Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-16-03, 08:13 PM   #229
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by aaronspink
If you look at the reason why Futuremark objected, you will find that it had nothing to do with the mathematical correctness of the shader optimization.

The issue is that the optimization actually was in violation of both #2 ( an optimization must accelerate more than just the benchmark ) and #3 ( an optimization must not rely on any precomputed state ).

#2 is easy. The optimization was specific just to GT4. #3 is more subtle: ATI was using shader replacement which relied on doing a match ( likely using a hash of the original shader ) and replace operation on the original shader. This required a prior knowledge of what the shader was.

Any and all non-algorithmic ( aka bulk shader replacement ) would violate #3 but something like the new instruction order optimizers that both ATI and Nvidia are adding to their drivers would not since the optimizers don't rely on any precomputed state. Now there could still be possibilities of the instruction optimizers violating #2.

The reason why Futuremark and Valve are concerned about the bulk shader replacement is that it hides real issues with the drivers/hardware of a video card that can be exposed with shader updates, etc.


As a side comment. If the hardware sites are serious about this, they may want to take a look at some of the specCPU run rules. While the spec rules are far from perfect, they are closer to it than anything out there.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc
Well, I don't see how NVIDIA's guidelines would have any bearing on ATI, especially when they were contrived months after the whole 3dmark03 thing. Futuremark's policy has been that no specific application optimizations are legal. Although we will be hearing an update from them later this week.


I do agree with you though. ATI's driver shader compiler should catch things like that and do automatic optimization, they shouldn't need a special case. Anyway, it looks like CAt3.7's compiler is better than previous versions since shaders got a boost
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-03, 08:24 PM   #230
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Skuzzy
2) The public nature of the benchmarks used by reviewers has allowed video card companies to put in specific hacks/cheats/optimizations (use them interchangeably) to get better results in the benchmark. No amount of posturing by the public/consumer is going to change that. That point should be very clear by know.
The problem is that complaints have been hidden away in forums. None of the Big Three have really commented on all these issues.

Anand- briefly and generally talks about some "stuff" in the HL2 benchmark. Prior to this I don't think he ever acknowledged anything NVIDIA did. From what I've heard about the AT forums, AT staff actually agreed with [H] about UT2003 for example.

[H]- I think we all remember Kyle's rant at NVIDIA prior to the release of 45.23 because Kyle was angry that NVIDIA lied to him and the Application setting of the driver didn't do anything. Prior to this Kyle bashed people who brought us the truth about 3dmark03 and NVIDIA. People were silenced in the forums for saying what NVIDIA had done on multiple accounts. [H] looked at UT2003 filtering but did not compare trilinear AF with bilinear AF(they compared bilinear AF with bilinear AF). This became the basis for NVIDIA PR's comments that the UT2003 filtering optimization did not change IQ. When the author of said article actually used trilinear on his r9800 instead of bilinear he said he noticed a difference(said in forums).

Toms- some issues have been covered, but in a "equal time" manner. Basically he reports on issues but also gets PR responses from NVIDIA which make it sound like there's nothing wrong, everything is a bug.

As you can see, the Big Three have basically been silent and have not done a good job at informing the public and letting them make up their own minds about something. Leave NVIDIA PR out of it, let people decide for themselves whether something is a bug or a optimization or a cheat.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-03, 08:43 PM   #231
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
[H]- I think we all remember Kyle's rant at NVIDIA prior to the release of 45.23 because Kyle was angry that NVIDIA lied to him and the Application setting of the driver didn't do anything. Prior to this Kyle bashed people who brought us the truth about 3dmark03 and NVIDIA. People were silenced in the forums for saying what NVIDIA had done on multiple accounts. [H] looked at UT2003 filtering but did not compare trilinear AF with bilinear AF(they compared bilinear AF with bilinear AF). This became the basis for NVIDIA PR's comments that the UT2003 filtering optimization did not change IQ. When the author of said article actually used trilinear on his r9800 instead of bilinear he said he noticed a difference(said in forums).
Speak of the devil and so he shall come....

The big silly head actually asked me to show him where he's been a supporter of nVidia over ATi....I'm gonna enjoy this if he ever gets his nuggers up and comes back.
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-03, 11:09 PM   #232
serAph
The Original Superfreak
 
serAph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 341
Send a message via ICQ to serAph Send a message via AIM to serAph Send a message via Yahoo to serAph
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
No, because many/most of the "pro-NVIDIA" posts have been laced with FUD or outright lies.

"there is no shader problem on NV3x."
"there is no shader problem in OGL, only in D3D."
"HL2 results are anomalous and nothing supports them."

Or my favorite fanboy diatribe, "yes, there is a problem, but it will be fixed when [insert event]*."

*so far been a driver that was never released, NV35, a driver that was never released, Det50, and now it is some new revision of DX9 or NV38 that will fix the problem according to some.

Don't get me wrong. Some healthy optimism is good. But lying to make NVIDIA look better isn't. Similarly, placing all of your hopes in some phantom event which never seems to arrive doesn't seem too sane either.
i didnt say "it will be fixed when [...]"

I said wait until 5x.xx comes out to start throwing rocks. It turns out you guys didnt need to throw rocks anyway - its already raining enough [poo_] on us FX cardholders anyway...

the only of those other things that MIGHT adhere to me is the HL2 stuff. I think its pretty obvious why Valve went to ATi to buddy up and make some dough tho - THEIR CARDS FRIGGEN WORK!
serAph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-03, 11:19 PM   #233
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by serAph
i didnt say "it will be fixed when [...]"

I said wait until 5x.xx comes out to start throwing rocks. It turns out you guys didnt need to throw rocks anyway - its already raining enough [poo_] on us FX cardholders anyway...

the only of those other things that MIGHT adhere to me is the HL2 stuff. I think its pretty obvious why Valve went to ATi to buddy up and make some dough tho - THEIR CARDS FRIGGEN WORK!
No, no...from personal experience I have to correct you and say "THEIR CARDS FRIGGEN WORK WELL!".
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-03, 11:59 PM   #234
Deathlike2
Driver Reinstall Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Nowhere Near NVidia or NVNews
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
"there is no shader problem on NV3x."
"there is no shader problem in OGL, only in D3D."
"HL2 results are anomalous and nothing supports them."

Or my favorite fanboy diatribe, "yes, there is a problem, but it will be fixed when [insert event]*."
I love those quotes... because that's what practically all the NVidia fanboys have been saying...

I'd be surprised if Doom 3 was FASTER and BETTER looking in the R3XX than the NV3X

Quote:
I said wait until 5x.xx comes out to start throwing rocks. It turns out you guys didnt need to throw rocks anyway - its already raining enough [poo_] on us FX cardholders anyway...
NVidia has pooped on itself on many occasions.... HL2 is just the big one..

The Det50s.. when released will show you the infinite truth (hopefully to all NVidia fanboys)..

I'd wish the ATI fanboys would just shut up about this... not that they were looking for every bad NVidia thing (PR or otherwise, although the same can be said for NVidia fanboys).. but..

Have you guys looked at yourselves somewhat?.. You guys are looking for some conspiracy, some "hint of evidence" that you can rat out onen side or another... you guys are not being objective enough (you just jump to the conclusion and repeat it like "a plague"..

Do what you can to educate people.. but don't go overboard.. don't MISQUOTE your sources... and DON'T BE THE UNEDUCATED ONE...
__________________
PR = crap
War Against FUD
What is FUD? - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/9267/fuddef.html
Deathlike2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-03, 02:45 AM   #235
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by serAph
i didnt say "it will be fixed when [...]"

I said wait until 5x.xx comes out to start throwing rocks. It turns out you guys didnt need to throw rocks anyway - its already raining enough [poo_] on us FX cardholders anyway...

the only of those other things that MIGHT adhere to me is the HL2 stuff. I think its pretty obvious why Valve went to ATi to buddy up and make some dough tho - THEIR CARDS FRIGGEN WORK!
Ok, I apologize. I read your statement wrong. I thought you said people who were posting pro-NVIDIA stuff were getting "bashed."

All the same, you have posted some very inaccurate things in the past/present.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-03, 01:46 PM   #236
muzz
 
muzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 816
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Evan Lieb


No, the way it actually happened was that we left one thread open for discussion about the 5900 Ultra review, because a guy named Typedef something er rather started multiple threads on the exact same topic, and even in different forums, which is why one of his multiple threads was deleted (but his primary thread was of course left on the forums). He even posted about it in a completely unrelated thread, and the mods had to yet again remind him of the forum rules. The supposed “deleted thread” I keep hearing about is just a FuseTalk issue as far as I can see. When we used to have the “Articles” section of the forum, a thread would be started immediately when a review was posted. Several of my motherboard threads got archived and so were unable to be found by my own means. Apparently this happened to the original NV35 article thread that was started because of lack of use, which was the same reason my motherboard threads vanished after some time. Either way though, we kept a huge (300+ reply thread I think) on the NV35 review about the Q3A resolution and SC AA issues (the thread Typedef started as far as I can remember).



Are you this Typedef guy then? AFAIK no one else started any threads about this topic on the AT forums whose name was “muzz”.





Thanks, I’m doing nothing more than giving a heads up to people on what we’re trying to do, and what I believe other web sites can do.
I was there Evan, I KNOW that thread disappeared, as I went looking for it.
I DID start another thread asking what happened to the first thread, which got hardly any response, except for a couple guys in the thread in question.
I THINK petey pete and jjbirney ( who were in the thread in question) responded to me on the question of WHERE did that thread go.

I have nothing personal against you Evan, please do not take it that way. I DO have something against websites who do NOT come clean in a reasonably timely manner when something as obvious as the nose on my face is wrong, and the issue has been pointed out by MANY folks.

Yeah I was more then a bit perturbed by the lack of info forthcoming regarding said issues....... I don't like it when someone (or a company) gets screwed over by faulty journalism.....
Yeah I do hate that....... sorry.
__________________
muzz
muzz is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.