Physics? In a hard-coded demo?
Funny that you have pretended to read the whitepaper, when it's obvious you have not....
To be an accurate benchmark, the Game tests of 3Dm03 are rendered in D3D in real time
. "It is important to note that these renderings are not merely animations or a set of recorded events, they are designed to function as 3D games work..."
Besides 3D rendering, typical 3D games include CPU workloads. In 3Dm03, we use calculations to represent this workload. It is important to note that these calculations are being perfromed in real-time to accuratley represent real game usage. Natural movements such as falling characters and crashes in 3Dm03 use real time physics. Havocks Game Dynamics SDK provides the real time physics functionality
You refer to 3Dm03 as a demo, when it's clearly more than that.
EDIT: re-worded a sentance or two as to not be too mean
Also wanted to add, agree w/ some of what is implied here :
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.
If you simply wish to argue semantics, so be it.....As if "Gamers" aren't interested in top of the line GPU's performance and technology.....
If anything, the two largest enthusiast groups interested in GPU performance are gamers and game designers.....kind of logical to call it a gamers bench if you ask me, but I can see your point as well. I don't think there is a definitive "right" or "wrong" answer there, and I don't think it worthy of debate.....
As far as "ineffient techniques" are concerned, how did you miss the online publoications that overviewed 3Dm03. Each one decidely disagree w/ Nvidia on this issue. If Nvidia is attacking the skinning techniques, I'd bet thier vertex shaders are weak....