View Single Post
Old 05-18-03, 02:22 PM   #29
digitalwanderer's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944

Originally posted by jimmyjames123
Referring to this as an "optimization" or a "cheat" is all ultimately semantics. Even Futuremark doesn't seem to be consisent about how to "accurately" run the 3dmark program (read above about how they allow overclocked graphics cards and cpu's, but not non-WHQL drivers). Also, NVIDIA doesn't have authorized access to the developer's version of 3dmark03 while ATI does. All of this practically throws normalization of the benchmark out the window.
How is Futuremark inconsistant? They specifically state that they allow overclocked graphic cards and CPU's, but not non-WHQL drivers? That seems pretty specific to me.

Also, while nVidia doesn't have AUTHORIZED access to developers tools that does not mean they don't have them. Hell, I can get 'em if I try...I don't think nVidia would have much problems.

This doesn't throw anything anywhere...except me suspicions.

You didn't deny my accusation I noticed......
[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