So at one point are the card's manufacturers responsible for not adhering to a specification, cutting corners and fudging results etc.?
Is it the game designers responsibility to work around these messes ad infinitum because the manufacturer happens to be Nvidia? When Matrox and SIS weren't adhering to Direct X standards and their cards weren't DX compliant, why didn't anyone blame the game developers then? Why was it accepted that these manufacturers and chip makers didn't make their product fully DX compliant because of their poor results when games that took advantage of DX were released? -Angel -----Original Message----- From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The unnamed reviewers would be wrong... These are actual game benchmarks, not PowerPoint slides, and the HardOCP ones were especially impartial because he discarded the Nvidia recommended demo. http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA1MjcyOTc2OEZ5RlFJTXBSY2pfMV8z X2wuZ2lm http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=22 This whole episode smells fishy to me. You don't see Carmack or any other developer going out of their way to bash one manufacturer. They are making the product work on both platforms. If indeed, HL2 performs this badly on Nvidia's cards...it bodes very badly for sales of HL2, since Nvidia still has the biggest marketshare. I've never heard of a developer coming out and saying their games performance sucks...which is what it sounds like Valve is saying to me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
