View Single Post
Old 05-23-03, 10:17 PM   #48
reever2
Registered User
 
reever2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 489
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSy

They both are cheating. Plain and simple.

Nvidia's cheating more...but ATI sure aren't angels either.
Ati's optimization is not considered cheating first read over thier response

Quote:
The 1.9% performance gain comes from optimization of the two DX9 shaders (water and sky) in Game Test 4 . We render the scene exactly as intended by Futuremark, in full-precision floating point. Our shaders are mathematically and functionally identical to Futuremark's and there are no visual artifacts; we simply shuffle instructions to take advantage of our architecture. These are exactly the sort of optimizations that work in games to improve frame rates without reducing image quality and as such, are a realistic approach to a benchmark intended to measure in-game performance. However, we recognize that these can be used by some people to call into question the legitimacy of benchmark results, and so we are removing them from our driver as soon as is physically possible. We expect them to be gone by the next release of CATALYST
Now heres a quote from someone who actually knows what the hell he is talking about Tim Sweeny(taken from a B3d interview)

Quote:
Therefore, any code optimization performed on a function that does not change the resulting value of the function for any argument, is uncontroversially considered a valid optimization. Therefore, techniques such as instruction selection, instruction scheduling, dead code elimination, and load/store reordering are all acceptable. These techniques change the performance profile of the function, without affecting its extensional meaning.
reever2 is offline