NVIDIA's offical response to Futuremark

[Ady]

Originally posted by Neural
Part of me would like to see nVidia take the Intel approach if their achitecture is so much different that it needs special instructions, be up front, and allow other companys to liscense it.

Wouldn't this just be a bad thing for us all round by slowing down the industry? I thought we would need some solid standards for technology to move along at an acceptable rate. I thought this was a of negative aspect of the ps2.

[Zenikase]

The folks at Microsoft in charge of DirectX should've been more specific about how precise certain functions of the fragment shader need to be, instead of leaving it in the air and consequently creating a huge mess with compatibility and performance.

[muzz]

They were too worried about folks who cheat with their software ( aka Piracy) to think that an IHV would try and circumvent/try and interpret to the best of their hardwares ability - what they laid out.

Heard the word Loopholes B4?
Alot of crooks get off because of those.

[Neural]

Originally posted by Ady
Wouldn't this just be a bad thing for us all round by slowing down the industry? I thought we would need some solid standards for technology to move along at an acceptable rate. I thought this was a of negative aspect of the ps2.

Yes it potentially could be bad, I said that earlier in the bold>>

Originally posted by Neural
So if nVidia published their optimizations that would clear alot of this up wouldnt it, hmmm i hadnt thought of that, I think its something they should think about.

It actually swings both ways, Intel make sure most of the benchmarks are optimized, not because they care what we the consumer do with the benchmarks, but because many if not all of the manufacturers/distributors use these to determine what they will buy/sell. Only SSE intsructions are only implemented in software we use sometimes months even years after they are used in benchmarks, because mainstream software is written for now so that it becomes obsolete sooner, whereas benchmarks are more forward looking. Part of me would like to see nVidia take the Intel approach if their achitecture is so much different that it needs special instructions, be up front, and allow other companys to liscense it. The other part of me is afraid of this because of how Intel uses their instructions, and the other companys inability to keep up with the ever changing SSE support, to bully the market. If ATi ends up in AMD's position , we could all be in trouble.

[Ady]

Originally posted by Neural
Yes it potentially could be bad, I said that earlier in the bold>>

Yeah I did realise that. Not trying to pick on you mate. Just discussing.

[digitalwanderer]

Joint NVIDIA-Futuremark Statement
Both NVIDIA and Futuremark want to define clear rules with the industry about how benchmarks should be developed and how they should be used. We believe that common rules will prevent these types of unfortunate situations moving forward.[/i]

How many people here think these two companies should be defining the rules of benchmarking? Let's have a show of hands... :bleh:

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
How many people here think these two companies should be defining the rules of benchmarking? Let's have a show of hands... :bleh:

I vote for Id software and Id Software, and me.

I will take on this burder for a small yearly salary of 1.4 million dollers.

[muzz]

:barf:

[Neural]

Originally posted by Ady
Yeah I did realise that. Not trying to pick on you mate. Just discussing.

You may have read the editorials on the INQ about AMD and Intel (if not it is a good read, 3 part series). It very well explains the situation there and once I wrapped my mind around it all, I found it just downright scary. I think it could be simply catastrophic if the companys like AMD and ATi are run out. This could explain why I have a barton and a 9500 in my box ;) , just to try to make sure that the next time I want to upgrade I still have a choice of what companys product fits my needs.

[Ady]

Neural: I'd appreciate a link to that article if you could find it. Thanks :)

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 5150 Joker
As I said, as long as ATi is around, I won't buy nVidia products again. I don't like the way the company conducts itself and by supporting them, I only contribute to their longevity.

Brilliant you want a company to die? How old are you? This is such a childish attitude.

/walks away shaking head saying....I don't understand this video card war thing.:confused:

[UDawg]

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

...and my balls are all ways bouncing
to the left and to the right
it's my belief that my big ball
should be held every nite.
oye oye oye oye

[Sazar]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Brilliant you want a company to die? How old are you? This is such a childish attitude.

/walks away shaking head saying....I don't understand this video card war thing.:confused:

:)

not many do...

[Ady]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Brilliant you want a company to die? How old are you? This is such a childish attitude.

/walks away shaking head saying....I don't understand this video card war thing.:confused:

If you don't understand it then go away.

It's his and many others choice to boycott a company due to bad ethics or any other reason. Ones choice is not yours to judge.

[Star_Hunter]

Originally posted by Ady
If you don't understand it then go away.

It's his and many others choice to boycott a company due to bad ethics or any other reason. Ones choice is not yours to judge.

I think Intel's ethics are just as bad...but no one seems to care...

[Neural]

Originally posted by Ady
Neural: I'd appreciate a link to that article if you could find it. Thanks :)

Here ya go! Thanks for listening. Kinda long so grab a snack or save them for when you have plenty of time. There in order from first article to the third.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9693

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9711

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9744

[Zenikase]

Originally posted by Neural:
Part of me would like to see nVidia take the Intel approach if their achitecture is so much different that it needs special instructions, be up front, and allow other companys to liscense it.

They've been doing this for a while. That "The Way it's Meant to be Played" logo? Yeah, that's an indicator. :)

CPUs and video cards, as similar as they are becoming, still have a few fundamental differences, one of them being the fact that video processors use vendor-specific driver compilers that translate code on-the-fly into machine language that only that driver's intended product(s) can interpret. With general-purpose processors, there are no such drivers. Rather, programmers can choose from a wide array of different third-party compilers that will in the end produce the same result on various CPUs, although there will be obvious differences in efficiency from compiler to compiler and from CPU to CPU. The problem is that with video card drivers, the manufacturers (ie, nVidia and ATi) have the opportunity to meddle with the drivers in order to produce results that would be more favorable to them, and since it will only work on their products, that same performance gain won't occur on the competition's. In synthetic CPU benchmarks, one doesn't have to worry about these things since most major CPU manufacturers (ie, Intel and AMD) support the same instruction sets (MMX, SSE, SSE2) in hardware that are implemented in the benchmark's code.

I'm hoping that as years go by and games become increasingly more complex in their vertex and (mainly) pixel shader instructions, we can finally ditch the concept of driver compilers and alleviate ourselves from this enormous headache. No more worries about compatibility, about image quality, about company honesty. This is the only way we can progress.

[Ady]

Originally posted by Star_Hunter
I think Intel's ethics are just as bad...but no one seems to care...

I'm sure some people care. It doesn't matter if no one else cares anyway. If you care then do something about it.

[muzz]

Originally posted by Zenikase
They've been doing this for a while. That "The Way it's Meant to be Played" logo? Yeah, that's an indicator. :)



Did you mean to say........
" The way it's meant to be rendered" ?

Just curious, as sometimes I get a wee bit confused.

[Sazar]

FutureMark & NVIDIA Statements

POOF! All is now AOK!

FutureMark Statement:

Futuremark now has a deeper understanding of the situation and NVIDIA's optimization strategy. In the light of this, Futuremark now states that NVIDIA's driver design is an application specific optimization and not a cheat.

NVIDIA Statement:

NVIDIA works closely with developers to optimize games for GeForceFX. These optimizations (including shader optimizations) are the result of the co-development process. This is the approach NVIDIA would have preferred also for 3DMark03.

Joint NVIDIA-Futuremark Statement:

Both NVIDIA and Futuremark want to define clear rules with the industry about how benchmarks should be developed and how they should be used. We believe that common rules will prevent these types of unfortunate situations moving forward.

Translation VIA HardOCP: FutureMark reneges on previous statements and confirms NVIDIA was not cheating on their benchmark and NVIDIA will not take a legal action against FutureMark that would bankrupt them. All about the $, but that is just our opinion. Still this does not change our thoughts on the FutureMark and their benchmark. Editorial coming...


I will say I personally have been highly critical of our pal kyle bennet from [H] :)

but @ the same time... that statement of his does put things in perspective

/me thinks shades of 3dfx-esque lawsuits :)

[DivotMaker]

Originally posted by Zenikase
CPUs and video cards, as similar as they are becoming, still have a few fundamental differences, one of them being the fact that video processors use vendor-specific driver compilers that translate code on-the-fly into machine language that only that driver's intended product(s) can interpret. With general-purpose processors, there are no such drivers. Rather, programmers can choose from a wide array of different third-party compilers that will in the end produce the same result on various CPUs, although there will be obvious differences in efficiency from compiler to compiler and from CPU to CPU. The problem is that with video card drivers, the manufacturers (ie, nVidia and ATi) have the opportunity to meddle with the drivers in order to produce results that would be more favorable to them, and since it will only work on their products, that same performance gain won't occur on the competition's. In synthetic CPU benchmarks, one doesn't have to worry about these things since most major CPU manufacturers (ie, Intel and AMD) support the same instruction sets (MMX, SSE, SSE2) in hardware that are implemented by that benchmark's developers in their code.

VERY well said...

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Zenikase
They've been doing this for a while. That "The Way it's Meant to be Played" logo? Yeah, that's an indicator. :)

CPUs and video cards, as similar as they are becoming, still have a few fundamental differences, one of them being the fact that video processors use vendor-specific driver compilers that translate code on-the-fly into machine language that only that driver's intended product(s) can interpret. With general-purpose processors, there are no such drivers. Rather, programmers can choose from a wide array of different third-party compilers that will in the end produce the same result on various CPUs, although there will be obvious differences in efficiency from compiler to compiler and from CPU to CPU. The problem is that with video card drivers, the manufacturers (ie, nVidia and ATi) have the opportunity to meddle with the drivers in order to produce results that would be more favorable to them, and since it will only work on their products, that same performance gain won't occur on the competition's. In synthetic CPU benchmarks, one doesn't have to worry about these things since most major CPU manufacturers (ie, Intel and AMD) support the same instruction sets (MMX, SSE, SSE2) in hardware that are implemented by that benchmark's developers in their code.

I thought that was why there was the belief that the directx api would lead IHV's to implement standardised features... ?

it is not the fault of the industry that some IHV's refuse to follow standards... or that those products tend not to perform @ a competitive levels @ those standards...

[Zenikase]

Yes, the problem is that both ATi and nVidia refuse to conform to the standards set in DirectX and implement their own ideas about how things should be done, even if they're radically different (case in point: nVidia's static/dynamic flow instruction set).

[Neural]

Originally posted by Zenikase
They've been doing this for a while. That "The Way it's Meant to be Played" logo? Yeah, that's an indicator. :)

CPUs and video cards, as similar as they are becoming, still have a few fundamental differences, one of them being the fact that video processors use vendor-specific driver compilers that translate code on-the-fly into machine language that only that driver's intended product(s) can interpret. With general-purpose processors, programmers can choose from a wide array of different third-party compilers that will in the end produce the same result on various CPUs, although there will be obvious differences in efficiency from compiler to compiler and from CPU to CPU. The problem is that with video card drivers, the manufacturers (ie, nVidia and ATi) have the opportunity to meddle with the drivers in order to produce results that would be more favorable to them, and since it will only work on their products, that same performance gain won't occur on the competition's. In synthetic CPU benchmarks, one doesn't have to worry about these things since most major CPU manufacturers (ie, Intel and AMD) support the same instruction sets (MMX, SSE, SSE2) in hardware that are implemented by that benchmark's developers in their code.

I think you mistook me for meaning that they could liscense the optimizations to software programmers. I dont know for sure but I think they probably give the optimizations out for free to programmers or even pay them(under the table of course *cough* intel *cough*) to use their optimizations so there cards run faster. What I was referring to though is how intel is forced by non monopoly laws to liscense its SSE implementation to AMD because if intel refused, AMD could claim that intel was stopping it from being competitive i.e. M$java and Sun java. Intel gets around this though by implementing new optimizations in each new core refresh in order to stay one step ahead of its liscensees. I shudder to think of the evilness at the top of intel...

Forgot something, I agree with most of what you say about the CPU/GPU achitectures and drivers, but i dont know if microsoft develops the drivers for different CPUs, I could be wrong but I would have thought that their makers made the drivers, submit for WHQL, and are then implemented in the OS. Not all CPUs are natively supported by a standard driver, I had to get a driver update from windows update for my barton in order to take advantage of the extra L2 cache. Windows update also offers some older GPU drivers, but they dont try to keep up with the ever changing GPU drivers.

[Ady]

Originally posted by Neural
Here ya go! Thanks for listening. Kinda long so grab a snack or save them for when you have plenty of time. There in order from first article to the third.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9693

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9711

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9744

thanks mate :)