Nutty, what portions of the whitepaper point to it being poorly coded?
When using this kind of stencil shadowing, the developer is left with some options on the implementation.
3DMark03 does as much work as possible in the vertex shaders, since the goal of 3DMark03 is to measure
vertex and pixel shader performance in 3D games. Also, it is expected that many games with similar technology
will have a heavy workload for the CPU doing physics (including collision detection), artificial intelligence and
visibility optimizations for example. It is therefore desirable to perform as much as possible on the graphics card
in order to offload the CPU.
An alternative implementation would be to give some of the graphics tasks to the CPU, and thereby offloading
the graphics card. The skinning could be done on the CPU, which would reduce the amount of vertex shader
tasks. Also, when pre-skinning on the CPU, the characters would not need to be re-skinned for each rendering
See, they admit that they waste gpu cycles by re-skinning the character _every_ pass. Doom3 engine does not do this, and neither will any of the games using its engine. It's crap.
I think you will se a mystical disapearance of Nutty from this thread now
Legion88, I dont distpute that a gpu benchmark, should push the gpu hard with little emphasis on the cpu. But if thats what it is, they should stop calling it a gaming benchmark, and stop implying that their bloated inefficient techniques are going to be used by the game engines of tomorrow.
Doom3 for example is being written to run on a Gf256 upwards. I cant imagine how poorly 3dmark03 would run on that. I barely got any better than a slideshow on a GF4TI.