View Single Post
Old 05-18-03, 03:54 PM   #35
jjjayb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 101
Default

Quote:
Read more carefully what I wrote. If one manufacturer has the developers version of the benchmarking software, don't you think this gives them some type of natural advantage in "optimizing" for this benchmark? Fair or not fair is not the issue. The issue is 3dmark03 normalization and use as an "accurate" benchmarking tool.
You think Nvidia just threw away their developer copies when they left the beta program?



Quote:
The current Detonator FX drivers are WHQL certified and they show an improvement in image quality and performance for a wide variety of gaming benchmark programs. WHQL is a certification, it's not a test of graphics quality.
(including 3dmark03).
Sure 3dmark03 scores improved by manually inserting clipping planes. Replace one cheat with another and that makes it okay? Lovely.
I haven't seen this "wide variety of gaming benchmark boosts". Actually, I've only seen one site do a comparison between the old dets and the new, but they only used 3dmark03 to compare.

http://www.vr-zone.com/#3017

The link is posted on the front page of this site by the way.

(Funny how 3dmark03 is so irrelevant according to most around here, yet the front page features an article comparing old dets to new when the only program they bench is 3dmark03)

Of course WHQL is not a graphics quality test, but they do test to insure that a dx9 driver is following dx9 standards. FX12, FP16 are not DX9 standards.


Quote:
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.
And as i posted before Joe Defuria said it wonderfully:

If the basis of your optimization requires you to have access to data that is NOT PASSED by the game engine in real time, then that optimization is a cheat. This 3DMark cheat is based on the fact that the drivers "are told" the camera path won't change from some determined path. Problem is, they are not told this by the game engine. Clipping planes are inserted based on this knowledge. That data (the clipping planes) are not passed from the engine in real-time, nor are those planes calculated in real-time (as evidenced by the lack of correct rendering when "off the rail".)
That is why this particular example is a cheat, and not a legal optimization. It relies on data that is not given by the benchmark, or calculated in real-time from data given by the benchmark.





Quote:
Of course it is listed (just as they list driver version number) but these results can still be officially used in their online results browser.
Do overclocked scores force the card to alter image quality by lowering precision to below dx9 standards?

Is it only Nvidia that can't submit non-whql scores? Because of Nvidia EVERYONE has to use whql drivers to submit a score. How is this unfair to Nvidia? Does Nvidia not make whql drivers just like everyone else? Again. EVERYONE has to use whql certified drivers to submit a score. How is this unfair to Nvidia? The only way this is unfair to Nvidia is that it doesn't allow them to use the integer cheats. So not allowing cheats is unfair?

Are only SOME cards allowed to submit overclocked scores? Last I checked EVERYONE was allowed to submit overclocked scores. How is this unfair to Nvidia?

Quote:
Go to the [H]OCP forums and do some reading (or talk to the owners of that website). The info is there.
You said they talked to ATI privately for a month about this before going public with it. You show me where they said this. You won't be able to show me this. I 'll tell you why. Kyle got his 8500 review board on October 16th, 2001. He ran his review of the 8500 3 days later on October 19th, 2001 where he first discusses quack. He then ran a followup to quack 3 days later on the 21st of october, 2001. So tell me how can he have known about quack and talked privately with ATI about it for a month before he ran the story when he didn't even have an 8500 until 3 days before he went public with quack? Easy, he didn't.
jjjayb is offline   Reply With Quote