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)
-   -   Nvidia 3DM03 talks "NOT FLAMES" (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=20892)

bkswaney 11-12-03 05:38 AM

Nvidia 3DM03 talks "NOT FLAMES"
 
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 05:42 AM

Re: Nvidia 3DM03 talks "NOT FLAMES"
 
Quote:

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.

Quote:

So has anyone come up with why we lost 800 points?
The formula has not changed and has always been public.

bkswaney 11-12-03 06:18 AM

Thanks for the links. :)

Socos 11-12-03 10:22 AM

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.

dan2097 11-12-03 10:44 AM

Re: Re: Nvidia 3DM03 talks "NOT FLAMES"
 
Quote:

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.

Did you run anti detect and the 51.75s on aquamark 3 then?

StealthHawk 11-12-03 03:48 PM

Re: Re: Re: Nvidia 3DM03 talks "NOT FLAMES"
 
Quote:

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 04:18 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...


Quote:

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

Its not Fanboy talk its reality !!!

jimmyjames123 11-12-03 04:25 PM

Quote:

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 04:30 PM

Quote:

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 04:30 PM

Quote:

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 04:54 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 05:09 PM

r
 
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:47 AM.

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