitive, and I bet the video cards of today would be generations behind. You cannot deny that fact. The pressure that Nvidia put on companies forced them to compete to survive, or die away. Because of this, extraordinary technological leaps and bounds have been made. Sure, powervr would have probably still been around, but their technology would have been much inferior to what it is now. THAT is what i meant when i said they never would have existed>>>

I can deny that, IMGTEC have in no way been spurred on by Nvidia, look at there product. Its a TNT2 Ultra in raw specs with a few new features like FSAA, Dot3, EMBM and TBR (TBR includes features like 8 layer multi-texturing and internal true colour), the same TBR that was in products before Nvidia was even making graphics cards. They haven't added HW T&amp;L (which they had in products before Nvidia anyway). There's no way in hell that having Nvidia in this industry has helped a company like IMGTEC by spuring them on. If Nvidia weren't in this inductry exactly what tech would the Kyro II not have right now?, what could be missing from Kyro II if Nvidia weren't around? EMBM, Nope cos they didn't even have that till Geforce 3, Dot 3....I don't think so, TBR?....again no. If Nvidia weren't here then IMGTEC would have came into the industry quicker because there would be less challenge. So you can claim that the Radeon might not be here without Nvidia since it came out a little after Geforce 2 and had hw T&amp;L and so could have been made specifically to match the Geforce 2 but there's no way you can claim that Kyro II was inspired by Nvidia.

<<<I never said it wouldnt, but if the Geforce2 had TBR it would be even more twice the speed that it is now. It would gain more of a performance boost from TBR>>>

And I didn't say that you did say that it wouldn't (try saying that quickly). HyperZ is not really similar to TBR, it gives around a 20% speed increase in some games so adding TBR to a Geforce 2 and Radeon would improve them about the same amount.

<<<Outstanding post... that is one of the best point by point refutations I ahve seen in these forums.>>>

Are you refering to my post? (I assume so anyway), in which case thanks

<<<teasy what an excelent and lengthy post>>>

Thanks, as you know I do tend to post long point by point posts sometimes (ok then quite often) but I do like to think that most of the stuff in there is interesting and informative most of the time and not just a big long waste of time

 

[pidge]

Teasy, powervr2,
Why is it you Powervr people have so much hatred for NVIDIA?

 

[jobberd]

HyperZ is not really similar to TBR, it gives around a 20% speed increase in some games so adding TBR to a Geforce 2 and Radeon would improve them about the same amount.

taking a quote directly from Anandtech: &quot;Taking some of the techniques involved in tile based rendering, ATI created their HyperZ technology. HyperZ enables various forms of compression of the data going to the Z-buffer and performs an early culling of polygons so that objects that aren?t visible to the viewer aren?t rendered&quot;. This is what made me lead to my assumption, so correct me if im wrong.

I can deny that, IMGTEC have in no way been spurred on by Nvidia, look at there product. Its a TNT2 Ultra in raw specs with a few new features like FSAA, Dot3, EMBM and TBR (TBR includes features like 8 layer multi-texturing and internal true colour), the same TBR that was in products before Nvidia was even making graphics cards. They haven't added HW T&amp;L (which they had in products before Nvidia anyway). There's no way in hell that having Nvidia in this industry has helped a company like IMGTEC by spuring them on. If Nvidia weren't in this inductry exactly what tech would the Kyro II not have right now?, what could be missing from Kyro II if Nvidia weren't around? EMBM, Nope cos they didn't even have that till Geforce 3, Dot 3....I don't think so, TBR?....again no. If Nvidia weren't here then IMGTEC would have came into the industry quicker because there would be less challenge. So you can claim that the Radeon might not be here without Nvidia since it came out a little after Geforce 2 and had hw T&amp;L and so could have been made specifically to match the Geforce 2 but there's no way you can claim that Kyro II was inspired by Nvidia.

You mention FSAA and EMBM, created by 3dfx and Matrox, respectively. Both were creted to compete in the 3d market, giving them an edge over their competitors. Competitors such as Nvidia. If Nvidia was not in the picture, it is highly likely that these two technologies would not have been created. Also, you mention it has the specs of a TNT2 Ultra. If Nvidia was not around, competition might have been a bit more stale, and the drive to get higher clock speeds mght not have been so great. So the Kyro2 would probably have inferior specs compared to what it has now, although still with TBR

 

[PotNoodle]

?You mention FSAA and EMBM, created by 3dfx and Matrox, respectively.?

Please tell me you are kidding? FSAA ?created? by 3dfx??? FSAA has been around for years ? go and do some research at the SGI / OpenGL websites and brush some of the decades old cobwebs off the various methods of FSAA. 3dfx were one of the first to bring supersampling FSAA to consumers at large, but in fact PowerVR already had working FSAA in PowerVR Series2 (aka Dreamcast and Neon250).

Matrox also had nothing to with the ?invention? of EMBM ? EMBM was actually designed by Bitboys, and was subsequently licensed by Microsoft for implementation into DX6; Matrox, under their DirectX hardware license, were merely the first to implement the system in hardware.

?If Nvidia was not in the picture, it is highly likely that these two technologies would not have been created?

I think the above explanation of the origins the two particular technologies under discussion here would show that that trail of thought is misplaced.

3dfx, driven by Gary Tarolli and his knowledge of prior work of FSAA from his many years at SGI, had long since sought to provide FSAA into the consumer market space. Voodoo 1 even had Edge AA capabilities built into the drivers, and they were talking about Full Scene AA, as was finally implemented in VSA-100, since before the release of Voodoo2!

(EDIT: Conversely, infact, it could even be argued that had 3dfx sought outright performance, rather than their own internal goal of improvement of IQ via FSAA, then VSA-100 may have faired much better than it did and 3dfx may still have been here today. heh.)

NVIDIA, with just as much base in SGI as 3dfx, could have chosen this route as well, since their engineers would have been just as versed in AA algorithms. Likewise, with EMBM, they were just as free to implement this under the terms and conditions of their DirectX hardware license ? they chose not to however (evidently because the don?t hold EMBM in high regard; the only reason is exists in GF3 is because it?s a subset of Pixel Shader functionality).

? If Nvidia was not around, competition might have been a bit more stale, and the drive to get higher clock speeds might not have been so great. So the Kyro2 would probably have inferior specs compared to what it has now, although still with TBR?

Again, I find this logic flawed. The overriding factor as to the performance of a chip is cost ? when KYROI was here why do you think KYROII was made in the first place? Because its faster, or because its cheaper? KYROII is actually likely to cost less than KYROI, on a per unit basis, because its based on a smaller silicon process and hence wafer costs will be significantly reduced; the fact that it has a significant speed increase over the original is probably more a welcome by product than any teaming desire to match the competition. Its eventual position with regards to performance against the competition is what is dictating the actual retail price that we see.

Yes, market forces considerations are always prevalent when designing a chipset, but probably a bigger consideration is that of cost, and whether the eventual cost of the chipset, relative to the competitions performance makes it viable. We already know that this is where KYROII scores heavily because Hercules have openly admitted that KYROII is giving them far better margins than anything they offer from NVIDIA?s line.

 

[Def]

<< Childish behavior? thats a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black isn't it. All I said was that some ignorant people miss the point sometimes, is it ok for you to suggest people who dislike Nvidia are ignorant and yet not ok for me to say that people that completely miss the point of a dicussion are ignorant? BTW what two insults? as for AFAICS I only made one comment that can be seen as an insult to you. >>



I still insist that my original post was pretty on topic. I was just describing the mentallity of people who feel the need to defend &quot;the underdog&quot; with such blind devotion. You might see me as doing the same towards nVIDIA. I'm actually trying to combat the obvious slant you and powervr tend to put on things. I never said people who dislike nVIDIA are ignorant, just that they are ignorant for looking at everything nVIDIA does as though the company had personally killed their own mother.

The &quot;insults&quot; comment in my orignal post just came from your whole tone and demeanor. No reason to get your panties tied in a knot over this. You don't see me &quot;grasping for straws&quot; in the argument by quibbling about the correctness of making a word plural.



<< Wrong, why not try reading the PDF file before you assume things of it. It doesn't just suggest that the Kyro II has unstable drivers, at times it completely lies about Kyro II. These lies were supposed to be used to train marketing staff (or *educate* marketing staff as Nvidia put it) so that they could spread the same melicious lies to stop manufacturers, OEM's, and retail outlets from buying Kyro II chips. Nvidia themselves admited they were ashamed of the PDF file so even they don't think its a fair document, but they'd still have used it if they hadn't been caught. >>



AFAIK, nVIDIA did not admit they were ashamed by the .pdf file. They did said it should have never gotten out. Which is true. The &quot;lies&quot; in the .pdf are putting the rumors and speculations of the public in words, which is a crafty way to make your own product seem better. They never made a press release stating all these &quot;lies&quot;, they were never intended to be shown to the public. Sure, it left them with a bit of egg on their face, but I'm sure any aggressive company with a good marketing division has tons of documents they would hate for the general public to see.

The marketing demonstration was most likely used train internal employees in ways to cast doubt on their competitors product. Don't really see that as &quot;not fair&quot;. Sure, it's not nice, but what have I been saying about this? The KryoII was coming into the market unproven, and nVIDIA harped on this not to discredit the card, but to make their own stuff look better in comparison. They never said, &quot;the KryoII has problem X with game Y etc. etc.&quot; They just reminded the sales people that it was an unproven product, and their products have excellent stability. No one even knew at the time what the KryoII's stability was going to be like. If the KryoII was truly a better product than any nVIDIA product in every sense, the consumer would decide what was better, not some marketing associate.

 

[TravisBickle]

jobberd, you don't often seem to really know what you're talking about.
just say nvidia's pressure on the industry increases the pace a little bit and leave it at that before you put your foot in your mouth again.

 

[Mingon]

I think the point he is (badly) trying to make is that Nvdia (and ATI) has contributed to the graphics card industry by implementing the clever designs of other people ideas/developments. Without nvdia's constant 6-month refresh we would not see implementation of new technologies as quickly, if it was'nt for the geforce chipset would we haveseen the radeon so quickly ? it would have come out there is no doubt but the pressure on ATI was from nvdia. I cant seriously understand how anyone can label a company 'evil' who make something so harmless as a graphics cards, perhaps if it was a landmine yes.

 

[powervr2]

&quot;taking a quote directly from Anandtech: &quot;Taking some of the techniques involved in tile based rendering, ATI created their HyperZ technology. HyperZ enables various forms of compression of the data going to the Z-buffer and performs an early culling of polygons so that objects that aren?t visible to the viewer aren?t rendered&quot;. This is what made me lead to my assumption, so correct me if im wrong.&quot;

kyro 2 makes the sorting per pixel not per polygon like radeon... that is a substantial difference (kyro 2 is 100% efficient because of that, unlike radeon), kyro 2 TBR works in all games... TBR don't need any support unlike hyperZ (polygones must be rendering front to back I think to work with hyperZ)

 

[PotNoodle]

def,

?The &quot;lies&quot; in the .pdf are putting the rumors and speculations of the public in words, which is a crafty way to make your own product seem better.?

Well, actually there were outright lies ? they stated that KYROII would ?Look and Perform Terribly? in games such as Black and White; they could not have known this as KYROII wasn?t even publicly available at the time (nor was the full version of B&amp;W). As it turns out B&amp;W runs great on KYROII and some may argue that it looks better on KYROII than many other chipsets (certainly in 16bit at least).

?They never made a press release stating all these &quot;lies&quot;, they were never intended to be shown to the public?

No, but the person who originally got the document said that it wasn?t internal ? they were actively using it to dissuade board vendors from taking KYROII up; it had been passed to NVIDIA board vendors. If this was a purely internal document, do you think there was going to be the slightest chance it could have got out?

?They never said, &quot;the KryoII has problem X with game Y etc. etc.&quot;

Yes, they did (see above) ? I?d suggest you read it again.

?No one even knew at the time what the KryoII's stability was going to be like.?

Ummmm ? considering (as NVIDIA even pointed out in that very document) that KYROII is basically a shrunk KYRO, which had been around for about 6 months beforehand, you can have a pretty fair guess that the stability is going to be pretty similar to that!

Mingon,

? I think the point he is (badly) trying to make is that Nvdia (and ATI) has contributed to the graphics card industry by implementing the clever designs of other people ideas/developments. Without nvdia's constant 6-month refresh we would not see implementation of new technologies as quickly, if it was'nt for the geforce chipset would we haveseen the radeon so quickly ??

Do you know how long the development of a chipset takes from inception to actuality? A good 2 years in most cases; When ATI were dreaming up the specifications for Radeon you were probably only playing with your TNT2 Ultras, or V3 3500?s! ATI probably had no knowledge of GeForce before embarking on Radeon (well, they probably had a fair idea of the direction of NVIDIA and their competitors were taking, but certainly not the detail).

Development stagnation is never a good idea, and you will always keep an eye on what your competitors are doing, but as I have illustrated above in both the markets outside of consumer PC?s and the overriding cost factors of a chipset, NVIDIA are not necessarily the ?be all and end all? of development.

Now, if NVIDIA get their way and they are allowed to ?drive every pixel? do you think the Pace of development is going to be anywhere near as fast? What need is their if they are only competing with themselves? It could even be said that from the GF3 release, and the murmurings that nv25 won?t be ready until next year, that NVIDIA?s ?6 month cycle? is already slackening.

 

[Ahriman6]

Considering that I'm the person who posted the infamous pdf file, I think I know that it was not intended for internal use only! Yes, Nvidia's PR stated that it was but that was a blatant lie, and one that the fanboys obviously were all too willing to buy into.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Nasty and underhanded? Yes... nVidia is definitely those things.

Evil? No.

 

[Ironduke]

NVIDIA Have Spent too much time in M$ boardroom.

I hope the Kyro3 crushes these Nvidiots once and for all!

 

[jbirney]

<< Without nvdia's constant 6-month refresh we would not see implementation of new technologies as quickly, if it was'nt for the geforce chipset would we haveseen the radeon so quickly ? it would have come out there is no doubt but the pressure on ATI was from nvdia. I cant seriously understand how anyone can label a company 'evil' who make something so harmless as a graphics cards, perhaps if it was a landmine yes. >>




My biggest problem is what good is it to us gamers for a 6 month refresh? Other than the speed and cost, what else dose that offer you and me for our games? Can the games use these new things? Generally no. Heck, we are just starting to see features in the orignal Geforce being used in todays new games. I love new tech, but I think nVidia is gonning to get burned by this sooner than we think. GF3 being an example. We know that games wont come out till 2002 that use DX8 fully, and we know that in the fall a new verison of a GF3 will be out, followed by another new chip, GF4??, in spring of next year. They are gonna get them into a chicken or egg thing...

 

[Teasy]

<<<I still insist that my original post was pretty on topic. I was just describing the mentallity of people who feel the need to defend &quot;the underdog&quot; with such blind devotion. You might see me as doing the same towards nVIDIA. I'm actually trying to combat the obvious slant you and powervr tend to put on things. I never said people who dislike nVIDIA are ignorant, just that they are ignorant for looking at everything nVIDIA does as though the company had personally killed their own mother.>>>

What slant have I put on things? All I've said is that Nvidia have been unfair and underhanded and I'd prefer that companies just make good products and if they want to lie about other companies products they at least be brave enough to release the info to the public instead of sneaking around sending melicious documents to manufacturers. So far its you who seems to want to put a slant on this, either that or you haven't read the PDF file at all.

<<<The &quot;insults&quot; comment in my orignal post just came from your whole tone and demeanor. No reason to get your panties tied in a knot over this. You don't see me &quot;grasping for straws&quot; in the argument by quibbling about the correctness of making a word plural.>>>

I don't seem to remember writing anything that would say I was angry. If I'm angry I'll let you know. Oh and I'm not grasping at straws (why did you use quotes there?, who are you quoting because I never said anything about grasping at straws before). If you don't like me picking up on false statments then don't make them. If you don't remember what you said then here it is again &quot;I'll respond to these two thinnly disguised insults against me&quot; as you can see you didn't simply make a word plural you said that I had insulted you twice.

<<<AFAIK, nVIDIA did not admit they were ashamed by the .pdf file. They did said it should have never gotten out. Which is true. The &quot;lies&quot; in the .pdf are putting the rumors and speculations of the public in words, which is a crafty way to make your own product seem better. They never made a press release stating all these &quot;lies&quot;, they were never intended to be shown to the public. Sure, it left them with a bit of egg on their face, but I'm sure any aggressive company with a good marketing division has tons of documents they would hate for the general public to see.>>>

Nvidia said that &quot;yes unfortunately this document originated at Nvidia&quot; you don't see this as being ashamed of the doc?

Please read the PDF because its obvious that so far you haven't, Nvidia did not just use rumours and they bearly ever mentioned there own products. They lied lots of times and I'm not talking about half truths but total lies. For one they claimed that the Hercules 3d Prophet 4500 was built using a GTS PCB because Hercules didn't have the skills to make there own boards. Thats a lie not a half truth, the Kyro II reference boards were all made by Videologic Systems and sent out to manufacturers like Hercules. They claimed that Kyro II boards &quot;would look and run terrible in new games like Black and White&quot; which is a lie. They said that Kyro II has &quot;bad compatability on ALL games&quot; which is so rediculess and obviously false its almost funny and obviosly a total lie too. They said that Kyro II was &quot;still broken on MBTR just like Kyro was over a year ago&quot; and they also said &quot;new drivers have not fixed these problems&quot; firstly Kyro wasn't out a year before this PDF file and secondly there were drivers that fixed this problem at the release of Kyro 1 never mind Kyro II so once again lies! They also failed to mention that there prize product Geforce 3 was actually worse then Kyro II ever was in MBTR, it missed almost all textures in MBTR at that time although this isn't a lie but I just thought I'd mention it. They then went on to show lists of games that apparently supported HW T&amp;L, they obviously ranout of actual HW T&amp;L games because that list includes non HW T&amp;L games...once again lies.

<<<The marketing demonstration was most likely used train internal employees in ways to cast doubt on their competitors product. Don't really see that as &quot;not fair&quot;. Sure, it's not nice, but what have I been saying about this? The KryoII was coming into the market unproven, and nVIDIA harped on this not to discredit the card, but to make their own stuff look better in comparison.>>>

Again read the PDF, its obvious you haven't if you think the PDF wasn't made to discredit Kyro II. When I first read the doc (a day before it went public) I was actually very suprised that Nvidia weren't mentioning there products in comparison very much, they were simply doing anything and saying anything they could (even outright lies) in order to discredit STM, PowerVR, Hercules and Kyro II.

<<<They never said, &quot;the KryoII has problem X with game Y etc. etc.&quot; They just reminded the sales people that it was an unproven product, and their products have excellent stability.

I know I'm getting repetative but please read the PDF because you've just claimed they didn't do something that they most deffinately did do. They not only said that Kyro II had problem x with games y (eg, &quot;Kyro II will look and run terrible in new games like Black and White, Gaints, Doom3&quot; &quot;Kyro II still broken in MBTR&quot but they also sad that &quot;Kyro II has bad compatability on all games&quot;, all games???, thats insane don't you think? So as you can clearly see they did more then say it had problem x with game y they went as far as to claim it had compatability problems with every game ever made!

<<<No one even knew at the time what the KryoII's stability was going to be like.>>>

Yes they did, just look at Kyro 1 and up the core speed and you have the Kyro II.

<<<If the KryoII was truly a better product than any nVIDIA product in every sense, the consumer would decide what was better, not some marketing associate>>>

Thats the way it should be but thats not the way it would have been if Nvidia had anything to do with it and this is my main point. You say the consumer can decide which product is better, what if all Nvidia's lies had been as effective as they wanted them to be and Kyro II got no manufacturers outside the U.K? Until recently only Hercules were brave enough the bring Kyro II to the world (VDO only make U.K cards) so if Herc had also been scared off by Nvidia then no consumers would have had the chance to decide which product was best and thats my problem with Nvidia's underhanded tactics and lies. It takes away the choice that people should have and anyone that wants to be pissed off at the prospect of Nvidia trying to limited there choices is perfectly justified in feeling that way.

<<<taking a quote directly from Anandtech: &quot;Taking some of the techniques involved in tile based rendering, ATI created their HyperZ technology. HyperZ enables various forms of compression of the data going to the Z-buffer and performs an early culling of polygons so that objects that aren?t visible to the viewer aren?t rendered&quot;. This is what made me lead to my assumption, so correct me if im wrong.>>>

Well that quote is wrong, HyperZ doesn't take any techniques from TBR, its nothing like TBR. TBR waits until every poly has been sent to the card and collected in a bin in video ram, it then cuts the scene into tiles and sends each tile in turn inside the chip were per pixel HSR is performed on each tile before rendering. Then the tile is sent to the framebuffer in ram. AFAICS all HyperZ has in commen with TBR is it attemting a loose form of HSR using per poly hierarchical Z buffering which really doesn't resemble TBR. But I can see why you made your comment about them being similar so fair enough

<<<You mention FSAA and EMBM, created by 3dfx and Matrox, respectively. Both were creted to compete in the 3d market, giving them an edge over their competitors. Competitors such as Nvidia. If Nvidia was not in the picture, it is highly likely that these two technologies would not have been created. Also, you mention it has the specs of a TNT2 Ultra. If Nvidia was not around, competition might have been a bit more stale, and the drive to get higher clock speeds mght not have been so great. So the Kyro2 would probably have inferior specs compared to what it has now, although still with TBR>>>

PowerVR 2 had FSAA years before Voodoo5 was released so 3dfx didn't invent it and they weren't even the first to make a product with it either.

<<<Nasty and underhanded? Yes... nVidia is definitely those things.

Evil? No.>>>

Spot on, of course there not evil but that was clearly an exageration by powervr2.

 

[Mingon]

<< Do you know how long the development of a chipset takes from inception to actuality? A good 2 years in most cases; When ATI were dreaming up the specifications for Radeon you were probably only playing with your TNT2 Ultras, or V3 3500?s! ATI probably had no knowledge of GeForce before embarking on Radeon (well, they probably had a fair idea of the direction of NVIDIA and their competitors were taking, but certainly not the detail). >>



I understand How long it takes to develop a card, the point I was making was that the ATI drivers were still a bit 'flaky' on release, My opinion is that the release of the Geforce forced their hand and that rather than have to spend another month or two getting the drivers right they instead released it early knowing full well the win2k drivers were not good and that the hyperz could cause artifacts.

 

[Archknight]

As Teasy brought my attention to look on the pdf again, they actually have Diablo II in the list for the games that use T&amp;L. Hey even if it use it, I think everyone in here know that Diablo II run best in glide, and Nvidia actually talk about their T&amp;L in Diablo II.
This is just a specific case.

Evil is really exaggeration, but underhanded yes.
If they were stating such claims in public, there is a possiblility ST can sue them, you know graphic card is not a like drugs commercials.

Most people in this thread support the KyroII have their claims and back up what they said, maybe sometime PowerVR2 gone too far. Yet some of you whom supporting Nvidia are trying to make Nvidia look like the all good and perfect.

Radeon LE being crowned the best bang for the buck for ~$70 while the Inno3D KyroII is $108 for retail box. You might can get a OEM or used GTS for that price but where right now you can get a retail GTS at that price. The GTS can be overclocked, but the KyroII is more effective if both card is overclocked on the core. With a generally better 2D -which most of the gamers really spend on - the low end Kyro2 offer a good balance between performance, price and features. This card deserves its credits, not to preach or praise about it but it earned its credits.

 

[k0w]

My name's Blue, and im an Nvidiot.

Thank you for your time,

- k0w

 

[Techie333]

YYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NV MUST DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!