Sander Sassen replies...

[MBrown]

This is just like a soap opera or something. Anyway wouldn't it be interesting if the benches sanders did post were right and everything ATI said was just bs trying to defend themselves. Im not say thats whats happening but it would be crazy. I dont know what the deal is. I just know I got a 7800gt for $375 and its going to suit my needs just fine....

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: munky
The point of 3dmock is to show you that the new shiny card you just bought only gets 20 fps in some uber-leet game engine. And with all the SLI GTX users pulling in 99 fps in 3dmock05, I think this calls for a new version.

Yeah, actually, I have never been that impressed with 3DMark and it gets less impressive every year. The game engines they write are not very effecient and do not supply with eye candy that is jaw dropping. Asside from comparing to other peoples systems, I find the benchmark next to worthless. To think, some people pay for the full version. Their money, their right though.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: munky
The point of 3dmock is to show you that the new shiny card you just bought only gets 20 fps in some uber-leet game engine. And with all the SLI GTX users pulling in 99 fps in 3dmock05, I think this calls for a new version.

Yeah, actually, I have never been that impressed with 3DMark and it gets less impressive every year. The game engines they write are not very effecient and do not supply with eye candy that is jaw dropping. Asside from comparing to other peoples systems, I find the benchmark next to worthless. To think, some people pay for the full version. Their money, their right though.

i think crytek should make 3Dmock......that video of the new crytek engine looked absolutely AWESOME

 

[Insomniak]

DRAMA!!11

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: munky
The point of 3dmock is to show you that the new shiny card you just bought only gets 20 fps in some uber-leet game engine. And with all the SLI GTX users pulling in 99 fps in 3dmock05, I think this calls for a new version.

Yeah, actually, I have never been that impressed with 3DMark and it gets less impressive every year. The game engines they write are not very effecient and do not supply with eye candy that is jaw dropping. Asside from comparing to other peoples systems, I find the benchmark next to worthless. To think, some people pay for the full version. Their money, their right though.

i think crytek should make 3Dmock......that video of the new crytek engine looked absolutely AWESOME

That would be great as would having unreal 3 at the core of 3Dmock, for 3Dmock to be useful it needs to have a real game engine inside it.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: munky
The point of 3dmock is to show you that the new shiny card you just bought only gets 20 fps in some uber-leet game engine. And with all the SLI GTX users pulling in 99 fps in 3dmock05, I think this calls for a new version.

Yeah, actually, I have never been that impressed with 3DMark and it gets less impressive every year. The game engines they write are not very effecient and do not supply with eye candy that is jaw dropping. Asside from comparing to other peoples systems, I find the benchmark next to worthless. To think, some people pay for the full version. Their money, their right though.

i think crytek should make 3Dmock......that video of the new crytek engine looked absolutely AWESOME

That would be great as would having unreal 3 at the core of 3Dmock, for 3Dmock to be useful it needs to have a real game engine inside it.

Amen to that... I am pretty biased for CryTek, but I seriously think they are going to run away with the lead in 3D game engines... They are just a top notch programming team.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: munky
The point of 3dmock is to show you that the new shiny card you just bought only gets 20 fps in some uber-leet game engine. And with all the SLI GTX users pulling in 99 fps in 3dmock05, I think this calls for a new version.

Yeah, actually, I have never been that impressed with 3DMark and it gets less impressive every year. The game engines they write are not very effecient and do not supply with eye candy that is jaw dropping. Asside from comparing to other peoples systems, I find the benchmark next to worthless. To think, some people pay for the full version. Their money, their right though.

i think crytek should make 3Dmock......that video of the new crytek engine looked absolutely AWESOME

That would be great as would having unreal 3 at the core of 3Dmock, for 3Dmock to be useful it needs to have a real game engine inside it.

Amen to that... I am pretty biased for CryTek, but I seriously think they are going to run away with the lead in 3D game engines... They are just a top notch programming team.

even if they did use pirated software :evil:

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: munky
The point of 3dmock is to show you that the new shiny card you just bought only gets 20 fps in some uber-leet game engine. And with all the SLI GTX users pulling in 99 fps in 3dmock05, I think this calls for a new version.

Yeah, actually, I have never been that impressed with 3DMark and it gets less impressive every year. The game engines they write are not very effecient and do not supply with eye candy that is jaw dropping. Asside from comparing to other peoples systems, I find the benchmark next to worthless. To think, some people pay for the full version. Their money, their right though.

i think crytek should make 3Dmock......that video of the new crytek engine looked absolutely AWESOME

That would be great as would having unreal 3 at the core of 3Dmock, for 3Dmock to be useful it needs to have a real game engine inside it.

Amen to that... I am pretty biased for CryTek, but I seriously think they are going to run away with the lead in 3D game engines... They are just a top notch programming team.

even if they did use pirated software :evil:

That wasn't proven in the slightest. A past employee just wanted to get even... The police raided the complex and found nothing. They released the product before Doom3 and HL2 and was easily on par with those engines.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Bumpety, bump. Bumpety bump. My life for you. Oh yes
The core turned and looked at him making him feel hot and cold all at once. The core made him burn like the fires he set in Ohio yet turned his shriveled soul to ice. As his memory attuned to the bits of flashes that made up his life he turned to his last bastion of hope which is the bench of Wisdom. This bench had odd marks upon it but still shuddering away from the watching, oh yes it always watches like the sleepless chip inside his head) dark silicon eye he sits upon the bench with its odd marks and attempts to fine some measure of himself again. My life for you. Oh yes. I am the silicon man with a plan he whispers over and over in a litany of futile mutterings. All the while the core comes closer, its many pins oscillating with a crystal of highest frequency that manifests between one and two heads created by the very multi-threaded personality of the Silcon man (with a plan). To be continued after taking a (memory) dump....

With all the drama and anger on this thread I just had to write a self-delusional drama of my own.

Chapter II. Revenge of the Canadian eyes of Newt

 

[Sledgehamer70]

Originally posted by: g3pro

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Why should we care what this guy says anyway?

Because it shows a company in distress when it comes to balanced coverage in the media. If ATi doesn't like the results it sees for benchmarks, it will not let those benchmarks get published/let the journalists get the ability to benchmark.

It's a good thing I sold all of my ATi stock in mid-march.

I really feel bad for ATI, as they have been working on this R520 for awhile, I do hope it comes around to be a bit better than what we have seen.

and ya I bought a couple hundred shares of Nvidia at $24 Bucks and man oh man and I making cash from that

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Pabster

Everyone is speculating. I'm giving my opinion. That's what forums are for.

And I'm no nVidiot. I've owned (and still own) several ATi cards.

And you are dead wrong on the last ASSumption. I'd prefer if R520 wiped the floor with 7800GTX. Or even had at least a 10%+ advantage. This would cause 7800 series prices to drop through the rafters. I just don't see it happening.

I don't know if you've been in the Beyond3D thread but the ATI rep, Bania, is playing a little game there. He's layed out some 3DMark05 scores for what current cards get when not limited by CPU, and then asked people to guess about the R520.

6800 Ultra: 5800
X850XT PE: 6300
7800 GTX: 7700

R520XT: ?

Do you think he would be teasing people with a game like that if he didn't have a number on paper that was a significant improvement?

ATI has competent people that do benchmarking with their own cards. Do you think ATI would let their rep make a statement like "clearly dominates the fastest competitive hardware" if they didn't have the numbers to back it up?

and now all of the sudden 3dmarks are the standard to which all performance is measured.... :roll:

exactly CaiNaM :thumbsup:

3d mock is merely a round about guide. its sensitive to vertex shader power as well isnt it? so with 10 (compared to 8) vertex shaders, at 600Mhz (compared to 430mhz) i wonder why ATI would maybe do well in 3Dmock.

plus, i refuse to take benchmarks that originate from the actual company who make the product as word, who can be more biased than the people who make the card?

Its not "all the sudden". Its importand to NV, so why not ATi? I dont care for it, but there are many people, and companies who do.

Originally posted by: Topweasel

His numbers are off. I just did mine yesterday I have a 4400+ (which should act as a 3700+) and a Factory OC 7800GTX (BFG) and I got 7950 (roughly) . So while it is overclocked from Nvidias suggested it is only just barely and do to the performance steps I am not sure if it benifits from tht OC at all. My CPU Single core wise is much slower then the fastest one out so that should easily make up for the faster card. I would think all things fair it would probably hit 8000+ with the fastest CPU.

Your card is overclocked, and gets a higher score. Also drivers can impact the score by 100 or so, even more sometimes. There are also various detail settings to mess with in the CC, that also impact the score. What he said seems to be right on target, give or take.

 

[flexy]

>>>
As mentioned the benchmarks we?ve posted were run on pre-production hardware and thus they could be far off from the actual performance of the R520 architecture.
>>>

HOWEVER - he felt the need to post this numbers as first "R520 benchmarks" on his sad website - and AFTERWARDS he admits/states that it was a pre-production board merely brought at XT/PRO speeds - and ADMITS that those number could be "FAR OFF".

This is probably the most important statement (i dont even bother reading all that cr@p besides from what i read on DH/B3D already) - shows how "reliable" this website/guy is.

Let's see: Publish benchmark scores and make a big tata about the first R520 benchmarks and a week later i tell everyone "those numbers could be far off".....

What a tool and fool, incompetent and driven by personal agenda against ATI etc....for sure NOT where i want my personal hardware news from !

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: flexy
>>>
As mentioned the benchmarks we?ve posted were run on pre-production hardware and thus they could be far off from the actual performance of the R520 architecture.
>>>

HOWEVER - he felt the need to post this numbers as first "R520 benchmarks" on his sad website - and AFTERWARDS he admits/states that it was a pre-production board merely brought at XT/PRO speeds - and ADMITS that those number could be "FAR OFF".

This is probably the most important statement (i dont even bother reading all that cr@p besides from what i read on DH/B3D already) - shows how "reliable" this website/guy is.

Let's see: Publish benchmark scores and make a big tata about the first R520 benchmarks and a week later i tell everyone "those numbers could be far off".....

What a tool and fool, incompetent and driven by personal agenda against ATI etc....for sure NOT where i want my personal hardware news from !

QFT

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: flexy
>>>
[I don't need to quote the whole block of text a second time ]

I agree as well - this is one of the most damning point about Sander's article. This edit and backstep is worse than some Tom's Hardware Guide reversals .

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: sandorski
QFT

forgive me my ignorance on this particular subject... but what is "QFT"?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: sandorski
QFT

forgive me my ignorance on this particular subject... but what is "QFT"?

Quoted For Truth.

 

[kylebisme]

In case any of you are interested:

Sander proving what an idiot he is years ago.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: flexy
>>>
As mentioned the benchmarks we?ve posted were run on pre-production hardware and thus they could be far off from the actual performance of the R520 architecture.
>>>

HOWEVER - he felt the need to post this numbers as first "R520 benchmarks" on his sad website - and AFTERWARDS he admits/states that it was a pre-production board merely brought at XT/PRO speeds - and ADMITS that those number could be "FAR OFF".

This is probably the most important statement (i dont even bother reading all that cr@p besides from what i read on DH/B3D already) - shows how "reliable" this website/guy is.

Let's see: Publish benchmark scores and make a big tata about the first R520 benchmarks and a week later i tell everyone "those numbers could be far off".....

What a tool and fool, incompetent and driven by personal agenda against ATI etc....for sure NOT where i want my personal hardware news from !

I am not sure where you are going with this...Do you have some links to other r520 benchmarks?? NO?? Then be quiet. what he stated was technically true.....Also preproduction or preview benches are just as valid as any since they were done on the r520...Therefo9r they are r520 benches. This is done on taped out silicon so you wont see much of any changes other then software driver support and finalizing speed...So I am not sure how you disregard the benchmarks cause they are on preproduction.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: sandorski
QFT

forgive me my ignorance on this particular subject... but what is "QFT"?

Quoted For Truth.

ahhh.. ok, thanks

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
In case any of you are interested:

Sander proving what an idiot he is years ago.

and that's been posted in multiple times in multiple threads already.. as well as SS having directly responded to it in B3D forums.....

 

[kylebisme]

I haven't been around here much lately but I read though this thread and didn't find anything about it so I desided to add it. Anyway, I'm crious to see the moron's response.

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
and that's been posted in multiple times in multiple threads already.. as well as SS having directly responded to it in B3D forums.....

But he kept ignoring why he didnt heed his own advice, figures.

 

[kylebisme]

Never underestimate the power of stupidity.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: flexy
>>>
As mentioned the benchmarks we?ve posted were run on pre-production hardware and thus they could be far off from the actual performance of the R520 architecture.
>>>

HOWEVER - he felt the need to post this numbers as first "R520 benchmarks" on his sad website - and AFTERWARDS he admits/states that it was a pre-production board merely brought at XT/PRO speeds - and ADMITS that those number could be "FAR OFF".

This is probably the most important statement (i dont even bother reading all that cr@p besides from what i read on DH/B3D already) - shows how "reliable" this website/guy is.

Let's see: Publish benchmark scores and make a big tata about the first R520 benchmarks and a week later i tell everyone "those numbers could be far off".....

What a tool and fool, incompetent and driven by personal agenda against ATI etc....for sure NOT where i want my personal hardware news from !

I am not sure where you are going with this...Do you have some links to other r520 benchmarks?? NO?? Then be quiet. what he stated was technically true.....Also preproduction or preview benches are just as valid as any since they were done on the r520...Therefo9r they are r520 benches. This is done on taped out silicon so you wont see much of any changes other then software driver support and finalizing speed...So I am not sure how you disregard the benchmarks cause they are on preproduction.

they can be disregarded because they should be disregarded

anyone who gives credence to this crap really hasn't been paying attention

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: flexy
>>>
As mentioned the benchmarks we?ve posted were run on pre-production hardware and thus they could be far off from the actual performance of the R520 architecture.
>>>

HOWEVER - he felt the need to post this numbers as first "R520 benchmarks" on his sad website - and AFTERWARDS he admits/states that it was a pre-production board merely brought at XT/PRO speeds - and ADMITS that those number could be "FAR OFF".

This is probably the most important statement (i dont even bother reading all that cr@p besides from what i read on DH/B3D already) - shows how "reliable" this website/guy is.

Let's see: Publish benchmark scores and make a big tata about the first R520 benchmarks and a week later i tell everyone "those numbers could be far off".....

What a tool and fool, incompetent and driven by personal agenda against ATI etc....for sure NOT where i want my personal hardware news from !

I am not sure where you are going with this...Do you have some links to other r520 benchmarks?? NO?? Then be quiet. what he stated was technically true.....Also preproduction or preview benches are just as valid as any since they were done on the r520...Therefo9r they are r520 benches. This is done on taped out silicon so you wont see much of any changes other then software driver support and finalizing speed...So I am not sure how you disregard the benchmarks cause they are on preproduction.

they can be disregarded because they should be disregarded

anyone who gives credence to this crap really hasn't been paying attention

I have been paying attention just not as fantical and close mided as some...I guess I will just start calling everyone liars with no proof.....ATI fanatics are definitely worth a laugh...maybe I should channel that into pity!!!!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: flexy
>>>
As mentioned the benchmarks we?ve posted were run on pre-production hardware and thus they could be far off from the actual performance of the R520 architecture.
>>>

HOWEVER - he felt the need to post this numbers as first "R520 benchmarks" on his sad website - and AFTERWARDS he admits/states that it was a pre-production board merely brought at XT/PRO speeds - and ADMITS that those number could be "FAR OFF".

This is probably the most important statement (i dont even bother reading all that cr@p besides from what i read on DH/B3D already) - shows how "reliable" this website/guy is.

Let's see: Publish benchmark scores and make a big tata about the first R520 benchmarks and a week later i tell everyone "those numbers could be far off".....

What a tool and fool, incompetent and driven by personal agenda against ATI etc....for sure NOT where i want my personal hardware news from !

I am not sure where you are going with this...Do you have some links to other r520 benchmarks?? NO?? Then be quiet. what he stated was technically true.....Also preproduction or preview benches are just as valid as any since they were done on the r520...Therefo9r they are r520 benches. This is done on taped out silicon so you wont see much of any changes other then software driver support and finalizing speed...So I am not sure how you disregard the benchmarks cause they are on preproduction.

they can be disregarded because they should be disregarded

anyone who gives credence to this crap really hasn't been paying attention

I have been paying attention just not as fantical and close mided as some...I guess I will just start calling everyone liars with no proof.....ATI fanatics are definitely worth a laugh...maybe I should channel that into pity!!!!

it'd be a change from defending liars

certainly you are just as closed minded as most if not some. . . . you are clearly biased in nVidia's favor