NVIDIA's offical response to Futuremark

[reever2]

So now 3dmark IS considered a useless benchmark.

The cycle is complete now. Nvidia got thier wish

Flawless victory.

[eagle17]

So does this mean that Nvidia just created crappy drivers?

I they did not cheat than they must have just had major "bugs" in the drivers...

I still say it was a cheat and I don't think anyone is fooled buy this... this is just as bad as the quake/quack problem ati had.

[muzz]

I am so sick about NV and their BS and strongarm tactics I am EAGERLY awaiting ANY OTHER AMD manufacturer to make a decent chipset........
I am not a fan of Intel, so unfortunatley my choices are limited.
Via must get their crap together.
I want to get rid of the stank that is in my case....... the only problem is as of now they DO make the BEST chipsets for AMD....

Who would've thought I would even venture to go down the Via or Intel lane again...

babblebabblebabblebabble..........

[NickSpolec]

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

You listed DOZENS?

Really?

Doesn't dozen[s] imply more then 1 dozen (which is 12)?

Strange.. I only see a few..



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.

Unless you have some sources to back this up, I don't believe it.

Unreal Torunament optmized for the Savage 3, problaly others.

"Probably" doesn't cut it.

You ask the question why do they make diffrent paths?

No, I didn't. I made a point that hardware specific optmized code paths are not often used, and if they are used, they only include one optimized code path in addition to the general API code path..

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"

YOU JUST MADE MY POINT FOR ME!

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

Oh really? And how many, and exactly what are the specific GPU code paths that those games use?

[ChrisRay]

*forest gump voice*

What do I think of this responce...? It surprises me..


so far thats all I have to say about that...

[Alpha]

I got a copy of Futuremarks new benchmark..

http://www.dodstudios.net/uploads/uploads/cheatmark-by-alpha.jpg

[gordon151]

Originally posted by 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.

First dibs on this statement! Yay!

Both ExtremeTech and Beyond3D acknowledged the existence of clip planes because they were the only (i.e. NO HardOCP and Anandtech) sites which had access to the developer versions of 3DMark03. Difference is Beyond3D made a quiet mention of it on their forums and notified Nvidia while ExtremeTech notified Nvidia and probably after no reply wrote a huge article about the ordeal. This was backed up by Futuremark and even in this press release they made an explicit statement regards to the type of cheat that Nvidia used, but not directly commenting onwhat Nvidia did.

Because all modifications that change the workload in 3DMark03 are forbidden, we were obliged to update the product to eliminate the effect of optimizations identified in different drivers so that 3DMark03 continued to produce comparable results

Hrm, wonder what they are talking about there!

[Kombatant]

Originally posted by reever2
So now 3dmark IS considered a useless benchmark.

The cycle is complete now. Nvidia got thier wish

Flawless victory.

You forgot the "Fatality" part :D

[reever2]

Originally posted by Kombatant
You forgot the "Fatality" part :D

I would prefer Babality, and that goes for Nvidia and Futuremark, shame on both of them

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by NickSpolec
You listed DOZENS?

Really?

Doesn't dozen[s] imply more then 1 dozen (which is 12)?

Strange.. I only see a few..




Unless you have some sources to back this up, I don't believe it.



"Probably" doesn't cut it.



No, I didn't. I made a point that hardware specific optmized code paths are not often used, and if they are used, they only include one optimized code path in addition to the general API code path..



YOU JUST MADE MY POINT FOR ME!



Oh really? And how many, and exactly what are the specific GPU code paths that those games use?

I dont think you understand how many games are made from the Quake III engine, some of them are crap, some are great.

Id also like to note that Serious Sam has had some optmizations for Radeon series 8500 and up, it even supports TruForm. add that to the list.

Um Quake has so many pahts for diffrent cards, i cant belive you still quesiton that. Time warp to back in the day to check them all out, Number Nine comes to mind.

You do not see a point,

Your point is "this game will run on any hardware" that is ok, but what id sells is "our product will run REALLY REALLY fast on all video cards" thats way better than saying "i comply to DX9 standards, i can only be ran on Windows"

[muzz]

Originally posted by 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.

[H] ?
Ya right.

Anand?
There was a thread over there where the locals wanted answers to THEIR FLAWED review,. and questions asking what was going on..... needless to say after they said " we are looking into it" and EASILY ( for my DOG) enough time to answer the questions.........


The thread got deleted.
Poof vanished....

I guess they just couldn't stand the strain either....

So please do better than that.

Thank You

[bloodbob]

Hmm okay a few thoughts.

Okay what nvidia isn't a cheast does that mean now in games we can have all white walls because they look similar atleast considered to nvidia to what the textures/shadres are supposed to look like as well as only going certain regions on a map because the rest is staticly clipped out.

This is utter BS.


However, recent developments in the graphics industry and game development suggest that a different approach for game performance benchmarking might be needed, where manufacturer-specific code path optimization is directly in the code source.

Okay does this mean there will be more then one render??? or does this mean there will be only 1 nvidia render ( and possible a generic one ).

I finally agree with kyle now futuremark is useless.

[FunkTron]

Originally posted by muzz
I am so sick about NV and their BS and strongarm tactics I am EAGERLY awaiting ANY OTHER AMD manufacturer to make a decent chipset........

Well, I for one, am sick to death of fixing my friends' machines so they can play their games without BSODs and random crashing/bugginess with all flavahs, types and brands of Radeons (7000 to the 9700 PRO i have dealt with in the past 5 months).

I could give a rat's petutie less about nVidia cheating, ATi cheating or any of the malarkey that comes along with it (especially the fanboys from both sides who insist that this entire argument means anything at all).

What it comes down to for me is the same thing it has come down to since the Rage 128 vs. GeForce a while back:
The company that makes the card/drivers that are most stable for the games I play and computers I work on are the ones that I will put in my machines.
For now, its nVidia. If ATi can prove to me otherwise, I will consider it in the future.

I guess I just don't have the urge to cavort with the 3 percent of computer users who even contemplate dropping $399 on a video card, especially when that same level of graphical goodness can be had 4 months down the road for half the cost.
I guess I would posit that people itching to slap a brand-new, $399-dollar video card in their machines are really being led around by their noses more than anyone else in the industry, thinking that 20extra FPS or a slightly better AF filter is really worth twice the cash.

IT's really that simple, and it saves me a TON of grief and keeps my blood pressure down.... Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go order a GF4 Ti4800 for about $130 USD and give myself the ability to play every game on the market at fairly high IQ and without a hitch, glitch or hiccough...

Funk

PS: the guy that thinks the Nets are going to beat the Spurs is delusional...

[Ady]

Originally posted by 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.

http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3dmark03_audit_report.pdf

[bkswaney]

Originally posted by gordon151
First dibs on the ignorant statement! Yay!

Both ExtremeTech and Beyond3D acknowledged the existence of clip planes because they were the only (i.e. NO HardOCP and Anandtech) sites which had access to the developer versions of 3DMark03. Difference is Beyond3D made a quiet mention of it on their forums and notified Nvidia while ExtremeTech notified Nvidia and probably after no reply wrote a huge article about the ordeal. This was backed up by Futuremark and even in this press release they made an explicit statement regards to the type of cheat that Nvidia used, but not directly commenting onwhat Nvidia did.



Hrm, wonder what they are talking about there!

Sure they say they r there. But where is the PROOF?
As for ignorgant statment... Well, at least I do not buy everything
some of the sites come up with. Like so many do.:angel2:

I'm out of this post before I get booted from the forums
for saying what I really think. :)

So u guys fight about it. :D

[PsychoSy]

Originally posted by ChrisRay
*forest gump voice*

What do I think of this responce...? It surprises me..


so far thats all I have to say about that...

If it weren't for the fact that I'm really shicker right now, this would be enough to sober me right up. I never expected this news - not one single bit.

[Quinn1981]

The PR teams must be drinking quite a bit to release something like this. I guess it's more for the investors than anything else. This is very sad to me. Forget cheating on benchmarks. This is cheating on customers and fans.

I wonder if this will end it all now for them? Now all they have to say is, "Look!" and point at the release. "See, we aren't cheating. Leave us alone about it." :rolleyes:

[bkswaney]

Originally posted by Ady
http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3dmark03_audit_report.pdf

I stand corrected. :)

Thanx for the link. :)

[bkswaney]

? tho on the clipping planes.... Is this not what powerVR does to ease up the work load?
I mean if u do not see it then why bother to render it??

[c4c]

The short answer is that PowerVR does this on the fly and it's what make their architecture cool. Nvidia's architecture does NOT do this on the fly, so by putting in clip planes they make it seem that their card performs better than it does.

[mikechai]

That surprise me. :eek:

[gordon151]

Originally posted by bkswaney
Sure they say they r there. But where is the PROOF?
As for ignorgant statment... Well, at least I do not buy everything
some of the sites come up with. Like so many do.:angel2:

I'm out of this post before I get booted from the forums
for saying what I really think. :)

So u guys fight about it. :D

Ok, it's very smart comment. MY BAD. Please forgive me bkswaney.

[bkswaney]

Originally posted by c4c
The short answer is that PowerVR does this on the fly and it's what make their architecture cool. Nvidia's architecture does NOT do this on the fly, so by putting in clip planes they make it seem that their card performs better than it does.

OK.... So NV's card cannot do this... hummm maybe they should. ;)

Well, at least FM fixed it. So now the 9800 and 5900 r very close in 3DM03. :)

[bkswaney]

Originally posted by gordon151
Ok, it's very smart comment. MY BAD. Please forgive me bkswaney.

No problem. :)
I just like getting all the facts straight and not hear say. :)
So they did cheat. Even tho FM now say they did not.
Boy what a mess. :D

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by c4c
The short answer is that PowerVR does this on the fly and it's what make their architecture cool. Nvidia's architecture does NOT do this on the fly, so by putting in clip planes they make it seem that their card performs better than it does.

Actually all 3d video cards do that to an extent, and they also do it for the Z plane, withc is objects behind a wall etc, just not as efficnet as a static one.

But PowerVR's idea is they can do a better job of clipping in real time, and they actually did.