NVIDIA's offical response to Futuremark

[ricercar]

Hot off the wire and soon to appear in a news outlet near you:

Futuremark Statement

For the first time in 6 months, as a result of Futuremark's White Paper last Friday, Futuremark and NVIDIA have had detailed discussions regarding NVIDIA GPUs and Futuremark's 3DMark03 benchmark.

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 .

The world of 3D Graphics has changed dramatically with the latest generation of highly programmable GPUs. Much like the world of CPUs, each GPU has a different architecture and a unique optimal code path. For example, Futuremark's PCMark2002 has different CPU test compilations for AMD's AthlonXP and Intel's Pentium4 CPUs.

3DMark03 is designed as an un-optimized DirectX test and it provides performance comparisons accordingly. It does not contain manufacturer specific optimized code paths. 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.

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. Futuremark will consider whether this approach is needed in its future benchmarks.

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

[digitalwanderer]

It sounds like nVidia was able to bully Futuremark into compliance, they have been assimilated. :(

[jimbob0i0]

does this still include the clip planes and buffer clearing :p

[MikeC]

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

[Ady]

well nvidia area really pushing their weight around. either that or it's April fools day or something. Got a link?

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by MikeC
I can already tell this thread is going to go nowhere fast.
You kidding? This is like flicking matches at a powderkeg! :eek:

[hithere]

It's okay, Futuremark, we all know what really happened. We all know that use of static clip planes is a cheat, and cannot possibly be beneficial under any condition other than a score in a benchmark. We all know that replacing shader code in an application-specific way is also a cheat. We all know that ALL application-specific optimizations for benchmarks that are based on detection are cheats, and not optimizations. Some of us are willing, even, to admit it to ourselves and others. Some are not. :D

Nvidia: 1
Consumer: 0

Hey Nvidia! How's it feel to exhibit the morals of the average three-year-old? Were you woosing in dat benchmark... awwwww...they're a buncha' bing dum-heads at Futuremark anyways with thier big dum-dum benchmark...I know, we'll just play like we're making the benchmark, and everyone'll believe it, but we'll just be wrecking it instead!!(/three-year-old girl)

Originally posted by some news poster on the front page
(some bs about eating crow)

No, thanks. I didn't definine the difference between right and wrong based on what nvidia told me before, and I'm not about to start believing that use of static clip planes and other nonsense is okay because they say so...not now, not ever. Nvidia is showing every one their @##...without an apology to the communities that support them on the web for this BS, Nvidia will never occupy my machine nor my household again.

[jimbob0i0]

Ady look at www.hardocp.com for the link to the press release and yes I know kyle posted it but Brent has said over at rage3d that this has come from Terro Sarkkinen at futuremark direct to their mailbox.

[Rogozhin]

this is a joke.

rogo

[vampireuk]

*breaks out the shotguns*

I'll be watching you guys, and how do you know they didnt actually just sit down and talk it over? It's possible you know, oh look, its the cancer man!:p

[muzz]

Looks like someone just got slapped around like a red-headed stepchild!

I wonder if they threatened to sue FM, or if there is a BOATLOAD of $ involved....( not insinuating, just wondering........)

" Here lets just revise the tesing procedure so NV has a chance....... even though it was THEIR choice to forego the DX standard of 24bit"

I hope That^^^^^^^^ was NOT anything like what transpired.

I smell BS, and Mike I think your right, nothing good is gonna come out of this except one shiney star..... that star lives in Cali.


BAH!!!!!:rolleyes:

[nin_fragile14]

Pretty sad. Looksl like nvidia threatened lawsuit and futuremark backed down. I doubt there's anymore to it than that.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by vampireuk
*breaks out the shotguns*

I'll be watching you guys, and how do you know they didnt actually just sit down and talk it over? It's possible you know, oh look, its the cancer man!:p

<.................................................. .....!!!!!!!!>
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[deejaya]

Well, I still call both of them cheats. But it's Futuremarks program, so they decide what is allowed and what isn't. I can see their point when they say they use different paths for AMD and Intel in PCMark. At least if Futuremark are working with both ATi and nVidia then whatever optimizations go into it can be seen as pretty safe. I'd rather see any "optimizations" in the actual program than just driver hacks (unless they were global optimizations).

Have a feeling when I get home tomorrow this topic will either be deleted, closed, or 25 pages long. :)

[5150 Joker]

nVidia cheated and Futuremark got pushed into the corner by their lawyers, end of story. Therefore, Futuremark have lost all credibility since they now accept nVidia cheats and cannot be taken as a reliable benchmark. Nice job nVidia, you managed to bury Futuremark while discrediting yourselves. I'll definitely *never* buy another nVidia product again as long as ATi is around. **** them.

edit by StealthHawk: don't circumvent the swear filter.

[vampireuk]

I would say 25 pages and closed ;)

*spots the pack of malbora on the desk* :eek2:

Edit: 5150 so if NVIDIA brought the nv40 out and it smoked all the competition you would not buy that because of the bussiness ethics of the company? True they may not be right at times but remember they are in this soley for money.

[muzz]

This is gonna get ugly..............:rw: :POKE: :lame: owned:

[Nv40]

everything is about money $$, FM will need Nvidia in their Program ,
to clear their Image ,as a "bad" and biased benchmark in the industry.
without Nvidia in their program there will be many doubts in the community
about the reliability of their test.
in my opinion the best thing for the gaming industry is that ALL syntetic
benchmarks that requires the money of Big corporations be banned forever in all video cards reviews. today is NVidia ,tommorow can be ATI.
who pays more controls more.

im really sure that DELL loves so much 3dmark since they have great control there and sponsors their machines as faster that other Oem manufacturers. Big Money from Corporations in impartial tests dont mix.

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by vampireuk
I would say 25 pages and closed ;)

*spots the pack of malbora on the desk* :eek2:

Edit: 5150 so if NVIDIA brought the nv40 out and it smoked all the competition you would not buy that because of the bussiness ethics of the company? True they may not be right at times but remember they are in this soley for money.

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.

[Rogozhin]

From reading the whole article is seems that futuremark was forced into this by a threat of a lawsuit.

I was affraid of this happening.


rogo

[MikeC]

Originally posted by vampireuk
how do you know they didnt actually just sit down and talk it over?

Absolutely. They probably held hands then ran around in a circle and chanted the following words:

Ring around the rosie,
Pocket full of posie;
Ashes, ashes,
We all fall down.

Personally, I'm dying to see the video clip.

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by MikeC
Absolutely. They probably held hands then ran around in a circle and chanted the following words:

Ring around the rosie,
Pocket full of posie;
Ashes, ashes,
We all fall down.

Personally, I'm dying to see the video clip.

LOL yeah i wanna see it too.

[muzz]

The Donkey at [H] starts off his linkage with:

POOF! All is now AOK!

That is the first line that was put up above the story.......

What a drone, he BLASTED ATi for ALOT LESS........

I thought I lost all respect for him awhile ago.....

Guess I was wrong....

Silly me....
:lame: :rw:

[vampireuk]

If its anything like their E3 party neither can I:naughty:

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by muzz
The Donkey at [H] starts off his linkage with:

POOF! All is now AOK!

That is the first line that was put up above the story.......

What a drone, he BLASTED ATi for ALOT LESS........

I thought I lost all respect for him awhile ago.....

Guess I was wrong....

Silly me....
:lame: :rw:


Don't visit the page! You're just generating revenue for that dolt.