View Single Post
Old 05-18-03, 11:47 AM   #8
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
Trust me, I fully understand this point of view. However, we all know that NVIDIA and ATI actively "optimize" their drivers for enhanced performance in 3dmark programs. This alone undercuts the argument about an "accurate comparision of performance", because it has been repeatedly shown that driver "optimizations" alone can (sometimes significantly) improve performance.

There is also the issue about what is an "optimization" and what is a "cheat". There is no agreement about what this distinction is. If NVIDIA (or ATI for that matter) can improve performance without compromising image quality, I'd like to think of that as an "optimization".

If anything, maybe this will help Futuremark to create a benchmark that is less susceptible to "optimizations", assuming that they truly want to create an "impartial" benchmarking program.
Just because nVidia got busted with a flat-out cheat it does NOT invalidate 3dm2k3 as a benchmark, it invalidates nVidia as a trusted manufacturer.
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote