View Single Post
Old 05-18-03, 06:56 PM   #104
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by muzz
The funniest part about this 3DMark issue with Jimmyjames is this....

The image quality went up even in 3DMark03....

So What? The image quality of that Bench is just a means to the end, that bench is NOT REALLY about image quality now is it ( it IS supposed to look nice, and show a bit of tommorrows technology, but NOT the MAIN [<<<<---did you get that]FOCUS.
The MAIN focus of that bench is to show what the card is capable of, render SPEED is one of the MAIN [ooops there it is again.... DOH!] functions of it.
HOW LONG DOES CARD A TAKE COMPARED TO CARD B.. period.

There is alot of $ riding on that stupid benchmark, but it is what it is, which is a tool to figure out if card A can render all these things CORRECTLY ( visually), and HOW LONG does it take to do it... PERIOD.
Like it or not, that is the reason that bench exists, and making something NOT render the EXPECTED WORKLOAD ( that is the benchmarks decision, not the manufacturers) invalidates the scores ( call it whatever ya like).

Think what ya feel ya have to.

I like this summary of it. It's a benchmark, not a game. It ain't for measuring gaming performance, it measures how how long it takes a card to complete a series of renderings, not rendering it all is cheating.
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote