View Single Post
Old 05-18-03, 03:12 PM   #39
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
If that is truly the case, then it is the consumers who are losing because we already know that 3dmark performance is not necessarily representative of performance in real-world games, and we already know that both NVIDIA and ATI can "optimize" their drivers for improved performance in 3dmark.
Chant the word "optimize" three times and maybe it'll come true, ok? :rollseyes:


Quote:
That certainly seems like an overstatement. "Optimization" such as this can apparently only be done with a fixed camera view where we know exactly what will be rendered. So this is an issue that should not be evident in typical games. The Detonator FX 44.03 drivers have been tested by several professional reviewers, and their image quality and performance seem to be up almost across the board for the FX cards. Regular FX users have verified this too if you read some forum comments.
The clip planes "cheat" requires a fixed view angle to work. So do timedemos. Still with me? That isn't too complicated of a "cheat" to understand, is it? The fact that this "cheat" can be used in a game's timedemo more easily since they don't run at normal frame rates like 3DM does should be cause for alarm. Until we know for certain that Nvidia didn't also "cheat", say, UT2003's timedemos we should play it safe and rule out any scores based on these drivers. "cheat"
John Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote