HardOCP tests Coppermine with G400!!!!!??

[LAMFDTK]

How many E-mails has this guy got from Matrox fans? This is rather funny..

[KvHagedorn]

I think we should crack this nut.. report his "illegal activity" to whoever and force him to release his mouth's grip on nvidia/voodoo's dick and fess up.. (I think you're right jms.. hes in bed with one of em for sure) He either breaks the law or breaks whatever agreement he has with them.. too bad he picked a loser card company whose card crapped out at 133

------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH

[waxling]

Well I sent him this:

-------------------------------------------
Subject: Coppermine review (non disclosure of video card)


You do realise that by not disclosing a complete system summary, (ie
telling the world that you used a G400) you may have breached the
conditions of use of the benchmarking software you used?

This is stated in the very same group of screenshots that disclosed
your use of PDESK.EXE aka powerdesk, Bet you gunna regret not shutting
that baby down hey?

In particular I refer to the licence agreements of:

3DMARK: section 10 clause VI:

'VI Identify the exact 3D accelerator manufacturer and brand name, 3D
accelerator type, driver name, driver version, DirectX version, amount
of video memory on card, bus type, monitor name and any other special
conditions used in the 3D Accelerator drivers to achieve the result;
(e.g. Creative Blaster Voodoo2 12Mb, 3D Accelerator name: Voodoo2 3D
Accelerator, Driver name: 3dfx32v2.dll, Driver version: 4.10.01.0158,
DirectX Version: 4.06.00.0318, Total Video Memory On Card: 4096MB, PCI
Bus, Panasonic P70 monitor, Vsync disabled from the drivers.)

I eagerly await your reply......

come on, you know you want to tell us....
---------------------------------------------
and his reply? Well imagine what a 12 year old would reply with,..... and your still aiming too high
below is his reply... Guess who my next email is to?
WARNING BAD LANGUAGE

reply:

------------------------------------------

Yeah? ****in sue me.


Kyle Bennett
WebMonger @ HardOCP http://www.hardocp.com

[Statik]

What the hell?

Who really cares if he hasn't disclosed the card as Matrox yet? He will, and matrox will get whatever credit it deserves then. I've read HardOCP for a long time, and I doubt he has any "special" agreements with 3Dfx or Nvidia so you can just forget the stupid conspiracy theories. Sending an e-mail like that is taking Matrox fanatasism to a new level.

The purpose of that license agreement in 3DMark is to stop companies from unfairly tweaking their products to make them look much better, not to stop some webmaster from creating a little mystery about an upcoming review.

What a waste of both your time and his, and now mine.

[This message has been edited by Statik (edited 16 October 1999).]

[Frank]

ROTFLMAO
Waxling you crack me up! hehehe
I cant believe you sent that to him. And you got a deserving response. hehehe
Thanks for the laugh.
I hope you aren't serious.
Yes, I have been a reader of Hardocp for a while as well, and he's cool.
Not like Tom Pabst for jumping in the sak with nVidia.(no offense intended)
Though I can't possibly understand why the video card must be anonymous. Maybe he's using a beta G800!

[dnickle]

WTF? Does'nt anyone click on screenshots? If you enlarge the 3dmark one, it clearly shows he's using a MAX. Duuuuhhh!

[dnickle]

Scuze me while I eat crow. I just went and looked again, and the little dweeb erased the MAX from his screenshot. It was there before though, I saw it.

[Rags]

dnickle is correct, the screen originally showed Matrox G400 Max, but Kyle later edited it. It is kind of weird that he won't say what card is being used, but I can surmise that since he didn't have a chance to test any other cards (or they couldn't handle the FSB), that he chose not to make this a 3D card comparison. Good site, without the usual bull, I doubt he is being payed off.

Rags