Thread: So now we know
View Single Post
Old 05-24-03, 12:31 AM   #7
jjjayb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 101
Default

Quote:
Since NVIDIA is not part in the FutureMark beta program (a program which costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in) we do not get a chance to work with Futuremark on writing the shaders like we would with a real applications developer
Interpreted: We did not get to have things done our way. Things were done according to dx9 spec and we didn't like that. You see, our cards don't perform so well when they run standard dx9 spec. We need for developers to write special code to get our cards to run acceptably. We didn't get our way so we left the program. Once we left the program we were forced to cheat. It's not our fault. We're a product of our environment and bad engineering decisions.



Quote:
ATI worked hand in hand with FM to make sure there shader was at top performance for "there bench".
Interpreted more closely to the truth: FutureMark made sure they created the bench according to DX9 Standards. Ati, as a result of engineering their board according to dx9 specs, performs very well in a dx9 futuremark benchmark.


Quote:
Nvidia did not. But "Game Companies" do work very close with nvidia. Even more so than ati.
That is why you see the FX's suxing on PS 2.0 3DM03 and kicking butt in games.
How many dx9 games have you seen? 3dmark is not the only dx9 benchmark out there. There are 2 more. Shadermark and Rightmark. Both of those also show the r300 destroying the nv30 using dx9 shaders. Games companies will HAVE to work with Nvidia or they will get poor performance in dx9 games.

Listen guys, I hear a lot of people bitching about how 3dmark is not fair to Nvidia. The only thing not fair to Nvidia is Nvidia themselves. They chose to engineer a board that does not perform well using standard dx9 coding. They chose to engineer a board that developers will have to optimize specifically for in order to get it to perform acceptably. Nvidia made some pretty bad decisions and now they have to deal with it. Ati on the other hand engineered a board that runs DX9 shaders great right from the gate. No special optimizations needed. This is not Futuremarks fault or ATI's fault that Nvidia felt they had to deviate from dx9 standards. Not all games companies are going to be willing to spend the extra time to optimize specifically for the nv30 to get it to run up to speed. I'm sure a lot will though. They won't have much choice if they want to sell their games to a wider audience.

You are right though. If Nvidia would have stayed in the Futuremark Beta they would not be in this position today. Not because the benchmark would have been programed any differently, but because they would have known about the developers version that allows you to go off the rails. They would have known they would be caught and not used that cheat, which turned out to be so easy to detect with the developers version.
jjjayb is offline   Reply With Quote