Didn't I basically thumb my nose at ATI's PR Dept as well?
I only threw the Nv links in there to counter the Gstanfor "Typical ATi PR bullsh!t" warcry. Somehow I don't think he was being quite as light-hearted as the rest of us.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And are you trying to say that this is "not" typical ATI PR bullsh!t? Of course it is. But then you felt the need to laydown no less than 3 links to show Nvidia PR bs? What is it that drives you man? This is a legitamit make fun of ATi scenario. Can't you deal with that? Both companies do it. But today, it was ATI's turn at bat. There was no reason to bring Nvidia examples in here except for the unwarranted single purpose of defending ATI. Please stop being so weird.
Originally posted by: Creig
it is a sad attempt to show that X1900 Crossfire is ever-so-slightly faster than the upcoming X7900 GTX SLI in 3DMark 05
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
What ATI, Nvidia and most fanboys (I thought that Rollo would of posted in this topic by now) will never admit is that ATI and Nvidia are now producing video cards which are about equal in performance. You can't make a bad decision going with either so why argue over a few percent difference?
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Originally posted by: ronnn
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
That's pretty much correct - outside of the uproar caused by nVIDIA's Kyro comments (which ended up being proven true by time) and the NV30 8 pipelines claim, nVIDIA has NEVER spread FUD like this, pretty much everything they have said from nV40 onward has been true, factual and non exaggerated.
So you are saying that the scores given are wrong? Only a few days to go and we will see if you are right and the 7900gtx scores higher than the x1900xtx.
Please, show me in one of my posts, where I mentioned anything at all about the accuracy of the scores. The problem with ATi's latest piece of gutter propaganda is not the accuracy or lack thereof of the scores, it is the deliberate exaggeration of the comparative results. If ATi had presented the graph correctly scaled, covering the entire data range, there wouldn't have been an issue.
Personally, I strongly believe that nVIDIA, ATi and indeed ALL corporations/businesses should stick to discussing their product and only their product in press releases/presentations, and let the consumers reach their own conclusions (fat chance of that ever coming to pass unfortunately). Some businesses are more notorious than others when it comings to commenting on and misrepresenting competitors and their products; I'll leave it to to figure out where I think ATi fits on the scale...
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Okay, last slide first. The 5500 is FASTER than 5200, the 9250 is SLOWER than 9200, nVIDIA never compared performance betwen their products and ATi's they merely stated 9250 was slower than 9200 there is no FUD... just fact.
Same with the middle slide, unless you are trying to tell us all that 9250 is actually faster than 9200.... and I sincerecly hope you are not...
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Okay, last slide first. The 5500 is FASTER than 5200, the 9250 is SLOWER than 9200, nVIDIA never compared performance betwen their products and ATi's they merely stated 9250 was slower than 9200 there is no FUD... just fact.
Same with the middle slide, unless you are trying to tell us all that 9250 is actually faster than 9200.... and I sincerecly hope you are not...
Soooo....if the numbers from the OP turn out to be true...then it is also FACT and not FUD. Just because the scaling is a bit weird doesn't make it a lie right? Marketing departments just pick and choose what to show to make their product look good. Which is EXACTLY what NVidia did with the 9200/9250 slide.
If you wanna point out that the X1900/7900GTX graph is misleading...then you also have to say that NVidia is misleading by not stating that the 5200/5500 series was slower than the 4200. Fact vs. fact or marketing vs. marketing.
Consumers definitely don't win with mostly BS presentations from BOTH companies. I wish one company would take the high road and let proper benchmarks do the talking and then hopefully the other company would also follow.
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Okay, last slide first. The 5500 is FASTER than 5200, the 9250 is SLOWER than 9200, nVIDIA never compared performance betwen their products and ATi's they merely stated 9250 was slower than 9200 there is no FUD... just fact.
Same with the middle slide, unless you are trying to tell us all that 9250 is actually faster than 9200.... and I sincerecly hope you are not...
Soooo....if the numbers from the OP turn out to be true...then it is also FACT and not FUD. Just because the scaling is a bit weird doesn't make it a lie right? Marketing departments just pick and choose what to show to make their product look good. Which is EXACTLY what NVidia did with the 9200/9250 slide.
If you wanna point out that the X1900/7900GTX graph is misleading...then you also have to say that NVidia is misleading by not stating that the 5200/5500 series was slower than the 4200. Fact vs. fact or marketing vs. marketing.
Consumers definitely don't win with mostly BS presentations from BOTH companies. I wish one company would take the high road and let proper benchmarks do the talking and then hopefully the other company would also follow.
No, nVIDIA didn't do the same thing with the 9200/9250 slide - they stated 9250 was slower and gave reasons why it was slower, too boot.
In the OP's slide, the result has been sensationalised by deliberate distortion of the scale to make the difference appear larger than it actually is. One has to wonder why they felt the need to do this.
Why would you compare 52/5500 to GF4 series, they are not the same GPU family and nv25 /8 was no longer in production anyway!
The point nVIDIA was making in the slide was that 9250 is based off of 9200 and is slower (when you would reasonably expect it to be faster). Conversely 5500 is based off of 5200 and is faster (not exactly a difficult feat... but still)
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Okay, last slide first. The 5500 is FASTER than 5200, the 9250 is SLOWER than 9200, nVIDIA never compared performance betwen their products and ATi's they merely stated 9250 was slower than 9200 there is no FUD... just fact.
Same with the middle slide, unless you are trying to tell us all that 9250 is actually faster than 9200.... and I sincerecly hope you are not...
Soooo....if the numbers from the OP turn out to be true...then it is also FACT and not FUD. Just because the scaling is a bit weird doesn't make it a lie right? Marketing departments just pick and choose what to show to make their product look good. Which is EXACTLY what NVidia did with the 9200/9250 slide.
If you wanna point out that the X1900/7900GTX graph is misleading...then you also have to say that NVidia is misleading by not stating that the 5200/5500 series was slower than the 4200. Fact vs. fact or marketing vs. marketing.
Consumers definitely don't win with mostly BS presentations from BOTH companies. I wish one company would take the high road and let proper benchmarks do the talking and then hopefully the other company would also follow.
No, nVIDIA didn't do the same thing with the 9200/9250 slide - they stated 9250 was slower and gave reasons why it was slower, too boot.
In the OP's slide, the result has been sensationalised by deliberate distortion of the scale to make the difference appear larger than it actually is. One has to wonder why they felt the need to do this.
Why would you compare 52/5500 to GF4 series, they are not the same GPU family and nv25 /8 was no longer in production anyway!
The point nVIDIA was making in the slide was that 9250 is based off of 9200 and is slower (when you would reasonably expect it to be faster). Conversely 5500 is based off of 5200 and is faster (not exactly a difficult feat... but still)
Which was the Inqs point. It is "British" humour.Originally posted by: RobertR1
Wow...you guys get worked up over everything. The whole slide is funny, at best. Anyone with common sense can see that. Just have a laugh and move on, ffs.
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
No, nVIDIA didn't do the same thing with the 9200/9250 slide - they stated 9250 was slower and gave reasons why it was slower, too boot.
In the OP's slide, the result has been sensationalised by deliberate distortion of the scale to make the difference appear larger than it actually is. One has to wonder why they felt the need to do this.
Why would you compare 52/5500 to GF4 series, they are not the same GPU family and nv25 /8 was no longer in production anyway!
The point nVIDIA was making in the slide was that 9250 is based off of 9200 and is slower (when you would reasonably expect it to be faster). Conversely 5500 is based off of 5200 and is faster (not exactly a difficult feat... but still)
Originally posted by: Takeoff250
Wow.. let's all applause those incredible comments.. what a big discovery here..
All this fanboyisme .. people are acting as they did plaide allegance to a new god... wake up kids, I really hope all those people bashing a video card company are no older than 13 years old.. please...
And for the record, for all the people who are only posting to get big posts count.. read this thread posted 3 days ago..
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1816669&enterthread=y
click on the third link:
leadtek 7600gt specs and benchmark
nice graph by NVIDIA: http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b14/denniszzz/7600GTChart.jpg
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Originally posted by: ronnn
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
That's pretty much correct - outside of the uproar caused by nVIDIA's Kyro comments (which ended up being proven true by time) and the NV30 8 pipelines claim, nVIDIA has NEVER spread FUD like this, pretty much everything they have said from nV40 onward has been true, factual and non exaggerated.
So you are saying that the scores given are wrong? Only a few days to go and we will see if you are right and the 7900gtx scores higher than the x1900xtx.
Please, show me in one of my posts, where I mentioned anything at all about the accuracy of the scores. The problem with ATi's latest piece of gutter propaganda is not the accuracy or lack thereof of the scores, it is the deliberate exaggeration of the comparative results. If ATi had presented the graph correctly scaled, covering the entire data range, there wouldn't have been an issue.
Personally, I strongly believe that nVIDIA, ATi and indeed ALL corporations/businesses should stick to discussing their product and only their product in press releases/presentations, and let the consumers reach their own conclusions (fat chance of that ever coming to pass unfortunately). Some businesses are more notorious than others when it comings to commenting on and misrepresenting competitors and their products; I'll leave it to to figure out where I think ATi fits on the scale...
the graph is correctly scaled . . . they only show the top of the graph.
i much prefer ATI's traditional marketing to nVidia's Viral marketing.
Originally posted by: Regs
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
What ATI, Nvidia and most fanboys (I thought that Rollo would of posted in this topic by now) will never admit is that ATI and Nvidia are now producing video cards which are about equal in performance. You can't make a bad decision going with either so why argue over a few percent difference?
Agreed, and he is banned.
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
No, nVIDIA didn't do the same thing with the 9200/9250 slide - they stated 9250 was slower and gave reasons why it was slower, too boot.
In the OP's slide, the result has been sensationalised by deliberate distortion of the scale to make the difference appear larger than it actually is. One has to wonder why they felt the need to do this.
Why would you compare 52/5500 to GF4 series, they are not the same GPU family and nv25 /8 was no longer in production anyway!
The point nVIDIA was making in the slide was that 9250 is based off of 9200 and is slower (when you would reasonably expect it to be faster). Conversely 5500 is based off of 5200 and is faster (not exactly a difficult feat... but still)
I agree that the 9200/9250 slide was not a lie and I never said it was. I was just arguing that if you are going to be that critical of ATI for creating a chart that also may not be lying (which we still don't know whether it is real or not) BUT WHICH BENDS THE TRUTH A BIT...then why not say the same thing about the 9200/9250 slide where they show the 9250 is slower than the 9200 but fail to mention that the 5200 was slower than their PREVIOUS generation part. They also left out some important information.
I was comparing the 52/5500 to GF4 series because isn't it REASONABLE to assume that the newer generation part would be faster than the previous generation part (and it's pretty ridiculous that it's not in this case)??? Only a marketing department would conveniently forget that fact. Imagine if the X1800 was slower than the X800 series!!! Oh boy, ATI would have gotten a severe lashing from a lot of people here. So, for NVidia to say the 9250 was slower than the 9200 is ludicrous (although it might be true) when their own PREVIOUS gen. part was slower than their new gen. part.
You earlier said "typical ATI PR BS". You should have said "typical PR BS". Both companies do it. They both "bend the truth" so they cannot be called out on an out and out lie and to make their product look better.
Originally posted by: Takeoff250
nice graph by NVIDIA: http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b14/denniszzz/7600GTChart.jpg
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
No, nVIDIA didn't do the same thing with the 9200/9250 slide - they stated 9250 was slower and gave reasons why it was slower, too boot.
In the OP's slide, the result has been sensationalised by deliberate distortion of the scale to make the difference appear larger than it actually is. One has to wonder why they felt the need to do this.
Why would you compare 52/5500 to GF4 series, they are not the same GPU family and nv25 /8 was no longer in production anyway!
The point nVIDIA was making in the slide was that 9250 is based off of 9200 and is slower (when you would reasonably expect it to be faster). Conversely 5500 is based off of 5200 and is faster (not exactly a difficult feat... but still)
I agree that the 9200/9250 slide was not a lie and I never said it was. I was just arguing that if you are going to be that critical of ATI for creating a chart that also may not be lying (which we still don't know whether it is real or not) BUT WHICH BENDS THE TRUTH A BIT...then why not say the same thing about the 9200/9250 slide where they show the 9250 is slower than the 9200 but fail to mention that the 5200 was slower than their PREVIOUS generation part. They also left out some important information.
I was comparing the 52/5500 to GF4 series because isn't it REASONABLE to assume that the newer generation part would be faster than the previous generation part (and it's pretty ridiculous that it's not in this case)??? Only a marketing department would conveniently forget that fact. Imagine if the X1800 was slower than the X800 series!!! Oh boy, ATI would have gotten a severe lashing from a lot of people here. So, for NVidia to say the 9250 was slower than the 9200 is ludicrous (although it might be true) when their own PREVIOUS gen. part was slower than their new gen. part.
You earlier said "typical ATI PR BS". You should have said "typical PR BS". Both companies do it. They both "bend the truth" so they cannot be called out on an out and out lie and to make their product look better.
Originally posted by: thilan29
You earlier said "typical ATI PR BS". You should have said "typical PR BS". Both companies do it. They both "bend the truth" so they cannot be called out on an out and out lie and to make their product look better.
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
No, nVIDIA didn't do the same thing with the 9200/9250 slide - they stated 9250 was slower and gave reasons why it was slower, too boot.
In the OP's slide, the result has been sensationalised by deliberate distortion of the scale to make the difference appear larger than it actually is. One has to wonder why they felt the need to do this.
Why would you compare 52/5500 to GF4 series, they are not the same GPU family and nv25 /8 was no longer in production anyway!
The point nVIDIA was making in the slide was that 9250 is based off of 9200 and is slower (when you would reasonably expect it to be faster). Conversely 5500 is based off of 5200 and is faster (not exactly a difficult feat... but still)
I agree that the 9200/9250 slide was not a lie and I never said it was. I was just arguing that if you are going to be that critical of ATI for creating a chart that also may not be lying (which we still don't know whether it is real or not) BUT WHICH BENDS THE TRUTH A BIT...then why not say the same thing about the 9200/9250 slide where they show the 9250 is slower than the 9200 but fail to mention that the 5200 was slower than their PREVIOUS generation part. They also left out some important information.
I was comparing the 52/5500 to GF4 series because isn't it REASONABLE to assume that the newer generation part would be faster than the previous generation part (and it's pretty ridiculous that it's not in this case)??? Only a marketing department would conveniently forget that fact. Imagine if the X1800 was slower than the X800 series!!! Oh boy, ATI would have gotten a severe lashing from a lot of people here. So, for NVidia to say the 9250 was slower than the 9200 is ludicrous (although it might be true) when their own PREVIOUS gen. part was slower than their new gen. part.
You earlier said "typical ATI PR BS". You should have said "typical PR BS". Both companies do it. They both "bend the truth" so they cannot be called out on an out and out lie and to make their product look better.
If you want to compare the ATi 9250 to a previous gen part, you will have to compare it to the radeon 7500 series, not to 9200 (which was a bastardization of 9100 which was a bastardisation of 9000, which was a bastardization of 8500) The 8500 was the only one in that series that had anything remotely resembling performance.
nVidia was comparing GPU's of the same generation for a very good reason. as these GPU's age and become better understood by the IHV and the FAB, there is a reasonable expectation (backed up by historical events) that future GPU's within that same generation derived from a revision of that GPU will be faster than what went before, not slower.
nVIDIA rarely bends the truth in these PR presentations. Except for the 8 pipeline FX claim and failing to mention Sm2.0 vs GF2 with the farcry comparison I can't bring too many examples of them lying to mind.
On the other hand ATi routinely lies their arse off in this PR presentations, and you'll find plenty of proof of that, if you search back through my recent posting history here, since I've had a fair bit to say on the matter before now, and I'll keep right on saying it until ATi drags themselves out of the gutter.
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
If you want to compare the ATi 9250 to a previous gen part, you will have to compare it to the radeon 7500 series, not to 9200 (which was a bastardization of 9100 which was a bastardisation of 9000, which was a bastardization of 8500) The 8500 was the only one in that series that had anything remotely resembling performance.
nVidia was comparing GPU's of the same generation for a very good reason. as these GPU's age and become better understood by the IHV and the FAB, there is a reasonable expectation (backed up by historical events) that future GPU's within that same generation derived from a revision of that GPU will be faster than what went before, not slower.
what are you babbling about now?Originally posted by: Gstanfor
One wonders why they would father all these bastards in the first place given that they and their fans claim ATi set off the DX9 revolution... 18 months of DX9 leadership ATi had and hardly a DX9 game to show for it... Of course selling mountains of cheap DX8 hardware to the lowend couldn't have possibly had anything to do with it - it was all nVIDIA's fault, according to the fanATics...