View Single Post
Old 06-25-03, 09:48 AM   #9
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
Haven't read through it all yet...but so far my BS radar is going off already I'll edit this post when I finish the article.

edit: Ok, I finished the article. I think it was well written, although I think some of "facts" about the whole 3dmark03 debacle were not represented properly.

Specifically, http://www17.tomshardware.com/column...eating-06.html there is no mention that while Futuremark calls nvidias cheats optimizations now, they still say that the optimizations are NOT valid for the benchmark.

Also, http://www17.tomshardware.com/column...eating-07.html fails to mention that it is a FACT that nvidia lowered quality in the shaders, and this was proven by 3rd parties like B3D. ATI had nothing to do with exposing the famed 3dmark03 cheats that were defeated by the 3dmark03 330 patch. They did tip off website(s) to the 3dmurk03 AF issue. Quite frankly I think that's good. Better that we know about cheats than stay in the dark.

I thought the few ending pages were insightful enough.

Note: clipping planes(used in 3dmark03 and maybe other places) have absolutely nothing to do with occulusion culling. Tom's got this right too )
there were some interesting fubar points

lol... that is correct...

there are elements of the editorial that are a bit off... but on the whole the article is a darn sight better than the [H] article on the same topic...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote