Now this looks serious for Nvidia!

[Ion]

<A HREF="http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=technical&Number=25270&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1" target="_new">http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=technical&Number=25270&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1</A>

NV38 seem pretty dodgy to Dx team. :tongue:

 

[Ion]

Nvidia's NV38 (along with the rest of the FX series) has been dubbed as a substandard card by team dx. This means that DX will not include NV in it's developement range for directx10. Team DX made the decision "as a favor to the graphics industry". Team DX claims that NV violated their partnership agreement by changing the DX9 code with their latest set of drivers as caught by Xbit labs recently. This violates the licensing agreement and conpromises DX's quality in order to make it seem as if ATi and NV cards alike display the same image quality (which would be really bad in this case). This can only be fixed by reinstalling dx9b. So by all means, Do Not Download Detonator 50 Drivers!!! Along with this, NV has been caught cheating on benchmarks as they usually do over at Anandtech . Notice that all of the realworld benchmarks perform better on ATi, yet all synthetic benchmarks perform better by a large margin on NV hardware. "These violations are inexcusable" said a DX employee, and I'd have to agree. <b>So without the inside drive on DX10, NV will not be able to even optimize their cards</b> as ATi can and will probably fall into bankruptsy just as 3dfx did before them...

 

[RCPilot]

Man!

Dazzle them with Brilliance, or Baffle them with BS!

 

[Ion]

Take it as rumor, but i doubt it is a HOAX!

 

[speeduk]

I take everything I read on here as a hoax until I see an official statement or something credible. Still nice to see a bit of rumorage about.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)

 

[spud]

DX is directx I assume??? If thats the case you cant just go and black book them. Thats a bunch of law suits waiting to happen.

As well 3DFX fell because of poor vision and bad timeing. nVidia was there to pick up the peices thats all.

~Jeremy
Unofficial Intel PR Spokesman.(nVidia fill in rep for CoolSquirtle)

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up In My Buddies Face!!!</A>

 

[Ion]

Well MS is pissed at Nvidia for doing shady things in DX9 games to gain performance. :tongue:

Plus that XBOX fisco, i wouldnt doubt that MS wouldnt try to find ways to make Nvidia's life harder.

 

[speeduk]

The same happened to 3dfx (black booked). TBH if Nvidea is just gonna do what it wants and f**k DX9 like it is doing, who can blame the DX team for sticking up for their API? Thats if its true, which it probably isn't, but it makes you think......

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)

 

[ufo_warviper]

Ion, keep us posted on this until we find out if this rumor is a bunch of bullcrap or actually has some truth to it.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

 

[TKS]

Well they could always fall back to glide i guess

----------
<b>I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman! </b> <i>Homer Simpson</i>

 

[spud]

But they are currently in testing DX9.0c right now designed to appease to the FX so this hardly seems right.

As well Microsoft owns DirectX and Gates gets pissed when someone steps out of his shadow to make a point. This sounds to be some dude will too much time to think on his hands and is trying to play out some stupid fantasy.

Microsoft isnt in the business to fvck hardware companies they are in the business to fvck software companies.

~Jeremy
Unofficial Intel PR spokesman.(nVidia fill in rep for CoolSquirtle)

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up In My Buddies Face!!!</A>

 

[Ion]

Thats consider Nvidia's driver department a mini software company due to the amount of works they put in to extract adaque performance from crappy hardware. :tongue:

 

[speeduk]

And one could argue that NV are F***ing DX or M$ by virtually ignoring DX9 and rendering things to give them more fps... Whats the point in DX9 or DX* if hardware companies ignore it and do things their own way anyway?

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)

 

[spud]

I dont want to argue the point. All I am trying to say is this isnt how Bill lets his goons work. The man has a crazy tight leash no one takes his lime light. Sounds phoney.

But there has been a point raised at Aces that the DX9.0 standards werent set in stone till (not even sure when for sure they posted some THG links stated that Tom wasnt even sure what the hell was going on)Oct last year far too late for nVidia to make any adjustments to the core in regards to DX standards.

It's just odd how things played out, the visual processor giant that was untouchable has its back against the wall. Things just dont 100% add up for this whole ordeal.

~Jeremy
Unofficial Intel PR spokesman.(nVidia fill in rep for CoolSquirtle)

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up In My Buddies Face!!!</A>

 

[valkyr]

man......if its true .........ati is gonna buy out
NV

 

[Ion]

If ATi buy out NV...

 

[addiarmadar]

Well maybe Microshaft wont give NVIDIA the finger if NVIDIA would just STOP CHEATING!!!!

F-DISK-Format-Reinstal DO DA!! DO DA!!

 

[eden]

I see a flaw here. Even if the specs finalized in October, then how did ATi manage to release R300 in August, with 24-bit?
Doesn't that imply that 24-bit was already determined?
If it was 32-bit, then why did ATi go 24-bit and MS did not change anything?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:

 

[spud]

Hence why I am confused as well.

~Jeremy
Unofficial Intel PR spokesman.(nVidia fill in rep for CoolSquirtle)

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up In My Buddies Face!!!</A>

 

[eden]

I mean, this is actually a hit on nVidia here, since that would imply they are whining on the spec change, when the DX format could not have possibly changed before February 2002 at least, since ATi had to use 24-bit since. Could nVidia actually have not had time in almost one year, to adapt the NV30 to 24-bit and release it in December-January?!

It's really confusing and at the same time it seems nVidia blamed out of nowhere considering the ATi involvment in DX.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:

 

[speeduk]

Wait a minute. So NV went ahead and did its FX card design without knowing what it needed to do to make it work with DX9? And why didn't ATI have any problems?

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)

 

[eden]

Almost but not quite what I meant.

I was implying that, according to chronological events:

-Since ATi came out with the R300 in August then
-Microsoft's DX9 standard minimum specs asking for 24-bit were there obviously over 3 months before (silicon development time).
-nVidia then claims the specs changed a lot until the final stages.
-But that would mean, according to point 2, that they had about a year to finalize their core and modify it.

So I don't see where nVidia can fit a blame statement!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:

 

[speeduk]

Hmm. Well if they had a problem they should have fixed it with the new 5950 or even the 5900. Plenty of time IMO but they didn't bother to do a thing (except optimize drivers even more lowering I.Q etc). I do wish they would show some kind of proffesionalism ( wow is that even a word lol)...

Every week I see them digging their own grave that little bit deeper (ok theres a few ATI Fanboys with spades and shovels too)....

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)

 

[spud]

But when you consider that they have been developing the core for over 4 years kinda opens a door on the oddness of the situation.

Also from what I was reading in the aces thread they <A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=105042417" target="_new">said</A> that it was still up in the air.

If the prodcut is well into its development phase at that point nVidia can only hope that damned thing works in this case.

~Jeremy
Unofficial Intel PR Spokesman. (nVidia fill in rep for CoolSquirtle)

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up In My Buddies Face!!!</A>