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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-14-03, 01:43 PM   #277
TheTaz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 621
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ringu61
.......

Futuremark = Can of Coke
NV = Guy with a Straw
ATi = Guy with Mouth

Normally people drink can of coke with mouth straight away, ok ATi drink like that too. Nvidia drink the can of coke with straw, ok why not, just another way of drinking.

WHy can't NV work around with their driver to make it it run better on 3DMark03 without quality reduce or watever. Can u even tell with ur naked eyes without looking at the scores and ****?
This is a really weird analogy... but I'll take a stab at a reply.

It's a chugalug contest... the prize... more consumers are apt to buy your product if you win.

The Rules... Human power only.

Obviously... guy with straw can't chugalug as fast. Guy with straw attaches a pump, powered by electricity, to win. That pump only works with coke, sprite, dr. pooper, and mountain dew (More will come as they tweak the pump, and get other soda's not to jam the pump). The pump also isn't human powered, hence cheating (As far as the coke chugalug contest rules... not cheating for sprite, dr. pooper, mountain dew, etc... different rules).

Mouth works with everything... and also works better than the pump in some cases.

Enough of the analogy... 3DMark delegates a simulated workload. A lot of that workload is unseen (like massive overdraw). It measures performance based on that simulated workload. If you "work around" that simulated workload (Like hand-shader replacements or shortened clipping planes)... you are not doing the FULL workload even though you aren't affecting the image, hence the measurement is Invalid, and does not give a TRUE performance comparison.

/shrug

Taz

Last edited by TheTaz; 11-14-03 at 02:16 PM.
TheTaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-03, 01:57 PM   #278
Uttar
Registered User
 
Uttar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,354
Send a message via AIM to Uttar Send a message via Yahoo to Uttar
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ringu61
Futuremark = Can of Coke
NV = Guy with a Straw
ATi = Guy with Mouth

Normally people drink can of coke with mouth straight away, ok ATi drink like that too. Nvidia drink the can of coke with straw, ok why not, just another way of drinking.
In this case, I'd rather say NVIDIA has the straw, but not the mouth to put it in
Although that's going too far - NVIDIA's shading performance is not GREAT, but it's getting pretty darn alright. But that doesn't justify handcoded shader replacements.


Uttar
Uttar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-03, 03:20 PM   #279
cthellis
Hoopy frood
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 549
Default

Surprised this tidbit hasn't shown up yet:

Luciano Alibrandi, European Product PR Manager for NVIDIA Corporation, has made a correction in regards previous information about NVIDIA’s Unified Compiler and 3DMark03 benchmark after getting into details with the company’s engineers. Apparently, the statement claiming that NVIDIA’s Unified Complier deployed to optimize pixel shader performance is disabled by the new version of 3DMark03 is not fully correct.


“I would like to inform you that a part of my response was not accurate. I stated that the compiler gets disabled, by 3DMark and that is in fact not true,” he said.

So, after all NVIDIA denied the problems between the Unified Compiler technology and the latest version of popular 3DMark03 benchmark. As a result, we may now conclude that the accusations in Futuremark direction from Hans-Wolfram Tismer, a Managing Director for Gainward Europe GmbH were not correct at all.

In October 2003 Santa Clara, California-based NVIDIA Corporation introduced its Unified Compiler integrated in its ForceWare 52.16 drivers to optimize Pixel Shader code for NVIDIA GeForce FX architecture in an attempt to improve performance of graphics cards powered by NVIDIA’s latest GPUs in variety of demanding applications.

NVIDIA said that the Unified Compiler technology tunes DirectX 9.0 execution on the GeForce FX GPUs, and can be used to correct any similar conflict that arises with future APIs. NVIDIA indicated the Unified Compiler as an automatic tuning tool that optimizes Pixel Shader performance in all applications, not just on specific ones. Officials from NVIDIA again stressed today that one of the things the Unified Compiler does is to reinstruct the order of lines of code in a shader. By simply doing this the performance can increase dramatically since the GeForce FX technology is very sensitive to instruction order. So, if the re-ordering is not happening NVIDIA’s GeForce FX parts have a performance penalty.

Since the complier is still active with the new version of 3DMark03 there is currently no explanations for performance drops of certain GeForce FX parts in the latest build 340 of the famous 3DMark03.

“The only change in build 340 is the order of some instructions in the shaders or the registers they use. This means that new shaders are mathematically equivalent with previous shaders. A GPU compiler should process the old and the new shader code basically with the same performance,” said Tero Sarkkinen, Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Futuremark Corporation – the developer of 3DMark03 application.

He was indirectly confirmed by an ATI official yesterday, who said: “ATI has had a compiler since CATALYST 3.6. We did not have any problems with Futuremark’s changes.”


(Oh, I see, it had its own thread. Oh well, it needed to be linked in here anyway. ^_^ )

Last edited by cthellis; 11-14-03 at 03:33 PM.
cthellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-03, 03:49 PM   #280
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by cthellis
Surprised this tidbit hasn't shown up yet:
I love the quote, the more the merrier. I know I've posted it to at least 5-6 threads so far today at various forums.
__________________
[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
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NVIDIA Driver 295.53 installs into kernel 3.4 without a patch! jdmcdaniel3 NVIDIA Linux 3 06-08-12 09:41 AM
Need Help Installing NVIDIA Tesla M2070Q in Linux RHEL5 Ferianto85 NVIDIA Linux 0 05-18-12 08:35 PM
Rumor regarding lack of 680 availability ViN86 Rumor Mill 6 05-09-12 04:48 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 PM.


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