View Single Post
Old 05-18-03, 02:34 PM   #31
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
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.
They are not consistent in their methods for "normalization". To exclude non-WHQL drivers for their results browser, while at the same time allowing overclocked gpu's and cpu's, is not very consistent IMHO.

Quote:
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.
And this is pure speculation. We don't know the details so all we can do is speculate. However, considering that they don't have authorized access, if NVIDIA did use the developers version that would be considered "cheating" as well correct? Or would that be simply level the playing field?

digitalwanderer, I read your post at ATI Rage3d fan site (you have 6000 posts there, wow!). "nvidia is flat-out freaking busted cheating in their new FX drivers!". For some reason, I gather that you take more joy out of this issue than it really warrants. Remember we are only talking about a benchmark that many people feel is not representative of real-world gaming performance, and we are talking about an issue that doesn't actually affect image quality in what we can normally see. The FX Detonator 44.03 drivers have shown significant improvements in image quality and performance for a wide variety of gaming benchmarks for the FX cards.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote