NVIDIA Readies GK104-based GeForce GTX 680M for Computex

[Xzibit]

Awe come on now. Stop being a sore looser.

You even went back and tried to edit what you said out..

* This slide came from Nvidia too, and it's almost entirely true, so I don't see your point, show me a single Nvidia slide in the last 3-4 years that didn't turn out true (bare a slight exageration), it's not AMD's marketing department we ar talking about here

^I like the "Almost entirely true" part and then continues to ask for slide thats isnt true in 3-4yrs when he doesnt even believe the one hes refering to as 100%.

Somehow you have a problem with competition slides. I wonder why that is, Just curious.

So tell me again how you can prove or disprove Nvidias 20% performance claim

The fact is that you don't know and that makes the claim as true as it could be false. And that's why PERFORMANCE slides exist, where you can see exacty where they say that it is faster, and I never said you have to believe them

Well if your going by Performance slides. Do all reviewers score said GPU at 20% or more all the time since after all Nvidia didnt specify the situation. Do Nvidias own results give a 20% increase all the time ?
05/24/12 GeForce / DT - Jeff Fisher
On page 8 where the games are I only see 5 games out of 13 meet the 20% or better performance claim. Less then 50% of the games.
It's not like i'm taking them out of context its the very next page.

They are not saying it's 20% faster in any specific situation, only that it's 20% faster and in dozens of cases that is just plainly true. So stop taking ONE SINGLE statement, make your own interpretation of it and pretend they are saying what they are not saying. Hint: they are not saying it's 20% faste in GPGPU.

So like you said yourself that claim only applies to a dozen cases as you see it. I didnt see that footnote in the slide but I guess you know how to translate Nvidia graphs
That would make the 20% claim false the rest of the time. By there own graph 8 games out of 13 it doesnt meet 20% faster performance claim so I dont know how you can say its plainly true.

So even you know its not right yet you continue to argue the fact that you said show me 1 slide from Nvidia thats not true.

How much more clearer can you get when you said it yourself. Do you not beleive yourself now ?

 

[Benetanegia]

Awe come on now. Stop being a sore looser.

You even went back and tried to edit what you said out..



^I like the "Almost entirely true" part and then continues to ask for slide thats isnt true in 3-4yrs when he doesnt even believe the one hes refering to as 100%.

Somehow you have a problem with competition slides. I wonder why that is, Just curious.

So tell me again how you can prove or disprove Nvidias 20% performance claim



Well if your going by Performance slides. Do all reviewers score said GPU at 20% or more all the time since after all Nvidia didnt specify the situation. Do Nvidias own results give a 20% increase all the time ?
05/24/12 GeForce / DT - Jeff Fisher
On page 8 where the games are I only see 5 games out of 13 meet the 20% or better performance claim. Less then 50% of the games.
It's not like i'm taking them out of context its the very next page.



So like you said yourself that claim only applies to a dozen cases as you see it. I didnt see that footnote in the slide but I guess you know how to translate Nvidia graphs
That would make the 20% claim false the rest of the time. By there own graph 8 games out of 13 it doesnt meet 20% faster performance claim so I dont know how you can say its plainly true.

So even you know its not right yet you continue to argue the fact that you said show me 1 slide from Nvidia thats not true.

How much more clearer can you get when you said it yourself. Do you not beleive yourself now ?

LOL man, how desperate are you? I didn't ask to find a slide where the wording is ambiguous, I said find one where they outright lie. And I asked for PERFORMANCE SLIDES, like the one that shows 680M performance, because that's the only one that is on-topic. We are discussing whether the PERFORMANCE slides can be taken as a guidance of real performance or not, we are not discussing if they said something ambiguous in a random page.

The fact that they include page 8 completely invalidates anything you thing they mean in page 7. They are showing you actual performance in page 8 and page 8 shows performance higher than 20%. The average of all results is around 21% faster fyi.

By there own graph 8 games out of 13 it doesnt meet 20% faster performance claim so I dont know how you can say its plainly true.

I can say it because we are not discussing phylosophy. It's 20% faster in 5 games and hence it IS 20% faster, because nowhere do they say that it is faster overall, or faster in every single situation. If I say I can score 5 home runs, it does not mean I have to score 5 home runs in every single game. Since you are not discussing the results in page 8, which is the kind of slide I was talking about and you are instead constantly discussing that lame and irrelevant statement in page 7, then you are wrong, they are not lying, since it IS 20% faster, at least in 5 of their own tests.

And BTW they say 20% faster performance, not 20% higher performance so, since you are only interested in discussing the semantics of what that statement in page 7 means... faster performance? It could mean anything, what is faster performance?

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

they are not lying, since it IS 20% faster, at least in 5 of their own tests.

they may not be lieing, but they(NVIDIA) have set the test conditions, systems, the bench run criteriea ,and specific in game settings as well as setting up the driver forced/or not, options.

Is that a fair biased indication of performance, and of a products competetive performance relative to a competitors product to you, it isnt to me, an unbiased review is whats required.

 

[Benetanegia]

they may not be lieing, but they(NVIDIA) have set the test conditions, systems, the bench run criteriea ,and specific in game settings as well as setting up the driver forced/or not, options.

Is that a fair biased indication of performance, and of a products competetive performance relative to a competitors product to you, it isnt to me, an unbiased review is whats required.

I never said it isn't biased and nitpicked, I said it's not false. In reality, all games considered* it may not be 20% faster or whatever is the average in the tests for the 680M, but it is not going to be very far off, just like it wasn't for the desktop 680 and actually any release in the last few years. Basically the test results are true, which does not mean they represent the entire game selection, but I think we are all grown up enough and intelligent enough to know that.

My point has been clear since the beginning, those benches might not be 100% accurate, but they are showing the 680M as significantly faster than 7970M and THAT will turn out true, maybe not by 20%, maybe only by 10% in the average of all games, but it will be faster and is definitely not much slower than 7970M, which is what the OP seems to suggest and which is what so many people in this thread were saying, to which my post was directed at: eaten alive by the 7970M? Come on.

* Or in a wider game selection such as W1zzard's

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I never said it isn't biased and nitpicked, I said it's not false.

right so we agree then, its not false at all, but it could be biased and nitpicked , just as Any company might do in their own Pr slides.

imho, it is relatively silly for anyone to suggest/ assume that Nvidia or Amd wont Allways bring out something that is competitive within these price points and relative to the others releases, so your sure, I never had any doubts that nvidias mobile gpus would be competitive, im just not one for pr spin either.