nvidas comment to the 3dmark driver banning...

[jAkUp]

<SwedBear> Do you have any comments about Futuremarks decision to withdraw all the results done with several of your leaked driver revisions?

<NV_Bill> I really don't have a comment on that.
<NV_Bill> next

well there it is straight from nvidia..:) the interview is currently going on live right now... and im watching it.
also....

<SwedBear> Ok, since I get completely bombarded regarding this: Can you give any info about the upcoming Detonator 50 drivers?

<NV_Bill> Good timing; I'm happy to say that we are planning on a driver release later this week.

here is the chatlog for everyone who missed it:
http://www.************/_preview.php?articleID=254

[ChrisRay]

I forget which website had this interview

[ChrisRay]

Thanks listening to it now :)

[muzz]

I am reading that log, and am seeing alot of PR speak myself....
Do you guys actually believe all this stuff that he's saying?
I am trying to be very diplomatic in my wording here.

[sebazve]

3. <SwedBear> What does 'optimized for and played best on' really mean? I think a lot would like to argue that they play great on competitor hardware to
<NV_Bill> The long and the short of it is that developers in the program are using NVIDIA to design, develop, and test their products...
[19:05] <NV_Bill> If a player wants to play the game pixel for pixel the way that the game was created, you can do that using NVIDIA gpus.
<NV_Bill> It was born out of the fact that most developers and publishers use NVIDIA as their "reference standard" for hardware and driver compatibility.


:retard: :retard: :retard: :retard: :retard:
ROFLMAO:lol2::bs:

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by sebazve
3. <SwedBear> What does 'optimized for and played best on' really mean? I think a lot would like to argue that they play great on competitor hardware to
<NV_Bill> The long and the short of it is that developers in the program are using NVIDIA to design, develop, and test their products...
[19:05] <NV_Bill> If a player wants to play the game pixel for pixel the way that the game was created, you can do that using NVIDIA gpus.
<NV_Bill> It was born out of the fact that most developers and publishers use NVIDIA as their "reference standard" for hardware and driver compatibility.


:retard: :retard: :retard: :retard: :retard:
ROFLMAO:lol2::bs:


Uhm...is their a transcript up yet? I can't believe they were really saying this... :rolleyes:

[ChrisRay]

Thats really not an unreasonable comment, Because up until very recently thats been true, And alot of designers definately do this.

His answer was as diplomatic as you could hope for with such a question.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by ChrisRay
Thats really not an unreasonable comment, Because up until very recently thats been true, And alot of designers definately do this.

His answer was as diplomatic as you could hope for with such a question.

people either side of the fence will view the comments as either representative and somewhat pr'd gloss that is to the point... or as a fair load of cow excreta :)

its the nature of being a supporter... no matter how unbiased you may be.. of one company or the other... fanboyism is inherently in our genes :D

it is the DEGREE of fanboyism that separates the level headed from the rest... :)

[ChrisRay]

Originally posted by Sazar
people either side of the fence will view the comments as either representative and somewhat pr'd gloss that is to the point... or as a fair load of cow excreta :)

its the nature of being a supporter... no matter how unbiased you may be.. of one company or the other... fanboyism is inherently in our genes :D

it is the DEGREE of fanboyism that separates the level headed from the rest... :)


I just find it difficult to imagine how he could have answered the question differently :)

[Sazar]

Originally posted by ChrisRay
I just find it difficult to imagine how he could have answered the question differently :)

he could have talked about the little flowers that come with all VW beetles... that would have been highly diplomatic and he would not have been taking sides... :)

IMO...

[ChrisRay]

Originally posted by Sazar
he could have talked about the little flowers that come with all VW beetles... that would have been highly diplomatic and he would not have been taking sides... :)

IMO...

hehehe :D

Well you can't expect anything more or less from Nvidia or ATI :)

[muzz]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Uhm...is their a transcript up yet? I can't believe they were really saying this... :rolleyes:

Yes Dig there is.... thats what I was referring to, as I wouldn't watch that.

[R.Carter]

So what they are saying is that "Nvidia" should be considered to be the "reference standard" and not an API like DirectX8.1 or OpenGL 1.3. :rolleyes:

I guess...

[Nutty]

No, what he means is, the developers probably use nvidia cards as their primary work machines. They then test on other cards to make sure it works okay. But initial testing, research, and getting things right are done on their cards.

As JC said, the majority of his work on doom3 was done using an nvidia card in his work machine.

[John Reynolds]

Originally posted by Nutty
No, what he means is, the developers probably use nvidia cards as their primary work machines. They then test on other cards to make sure it works okay. But initial testing, research, and getting things right are done on their cards.

As JC said, the majority of his work on doom3 was done using an nvidia card in his work machine.

JC also said that a year ago and considering his OpenGL stance that's certainly reasonable. However, a lot has changed in that past year:

1) ATi beat Nvidia to market with a DX9 part by over six months and have given quite a few 9700 boards to developers
2) ATi's drivers have continued to improve by quite a bit.

I still think it's fairly safe to say that Nvidia holds a plurality of developer support, though.

[Grrrpoop]

Originally posted by Nutty
No, what he means is, the developers probably use nvidia cards as their primary work machines. They then test on other cards to make sure it works okay. But initial testing, research, and getting things right are done on their cards.

As JC said, the majority of his work on doom3 was done using an nvidia card in his work machine.
That's certainly true for cards pre-FX.

IIRC Epic didn't even bother doing exhaustive testing on the 9700pro, they dev'd UT2k3 with nVidia cards and it still worked fine on the 9700Pro right off :)

With FX it seems to be different tho - S.T.A.L.K.E.R is being dev'd on 9700pros as the dev's have to put in extra work on the FX. Seems to be similar to what JC reports with the FX needing its own path as it doesn't perform to its full potential on a generic path. The 9700pro does perform well on generic paths tho..

Why is that? I'm not being facetious, seriously, someone explain why that could be :confused:

Is something not quite right with how the FX interprets standard DX and OGL, or are they deliberately making dev's put in extra work on nVidia cards?


Getting back OT, I'm not surprised nVidia didn't respond to Futuremarks decision. IIRC the dodgy Det's were meant to be an example of how drivers could be manupulated to increase synthetic benchmark performance, thus invalidating 3Dmark2k3 .. except most ppl have jumped on it saying "look! nVidia are cheating!!". I think it was reasonable for Futuremark to ban drivers which decrease IQ for extra points, and no doubt nV don't want to give FM any more publicity by continuing a tit-for-tat b*tch-fest at each other.

[sebazve]

i guess he hasnt look at games with AF/AA in his geforce fx...:lol2:

[mwat]

Futuremark
Since the release of 3DMark03, there has been some uncertainty about which drivers to use for impartial and useful benchmarking.

Based on the feedback we have received from users worldwide, all official performance listings at www.futuremark.com will be derived entirely from results obtained with WHQL’d drivers.

Microsoft’s WHQL is an important program that guarantees reliability and consistent performance in users’ daily computing needs. Futuremark endorses WHQL as a positive aspect of consumers’ computing experiences and we officially support the use of Microsoft WHQL drivers.

To accommodate an enthusiastic community of users who wish to experiment and learn more about maximum performance of their hardware, Futuremark will also enable comparisons of results obtained by non-WHQL’d drivers. To ensure objectivity, benchmark results will be clearly separated between both categories.
Ok, so what this means is that we will continue to allow the use of any driver-type (beta, unofficial, WHQL, modded etc etc), but we will distinguish the WHQL drivers in the ORB by marking them. They will have a column that clearly displays that they are WHQL.

And FYI, in the non-WHQL category, we will also re-enable the Detonator 42.67, 42.68 42.69 drivers.

Please note that this task will require some time. Please be patient. We will set this as our ORB priority #1, but it will still require a lot of work and time. .

Looks like the community has spoken!!!

Cheers

[Solomon]

Originally posted by mwat
Looks like the community has spoken!!!

Cheers

This is what they should have done in the beginning. This result is from their fan base upset in the way they just removed certain versions. It's sad that they choose this path not because they seem they wanted too, but because of the pressure their users with their feedback was saying.

They should of done this way back in the 3DMark99 stage. Only use WHQL for official comparising, leave the beta, modded for the individual user who wants to see the performance of "beta" or "modded" drivers on their particular system.

Just funny how peer pressure still works these days! Hehe.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Solomon
This is what they should have done in the beginning. This result is from their fan base upset in the way they just removed certain versions. It's sad that they choose this path not because they seem they wanted too, but because of the pressure their users with their feedback was saying.

They should of done this way back in the 3DMark99 stage. Only use WHQL for official comparising, leave the beta, modded for the individual user who wants to see the performance of "beta" or "modded" drivers on their particular system.

Just funny how peer pressure still works these days! Hehe.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

their WHITEPAPER states this though solomon... the exact same sentiments...

it is not in their hands unfortunately what the reviewers are going to do when told to bench with specific drivers...

besides... this is hardly going to stop reviewers from using the particular drivers in question for benching... i doubt submitting results is a top priority... I have not personally seen too many compare links :D

[jbirney]

Originally posted by Solomon
This is what they should have done in the beginning. This result is from their fan base upset in the way they just removed certain versions. It's sad that they choose this path not because they seem they wanted too, but because of the pressure their users with their feedback was saying.

Actually there was a post on B3D made a few days ago by the 3Dmark pres or vice-pres hinting that they had planed to do this (remove/change all non-WHQL dirvers not just nV)....for what that is worth....

[SnakeEyes]

4 . <Scott> To Mr. RehBock: Can we expect significant performance and quality enhancements in terms of AA and AF in the upcoming NV products? ( e.g NV35 )
<NV_Bill> Absolutely; the AA and AF enhancements were a key consideration in the overall design of the GF FX family.

Uh.. sure.. right.

I think this answer was definitely all PR, unless you consider the fact that the only real changes made for AA and AF were to add driver options to castrate the AF (turning off / down the use of trilinear filtering unless in Application mode) and to add a couple additional (useless, no less, based on IQ comparisons with the modes that were already available on the GF4 that carried over) software-based AA modes. I'm afraid that from what I've seen of the IQ capabilities of the GF-FX, I'd be running in what I consider to be GF4 emulation mode- ie. 4xS or lower AA, application mode with 8x or lower aniso enabled. The only improvement I see as far as AA and AF are concerned is just based in reality on speed improvements in the new chip- basically, it can run higher AA and aniso modes playably than the GF4 could. The downside is that since ATI did such a bang-up job with the R300, even the increased levels (playable, remember) aren't really a match for the levels that are still playable on the 9700. :(

Heh. Interesting read though.

[MazeWing]

<NV_Bill> Absolutely; the AA and AF enhancements were a key consideration in the overall design of the GF FX family.

Something went wrong on that part..........

[digitalwanderer]

I like the duel scoring system with the official/un-official drivers, it'll give the best of both worlds. :)

[Sazar]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
I like the duel scoring system with the official/un-official drivers, it'll give the best of both worlds. :)

I never realised there were 2 worlds :(

where is this other world that I have yet to be exposed to ?