Futuremark Announcement Delayed

[Nick[FM]]

Hello everyone,

We were supposed to post the new 3DMark usage ground rules today (September 19th), but unfortunately due to some last minute minor changes and edits we made, it had to be postponed. The reason is that we want all our Beta members to be able to read it thoroughly before we post it on our website to the public. We will publish the clarifications and new ground rules next week, as soon as possible.

We are very sorry for this delay, and hope you can bear with us a couple of more days.

If you have any questions concerning this, you can contact Tero Sarkkinen (EVP Sales and Marketing, Futuremark) at tero@futuremark.com.

Best,

The Futuremark Crew

[digitalwanderer]

Futurewho? :eek2:

[Dark Jedi]

I don't know if anyone will really be that bothered with this announcement, given all that has gone before...

[The Baron]

Interesting because it will basically decide the future of Futuremark. No pun intended.

[RAY16]

w00t! Yay for the uninformative eye-candy generator!!

[gmontem]

I'm sure many of us don't care about 3DMark03 unless FutureMark tells us in detail exactly what happened between them and NVIDIA that caused FutureMark to reconsider. Me thinks there was a large sum of money involved. :rolleyes:

[ChrisRay]

Come on guys. I share no love of the benchmark. But at least be respectful towards the guy..

I'm kinda interested in there future plans/announcements as well..


Seriously. I think you guys were way too harsh. Specially since the futuremark crew came here to inform us about there delays and future plans..

I'm disapointed..

[volt]

I'd like to see how it pans out as well. Thanks for the word :)

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by gmontem
I'm sure many of us don't care about 3DMark03 unless FutureMark tells us in detail exactly what happened between them and NVIDIA that caused FutureMark to reconsider. Me thinks there was a large sum of money involved. :rolleyes:

Caused them to reconsider what?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Even if Futuremark retracted "cheat" NVIDIA's optimizations were still not legal...albeit I don't think this was evident to most people. I think most people believed Futuremark changed its classification from cheat -> (legal) optimization.

The announcement should be interesting to say the least. If Futuremark sticks to their guns and doesn't allow application specific optimizations then it will be even mroe interesting to see how/if Futuremark enforces their regulations. Since the 330 patch NVIDIA has had free reign over what it does to 3dmark03.

[Bert]

Interview at 3dcenter.de (http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/2003/09-20_english.php)

"We understand that many people did not believe the performance figures when 3DMark03 was published back in February. Only now we are beginning to see DX9 games emerge and what do you know, their performance readings seem to correlate well with what 3DMark03 showed you already in February :-)."

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by Bert
Interview at 3dcenter.de (http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/2003/09-20_english.php)

"We understand that many people did not believe the performance figures when 3DMark03 was published back in February. Only now we are beginning to see DX9 games emerge and what do you know, their performance readings seem to correlate well with what 3DMark03 showed you already in February :-)."
Yeah, now all they gotta do is convince the community that nVidia doesn't have them in their backpocket.

Which beta partner was it that hasn't "approved" of their big announcement yet? :rolleyes:

[Nick[FM]]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Which beta partner was it that hasn't "approved" of their big announcement yet? :rolleyes:
Didn't I just reply to this exact same post over at B3D? ;) Or is it deja-vu..

Anyway, the fact is that we (Futuremark) made some last minute edits & changes and we wanted that all our Beta members would have enough time to read them through thoroughly.

[gordon151]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Yeah, now all they gotta do is convince the community that nVidia doesn't have them in their backpocket.

Futuremark has many partners, each of them with their own objectives and goals that don't correlate with that of nVidia's. Why you believe they would somehow disregard other members to serve the needs of nVidia is beyond me. Just because they aren't jumping in nVidia's face calling them "cheater, cheater"?

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by worm[FM]
Didn't I just reply to this exact same post over at B3D? ;) Or is it deja-vu..

Anyway, the fact is that we (Futuremark) made some last minute edits & changes and we wanted that all our Beta members would have enough time to read them through thoroughly.
Yes you did, but you didn't really answer the question there either just like here. :rolleyes: (And no Worm, I haven't forgotten that B3D thread at all....it's nice & fresh in me mind written in 10 foot high flaming letters... )

Originally posted by gordon151
Futuremark has many partners, each of them with their own objectives and goals that don't correlate with that of nVidia's. Why you believe they would somehow disregard other members to serve the needs of nVidia is beyond me. Just because they aren't jumping in nVidia's face calling them "cheater, cheater"?
Because they called nVidia "cheaters" before and then after a brief consultation with nVidia came out and called them "optimizations"...kind of why I'm doubting that they're sincerity about making their benchmark fair again. :(