View Single Post
Old 05-27-03, 01:30 AM   #19
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
Along with making Futuremark and 3dmark03 look bad, nvidia has also raised the possibility of cheating in EVERY benchmark(including game benchmarks), as well as cheating in shader programs used in games.

Are we really supposed to be reassured by this?

Sigh. Look at a real world example. John Carmack said that NV30 ran the ARB2 path 50% slower than an R300 did. NV30 is using FP32, and R300 is using FP24. Now ask yourself why a 33% increase in precision would drop performance by 50%?

You also disregard some facts such as FP24 is the minimum precision required by DX9. No one told nvidia to support FP32. No one mad nvidia not support FP24 AND FP32. Dropping down to FP16(which nvidia did in 3dmark03) means that nvidia is cheating, because they are no longer in the DX9 spec. Sorry, nvidia has no one to blame but themselves.
those are pretty much my thoughts on this matter

the pixel shader/vertex shader performance is lower than one should expect... and IMO should be questioned and FIXED by nvidia before they decide to tape out other gpu's... better ps/vs performance == ati will have to work harder as well due to their having to compete == consumers win...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote