Nvidia Against 3D Mark 2003

[jAkUp]

kinda lame, but maybe nvidias products wont fare so well in 3dmark 2003...

from gamespot:

Nvidia has contacted us to say that it doesn't support the use of 3DMark 2003 as a primary benchmark in the evaluation of graphics cards, as the company believes the benchmark doesn't represent how current games are being designed. Specifically, Nvidia contends that the first test is an unrealistically simple scene that's primarily single-textured, that the stencil shadows in the second and third tests are rendered using an inefficient method that's extremely bottlenecked at the vertex engine, and that many of the pixel shaders use specific elements of DX8 that are promoted by ATI but aren't common in current games.

In response to Nvidia's statements, Futuremark's Aki Jarvilehto said, "We've been working for the last 18 months to make 3DMark 2003 an accurate and objective benchmark. Nvidia was one of our beta members until December, and it's not our place to comment on why they've decided to withdraw from the program. After working on the project for almost two years with all the leading manufacturers, we do strongly believe that 3DMark 2003 is an accurate representation of game performance for modern 3D accelerators."

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2910707,00.html

[Kruno]

Everytime something doesn't work in their favour, as a business they have a duty to make themselves look good or at least try not to look bad.

[Dohboy]

Yeah, but this makes them look bad. So mission not accomplished

[jAkUp]

hehe now they say the ati card is better..... but not in games...lmao

[volt]

NVIDIA's BS once more in the past 2 days :)

[noko]

Can they do anything right???

A better way for them to do this is to say:
"We write drivers for games out and games in production. Yes the new 3dMark2003 is something to behold and does things interestly but we are concentrating on real games, and improving performance and the experience as much as we can for our customers. So don't be to dissappointed by any synthetic benchmark but enjoy the real experience from the top notch games of today and those of tomorrow that Nvidia are continuing to help to develope."

Gesh that took me a couple of minutes to bring out and doesn't make at least as far as I am concerned Nvidia trying to hide anything or attack anyone. My two cents worth. Come to think of it Nvidia just got too arrogant, time for some sobering up for them.

[scott123]

Nvidia needs to stop sticking their foot in there mouth for sure, but in general, I agree with them. Gaming performance is what matters. I just built my rig up to run 43 cars in Nascar 2003. Believe me, 3dmark doesn't tell me anything, as far as that goes.

You want a good benchmark? Try running Nascar 2003 with 43 cars, and all options on. It runs in D3D and OpenGL. Frankly the performance I see in this game is better then anything 3dmark can offer.

Scott

[noko]

Yep, I agree with you. Sure is a hell alot more fun I bet. Hmmm maybe I will buy me thinks.

[scott123]

Just to clarify, it's Papyrus's version of Nascar 2003, not EA Sports.

Scott

[scott123]

Here is a opinion of Hardop

Conclusion:

"3DMark03, a DirectX 9 Benchmark?" This is one question that we really must ask ourselves. Game 1 is a very simple DX7 test that is not representative of any current games. Game Tests 2 and 3 are DX8.1 but use Pixel Shader 1.4, which is not used by any games we are aware of and will not be to our knowledge. Game 4 is a hybrid of DX8/DX9. It is these four tests that determine the overall score. Only one game test in this benchmark DirectX 9 and then only partially.

Is 3DMark03 really a good indication of what “Real World” gaming is? Is 3DMark03 really "forward looking"?

With all that we have seen so far it does not appear to actually give us any indication how video cards are going to compare in any real games. It produces an overall 3DMark which is taken from unbalanced game tests. Furthermore as we have seen directly above in the benchmarks, drivers can be optimized to run the game tests faster. The problem is this is just a benchmark and not based on any real world gaming engines. Therefore while you may get a higher 3DMark number you will not see ANY increase in performance in any games that are out there."

[SkullE404]

I just tried 3Dmark03 and i think it sucks. if thats the future of games then were all screwed.

[digitalwanderer]

And people keep posting after me saying stuff like, "I wouldn't listen to him, he's just been slagging nVidia all week!", and wonder why I can't stop it?!?

It's like shooting fish in a barrel! They're virtually writing a handbook on how to NOT deal with a bad PR situation, let alone what they're doing to their community relationships lately.

I'm gonna try like hell not to think up something sarcastic and funny to say about this one, I really will. It's starting to get kind of sad to me, in a pathetic kind of way. :(

[Hellbinder]

From VE3d...


The point HardOCP makes (and which I believe is a valid concern) is that they don't fall back to PS 1.3 (i.e supported on Geforce 3 & 4 cards) but instead fall all the way back to PS 1.1. So of course the ATI cards have an advantage over most Nvidia cards in the tests that use the pixel shaders.


This is the problem Nvidia has spread Nothing but misinformation for years. And it continues. PS 1.2 and 1.3 do not increase performance at all. it has No effect on the number of passes it takes to render a shader. Never has never will. Nvidia DAMN WELL KNEW that the dx 8.1 spec was going to be PS 1.4 and that it was a subset of the comming PS 2.0.

Whos fault is it??? Thats right THEIR OWN!! Now They are going to cry and whine like little babies? 3dmark 2001 used PS 1.1 and took no real advantage of PS 1.4. ATi said nothing, and Nvidia pushed it as the best benchmark on earth. They did not even peep about the lack of PS 1.2/1.3 in the SE release. Why? like i said PS 1.2/1.3 is for show and tell only. makes no difference at all. Notice not one game has ever included ps 1.2/1.3 not even for a single small effect???Now its all different.

For the record....
Cards that support PS 1.1
GF3
GF4
GFFX (when it ships)
All exactly the same only clocked different for model variations.

Cards that support PS 1.4
R 8500
R 9000
R 9500/9500 pro
R 9700
R 9900 (in a coupple more weeks)

Most of the ATi cards are also DX9 where Nvidia does not even have a SINGLE DX9 card out yet. No wonder their scores suck. The Other Question they raise about Vertex shaders. Ati cards have a QUAD vertex engine and Nvidia only supports an array of 3.. whos fault is that??? They cant even win the DX9 Shader tests with their PAST DX9 super card clocked 200mhz FASTER than anything else. Again Whos Fault is that???

I really honestly hope that most people and web sites see through this and do whats right. Not pandering to Nvidia, they dont deserve it.

Edit: Doom-III and several other comming games are using PS 1.4

[ReDeeMeR]

Their just cryin like morons now, this is pathetic...

WHY do you think games dont use PS1.4??? Because of Nvidia forcing developers to optimize for their own cards using weak PS1.1, PS1.4 looks alot better from what I saw. That's when you see "hows it's ment to be played" bs

Nvidia's hardware sucks ass, the only thing that still holds them is the drivers, but I bet my ass that when they say "we are improving preformance" they actualy are decreasing the Image quality and we'll end up with same or maybe even worse then GF4 IQ :mad:

[travbrad]

I really don't even think Nvidia's drivers are that good, it's just that game developers work around Nvidia's shortcomings and don't even pay attention to ATi. That will change if Nvidia keeps it up....

[Raptorman]

nVIDIA's starting to smell like 3dfx did at the end. Screw up after screw up.

[scott123]

Yes indeed. It seem Nvidia can't just shut up, and get back to work. Everytime they make a statement lately, its just like digging the hole deeper, and deeper, and deeper....

Scott

[sebazve]

3dmark is a good prog to see how well youre card is performing but you must be careful how to do it. For example is a good way to see if your system is working right cause you can compare to another similar pc.
Nvidia say that the tests dont represent future games i believe the opposite. For eg Doom3 is going to be similar to games 2 and 3 and that engine is going to stay for a long time.
The other tests are also interesting especially the sound test...
Im not defending 3dmark or anything in fact i hate when people only buy cards cause they get higher 3dmarks. 3dmark is not the holy grail of 3d cards perfomance it s just another good tool to see how well your card is.

just my $2

Note: Im begining to hate nvidia everyday that pass....
:fu:

[Kruno]

Problem is that people tend to run 3dmark just for a higher score. To do that they make their system unstable through a wide variety of tweaks/overclocking and other wordly PC conduct. :)

They don't normally play with those settings in games. :)

[borntosoul]

the times they are a changing ! wow i didnt expect so much nvidia bashing ,the **** has definately hit the fan this time ,has everyone lost confidence with nvidia ? i know i have. even if they do say they optimise for games and not benchmarks they knew what that benchmark was about and that everyone would be using it. i think all this is really fishy .i agree with hell' on this one. i cant wait to see the scores 9700 vs fx