View Single Post
Old 05-18-03, 06:50 PM   #103
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

[quote]Originally posted by Nv40
Quote:
Originally posted by legion88
Using image quality as a means to determine whether it is a cheat or an optimization is laughable. It is just as stupid (well, actually, it is almost as stupid) as ATI morons using the totally idiotic notion that if the newer drivers showed similar speed improvements without image quality degradation then that proves the previous drivers weren't cheats.

Cheat means to violate the rules deliberately (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cheat). In the case of FutureMark's products (or any benchmark for that matter), the companies are expected not to "optimize" specifically for their benchmark. That is, it is expected that the optmizations would be apparent for any Direct3D applications, not just 3DMark200x. So those attempts at blurrying the textures in 3DMark2001 (that ATI was also caught doing) on the Radeon 8500s would be obvious examples of cheats.
Quote:

Using image quality as a means to determine whether it is a cheat or an optimization is laughable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mmmm.. this is very questionable ,because the ATI QUack Fiasco was
because ATI ,cutting corners ,not rendering everything ,decreasing the IQ QUake3 ,just to Inflate their scores ,in that benchmark.

it is questionable too, because is exactly why some B3d members here
says NVidia is cheating in 3dmark.. (dancing pixels) /dull sky and now
the clipping planes. very questionable my friend.

Cheat means to violate the rules deliberately
-------------------------------------------------
and what are the RUles?
Where is says in 3dmark2003 clipping planes/occlusions culling
(what is Valid in games -when the IQ is never lost ),is not valid in the test?
SHow me the RUles ,where it says what Nvidia has done is not valid?
IF FUturemark RUles says that Nvidia and ATI need to do the same things
in the SAME WAY.. then IS FUTUREMARK who is breaking the rules.
because ATI was rendering everything at 96bits and NVidia at 128bits.
IT IS FUTUREMARK which is not HONEST to the PUblic in saying that
the bechmark is and apples vs apples comparisons.

i have never seen in fair contest (apples vs apples) ,where the rules states
that everyone needs to do the same ,,where one runner starts in the middle of the race and the other in the beginning of it.

another interesting question is ..
DOes Future mark rules apply to non_members?
If there are RULES .. does they APPLY to the people WHICH ALREADY STATED IN PUBLIC THAT THEY DONT AGREED?

THE PUBLIC doesnt know how the rules benefits one or the other
in the contest. they only know about the SCORES of each card.
3dmark is clearly .....

not informing well the public - ,gamers ,OEMS ,when using a
benchamrk that make believe people that what they see is apples vs apples comparisons when its not.

not informing well the public - when its make them believe is an acurrate representation of the performance of DIrectx9 games of the future ,when the test use Directx7 and DIrectx8 PS/VS in 90% of the tests.

not informing well the public - when making them believe that the performance in the benchamrk will translate to real games of the FUture.

the right thing to do.. is a big DISCLAIMER with each benchmark saying what each card is doing . what Pixel shaders is being used ,what precision.
and another disclaimer saying..

WARNING:
THIS PROGRAM IS NO WAY PRETEND TO REPRESENT WHAT YOU WILL SEE IN YOUR GAMES ,IS ONLY FOR TESTING PURPOSES. [/b]
coupla things... firstly the workload in 3dmark03 is uniform... including clipping planes reduces the workload and prevents the benchmark from working as it is designed... if this was not an issue than respected sites such as b3d and ET would not have brought this up and futuremark members such as Worm would not be wasting their time looking into this to determine just what is going on...

secondly... if you bother to read not only futuremark's whitepaper regarding 3dmark03... but also their response to what nvidia alleged instead of basing everything off of what nvidia alleged... you would NOT be making some of the accusations you continue to make v/s 3dmark03... it is a matter of spending 5-10 minutes and perhaps a few more to learn how things work basically... thats all...

also I am all for rendering only what is seen in the sense that this will indeed speed things up

if you have been following the way both nvidia and ATi have implemented features in their hardware you will see that this is EXACTLY what they are doing...

but deliberately clipping sections of a scene off the screen in a benchmark with the camera's POV being 'on a rail' is not a METHOD... if it was than nvidia would be implementing this 'feature' in all games don't you think ? the clipping is a DELIBERATE method of not doing the full load of work... reduced load == higher scores == cheating

full load WITH higher scores while following the dx9 spec (in terms of precision) == NOT cheating... but it is obvious this is not happening...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote