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

Newegg Daily Deals

View Poll Results: Are they cheating again?
Yes 132 67.01%
No 53 26.90%
I don't have a clue by four. 12 6.09%
Voters: 197. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-14-03, 10:26 PM   #25
creedamd
 
creedamd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 597
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by The Baron
The better question is do synthetic benchmarks matter.

If you want to be really horribly anal about it, if the new 44.03s do not have any sort of IQ drop in GT4 REGARDLESS of what may happen if you freelook using the Developer Edition, it's not cheating. The benchmark runs, it ends normally, it's just faster than it would otherwise be. But at the same time, it is a fake optimization that has no place in the real world.

In my book, yes, it's cheating, because it's creating performance where performance isn't there. But at the same time, it finally proves without a doubt that as a test of game performance, synthetic benchmarks are dead. And I think it's article time.
If benchmarks are dead then why does EVERYONE in the hardware community use them to compare? If I buy a $500 dollar video card. I am not doing it to play my games fast. Hell all of the $200 cards play the games fast now. I want something I can say "I have the best card around" period. Benchmarks prove this.

Benchmarks are an easy tool to compare. Nvidia knows that 3dmark03 is reliable, or they wouldn't have let the reviewers even use it! Especially if they knew that they had a chance of losing.

Jacking me for $500 is one thing, but to jack me for the cash and then give something that's half ass.. screw that, I will wait.
__________________
System 1: 2500xp@3200|1gigHyperXPC4000|AbNF7s|Fortissimo7.1|SonyDJV700|DvdR+&CDRW|160gbHD
|9800pro|21"IBM-P260

System2: 2500xp@3200|abitNF7-s|512XMS|9700pro|160Gbhd

System3: 2400xp|512xms|Epox 8rda+|9500pro
creedamd is offline  
Old 05-14-03, 10:30 PM   #26
marcocom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 224
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by The Baron
The better question is do synthetic benchmarks matter.

it finally proves without a doubt that as a test of game performance, synthetic benchmarks are dead. And I think it's article time.
indeed, you are right sir.

WHQL means alot more than Futuremarks' input to me. And then, how about that whole 'nvidia has no access to source code' fact there...nvidia cheating?? how about simply 'ATi knows how to please the benchmark precisely while nvidia is still guessing'

frankly, i just wish the benchmark didnt exist and that my fellow consumers stopped treating it like its gold. cuz its a joke. the idea that a benchmark exists that CERTAIN hardware mfrs have more access to than others certainly stinks more than anything regarding missing effects in playback of that benchmark by nvidia.
marcocom is offline  
Old 05-14-03, 10:32 PM   #27
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by MuFu
It's not just about 3dm - they can do this for ANY timedemo, so people can get a inflated view of performance in actual games.

MuFu.
hmm ok, if they do it only on timedemo, thats bad, thats cheating, but as long as the actual games run great, i dont care too much about 3DMark.
Behemoth is offline  
Old 05-14-03, 10:44 PM   #28
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OK, I'm working on a way to randomly create a benchmark (essentially a timedemo) in UT2k3 that will still provide easily replicable results.

Will let you know how it's going once I know.
 
Old 05-14-03, 10:49 PM   #29
jjjayb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 101
Default

Jeez you people are missing the point. If they do it on 3dmark2003 they can do it on a timedemo too. Most of the review sites run the same benchmarks. 3dmark2003, 2001, ut2003, splinter cell, serious sam etc... Guess what, they use the same time demos for these games too. ut2003 flyby sound familiar? If they do this for the time demos then they will get inflated scores. You'll buy a $500 card thinking it can get 60Fps in splintercell because that's what the benchmarks said, yet when you take the game home to PLAY it, it only plays at 40fps.

If they could make this hack work on a game that would be great. You'd have great fps while still thinking it looks good. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

Because they are doing this on a benchmark that makes it even worse. A benchmarks only purpose is to test a cards speed. They are inflating the speeds to sell more cards. You think you're going to run pixel shader 2.0 games great because they score great on p.s.2.0 benchmarks, but come to find out you spent $500 on a card that runs pixel shader 2.0 games like ass.

Kills me you people actually defend this type of action. I can understand having brand loyalty, but at some point you have to open your eyes.
jjjayb is offline  
Old 05-14-03, 10:54 PM   #30
night
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Behemoth
hmm ok, if they do it only on timedemo, thats bad, thats cheating, but as long as the actual games run great, i dont care too much about 3DMark.
that is is more idiotic than NV40's post. i think... cant be far from it....
im gonna have to call that a tie actually
night is offline  
Old 05-14-03, 10:56 PM   #31
Rogozhin
Registered User
 
Rogozhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: oregon
Posts: 826
Default

well said jjj

maybe a similar analogy would be car makers using higher compression on all the cars they send out as new models to car magazines and reviewers then after the scores have been published lowering the compression (saving the stress on the engine) and selling them to the public.

This could easily happen if nvidia is allowed to do this sort of thing.

rogo
Rogozhin is offline  
Old 05-14-03, 11:00 PM   #32
ChrisRay
Registered User
 
ChrisRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
Default

I don't think anyone said benchmarks are dead, But synthetic benchmarks are slowly dying out of the PC industry.


People have tried to stay away from them. Expecially since most games have benchmarks now
__________________
|CPU: Intel I7 Lynnfield @ 3.0 Ghz|Mobo:Asus P7P55 WS Supercomputer |Memory:8 Gigs DDR3 1333|Video:Geforce GTX 295 Quad SLI|Monitor:Samsung Syncmaster 1680x1080 3D Vision\/Olevia 27 Inch Widescreen HDTV 1920x1080

|CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.5 Ghz|Mobo:Asus M3n HT Deluxe Nforce 780A|Memory: 4 gigs DDR2 800| Video: Geforce GTX 280x2 SLI

Nzone
SLI Forum Administrator

NVIDIA User Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members
ChrisRay is offline  

Old 05-14-03, 11:04 PM   #33
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jjjayb
Jeez you people are missing the point. If they do it on 3dmark2003 they can do it on a timedemo too. Most of the review sites run the same benchmarks. 3dmark2003, 2001, ut2003, splinter cell, serious sam etc... Guess what, they use the same time demos for these games too. ut2003 flyby sound familiar? If they do this for the time demos then they will get inflated scores. You'll buy a $500 card thinking it can get 60Fps in splintercell because that's what the benchmarks said, yet when you take the game home to PLAY it, it only plays at 40fps.

If they could make this hack work on a game that would be great. You'd have great fps while still thinking it looks good. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

Because they are doing this on a benchmark that makes it even worse. A benchmarks only purpose is to test a cards speed. They are inflating the speeds to sell more cards. You think you're going to run pixel shader 2.0 games great because they score great on p.s.2.0 benchmarks, but come to find out you spent $500 on a card that runs pixel shader 2.0 games like ass.

Kills me you people actually defend this type of action. I can understand having brand loyalty, but at some point you have to open your eyes.
i believe ati is well capable of doing this kind of benchmark hack too, just because it can doesnt mean it will do it.
so does 3Dmark difference indicate splinter cell performance difference? is there any reason why nvidia still hasnt hacked the AA/AF performance to beat 9700/9800pro?
3DMark is not supposed to mean absolute performance of every single game. it is far from an absolute performance indicator of every single game.
Behemoth is offline  
Old 05-14-03, 11:05 PM   #34
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by marcocom
indeed, you are right sir.

WHQL means alot more than Futuremarks' input to me. And then, how about that whole 'nvidia has no access to source code' fact there...nvidia cheating?? how about simply 'ATi knows how to please the benchmark precisely while nvidia is still guessing'

frankly, i just wish the benchmark didnt exist and that my fellow consumers stopped treating it like its gold. cuz its a joke. the idea that a benchmark exists that CERTAIN hardware mfrs have more access to than others certainly stinks more than anything regarding missing effects in playback of that benchmark by nvidia.

indeed..

ATi have plenty of Access to 3dmark2003 source code ..
while Nvidia not.. so they can "optimize" the way they want
to get better scores , just for 3dmark2003..
i dont see ,the fairness here... at all .

so thats why i dont care too much about numbers in
Syntetic benchmarks like 3dmarks /SHadersmarks/RIghtmarks
and others.. They may be good as graphic Demo , but in no way
represent my future performance in 3d games ,if my video
card company is not allowed to work with them ,the way it happens
in the real world with games..

the benchamrk can be "legal" and at the same time manipulated
their programming to benefits more ,one IHV video card
arquitecture . (cough) PS1.4 video cards..

if Nvidia Nv30 were not delayed by 6months ,the
"standar" now in DIrectx9 will be other.

for me the real BEnchmarks are games.,
and here is where ATI now have a new trouble .

Last edited by Nv40; 05-14-03 at 11:23 PM.
Nv40 is offline  
Old 05-14-03, 11:06 PM   #35
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by night
that is is more idiotic than NV40's post. i think... cant be far from it....
im gonna have to call that a tie actually
your post looks purely fanatical to me as well
Behemoth is offline  
Old 05-14-03, 11:07 PM   #36
Richteralan
The Enigma
 
Richteralan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 758
Send a message via ICQ to Richteralan Send a message via MSN to Richteralan
Default

I really have to congratulation to ATI's PA.......
They done a great job to make people thinking Nvidia is cheating.....hahaha.........
Richteralan is offline  
Closed Thread


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
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
NVIDIA could rule if they really wanted to Vid_craze NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 25 08-16-02 05:24 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 AM.


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