3DMark03 - damage control for the GeForce FX?

[abb]

Originally posted by Nemesis77

PS1.4 and 2.0 are the things that will be used in future games (Doom3 anyone?), and that's what 3DMark tests. If NV wants top keep on pushing yesterdays tech, they can do so. But they can't then whine if they don't look so good in softwre that takes advantage of new tech!

If NV wants to find someone to accuse over this thing, I suggest they look in to mirror. Fact is that Ati's entire product-lineup supports PS1.4 and DX9 (well, 9100 doesn't support DX9, but it has PS1.4). Large part of NV's lineup is still DX7 (GF4 MX)! NV has been holding the industry back, it's about time they catch up!

Well said! heres a link and a quote from it that a Mod in another forum has pointed out to me:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...,888205,00.asp

"We spoke with company officials from ATI and Dell, and both companies believe that 3DMark03's methodology and implementation are essentially sound. Dell, in particular, will be using the benchmark as one of its metrics for qualifying 3D GPUs.

So it seems that nVidia may just have to suck it up and live with whatever issues they have, since the biggest system OEM in the world will be judging its GPUs with this benchmark. " --Quote

For Nvidia to not support the benchmark because it makes their cards look like crap is a cheap shot and a desperate cry for help.
Abb

[Smokey]

Originally posted by gokickrocks
you make it seem as though 200 points is easy to come by through tweaking (w/o oc'ing the core or mem) in 3dmark03

Well yeah, I got an extra 100 points from just a driver update, ATI users got a big points increase with a driver update also.

[gokickrocks]

the majority i have seen that updated to the new 3.1 drivers have lost a few points

[Kruno]

Originally posted by Smokey
Well yeah, I got an extra 100 points from just a driver update, ATI users got a big points increase with a driver update also.

That's because they haven't really started increasing performance until now.

does anyone have numbers for a r8500 or r9000 using PS1.4 vs PS1.1?

the way i see it, if the true DX8 gen cards from ATI gain nothing from PS1.4, there really is no reason to code in PS1.4. after all, from what i'm hearing, the r8500 (and by extension i assume the r9000 falls into this case) performs poorly, even with PS1.4 being used.

what this means is that the real cards benefitting in the DX8 games tests(ie GT2 and 3) are the DX9 generation of ATI cards, r9500 and r9700. and of course presumably the gfFX, as people say that if you support PS2.0 you also support PS1.4.

i really don't see why PS1.4 should be supported as a DX8 baseline if DX8 cards don't gain any benefit, so the conclusion really depends on the answer to my question. unless of course, PS1.4 is easier to code than PS1.1

[Kruno]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
does anyone have numbers for a r8500 or r9000 using PS1.4 vs PS1.1?

the way i see it, if the true DX8 gen cards from ATI gain nothing from PS1.4, there really is no reason to code in PS1.4. after all, from what i'm hearing, the r8500 (and by extension i assume the r9000 falls into this case) performs poorly, even with PS1.4 being used.

what this means is that the real cards benefitting in the DX8 games tests(ie GT2 and 3) are the DX9 generation of ATI cards, r9500 and r9700. and of course presumably the gfFX, as people say that if you support PS2.0 you also support PS1.4.

i really don't see why PS1.4 should be supported as a DX8 baseline if DX8 cards don't gain any benefit, so the conclusion really depends on the answer to my question. unless of course, PS1.4 is easier to code than PS1.1

Well if it is true that they render less polys in 3dmark then will that not benefit?

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
does anyone have numbers for a r8500 or r9000 using PS1.4 vs PS1.1?

Here. Of course, that is R9700, but it gives you some idea regarding the difference in performance between different versions

EDIT: This is from Beyond3D forums:

Trolls lair dies on the 8500 with ps1.1, freezes after the loading screen and after rebooting I get the serious error message and one that the display adapter couldn't finish a drawing operation.

Athlon XP 12.5x141, 512mb DDR333, 8500 at 310/310.
With PS1.4 and VS1.1:

GT2: 7.3fps
Ragtroll: 5.0fps

PS1.1 and VS1.1:

GT2: 6.2fps
Ragtroll: 4.7fps

So there is a speed increase but its not a huge one.
PS1.4 performance seems to have gone up in the drivers recently though. In the 3dmark2001 APS test I used to get ~75fps on PS1.1 and ~85fps on PS1.4, I just got 102fps with PS1.4 with 1.1 still 75fps.

[Uttar]

Originally posted by Hellbinder
Nvidias new Drivers *cheat* in 3Dmark03

http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/...=5&o=0&fpart=1

Looks like the GFFX is winning becuase they are not rendering any explosions, and missing other effects. Guess thats how they got so fast so quick, yet made no change to the non scoring benchmarks...

Dont you find it a little odd that you somehow kyle didn't notice that? or make any mention of it? I find it pretty odd.

Those drivers are 42.86
The drivers Kyle used were 42.67

So please, if you want to flame nVidia, at least get your facts straight.

I'm really getting annoyed by all of the crap being invented in this 3D Mark 2003 debate. I'm more and more considering writing an article about it. Anyone think I should, or is there enough articles about it already?


Uttar

[Kruno]

Uttar, you don't need to get emotional over companies.

[Smokey]

Originally posted by Uttar
Those drivers are 42.86
The drivers Kyle used were 42.67

So please, if you want to flame nVidia, at least get your facts straight.

I'm really getting annoyed by all of the crap being invented in this 3D Mark 2003 debate. I'm more and more considering writing an article about it. Anyone think I should, or is there enough articles about it already?


Uttar

I wouldnt bother Uttar, you can see from the forums that people believe what they want to believe