nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   Benchmarking And Overclocking (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Official nVidia response (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=12293)

Typedef Enum 05-23-03 05:35 PM

Official nVidia response
 
Quote:

"Since Nvidia is not part of the Futuremark beta program (a program which costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in), we do not get a chance to work with Futuremark on writing the shaders like we would with a real applications developer," the representative said. "We don't know what they did, but it looks like they have intentionally tried to create a scenario that makes our products look bad."
http://news.com.com/2100-1046_3-1009574.html?tag=fd_top

If there haven't been about 50 reasons to detest the business side of this outfit....

Moose 05-23-03 05:37 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since Nvidia is not part of the Futuremark beta program (a program which costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in), we do not get a chance to work with Futuremark on writing the shaders like we would with a real applications developer," the representative said. "We don't know what they did, but it looks like they have intentionally tried to create a scenario that makes our products look bad."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Even if this is true it is still no reason to CHEAT.

PreservedSwine 05-23-03 05:42 PM

First, they insinuate ATI is somehow paying to recieve advantages, then claim that not only is futuremark aiding ATI, but is out to get Nvidia. Man, I only hope people will see thorugh this absolute mud-hole. I never dis-liked Nvidia, but this has got me wondering about it. They helped design 3dm03 for 16 out of 20 months, then pulled out of of the program b/c they saw that their hardware simply didn't stack up. The remaining group, of which ATI was one of many technology leaders, finished. Then they cheat, and this mud-slinging is thier response?

Man, I'm left with only one question.

Doesn't anyone feel any shame anymore?

digitalwanderer 05-23-03 05:45 PM

Bad, bad, BAD nVidia!!!


A seriously not-smart move!!! :eek:

Slappi 05-23-03 05:51 PM

Games are played in business all the time. You guys would be naive to think otherwise. None of us know wtf is going on between ATI, nVidia or FM so I think the best coarse of action is to forget it.

Something that has me troubled is this: NV35 performs on par with the R9800pro in all games for the most part. A LOT OF GAMES. So why does ATI cards beat nVidia cards in 3DMark?!? Doesn't make sense to me. Sounds like 3DMark is a waste of code to me. There may be something to FM making nVidia look bad afterall. Who knows ...

lukar 05-23-03 05:57 PM

I think NVidia cheat in Serious Sam 2, and other benchmark.
Iin real gaming, GFX is far from being better than r350. If you want, you can waste 500$.

OICAspork 05-23-03 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PreservedSwine
First, they insinuate ATI is somehow paying to recieve advantages, then claim that not only is futuremark aiding ATI, but is out to get Nvidia. Man, I only hope people will see thorugh this absolute mud-hole. I never dis-liked Nvidia, but this has got me wondering about it. They helped design 3dm03 for 16 out of 20 months, then pulled out of of the program b/c they saw that their hardware simply didn't stack up. The remaining group, of which ATI was one of many technology leaders, finished. Then they cheat, and this mud-slinging is thier response?

Man, I'm left with only one question.

Doesn't anyone feel any shame anymore?

Agreed, While ATI is listed as a strategic beta member... they are there with the likes of Microsoft, Intel, and AMD... do you think any of those other three are inclined to scew results towards ATI?

Then in the next teir of beta members, the "Active BETA Members" we have Creative, Matrox, Sis, and S3... meaning pretty much all the other graphics venders except Trident... which is...

in the third tier, BETA members...

so that said... THE ONLY graphic company not involved anymore is NVidia... and they had a say in the path of 3DMark03 for approximately 90% of its development time... and now are whining that ATI is paying FutureMark off... somehow... I don't think 5 other graphics cards vendors (besides ATI) that are in the BETA program would agree.

So NVidia is bitching because their hardware doesn't perform adequately to DX9 specs.

I have one last question... how much does the BETA enrollment cost? I'd be curious to see... funny that S3 and Trident think it is a worthwhile investment, but mighty and wealthy NVidia does not.

Oh... here is a link to the BETA members... http://futuremark.com/betaprogram/

I did actually think of one graphics company that doesn't seem to be included, other than NVidia... who is it that makes the Power VR chipsets? I don't think the parent company's name is included... but then again they haven't released anything since KyroII in the DX7 days.

hithere 05-23-03 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slappi
Games are played in business all the time. You guys would be naive to think otherwise. None of us know wtf is going on between ATI, nVidia or FM so I think the best coarse of action is to forget it.
The problem with burying your head in the sand is that you leave your a** in the air.

OICAspork 05-23-03 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slappi
Something that has me troubled is this: NV35 performs on par with the R9800pro in all games for the most part. A LOT OF GAMES. So why does ATI cards beat nVidia cards in 3DMark?!? Doesn't make sense to me. Sounds like 3DMark is a waste of code to me. There may be something to FM making nVidia look bad afterall. Who knows ...
You don't understand the point of 3DMark... it isn't supposed to show the performance of video cards with games available today... and it isn't a waste of code. It is supposed to show the performance of video cards for future DX9 games. So what this demonstrates is that while the NV3x line is quite adequate for current DX8 and below games... it is very likely to look A LOT weaker when DX9 games begin shipping. ^o^ That is why the name is FutureMark, after all!

jAkUp 05-23-03 06:02 PM

it looks like nvidia's pr machine is at work again.. i mean look at these scores...
dark grey= cheating drivers
light grey= clean drivers

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/atta...achmentid=2058

GNNR |AVault| 05-23-03 06:02 PM

I think the other question is why does the NV35 perform well in games but not in 3DMark 03... someone needs to disect the drivers and look to see if it's 'cheating' in the more common demos as well... there are hints of it, but not enough evidence to say with any assurance this is a happeningy... doesn't make sense. If they aren't, why not bother to do the right thing in 3DMark03?

Or... is 3DMark03 really bent out of whack from center towards ATI equipment?

YOu could take the reply to mean what it hints at... ATI worked their drivers to do well in 3DMark03 (or 3DMark leaned towards ATI hardware) and Nvidia decided that it wasn't representative and they wouldn't bother.

But that lstill eaves the question of why bother with the 'cheat' after the fact?

What a mess... seems like an answer crafted to raise more questions and throw up more FUD/FOG than it answers... typical corporate speak.

harabecw 05-23-03 06:13 PM

Thats some badass fillrate :)
twice my 9700's.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.