I'm not the Spade you can understand that can't you. This isn't NVIDIA's website they just turn their head and Myself and the Staff deal with the outrage. So remember that the next time somebody posts flamebait.
I see what you are saying. Point taken.
But nevertheless we try to create the same screen content with every technique, we face minor differences which arise from the internal accuracy which is smaller when we select a multi-pass technique instead of a multi-texture technique. The fallback mechanisms are optimized as heavily as possible, so we can ensure that the way to achieve the defined result is a near optimal way for all ps/vs versions. For that reason, the AM3 score is comparable, because the only fact that counts is the users benefit (ignoring image quality losses, which are negligible in AM3).
Moving on to this statement by Massive.
IMO it is simply Ridiculous to Suggest that you can impliment *Maximum Optimizations* For Specific Vendors Who need Fall back Routines... and Still claim that the Results are Comparable. Unless the Image is Completely and totally Unafected.
Case in point. How can one card be allowed to run the HQ mode against another card HQ mode. When one of the Two by Internal Design is never actually running the same level of testing? Im not talking about FP16/FP24 at all. Which I personally think is an Acceptable comparrison. Im talking about one card getting to use VASTLY Lower Percision and Specially optomized code. Like Shaders Dynamically Recompiled into PS 1.4 routines Vs Full PS 2.0
I just dont think it works out with legit Results at all.