View Single Post
Old 05-18-03, 05:27 PM   #89
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
The idea is concrete which is something that you're simply not absorbing. It's not how you render all the information it is that you do render all the information and that you do it in a consistent matter which isn't specific to that benchmark. This is what I would assume Futuremark had hoped would be the situation with 3DMark03 and is the very basis of maintaining a very even field in terms of benchmarking.
Well I disagree, I don't think it's so concrete. Also, what Futuremark hopes for and what NVIDIA hopes for are two very different things. NVIDIA wants to run the benchmark as fast and as smooth as possible without corrupting image quality that we actually see.

Quote:
It's also important to note this represents no effort on the part of Nvidia to increase driver performance.
That is silly. Anyone can read the reviews and see the dramatic improvements in IQ and performance virtually across the board for the FX cards using the newest Detonator FX driver.

Quote:
To suggest that such a move is ok is utterly ridiculous and I'm not sure why you keep entertaining that thought.
If NVIDIA can increase speed without corrupting image quality that we see, I would generally say that is a good thing (and it looks like NVIDIA actually improved image quality with this new driver). From Futuremark's or ATI's perspective, obvious they wouldn't consider it a good thing. Depends on what frame of reference you use. I think the FX Detonator driver is a very good thing for FX owners, and they should be very happy that both image quality and frames per second have improved.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote