Originally posted by jjjayb
Jeez you people are missing the point. If they do it on 3dmark2003 they can do it on a timedemo too. Most of the review sites run the same benchmarks. 3dmark2003, 2001, ut2003, splinter cell, serious sam etc... Guess what, they use the same time demos for these games too. ut2003 flyby sound familiar? If they do this for the time demos then they will get inflated scores. You'll buy a $500 card thinking it can get 60Fps in splintercell because that's what the benchmarks said, yet when you take the game home to PLAY it, it only plays at 40fps.
If they could make this hack work on a game that would be great. You'd have great fps while still thinking it looks good. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
Because they are doing this on a benchmark that makes it even worse. A benchmarks only purpose is to test a cards speed. They are inflating the speeds to sell more cards. You think you're going to run pixel shader 2.0 games great because they score great on p.s.2.0 benchmarks, but come to find out you spent $500 on a card that runs pixel shader 2.0 games like ass.
Kills me you people actually defend this type of action. I can understand having brand loyalty, but at some point you have to open your eyes.
i believe ati is well capable of doing this kind of benchmark hack too, just because it can doesnt mean it will do it.
so does 3Dmark difference indicate splinter cell performance difference? is there any reason why nvidia still hasnt hacked the AA/AF performance to beat 9700/9800pro?
3DMark is not supposed to mean absolute performance of every single game. it is far from an absolute performance indicator of every single game.