Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nvidia logo on new games?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 13, 2007 9:28:22 PM

Whats with nvidia putting their logo on all the new games? things like http://iax-tech.com/video/3870/38705.htm really make me wonder.

Do all nvidia cards simply not display all the detail so to get better fps? I always felt that ATi cards had better picture quality, could this be because the ATi card is actually rendering everything on the map?

More about : nvidia logo games

November 13, 2007 9:53:59 PM

That was a driver glitch that the new 169.09 drivers have fixed. It may very well have been an attempt by Nvidia to "cheat" in order to get better reviews for the Crysis demo, but we will probably never know for sure.

edit: this is in response to the first post. I have no idea what that second one is talking about.
Related resources
November 13, 2007 10:07:23 PM

It's all about money, just because it says "nvidia the way it's meant to be played" Doesn’t mean it runs better on nvidia. Or does it? No, but that’s the curiosity that nvidia pays for to make people think that logic. So that maybe people will be their product over their competitor (ATI)
November 13, 2007 10:22:52 PM

its advertising...
November 13, 2007 10:47:22 PM

Is it safe to buy an ATi card with all the pro nvidia marketing that all the game studios are doing?
November 13, 2007 10:48:28 PM

advertising... shoving it down our throats. just like mircosoft and vista
November 13, 2007 11:12:10 PM

Are there any honest hardware manufacturers? Who sell spec and not "optimised" drivers.
But this business of what nvidia does, and is continuing to do, is that even legal? Can't someone take that up with the BBB?

If GM sold cars with 4 air bags, but only 2 are ever used, I'm sure they would be facing litigation.

Just because no one dies due to the lack of proper rendering (skipping frames,details etc..) isn't that fraud?
November 13, 2007 11:50:42 PM

How about you stop being a troll...

It was a beta driver... it had bugs... get over it.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
November 14, 2007 12:12:41 AM

cruiseoveride said:
things like this too http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4100&Itemid=1 why is the driver initiating the card as a rv630

Why does ATi and Nvidia do sketchy things like this.


As long as it renders everything correctly, why would it matter what the DeviceID sees it as?

A DeviceID string in the driver including the name of another product is hardly as sketchy as rendering bugs like those floptimizations in Crysis or the newly discovered ones in Gears of War;
http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=203295

a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
November 14, 2007 12:22:24 AM

skittle said:

It was a beta driver...


That'd be fine if reviewers didn't review with beta drivers and nVidia didn't rely on beta drivers instead of WHQL certified releases.

If EB didn't publish this would nVidia have said anything before the launch of Crysis and after the HD3800 launched or would they have waited, then changed things after the performance results were published and then later say what everyone is using as an excuse now. "They're beta drivers..."

Seriously, if there was no history of such shenanigans fine, but considering that the Crysis floptimization is very similar to the FartCry floptimization, where renaming the file turned off the floptimization but at a slight performance hit, why should anyone not consider this an issue?

Hopefully the one thing to come out of this will be the return to using certified drivers instead of the hand delivered betas plopped on the doorstep conveniently for the latest review.
November 14, 2007 12:25:36 AM

oh man
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
November 14, 2007 12:49:46 AM

cruiseoveride said:
Are there any honest hardware manufacturers? Who sell spec and not "optimised" drivers.
But this business of what nvidia does, and is continuing to do, is that even legal? Can't someone take that up with the BBB?


How would you take this up with the BBB?
Reviewers had to back track in the days when people seemed convinced that there was blatant cheating in the past, there's no way this would make a case for the BBB.

Quote:
If GM sold cars with 4 air bags, but only 2 are ever used, I'm sure they would be facing litigation.


That doesn't make sense. I assume you meant only 2 work/function. That' si a safety issue, these issues are essnetially preference issues. The discussion of IQ has gone on since well before the 'Quack' optimization. And what usually changes something from a potential cheat to a true benificial optimization is if it appears overtly in future driver release to the benifit of rht gamer. Floptimizations usually dissapear once they are notice because either they are a bug or else a discovered 'questionable advantage' which is not desired in the next release.

Sometimes while it reduces quality it might be for a beneficial reason. If the GF6300 cannot play Crysis at all, some partial precision calls to allow it to play on low setting and low resolution would be worth it versus a prettier still painting. Just like those who enjoyed Oblivion as OLDblivion on their FXs, GF4s, Radeon 8500 and intel GMA 9xx cards were likely happy to simply play the game, even if it wasn't the way it looks on a GF7/X1K card.

Quote:
Just because no one dies due to the lack of proper rendering (skipping frames,details etc..) isn't that fraud?


Explain how that would work? What part of it is fraudulent? You buy the hardware and nVidia provides the drivers, there is no promise or guarantee on the results other than the vague "best played on..." "for the best graphics" etc, which are always subjective enough to not have any legal weight to them.

The main thing is scrutiny, and hopefully the latest round of issues will bring greater scrutiny to the reviews, most of which were probably fine with running 'fire & forget' benchmarks and not looking any deeper.

In the end it's still up to the consumer to weigh which issues matter to them, and whethe they're enough to overturn the benifits of product a vs product b. We just need to rely on the reviewers to do their job in finding out all they can including these potnetial issues so everyone looks at the products in their full capacity, not some unbalanced comparison.
November 14, 2007 2:45:54 AM

i hear you ape.

I just find it difficult to justify to myself the purchase of an ATi card when i'm bombarded by "Nvidia, the way its meant to be played" , even if logic says otherwise it just feels a little strange.

Is there any technical justification behind the nvidia logo on the new games? or does it simply equal driver "floptimisation"?
November 14, 2007 2:48:50 AM

i just wish that amd would come out with another Athlon 64-pentium4 shaker and put nvidia on proper course.
November 14, 2007 2:57:48 AM

i always thought when it said "nvidia meant to be played" that the company used nvidia gfx cards to make the game on..and hence it was make on and optimized (to some extent) on the nvidia card. Also that nvidia would have access on how to optimize the game on its drivers since they were doing business....I always knew it was advertisement and that ati could perform better on the games if not just as well...but if you took 2 competing cards, one made by ati and other by nvidia, (that are always tied on other games) the nvidia would perform better...for that specific "nvidia" based/made game...but i guess im wrong? I tended to believe this because I would consistently see ATI beat Nvidia on HL2 (which was ATI endorsed) even though Nvidia would beat it other games...so it was like...endorsements = optimization for that game...idk...

I didn't think Nvidia was so lame as to put that "meant to be played" without doing optimization of some kinda...i guess i might of given them the benefit of the doubt...
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
November 14, 2007 3:03:47 AM

I wouldn't worry about TWIMTP marketing PR anymore than DX10.1, they both have about equal weight.

Many TWIMTBP games play better on ATi cards and many GITG games play better on nV cards, so it doesn't mean all that much other than occasionally giving you a few days better beta support (both are usually good around the actual launch date).

nVidia LOGO on games, like the ATi one means, that the developer was given all the support they asked for from the IHV (ie nVidia / ATi), and likley some other incentives. However it doesn't mean that it will play better, that it will be better or worse optimized. Looking at Oblivion as an example, it was a TWIMTBP game, and yet almost all the development was on Radeon 9800s and then X1900s, with the addition of the Geforce cards at about the end of development. This happens both ways, and I'm sure any game that has the ATi stamp released this winter likely started early on primarily on Geforce8800 rigs before being then run on HD2K/3K rigs, and may even have gone back and forth from GF6 to GF7 to X1K to GF8 to HD2K+.
Developers just hurt themselves is they don't build for both companies' hardware.
!