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)
-   -   Why is NVIDIA against 3DMark03? (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7645)

PreservedSwine 02-16-03 04:21 PM

Why is Nvidia trashing 3dM03?
 
What do you think the motive is?

Megatron 02-16-03 04:30 PM

Probably because futuremark didnt pander to them like Nvidia figured they should.

Maybe they wanted a "The way its meant to be played" tag on it somewhere, and futuremark said no.:D

Nutty 02-16-03 05:03 PM

Maybe cos it's a pile of ****e?

I mean c'mon. 2 years to produce that crap? I could've done it better myself if I had their art team at my disposal.

The "DX9" scene, is 70% DX8 pixel shaders.. wheres the logic in that?

Honestly, I've seen better stuff in a 64k demo.

Smokey 02-16-03 05:09 PM

It also DOES not reflect game performance. The 8500 was faster in 3dmark than my gf3, yet in games it wasnt :rolleyes:

Its good for system tweaks, to see what gives better performance from your machine.

Oh ... and what Nutty said :p

Onde Pik 02-16-03 05:26 PM

Well the question is not wheter or not it is a bad benchmark. But WHY Nvidia is trashing it now. 3DMark2001 was just as ****ty and they didnt trash that one.


I answered #1 becuse that IS the reason why Nvidia is trashing it, it is a bad benchmark yes but that is not the question.

Nutty 02-16-03 06:00 PM

I dont think their current line lacks the technology to be good at DX9.

I maybe reading between the lines here, but it seemed the 9700 ran the DX9 scene's PS 1.4 shaders as PS1.4. It seems the GF-FX had some problem with this, and so promoted all the shaders to PS2.0, which is why it seems to run like a dog compared to the 9700 in the pixel shader category.

If some companies get some decent quiet cooling solutions on the gf-fx, then I'll probably consider getting one. I think given a few months for drivers to mature, we'll see it pull ahead from the 9700 alot more.

Sazar 02-16-03 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nutty
I dont think their current line lacks the technology to be good at DX9.

I maybe reading between the lines here, but it seemed the 9700 ran the DX9 scene's PS 1.4 shaders as PS1.4. It seems the GF-FX had some problem with this, and so promoted all the shaders to PS2.0, which is why it seems to run like a dog compared to the 9700 in the pixel shader category.

If some companies get some decent quiet cooling solutions on the gf-fx, then I'll probably consider getting one. I think given a few months for drivers to mature, we'll see it pull ahead from the 9700 alot more.

what are you on about?

the fx does what it is supposed to... its ps 2.0 does not seem as efficient as the 9700pro's for some reason @ the moment.. either because it is not or because of driver problems... dunno...

what problem exists is the dx8 gf4ti cards running the dx8 games with ps 1.3 instead of 1.4 hence using extra renderng pases and therefore garnering a lower score...

concerning comments about 3dmark03... READ THE WHITE PAPER BEFORE MAKING RETARDED COMMENTS

the original white paper perhaps...

maybe is nvidia or hardocp or toms had read the white paper they would not have posted half of what they did... as is I am hoping that the rumor mongers read futuremarks newly released .pdf answering all allegations about their product levied by nvidia...

John Reynolds 02-16-03 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smokey
It also DOES not reflect game performance. The 8500 was faster in 3dmark than my gf3, yet in games it wasnt :rolleyes:

Its good for system tweaks, to see what gives better performance from your machine.

Oh ... and what Nutty said :p

The 8500 scores well because of PS1.4 support. 3DMark, as someone over at B3D's board said, is supposed to represent more than just a card's performance, but also its "goodness" (technology, features, etc.). Make of that what you will.

Myrmecophagavir 02-16-03 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Reynolds
The 8500 scores well because of PS1.4 support. 3DMark, as someone over at B3D's board said, is supposed to represent more than just a card's performance, but also its "goodness" (technology, features, etc.). Make of that what you will.
Bingo. I wish they wouldn't advertise it as "the gamer's benchmark", because maybe it's true that games don't use the same techniques (ie. PS 1.4). But if you view 3DMark as a test of what a card is capable of rather than trying to emulate gaming performance, it works better. 8500 can utilise PS 1.4 to get things done more efficiently than GF3, so why shouldn't it "win"?

It's like saying "The 8500 wins in app A, but the GF3 wins in app B, therefore app A is a bad benchmark for the card's performance". It's only that app A's programmers made an effort to take advantage of the 8500's extra features. If game developers would take advantage of it more widely then it would win in more tests!

ZoinKs! 02-16-03 07:46 PM

You've completely missed the point
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Smokey
It also DOES not reflect game performance...
The new 3dmark is not made to measure performance in current games. It is made to predict performance in games which will be released 1-2 years from now.

A graphics card producing a high 3dmark03 score will be better in future games than a card with a low 3dmark03 score.

If you want to know performance in current games, then look at framerates in those games. If you're shopping for a new card and want one that will last, then look at 3dmark03 results.

Skynet 02-16-03 09:44 PM

Quote:

Honestly, I've seen better stuff in a 64k demo.
Uh huh. So I guess we don't really need DX9 at all just code everything in a 64k boundry and that's all it takes.

You know, why doesn't everyone read FutureMark's white paper on 3DMark03 it explains a lot and answers many questions and concerns people are having.

AND GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS that it is for FUTURE GAMES not what is being played now. It's not that hard to understand. The reason the 8500 does better than expected on 3DMark03 is because it has more advanced shaders than a GeForce3, it's direct competitor at the time. That is not a rant or an opinion it is a FACT, why is that so hard to understand? The 8500 is most definitely slower and pretty much every game out there compared to a GeForce4 and most GeForce 3's, but it just so happens to have a better shader, no big deal. I'm not saying it will do well on a DX9 game because it won't it does not have the memory bandwidth to start with....

Face it people Nvidia is really hurting themselves with this slam of FutureMark. I used to really like Nvidia cards but lately they are really p!ssing me off. They need to stop making excuses and start getting a line of DX9 cards out there. WHERE IS THE GFX I STILL CAN'T buy one.

Looks like all of my system builds with DX9 cards are going to be ATI, not my fault.

Sazar 02-16-03 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Myrmecophagavir
Bingo. I wish they wouldn't advertise it as "the gamer's benchmark
yah... hmm... perhaps...

but I REALLY REALLY wish nvidia would not put their ridiculous, Nvidia.. the way its meant to be played logo all over the place... :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 AM.

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