View Single Post
Old 05-18-03, 02:24 PM   #30
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
That a BS assumption. I have already said that, whether NVIDIA or ATI, if they can enhance performance without compromising image quality of what we actually see, then all the better.
The visuals are not what count, the final score is what counts. The visuals are just a way of allowing the end user to see the work that's supposed to be generated, a bit of eyecandy expressing the latest in 3D graphics technology. The very idea of this benchmark is for it to stress the graphics card, forcing it to work hard. That work is then expressed in a number, the final score. The higher the final score, the more powerful the card is able to work, the more it's therefore worth our money as consumers. But by bypassing this work and thereby falsely inflating that final score, Nvidia is cheating OEMs and consumers by hiding their product's capabilities. A true optimization is not to find a way of sneaking around doing the actual work that the benchmark calls for.

It's like a race between two athletes. They're told that they have to strictly follow this path and whoever reaches the end first wins. Yet one of the athletes finds a way to avoid the judge's eyes so he takes a shortcut, and beats the other athlete to the finish line. The judge, unaware that his eyes were fooled, declares the cheater the winner. Yet unbeknownst to the cheating athlete, there was a helicopter in the sky that saw him take the shortcut and calls foul on him.

What you're essentially arguing is that the judge on the ground's decision be final since he didn't see it, though the world now knows the cheating occurred.

That, my friend, is one of the worst bifurcations from logic I have ever seen argued.
John Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote