Nvidia 3DM03 talks "NOT FLAMES" [Archive]

bkswaney

11-12-03, 06:38 AM

Well, I'm really hoping these thread does not turn into a flame war.

I am not even going to put the benchmark in my profile anymore. What a mess.

I'm now only using Aquamark 3. :)
When futuremark and Nvidia get all there do and don't stuff worked out I might use it again.

We all know nvidia has to optimize there drivers to get good performance.
We have known this sense the NV30 come out.

What I do not understand is why FM and NV have not sit down and talked about what they can and cannot do to get better performance in the benchmark. :confused:

So has anyone come up with why we lost 800 points?

But I guess when it comes down to it I really don;t care as long as my IQ is top notch and my games run smooth.

The main game I play is UT2003. It runs sweet as sugar on my 5900u.
It's smoother than my 9800Pro was and the IQ is just wonderful.
I only hope UT2004 runs as good. :)

Let's please not get this thread closed to. It's nice to talk about these things but some had rather just call u names.
Mods please just delete those post and save my thread if u can. :)

StealthHawk

11-12-03, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by bkswaney
We all know nvidia has to optimize there drivers to get good performance.
We have known this sense the NV30 come out.

Debatable at best. Sorry to go off-topic, but Aquamark3 does not show any signs of application specfic optimization to me. Neither does Shadermark2, neither does Halo, and neither does Gunmetal.

And for those who missed it: Beyond3D's excellent 3dmark03 340 article (http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dmark03/340/index.php).

So has anyone come up with why we lost 800 points?

The formula has not changed and has always been public (http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3dmark03_whitepaper.pdf).

bkswaney

11-12-03, 07:18 AM

Thanks for the links. :)

Socos

11-12-03, 11:22 AM

dan2097

11-12-03, 11:44 AM

StealthHawk

11-12-03, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by dan2097
Did you run anti detect and the 51.75s on aquamark 3 then?

Yes. And I will be posting results sometime within in the next 7 days. I don't have a copy of Excel with me right now, so I can't make the charts.

-=DVS=-

11-12-03, 05:18 PM

No FLames intended quate from Beyond3D ,
For people who defend Nvidia and they cards you missed the big picture , why alot of people don't like optimizations , sure its ok if its not reduce quality and you favorite game runs great but what about rest of games...

A new PC game gets released about once a day; about one-third of these are games that really push 3D graphics. Only a tiny percentage of these will receive the dubious "optimizations" that have been directed at previous versions of 3DMark03. Gamers don't want to be locked into these. They don't want to be surprised by poor frame rates when they buy a game outside the top 10. Gamers need uncompromised benchmarks that give them a true picture of performance, so they can find a card that performs for all games, not just the half-dozen for which the drivers are faking it.

Link to source Beyond3d (http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dmark03/340/index.php?p=7)

Its not Fanboy talk its reality !!!

jimmyjames123

11-12-03, 05:25 PM

I think ATI makes a valid point that if the game you like is not a mainstream game that sells a million copies and has benchmark results posted in magazines you will never see this level of optimization from Nivida.

So if all you play is mainstream games your choice is ATI/Nivida, if you play some of those games that are off the beaten path then I guess ATI is the only way to go for overall performance.

Unless someone else has a better explanation.

Not exactly. For one, since we generally don't have benchmarking results for these "less-played games", we do not know exactly how performance differs. Also, it can be argued that general compatibility and driver stability is just as important (if not more important) as raw performance, especially with some less visible older games.

Hanners

11-12-03, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by jimmyjames123
Not exactly. For one, since we generally don't have benchmarking results for these "less-played games", we do not know exactly how performance differs.

Which is where synthetic benchmarks come in - To give you an idea of how the hardware performs in general in an unoptimised state. Of course, it won't cover the kind of technology every game uses, but it's as good as it gets.

NickSpolec

11-12-03, 05:30 PM

Not exactly. For one, since we generally don't have benchmarking results for these "less-played games", we do not know exactly how performance differs.

Which is why reviewers have to evolve and start using games other then Quake3/Unreal Tournament 2k3/3DMark, and start using fraps with games that aren't targeted by Nvidia (and yes, ATI).

cthellis

11-12-03, 05:54 PM

Getting developers to all offer recording features would be a major step past ALL of this, though. Predictable FRAPS results for the vast bulk of games, so one doesn't have to be stuck with the most-used (and therefore most-targetted-for-optimizations) games/benches for years on end.

The only problem with THAT is, of course, that the demo recorders could specifically target areas of a game that favor one IHV over another, but I suppose if you're getting down to THAT level of distrust of reviewers, there's a lot more "bad" going on anyway. (After all, they could just be making up the numbers they put down.)

There will always be a place for static benchmarks that look specifically at certain areas and abilities of cards, though, as we still want to be able TO specifically target certain capabilities, as well as sketch out a general picture of what to expect in the future, or when certain development trends follow a course that we can't see yet just by looking at current games.

Blacklash

11-12-03, 06:09 PM

Fraps is all I have on my system currently. I removed 3dmark03/2001, Aquamark, and the X2 Rolling demo.

The irrational and macho horse crap behavior these benches draw out of people is both frustrating and at times, sickening.I will take the actual game benches, thank you.

When I look for a card, I want to know how it does in games I have and may get. I look at the resolutions and what eye candy is on at those settings. Can card X run the game I like with good IQ and playable framerates, that's it.

Benches were not intended to be the manhood measuring they have become, but were rather intended to be a useful tool.

BTW I have a 9800pro on my other rig,< so this is not a matter of ati/nvidia, its just select fans of BOTH camps can be pains in the arse when dealing with the all knowing bench.

cthellis

11-12-03, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Malficar
Benches were not intended to be the manhood measuring they have become, but were rather intended to be a useful tool.

Nor are frames per second in games, either, but they'll still be latched onto in the same way. AND they'll still carry the same kind of weight in reviews. Everything has relevance--it's just up to the reviewers (and after that, the individuals themselves) to properly frame the context and make the consumer as informed as possible.

Considering all the fallout of late, the environment is quite a lot more informed than previously--which is a good thing. (The circumstances in which it's come about, however...) The testing templates get bigger and more consistently updated, image quality comparisons are more frequent, and the PR coming out of all camps is more apt to attract commentary outside of the forums, and even side articles, rather than just being mindlessly regurgitated. (Though some will no doubt contest that last part. ;) )

Doesn't matter WHAT form something takes--those who want to "dick measure" against it will do so. Sadly you can't counteract that even with a huge gamut of tests (Ha! My card wins 18 our of 23 tests at 4xAA/8xAF at 1600x1200!), so you hardly do yourself a service by ceasing to care about certain things. The best picture IS the most filled-in one, and that includes all game tests, benchmarks, and the appropriate context they have--not to mention additional commentary to lace them all together.

TheTaz

11-12-03, 07:20 PM

Anyone else find it a little odd that some "general" hardware sites don't mention Futuremark's patch at all?

Nothing on Anandtech, nothing on HardOCP, a very small news link on Tom's.

/shrug

Taz

cthellis

11-12-03, 07:31 PM

Indeed. I was kind of expecting more from [H] considering the "paradigm shifts" that have been going on there of late, though. ;) I was thinking perhaps they were prepping an examination article, but that seems unlikely considering the general lambasting (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=688550) Kyle is doing in the forums. His opinions on FutureMark, at least, don't seem to have changed at all.

Sickness

11-12-03, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by TheTaz
Anyone else find it a little odd that some "general" hardware sites don't mention Futuremark's patch at all?

Nothing on Anandtech, nothing on HardOCP, a very small news link on Tom's.

/shrug

Taz

I was kind of expecting there to be something with regards to the affair at ExtremeTech, them being a part of the beta tester team for FutureMark and all. It seems rather odd that the story wasn't more heavily circulated, strange indeed. It truly is a substantial discovery and most undeniably noteworthy.

TheTaz

11-12-03, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Sickness
I was kind of expecting there to be something with regards to the affair at ExtremeTech, them being a part of the beta tester team for FutureMark and all. It seems rather odd that the story wasn't more heavily circulated, strange indeed. It truly is a substantial discovery and most undeniably noteworthy.

Well... I think these other sites are playing "politics".

Either they don't want to piss nVidia off, or they don't want to deal with flak from nVidia fans. I have to Applaud Mike C and company for posting the news, and keeping the discussion open in the forums. :)

Regards,

Taz

Hellbinder

11-12-03, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by StealthHawk
Debatable at best. Sorry to go off-topic, but Aquamark3 does not show any signs of application specfic optimization to me. Neither does Shadermark2, neither does Halo, and neither does Gunmetal.

And for those who missed it: Beyond3D's excellent 3dmark03 340 article (http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dmark03/340/index.php).

The formula has not changed and has always been public (http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3dmark03_whitepaper.pdf).
Im sorry stealth but all They have dont is made found a way to get their application detection to not be detected.

I gurantee they are still doing Application detection and shader replacement (among other things) in every single example you have listed. Ill go a step further. Even in examples where some people claim there is no IQ difference there usually is. Sure you have to zoom or pay attention to detail to see it but its there. The fact that people that buy Nvidia products dont seem to care or make excuses for it or say iot does not matter does not change the reality of it. look at this example the second post down on this page.

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33724848&perpage=20&pagenumber=3

Yet the "reviewer" claimed to see no difference in these pics. Which is imo laughable. While you cant see the detail in motion is that a reason to condone it and claim it does not exsist? Take any of the above games and look at them closely.. What will the results be?

digitalwanderer

11-12-03, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by TheTaz
Well... I think these other sites are playing "politics".

Either they don't want to piss nVidia off, or they don't want to deal with flak from nVidia fans. I have to Applaud Mike C and company for posting the news, and keeping the discussion open in the forums. :)

Regards,

Taz
Did nVnews publish anything on this on their frontpage? Last I checked yesterday they had a blurb buried in one of Muya's updates about Nordichardware trying out the patch. :(

TheTaz

11-12-03, 08:32 PM

Hellbinder

11-12-03, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Did nVnews publish anything on this on their frontpage? Last I checked yesterday they had a blurb buried in one of Muya's updates about Nordichardware trying out the patch. :(
I really dont think it matters wether Nvnews makes a post about it on the front page or not. This is just a benchmark and most of the Nvidia fanbase still around simply does not care. So why waste time on it?

We have gotten to the point where people in general are deleting 3dmark03 from their harddrives instead of demanding Quality form Nvidia. The reason is.. theu know nothing is going to change.. again.. why waste time on it? If the owners of the hardware are happy with the results they are getting in the things that are important to them.. so be it.

The bad thing is that many, if not most people are flatly sticking their heads in the sand about the issue simply becuase they dont understand or see the difference because all they own is Nvidia hardware.

IT would really be interesting to see what the same group of people would say about ATi or another company if they had the same results.

Sickness

11-12-03, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by TheTaz
Well... I think these other sites are playing "politics".

Either they don't want to piss nVidia off, or they don't want to deal with flak from nVidia fans. I have to Applaud Mike C and company for posting the news, and keeping the discussion open in the forums. :)

Regards,

Taz

Ironically Nvidia fan sites have more integrity then Nvidia itself at this point. It is good to see at any rate.

Hellbinder

11-12-03, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by bkswaney

But I guess when it comes down to it I really don;t care as long as my IQ is top notch and my games run smooth.

The main game I play is UT2003. It runs sweet as sugar on my 5900u.
It's smoother than my 9800Pro was and the IQ is just wonderful.
I only hope UT2004 runs as good. :)

Let's please not get this thread closed to. It's nice to talk about these things but some had rather just call u names.
Mods please just delete those post and save my thread if u can. :)
Kind of odd that your results in UT2003 pretty much go against the grain for most reviews and even threads in this forum. Especially when looking at the results from a host of user made maps etc.. In fact i think i remember you yourself commenting on some of these issues when you had your 9800pro in this very forum..

StealthHawk

11-13-03, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Hellbinder
Im sorry stealth but all They have dont is made found a way to get their application detection to not be detected.

I gurantee they are still doing Application detection and shader replacement (among other things) in every single example you have listed. Ill go a step further. Even in examples where some people claim there is no IQ difference there usually is. Sure you have to zoom or pay attention to detail to see it but its there. The fact that people that buy Nvidia products dont seem to care or make excuses for it or say iot does not matter does not change the reality of it. look at this example the second post down on this page.

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33724848&perpage=20&pagenumber=3

Yet the "reviewer" claimed to see no difference in these pics. Which is imo laughable. While you cant see the detail in motion is that a reason to condone it and claim it does not exsist? Take any of the above games and look at them closely.. What will the results be?

Oh I absolutely agree that is a possibility. But there's really no way to prove it.

And of course the same thing can be said for ATI. So I think you're opening a can of worms that should stay closed, lest this turn into a witch hunt.