View Single Post
Old 03-02-03, 09:13 AM   #96
legion88
WhatIfSports.com Junkie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
I think that Futuremark's "sticking with the standards to remain neutral" is flawed. They should optimize for all video cards, not the standards.

You make it so obvous that you want coders to write their applications to give NVIDIA an advantage. We all know that you are trying to hide your PR by including such general terms like "all" but we know better.

You as a programmer would already know that the purpose of using an API is to make programming for a particular type of hardware (i.e. video cards) a whole lot easier. The purpose of an API is to allow programmers to code for these variety of hardware without having to test every single possible variety (e.g. "all video cards").

We also know that optimizing for "all video cards" is 100% dependent on how good the programmer is. As already mentioned to you, just because Joe Cool Programmer (JCP) knows how to program NVIDIA cards very efficiently, it does not follow that he can do the same with other cards from ATI, SiS, Matrox, or S3. It does not even follow that a current NVIDIA efficient code would even work efficiently with future NVIDIA products.

As already mention, you are no longer just benching video cards, you are also gauging how well JCP knows how to efficiently program different current video cards. And every programmers' skill level are different. Why do we want to measure their skill level? What's the purpose of 3DMark2003?

We, including you, also know that the relationship that JCP has with NVIDIA, ATi, and others will also influence how efficient to code is. A better relationship increases the likelihood that the code would be as efficient as possible. So, now we are also gauging how good JCP's relationship is with the various video card companies. We all know that the assumption here is that NVIDIA has an advantage with this.

And what is the purpose of benchmark programs like 3DMark2003? I noticed that a certain someone keeps making these general comments (that don't even work for general cases, either) while completing ignoring the purpose of 3DMark2003.

The purpose of 3DMark2003 was never to gauge how well FutureMark can optimize their code for NVIDIA versus ATI versus S3, etc. The purpose of 3DMark2003 was to gauge how well various video cards can perform (referring to the graphics portion of the suite of tests, of course) on an even playing field.

Your use of "flawed" is in itself flawed. It is like saying that bus drivers are "flawed" because all they do is drive buses. If you refuse to accept the purpose of benchmarks, then don't call it "flawed". It is only flawed if it does not live up to its purpose.

Last edited by legion88; 03-02-03 at 09:21 AM.
legion88 is offline   Reply With Quote