View Single Post
Old 02-17-03, 07:48 PM   #29
legion88
WhatIfSports.com Junkie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nutty
Read the whitepaper..



Yeah, but it runs at a decent frame rate on gpu's lesser than a 9700 dont it?!

It's badly written because it does soo much redundant stuff. Like skinning the characters 3 times! No 3d-engine coder in the games industry would do that. Publishers simply wouldn't accept users _requiring_ a 9700/Gf-FX to get playable frame-rates.



Yes I did realize that, and no I would not have preferred a big texture slapped on her head. There are many other methods for doing more realistic hair than that. They basically picked the easiest method, which also probably used the most resources and looked the worst.
Obviously you do not know what the purpose of a graphics card intensive benchmark is. Naturally, I do recognize that you will dispute that fact--you simply do not know the purpose. Feel free to dispute it.

For your education, Mr. Rain Man ( http://www.idiotsavant.com/raymond/ ), the purpose of a graphics intensive benchmark is to test (a) the capabilities of the card and (b) the performance of that card, relative to the competition.

A benchmark that may require a dual 8GHz Athlon XP to force the graphics card to be the bottleneck is not much of a useful graphics card benchmark since we don't have a dual 8GHz Athlon XP at our disposal.

The purpose of a benchmark is not to provide "playable frame-rates", "more realistic hair", or any other nonsense you can imagine. The purpose of the graphics intensive benchmark is to "bring the card to its knees" and see how it can handle the load relative to the competition.
legion88 is offline   Reply With Quote