Thread: So now we know
View Single Post
Old 05-24-03, 03:04 AM   #26
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: So now we know

Quote:
Originally posted by bkswaney
I think these two things say a lot.

____________________________________________

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.


__________________________________________________ __

ATI stated:

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.

__________________________________________________


As I see it Nvidia got ****ed by not staying with FM's beta program.

ATI worked hand in hand with FM to make sure there shader was at top performance for "there bench".

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.

It's easy to read between the lines on this one just from what both companies have said.
You could read through the lines and interpret things that way. But that really doesn't make sense considering some other facts. Copied and pasted from another thread, I said this:
Quote:
Some people seem to believe that Futuremark is out to crucify nvidia. The fact is that the NV3x architecture is not good with shaders. Not only Futuremark's 3dmark03, but also Shadermark and Rightmark3d show the same poor shading performance from NV3x cards. That's two other programs from independent companies. Is there really some vast conspiracy against nvidia?
As you can see, you are implying that there is some massive conspiracy against nvidia, if you believe Futuremark is out to sabotage them, then that must mean other companies are too. There's no evidence to suggest or support this, all the evidence we have points to weaknesses in the NV3x architecture.


I should also point out that right until 3dmark03 was launched, everyone believed it would favor nvidia cards. Because 3dmark2001 did. No one ever called 3dmark2001 biased to nvidia. So, let's take a look at some 3dmark2001 benchmarks. First off, I think everyone will admit that NV3x is weaker in vertex shading than R3xx is, that's pretty much a fact. But it is also interesting to look at the Advanced Pixel Shader test. Both cards are hypothetically using PS1.4.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...x_5900-27.html

The fact is that every benchmark using advanced shaders shows nvidia at a disadvantage.
  Reply With Quote