View Single Post
Old 05-18-03, 12:47 PM   #18
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
The idea is that there are no concrete "rules as to how the benchmark is run". There is no concrete definition of what makes up a driver "optimization". NVIDIA does not even have authorized access to the 3dmark03 developer tools that some other websites are using. Futuremark themselves is very inconsistent. They don't allow non-WHQL drivers, but they allow overclocked graphics cards and cpu's. Don't you think that "skews" results in a way that driver "optimizations" wouldn't? That introduces yet another variable, and the graphics cards (and cpu's) that overclock better will have a natural advantage.
<sigh>

Can we just agree to disagree on this one? I think that's what the crux of the whole debate is, and the peeps who think it's a cheat to "optimize" a benchmark the way nVidia did aren't going to change their minds anymore than the people who believe it's a legitimate "optimization"

Methinks we'll find out more tomorrow, further debating this point is just an exercise in futility right now.
__________________
[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