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)
-   -   FutureMark License/HardOCP (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7630)

Typedef Enum 02-16-03 04:38 AM

FutureMark License/HardOCP
 
There was a link over @ Beyond3D, linking to a post made over here; however, I couldn't find the post (at least, according to the link provided).

At any rate, this is what was said in the FutureMark PDF (verbatim)...

Quote:

Futuremark's recommendation has always been that default WHQL certified drivers should be used for benchmarking purposes. This is because any specific driver tuning might produce results that are not genuinely comparable. According to 3DMark03 license agreement, any review to be published has to use generally available, shipping versions of products and drivers.
Just to make sure there wasn't any misunderstanding with the license, I found the relevant section

Quote:

VII. State that all products used to obtain the Result were shipping versions available to the general public.
As you can plainly see, the results posted @ HardOCP are in violation of the license agreement, and therefore must be considered invalid :)

5150 Joker 02-16-03 04:48 AM

Re: FutureMark License/HardOCP
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Typedef Enum
There was a link over @ Beyond3D, linking to a post made over here; however, I couldn't find the post (at least, according to the link provided).

At any rate, this is what was said in the FutureMark PDF (verbatim)...



Just to make sure there wasn't any misunderstanding with the license, I found the relevant section



As you can plainly see, the results posted @ HardOCP are in violation of the license agreement, and therefore must be considered invalid :)

Brent is an ok reviewer but HardOCP in general is a ****ty website. Toms is even worse though.

Evildeus 02-16-03 04:54 AM

Re: FutureMark License/HardOCP
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Typedef Enum
As you can plainly see, the results posted @ HardOCP are in violation of the license agreement, and therefore must be considered invalid :) [/b]
Yes, but as a consequences, all 3DMark test on non available products are invalid. Therefore, no more preview of products using 3DMark. Think that reviews won't use it as a consequence :)

The_KELRaTH 02-16-03 05:40 AM

IXBT has 3Dmark scores based on 42.68, they are much the same as 42.67 and can be dled from Guru3D

Sazar 02-16-03 09:40 AM

Re: Re: FutureMark License/HardOCP
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Evildeus
Yes, but as a consequences, all 3DMark test on non available products are invalid. Therefore, no more preview of products using 3DMark. Think that reviews won't use it as a consequence :)
?

:) sry yer sentence structure is all screwy

3dmark03 will be used still IMO... but perhaps WHQL certified is the key word :) lol

volt 02-16-03 09:41 AM

So which are WHQL ? To me none of them should be considered as such.

Evildeus 02-16-03 09:58 AM

Re: Re: Re: FutureMark License/HardOCP
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sazar
?

:) sry yer sentence structure is all screwy

3dmark03 will be used still IMO... but perhaps WHQL certified is the key word :) lol

Sorry didn't look back at my spelling/structure :)

The article VII says you need to :
Quote:

State that all products used to obtain the Result were shipping versions available to the general public.
Then, you can't use 3DMark, for any preview cos the product's not available, and make reviews before the product is available even if you use WHQL drivers.

So, what do i do as a reviewer? I wait till the product is available or do i make the preview/review without 3Dmark? I think that as a reviewer, i do the review and i say f... u to FutureMark.

That's why i think this article will never be enforced or FutureMark can say bye bye to its selling ;)

Hope i'm clear :afro:

John Reynolds 02-16-03 10:11 AM

Evildeus,

I completely agree with you. Futuremark will never take legal action against a site for using their software in a product preview. That said, Typedef's point still stands. . .it's very crappy to use 'special', non-public, non-WHQL drivers on hardware that's not even on store shelves and when it does reach store shelves rumored to then be extremely limited in quantities. Actually, it's crappy to do the above and then compare it against an available product using public drivers. If it weren't for the direct comparisons I wouldn't mind so much. But when has any of the major review sites ever used common sense or objective standards?

volt 02-16-03 10:24 AM

I think I will copyright my signature :rolleyes:

Evildeus 02-16-03 10:28 AM

John Reynolds,

Well, i disagree with his last comment "must be considered invalid ". Then the 42.68 is available to the public even if not on Nvidia's site and anyone can compare.

I understand your point, but as the product is still not available, the drivers should be still beta.

BTW, there's a lot of people using beta drivers and prefer them over WHQL.

John Reynolds 02-16-03 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evildeus
Well, i disagree with his last comment "must be considered invalid ". Then the 42.68 is available to the public even if not on Nvidia's site and anyone can compare.
I'm not sure the 42.68s were available late last week when used (and a reviewer has no idea at that point if they would become publically available).

The entire situation is just shoddy, IMO. But not worth getting my panties in a bind since I've never used 3DMark and never fretted over the #s it generates.

Evildeus 02-16-03 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by volt
I think I will copyright my signature :rolleyes:
I'm not sure you were using them before me :D, and you didn't say them :p


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:15 AM.

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