Originally posted by Nutty
The point is, they wouldn't. Unless IQ is being sacrificed. If its not, then wheres the problem?
I mean I dont care that NV is cheating if the IQ stays the same. I really dont.
I dont see the difference with having a compiler in a driver making shaders work better, or a driver engineer making shaders work better. Ideally the former is preferred, but until they get a miracle compiler built, it aint gonna happen.
The whole issue of benchmarks is just totally flawed. I thought everyone agree'd ages ago to stop paying attention to PenisMarks.. sorry 3dmarks?
You should judge a card on what you're gonna use it for. If you're gonna play games, bench it with games. If you're gonna be a 3dmark bragger, then yeah use 3dmark. But frankly, I couldn't care less if NV said, yeah we cheat our ass off in 3dmarks.. I mean I just dont care. As long as my games run fine, and my programming works, thats all I care about.
Whats also annoying is that Futuremark are being paid by IHV money, which comes from you ppl that buy cards, to just sit there and churn out more anti-cheat patches that in the grand scheme of things just dont mean squat.
Why is it okay for JC to code a path for NV3X, but Benchmarks wont?
I'm starting to sound like a right nvidiot now, (which I prolly am) but I'm just soo bored of this 3dmark thing.
I can see the point of view of having a program that is supposed to run identical on hardware, to test performance. But that _isn't_ how things work!
This is precisely how I feel. I'm still waiting for someone to show me how much (if at all) image quality is lowered with using the old patch as opposed to the new one. If we're talking a couple out of place pixels when the image is zoomed in 300%, I think that's being just a tad ridiculous.
This is just like the Quack thing. ATI fixed image quality problems while getting just as good, if not better, performance. Do we know that this is going on here? What exactly is this new patch detecting and removing and what are the visual differences?