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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-18-03, 03:43 PM   #49
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
We don't know what has happened in UT2003 timedemos, so we can't say one way or another.
Yet since this driver set contains at least two cheats that we know of, how can we be sure they don't contain more? The answer? Until more testing is done, we don't. So in the meantime I think it safe to not put too much stock in a driver set that contains an as-yet-undetermined # of cheats.

Quote:
I think I read somewhere that timedemo's change every time you run them, is this true? This certainly doesn't invalidate all the other true gaming benchmark's though (like Doom 3, Quake 3, etc).
If you have to ask this you should be reading a Harry Potter book instead of arguing your illogical points in this thread. If a timedemo changed after every run, what would be the point of using it??

OK, I've wasted enough of my time with this thread. One athlete ran his race fairly (insofar as we know) while the other got caught redhanded cheating his as$ off. The cheating athlete's fans are now crying foul because they didn't know about the helicopter in the sky. Fans of the other athlete are laughing their butts off. Those who just want a fair race, such as myself, are scratching their heads at both camps, somewhat depressed by this sad situation.
John Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 03:43 PM   #50
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
Well duh this isn't too complicated to understand. And there are people who feel that such timedemo's are not a great benchmarking tool because they can be susceptible to such "optimizations" (say it three times please).



We don't know what has happened in UT2003 timedemos, so we can't say one way or another. I think I read somewhere that timedemo's change every time you run them, is this true? This certainly doesn't invalidate all the other true gaming benchmark's though (like Doom 3, Quake 3, etc).
how come you and so many other people keep bringing up doom3 as a valid benchmarking tool when A it has not been released publicly and only had a 'trial' run along with teh nv35's release in order to validate nvidia's claims of superior doom3 performance... (good marketing btw)

and B... the game has not officially been released... ergo the benchmark also not officially released... hence how can IT be considered a valid benchmarking tool if the released product was tested by only one IHV ?

quake 3 I will concur... it is valid... though dated... but if everyone is gettin 300-400 fps... I mean does it really make a difference anymore ?
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 03:44 PM   #51
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
So tell me, who is full of it? You can dig through the Hardocp forums all you want and you will never find what you claim to be there. It only exists in your head. The only one full of it here is you.
No sir, you have proven again that you are full of it. Read Sazar's comments above to verify that [H]OCP did indeed wait for at least a month and talk to ATI repeatedly before releasing their findings.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 03:45 PM   #52
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
No I did NOT say the scores are invalid. I said it makes any attempts to "normalize" seem undercut.



It's really not that hard to understand. It's a question of normalization. FM only wants WHQL results in an attempt to normalize things. However, by allowing overclocked results for the online results browser, their standards become inconsistent. If you don't see that, there is no simple way that I will convince you otherwise.
again I fail to see the point in comparing WHQL and non-WHQL results with overclocked and non-overclocked results..

if it makes you feel any better you can actually go through and filter results in order to compare @ certain gpu clock speeds so you don't have to trod through the oc'd results... thats what I do...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 03:46 PM   #53
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jjjayb
So far I haven't heard any complaints about that. Only compaints that 3dmark03 doesn't represent actual game performance.
And even when they say that they're just parroting Nvidia's PR. How many people in this community know enough about your typical 3D engine and how it works under the hood and how that differs from the way in which 3DM renders its graphics to really state the above? I sure don't, but I'm certainly not naive enough to blindly parrot what some company wants to spoon feed me.

As I once told my mother, speaking as a precocious teenager: "I cannot be human, for humans are too stupid."

OK, now I am done with this thread.
John Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 03:46 PM   #54
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
No sir, you have proven again that you are full of it. Read Sazar's comments above to verify that [H]OCP did indeed wait for at least a month and talk to ATI repeatedly before releasing their findings.
I never said [H] DID wait for ati... I said kyle has said they did...

given his current standing from the forums I have visited lately I dunno if this carries any weight... but I do agree that the comments by kyle are ones that were indeed made
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 03:47 PM   #55
DivotMaker
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 823
Default

Please excuse my attempt at reason here...

I think there are some convincing arguments on both sides of this issue. I am not sure how and when nVidia will respond. I feel confident that they will have a plausible explanation for this issue.

That being said, I think the only way for nVidia and others to get past this issue is for nVidia to release a new set of WHQL Detonators that do NOT exhibit this behavior. No matter which side of the fence you happen to reside, this is the only way to get beyond this issue. Once this is done, then the benchmark comparisons can be more meaningful and legitimate.

I am not condoning what nVidia is being accused of. However, I am one who chooses not to condemn anyone or any company without irrefutable proof. I would tend to think that whoever is responsible for this issue occurring quite likely will NOT not be in a position to do so in the future. nVidia needs good PR right now and this issue is certainly not what they had in mind when launching the 5900 Ultra.
DivotMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 03:48 PM   #56
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
Yet since this driver set contains at least two cheats that we know of, how can we be sure they don't contain more? The answer? Until more testing is done, we don't. So in the meantime I think it safe to not put too much stock in a driver set that contains an as-yet-undetermined # of cheats.
That type of logic doesn't really make sense. You are telling me that, because we think their is an "optimization" for 3dmark03 in the Detonator FX drivers, that we should disregard all other results? That is just silly.

Quote:
If you have to ask this you should be reading a Harry Potter book instead of arguing your illogical points in this thread. If a timedemo changed after every run, what would be the point of using it??
Trying to make insulting comments will not bolster your credibility. There are people (even professional reviewers) who seem to have some potential issues with timedemos ([H]OCP is one I believe). That is the point.

Quote:
OK, I've wasted enough of my time with this thread.
The only person to blame is yourself.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 05-18-03, 03:53 PM   #57
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
how come you and so many other people keep bringing up doom3 as a valid benchmarking tool when A it has not been released publicly and only had a 'trial' run along with teh nv35's release in order to validate nvidia's claims of superior doom3 performance... (good marketing btw)
I said Doom 3, Quake 3, etc. The circumstances regarding Doom 3, and Quake 3's engine are besides the point. There is no need to list out all the games that each site benchmark's. People can go to FS, Tom's, Anand, etc for that. The point is that the vast majority of gaming benchmarks should not be affected at all, and even those benchmark's that might be affected will not have corrupted image quality that we can actually see.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 03:54 PM   #58
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
That type of logic doesn't really make sense. You are telling me that, because we think their is an "optimization" for 3dmark03 in the Detonator FX drivers, that we should disregard all other results? That is just silly.



Trying to make insulting comments will not bolster your credibility. There are people (even professional reviewers) who seem to have some potential issues with timedemos ([H]OCP is one I believe). That is the point.



The only person to blame is yourself.
just for the record

if john does say something... I would regard it with great consideration based on his reputation and posts @ other forums...

insults are never positive but consider that you are disregarding logical statements for hyposthesis that are more difficult to comprehend than things that should be clearly visible... ie... no clipping panes == no-no considering this particular benchmark... and the way timedemo's work...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 03:55 PM   #59
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
I said Doom 3, Quake 3, etc. The circumstances regarding Doom 3, and Quake 3's engine are besides the point. There is no need to list out all the games that each site benchmark's. People can go to FS, Tom's, Anand, etc for that. The point is that the vast majority of gaming benchmarks should not be affected at all, and even those benchmark's that might be affected will not have corrupted image quality that we can actually see.
but... the point made throughout this thread and others is... it is irrelevant whether it is a visible cheat or 'optimization' the fact that it is there in itself is improper...

it is misleading and unethical..
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 03:58 PM   #60
jjjayb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 101
Default

Quote:
It's really not that hard to understand. It's a question of normalization. FM only wants WHQL results in an attempt to normalize things.
They did not remove Non-Whql scores until AFTER Nvidia got caught lowering precision to achieve a higher score.
It's not a question of "normalization" it is a question of preventing this type of cheating.


Quote:
No sir, you have proven again that you are full of it. Read Sazar's comments above to verify that [H]OCP did indeed wait for at least a month and talk to ATI repeatedly before releasing their findings.
If he did indeed say this it seems kind of Odd that Kyle could be in talks with ATI for a month about their findings on the 8500 card optimizations when Kyle did not have an 8500 until 3 days before he broke the story. It doesn't add up. I can't blame you for repeating what he said though.
jjjayb 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
Bored, impressed, and giddy: Our final thoughts on E3 2012 (with photos) News Archived News Items 0 06-13-12 06:00 AM
Thoughts from console owners on NVIDIA's GEFORCE GRID MikeC Console World 11 05-27-12 08:43 AM
Looking for a good 21"/22" Monitor...any thoughts? Guuts General Hardware 13 09-22-02 11:04 AM
Thoughts on the command line as an interface. lunix Microsoft Windows XP And Vista 10 09-12-02 08:44 PM
GTA Thoughts? Typedef Enum Gaming Central 5 09-03-02 04:51 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 AM.


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