NVIDIA's offical response to Futuremark

[Matthyahuw]

m'kay

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by NickSpolec
Total BS.

Benchmarks are only good if they can blindly compare performance of different hardware to see how they perform against each other in an GENERAL ENVIORMENT AND TESTING

If they start adding in specific code paths, then they will be worthless.

Why?

The fact is, MOST games DO NOT have optimized code paths for all different hardware, they usually don't even have optimized code paths for the two most common hardware (Radeon and GeForce).

If games have ANY optimized code paths at all, they usually only have two different code paths: A general API code path (for all general hardware), and 1 single optimized GPU code path (which is usually at least 90% an optimized code path for Nvidia hardware).

Optimized code paths are good and bad. It's good because it can put the focus of a game to a specific hardware, making it run better/look faster. But it's MAJORLY bad because there will NEVER be code paths for all hardware, and even then, they will not be as mature as some other code paths (*cough* Nvidia code paths *cough*).

If 3DMark starts to use optimized code paths, that will make it WORTHLESS as a subjective messure of performance.

Nvidia crying because their GPU is pants at general, unoptimized DX9 performance doesn't help them, and just because they may get their way and eventually get a 3DMark with an optimized code path doesn't mean sh*t.

Why?

Again, MOST games DO NOT, and WILL NOT have seperate optimized code paths for specific hardware.

Um, actually ALOT of games have and allways will have optmized for specific hardware, not just video cards. Here is some off the top of my head

Quake, Quake II, Quake III, Unreal(cpu optmizations), UT, UT2k3

Yes that dose mean all quake3 based games are optmized.

Star Trek: Elite Force, Wolfenstien, Alice, FAKK2: Heavy metal...omg i cant rember all of them.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by evilangel
Haha, all the ATI fanboys now have nothing to babble about now.

Nvidia didn't cheat.
Are you looking to be flamed to death online tonight? I don't know if it's possible or not, but keep it up and I can promise you I'll find out. :mad:

I note most of the more ardent defenders of nVidia are even shocked by this, and kindly point out to you that you have absolututely NO clue what you are talking about. :mad:

[reever2]

Hyopcrites, all of them.

[Typedef Enum]

I can already tell this thread is going to go nowhere fast.

It's going to go nowhere fast because the bolded quote that's on the front page should most definitely be taken in tongue-n-cheek.

I mean, come on...you know..I know...everybody knows what's going on here, so let's not try to BS ourselves here. By insinuating that nobody actually cheated is just like saying, "You're fooling only yourself."

The bottom line here is this...nVidia should never have left FutureMark...It was a bad decision. They did so because they had the worst performing DX9 hardware. All of this crap was nothing but a lose-lose situation for everybody involved. In doing this joint statement with FutureMark, they will probably become invovled with the program once again (win for FutureMark), people won't be disgusted @ nVidia for dropping out in the first place (win nVidia), and people will finally move forward (win for consumers).

[NickSpolec]

Um, actually ALOT of games have and allways will have optmized for specific hardware, not just video cards. Here is some off the top of my head

Quake, Quake II, Quake III, Unreal(cpu optmizations), UT, UT2k3

You need to re-read my entire post.

When I said optimized code paths in games, I was speaking about graphics hardware.

[vampireuk]

I think NVIDIA beat the dead horse once too often on this one, from what I saw the whole driver deal was starting to die down a bit. Now they just bury themselves in it again with this, they really should have just plodded on with the nv40 and saved face.

[Jovi]

This just show some people overeacted and bashed one side way too hard, then got kicked in the jimmys. Both cards are good cards and I think most can agree on that. :beer:

[EMunEeE]

Only thing this show is the low validity of any 3D Mark 2XXX. I think all reviewers should resist from putting any 3D Mark results in a review. :)

It is a good thing I know how to spend my money on the best product.

AIR LETTER OUTTER

NJ NEts will win the NBA

[DivotMaker]

Originally posted by Typedef Enum
The bottom line here is this...nVidia should never have left FutureMark...It was a bad decision. They did so because they had the worst performing DX9 hardware. All of this crap was nothing but a lose-lose situation for everybody involved. In doing this joint statement with FutureMark, they will probably become invovled with the program once again (win for FutureMark), people won't be disgusted @ nVidia for dropping out in the first place (win nVidia), and people will finally move forward (win for consumers).

Could not agree more. Excellent points.

[PsychoSy]

Originally posted by MikeC
Heh. volt's new theme song:

I've got big balls
I've got big balls
And they're such big balls
Dirty big balls
And he's got big balls
And she's got big balls
But we've got the biggest balls of them all

I got the lead!!!!

I know those 3 chords!!! :rofl

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by NickSpolec
You need to re-read my entire post.

When I said optimized code paths in games, I was speaking about graphics hardware.

Oh my, let me recap of games that use optimized pahts.

quake, half life, quake ii, quake iii, doom iii
again, every deravative of them. not sure about the unreal engine's but i am very sure they use optmized pahts.

[gordon151]

Here is my take on this situation.

Futuremark blackmailed Nvidia and now that Nvidia has paid the ransom, Futuremark is now backing down. ATI escaped being blackmailed by actually owning up, but once Nvidia denied it Futuremark basically said "CHA CHING!".

Edit: Dammit, I can't spell :(.

Originally posted by GlowStick
Oh my, let me recap of games that use optimized pahts.

quake, half life, quake ii, quake iii, doom iii
again, every deravative of them. not sure about the unreal engine's but i am very sure they use optmized pahts.

AFAIK Quake III uses the standard opengl api.

[ChevyBlazerBoy]

Yes! Nvidia Rocks!

:super:

[mrtudball]

Jovi, overreacted? No, consumer's meaning you and me were upset that a company would intentionaly goober up a benchmark. The only thing this does is render 3dmark, in my mind, useless now (which Nvida wanted), and make me question every nvidia benchmark that I read now.

I am going to purchase a top end video card in the next month, and this is the last straw. ATI just replaced my 4200.

[bkswaney]

Well, I for one think this is great. Maybe now Nvida will get back in the FM on upcoming benchmarks.

As for cheating... well that one no one agrees on.
So I'll just keep my 2 cents to myself. :angel:

Tho I do think to much was made out of it. ;)

I also do not see NV bulling FM. FM would not stand for it.
They could care less how big NV is.

[NickSpolec]

Oh my, let me recap of games that use optimized pahts.

quake, half life, quake ii, quake iii, doom iii
again, every deravative of them. not sure about the unreal engine's but i am very sure they use optmized pahts.

Hmm.. Ok, you can only list 2 games (unless you can tell me what Quake actually had an optimized code path for... Wait.. That was only 3DFX.. proves my point further) that are actually out, and 2 games that are still being developed..

Out of the HUNDREDS of PC games that have come out since the time when optimized code paths became an option, you can name 3 that are out?

My point exactly.

If games do include optimized code paths, it's never always fair.. They usually only take the time to do one optimized code path (if they take the time to include any at all) for a single hardware set.

Just because GFFX is a horrid card at general DX9 operations doesn't mean the entire industry needs to go out of their way to make optimized code paths for Nvidia, while neglecting other hardware GPUs. Nvidia should make their cards as strong at general DX9 operations as they can, instead of just saying "**** it" and expect developers to cator to them.

edit by StealthHawk: do not circumvent the swear filter

[Jovi]

Originally posted by mrtudball
Jovi, overreacted? No, consumer's meaning you and me were upset that a company would intentionaly goober up a benchmark. The only thing this does is render 3dmark, in my mind, useless now (which Nvida wanted), and make me question every nvidia benchmark that I read now.

I am going to purchase a top end video card in the next month, and this is the last straw. ATI just replaced my 4200.

I think it's more politics involved with 3dMark than anything. I agree with (exuse me) [H] when they say "what do companies get in return for shelling out $$$?"
When People bash either camp over a sythenic bechmark, it's bad. See how it plays your games with all the eye candy on, then make your choice. I am a nvidia fan, that today prefers the ati card. Give me a chance to play with a 5900 and see if that judgement stands. Real games is where it matters. I do not spend $500 to see how it runs one benchmark.

[Deathlike2]

Those guys at Futuremark.... ugh

There's way too many opinions of what "may have happened to come to this conclusion"

The main problem with the Futuremark-NVidia statement is that there is no mention of ATI involvement (if they plan on getting involved) in making benchmarking standards...

Futuremark is getting closer to benchmarking.. but.. they need developer input... not just video card manufacturers...

In terms of the NVidia "special optimizations"... we can be assured that sites like Anandtech will let the rest of us know what to expect...

"Optimizing to look like crap" or "The correct and intended look of the game"

[Ady]

Originally posted by bkswaney
Well, I for one think this is great. Maybe now Nvida will get back in the FM on upcoming benchmarks.

As for cheating... well that one no one agrees on.
So I'll just keep my 2 cents to myself.

See that's where you are wrong. Nearly everybody agrees on it. It just seems you are one of the extreme few that don't.

Originally posted by bkswaney
I also do not see NV bulling FM. FM would not stand for it.
They could care less how big NV is.

what makes you think that?

[muzz]

Originally posted by bkswaney
Well, I for one think this is great. Maybe now Nvida will get back in the FM on upcoming benchmarks.

As for cheating... well that one no one agrees on.
So I'll just keep my 2 cents to myself. :angel:

Tho I do think to much was made out of it. ;)

I also do not see NV bulling FM. FM would not stand for it.
They could care less how big NV is.

Ahhhh I'm sorry didn't you see the logic line?

It's the one to the left.......
And please put away those blue pills, we don't allow dolts around here.

Thank You and enjoy your stay.

[mrtudball]

I get my card to play games also Jovi, and the point is Nvidia "intentionaly" detected this bench, inserted clip plains in order to score higher in 3dmark. I dont care what their position is on 3dmark, this was done to mislead potential consumers. So, now what am I to think, this was a one time thing, or do they do this with other benchmarks. I dont like to be lied to or misled.

Honestly if they would have fessed up, and admited what they did, and came clean, I would have been upgraded to the 5900, my 4200 has been a gem. We will have to agree to disagree here, how am I to assume if they felt this was ok that if for some reason they feel that the doom III bench does not use calls that it likes to do some creative detection on that bench. Like I said ATI has my next purchase.

[muzz]

$D03 is now just a demo... nothing more

[bkswaney]

Well, everyone has a tail. I sit on mine.

I will stand by I think way to much was made out of the whole thing.
If compaines want to add code for Nvidia then so be it.
Same for ATI.

Also where is the real ""proof"" NV used cliping planes?
One site said they did but I find it funny no other site agreed. Such as Hardocp or anandtech.

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by NickSpolec
Hmm.. Ok, you can only list 2 games (unless you can tell me what Quake actually had an optimized code path for... Wait.. That was only 3DFX.. proves my point further) that are actually out, and 2 games that are still being developed..

Out of the HUNDREDS of PC games that have come out since the time when optimized code paths became an option, you can name 3 that are out?

My point exactly.

If games do include optimized code paths, it's never always fair.. They usually only take the time to do one optimized code path (if they take the time to include any at all) for a single hardware set.

Just because GFFX is a horrid card at general DX9 operations doesn't mean the entire industry needs to go out of their way to make optimized code paths for Nvidia, while neglecting other hardware GPUs. Nvidia should make their cards as strong at general DX9 operations as they can, instead of just saying "F*ck it" and expect developers to cator to them.

2 games? i listed dozens, and they all happen to be the best selling games of all time also, STRANGE eh?

Quake had alot of diffrent paths, back in the day, there wasent just Nvidia/ATi/3dfx, there was alot of diffrent cards out there, there was paths for a whole bunch of cards that i dont rember the name of.

Unreal Torunament optmized for the Savage 3, problaly others.

You ask the question why do they make diffrent paths?

id dosent just sell the first game they name the engine after. They sell the engine to companys and they pump out dozens and dozens of games.

You cannot market an engine saying "this game only dose well on the Radeon platform" game developers will laugh at you. If you say "my new engine runs well on all video cards, hell, you can use a Voodoo1 on it" they will say "omg, lets use thsi engine"

Undead, Star Trek: Elite force, Solder of Forune, SoF2, Medal of Honor, Heavy Metal: FAKK2, Alice, Gunman..... my god, there are more out there.