News

NVIDIA Corporation has demonstrated a document criticizing its rival’s latest products as well as revealing certain unpleasant facts about ATI Technologies to press members as well as its own managers.

The History Repeating

The presentation that is marked as NVIDIA’s internal document, says that ATI’s latest RADEON X800 PRO and RADEON X800 XT graphics processors are based on the last year’s architecture and have very suspicious drivers in terms of possible cheating and unfair optimizations. The document also claims that ATI Technologies could not implement Shader Model 3.0 in the RADEON X800 series and also mislead reviewers and customers about core-clocks of the flagship offering RADEON X800 XT.

NVIDIA’s representatives confirmed [H]ard|OCP web-site the authenticity of the slides from the presentation published by 3DCenter.de web-site.

NVIDIA is pretty well-known for pass negative judgments on competing products. In 2001 the company issued a special document for its sales managers and some clients telling that PowerVR’s KYRO graphics processor does not worth attention and is not a potentially feasible technology.

PowerVR’s KYRO competed with NVIDIA’s GeForce2 MX400 at about $150 price-point, showing decent performance in almost all games of that time, but did not support certain features, such as T&L engine. In a lot of cased the KYRO was faster compared to more expensive NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS and ATI RADEON 256 64MB DDR products.

In 2003 NVIDIA also released a document claiming that Futuremark’s 3DMark03 benchmark was unfair and provided certain benefits to arch-rival’s ATI RADEON graphics processors.

ATI’s flagship offering RADEON X800 XT graphics card outperformed NVIDIA’s top-of-the-range GeForce 6800 Ultra in a lot of cases based on the result of numerous gaming benchmarks. But ATI’s RADEON X800-series does not sport some capabilities NVIDIA’s new chips are able to execute, such as Shader Model 3.0.

Belittling Rivals’ Instead of Praising Own Products

Earlier this month ATI Technologies supplied reviewers of ATI RADEON X800-series of graphics cards a document suggesting that they should disable certain trilinear filtering optimizations of NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra GPUs from the ForceWare drivers to ensure “fair competition”. Later it was discovered that ATI also had similar optimizations of trilinear filtering for its RADEON X800-series hardware that could not be disabled by the drivers.

While this is not news that hardware developers bash each other internally and sometimes even issue special documents to humiliate rivals in the eyes of potential clients, the leak of this kind of documents is not praised by the community of hardware enthusiasts, who often start to criticize authors of the documents and issue negative feedback.

Both leading makers of central processing units – Intel and AMD – were noticed spreading documents humbling each other too.

Discussion

Comments currently: 17
Discussion started: 05/26/04 10:36:56 AM
Latest comment: 05/29/04 03:50:00 PM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-6]

1. 
This is a pretty unfair assessment of nVidia, as ATI has done very similar, like in their "Save the Nanosecond" presentation. You should have mentioned such things. It's also very unfotunate that this article makes the claim that "RADEON X800 XT graphics card outperformed NVIDIA’s top-of-the-range GeForce 6800 Ultra in a lot of cases based on the result of numerous gaming benchmarks" and not explain that ATI was using an optimization until later in the article. Ultimately, this is a bash of nVidia, and is hypocritical to say this.
[Posted by: somebody  | Date: 05/26/04 10:36:56 AM]
+ expand thread (10 answers)

2. 
The only constant in the IT Universe, are companies putting other's products down rather than promoting their own. Intel, Microsoft and nVidia are all culprits at spreadding the FUD game.

Now, FUD can be true and it can be a pack of lies (I'm not going to comment on which the ATI cheating aligations are, as I've personally seen no proof other than forum postings), but IMHO it's just a sign of unimaginative marketing. It's just a shame that it works so well.

Anyway, about this supposed cheating thing, they've got room to talk!! It seems a bit hypocritical to me.

srg
[Posted by: srg86  | Date: 05/26/04 11:06:41 AM]

3. 
What I don't get with all these people that stand by nVidia, is how do any filtering algorithms ATi uses invalidate their comparisons? With ATi's algorithm they are still able to deliver the same or better IQ - which is what determines whether it is a cheat or a legitimate optimization.

What I don't get is that reviewers let these fans of companies get in the way of making that distinction - or compromise with competetitors and call something foul when up untill now their IQ recieved praise.
[Posted by: tfranzese  | Date: 05/26/04 03:29:19 PM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)

4. 
I've chosen Nvidia several times but not due to the optimization issue. I prefer the more advanced shader technology because with that I don't feel I'll have to change out cards when games start popping up using the technology. ATI wants to charge you twice to get the perf now and 3.0 later. I've had a lot of personal experience with the drivers of both, using a 9800 256mb for the ATI side, and the drivers are still dramatically superior in the NV camp. That's subject to some degree of preference, but a lot of new games still consistently create bugs in ATI implementations where NV runs fine with the game right out of the box. I guess lastly, I'm not all that worried if I lose a few fps for better quality, better drivers and better technology.

I very much realise that this is not the same choice everyone else makes. And if you are spending this kind of money on one component, you should be happy with your choice whatever it is. I just wanted to highlight that while I found the ATI "optimizations" hilarious because you just knew they were up to it too, if I can get the same quality from either I am fine with optimizing.

I just hope readers enjoy their cards and USE them, since they get old so very fast.

$.02
[Posted by: Anemone  | Date: 05/27/04 12:16:55 AM]

5. 
The only bone I have to pick with nVidia and why I would choose ATi over them is because of application specific optimization. If they could improve their algorithm to deliver better IQ comparible to ATi's and make it run for all games I would be more satisfied. Having the option to disable it would not be an issue if it were as good as ATi's algorithm because the difference is nothing you can notice without going into Photoshop.
[Posted by: tfranzese  | Date: 05/27/04 03:02:37 AM]

6. 
The test from xbit is suspicious, since nvidia is better with opengl or if you want quake3 engine based games (they are good in specific optimizations). But D3D ati is better, but nvidia is better running 3dmark (after they done the specific optimizations), but 3dmark isn't a game, so no good here. Almost forgot Unreal game engine also have the nvidia specific optimizations but you can’t disable them and it default’s to "brilinear".

See this Nvidia Anti cheat script and look at the performance numbers difference!
http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/ati_nvidia_treiberoptimierungen /index4_e.php
[Posted by: I  | Date: 05/28/04 04:40:09 AM]

[1-6]

You must log in to add comments.

Forgot password? Registration

remember me



Related news

Latest News

Saturday, November 7, 2009

3:28 pm | Electronic Book Industry Set to Explode in 2010 – Analysts. E-Book Industry Set to Raise – MIC

1:31 pm | Intel Plans “Fast” Transition to Next-Generation Atom Platform. Intel to Reveal More Details About Pine Trail Platform on December 21

11:27 am | Prices of SSDs Will Get Closer to Hard Drives in Three to Five Years – Chief Executive of OCZ. SSDs Set to Become Much More Affordable in the Future

Friday, November 6, 2009

11:56 am | Microsoft Windows 7 Appears to Be More Popular in Retail than Vista Back in 2007. First Week Windows 7 Sales Surpass Sales of Windows Vista in First Week – Research Firm

9:30 am | Elpida and ProMOS Sign “Technology-for-Capacity” Pact. Elpida to Outsource Production of DRAM to ProMOS