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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-18-03, 05:10 PM   #85
gordon151
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 264
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on "Optimization"

Quote:
Originally posted by Nv40
its not needed here the semantics ,the point is Doom3 benchamrks
were correct....we have J.C word that they represent an accurate
benchmark of the FInal game. however is it true that the game is far
from be FInal . THere are more levels and single player missions to be done, but the engine is finished.

Means that ATI cards have an oportunity to score much better in the final game ,but not because the game is not final ,but because ATI like any other IHV can improve their drivers.
Where do we have JC's word about that? I think I missed that.
gordon151 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 05:14 PM   #86
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
apparently it is not so obvious... else there would be far fewer people in these forums questioning the content of your posts
A handful of people no doubt! Can you believe it?

Quote:
the point is yes... make the benchmarks as FAST as possible... but if you alter the way the benchmark itself is working... that is no longer 'optimizing'. that is what everyone has been trying to tell you... and to an extent... nv40... but that basic point is not being picked up
No, that point is clear. That is how Futuremark would want it to be "optimized". However, NVIDIA clearly wants to optimize so that image quality and speed are as high as possible. They have not sacraficed any image quality with this Detonator FX driver, and what we can actually see is not corrupted at all. Also, NVIDIA does not have authorized access to the developers version. Wouldn't this give ATI a natural advantage in what is supposed to be a "neutral" benchmark? Maybe this whole clipping issue highlights a major fault in using 3dmark03 for direct comparisons? Who really knows.

At this point, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 05:21 PM   #87
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on "Optimization"

Quote:
Originally posted by Clockwork
[b]Indeed. Some people choose to forget that nVidia already had their own demo prepared before id told them they they couldn't use it. One can assume most of the optimizations made for that demo were still completely applicable to the demo id ended up providing....

Why can't people understand that?
speculations are not facts... facts are not speculations.
WHat Nvidia have done in 3dmark 2003 cannot be done in Doom3.
unless you think JC can be fooled , and cannot be trusted ,
its is ridiculous to think that bechmarks are not representative of
what will happen if the game is released today.

Do you think is impossible to score higher than a radeon9800pro?
a cards like the NV35 with higher core/clock memory and more bandwidht? wake up ,to the reality world.. ATI doesnt have the
fastest card anymore . of course that will not last forever , there will be an R360 and later and Nv40,later R400. is that hard to undertand this for you?

Last edited by Nv40; 05-18-03 at 05:30 PM.
Nv40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 05:24 PM   #88
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on "Optimization"

Quote:
Originally posted by gordon151
Where do we have JC's word about that? I think I missed that.

unless you believe that J.C was not present there ,and will allow to benchamrks ATI and NVidia cards if he doesnt believe that *his* timedemo cant be trusted. i think is safe to say ,we can trust.
Nv40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 05:27 PM   #89
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
The idea is concrete which is something that you're simply not absorbing. It's not how you render all the information it is that you do render all the information and that you do it in a consistent matter which isn't specific to that benchmark. This is what I would assume Futuremark had hoped would be the situation with 3DMark03 and is the very basis of maintaining a very even field in terms of benchmarking.
Well I disagree, I don't think it's so concrete. Also, what Futuremark hopes for and what NVIDIA hopes for are two very different things. NVIDIA wants to run the benchmark as fast and as smooth as possible without corrupting image quality that we actually see.

Quote:
It's also important to note this represents no effort on the part of Nvidia to increase driver performance.
That is silly. Anyone can read the reviews and see the dramatic improvements in IQ and performance virtually across the board for the FX cards using the newest Detonator FX driver.

Quote:
To suggest that such a move is ok is utterly ridiculous and I'm not sure why you keep entertaining that thought.
If NVIDIA can increase speed without corrupting image quality that we see, I would generally say that is a good thing (and it looks like NVIDIA actually improved image quality with this new driver). From Futuremark's or ATI's perspective, obvious they wouldn't consider it a good thing. Depends on what frame of reference you use. I think the FX Detonator driver is a very good thing for FX owners, and they should be very happy that both image quality and frames per second have improved.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 05:44 PM   #90
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on "Optimization"

Quote:
Originally posted by gordon151
Where do we have JC's word about that? I think I missed that.
Johnny-boy ain't said jack-squat about ATi's lack of participation, (Like a cheesey-weasel boy! Sorry, that just slipped out. ), but we did have a press release from ATi saying they were surprised and wish they would have been contacted about the test prior to it.

Of course, I probably would be safe in assuming that you don't believe anything ATi says....with your current employer and all.
__________________
[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 05-18-03, 05:46 PM   #91
Clockwork
I was cured all right...
 
Clockwork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Korova Milk Bar
Posts: 115
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on "Optimization"

Quote:
Originally posted by Nv40
speculations are not facts... facts are not speculations.
WHat Nvidia have done in 3dmark 2003 cannot be done in Doom3.
unless you think JC can be fooled , and cannot be trusted ,
its is ridiculous to think that bechmarks are not representative of
what will happen if the game is released today.

Do you think is impossible to score higher than a radeon9800pro?
a cards like the NV35 with higher core/clock memory and more bandwidht? wake up ,to the reality world.. ATI doesnt have the
fastest card anymore . of course that will not last forever , there will be an R360 and later and Nv40,later R400. is that hard to undertand this for you?
Oh I agree. the nv35 performance was very indicitave of how it will run Doom 3. That's not the problem. The problem is that the numbers the 9800 card produced are not (as there was no time for optimization like nVidia had).
__________________
| AMD Athlon 64 3500+ | 1GB Corsair XMS Extreme Memory PC3200 DDR | GIGABYTE GA-K8NSNXP-939 nForce3 Ultra | WD 120GB SATA | BFG 6800GT OC w/ Zalman VF700cu | Pioneer DVR-A07XLA 8x DVD+-R/RW | Aopen 1640Pro-A 16x DVD | Cooler Master Cavalier 1 CAV-T01-WWA case | Ultra X-Connect 500watt psu | Windows XP Professional w/ SP2 |Samsung 193p+ 19" LCD
Clockwork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 05:46 PM   #92
legion88
WhatIfSports.com Junkie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
Trust me, I fully understand this point of view. However, we all know that NVIDIA and ATI actively "optimize" their drivers for enhanced performance in 3dmark programs. This alone undercuts the argument about an "accurate comparision of performance", because it has been repeatedly shown that driver "optimizations" alone can (sometimes significantly) improve performance.

There is also the issue about what is an "optimization" and what is a "cheat". There is no agreement about what this distinction is. If NVIDIA (or ATI for that matter) can improve performance without compromising image quality, I'd like to think of that as an "optimization".

If anything, maybe this will help Futuremark to create a benchmark that is less susceptible to "optimizations", assuming that they truly want to create an "impartial" benchmarking program.
Using image quality as a means to determine whether it is a cheat or an optimization is laughable. It is just as stupid (well, actually, it is almost as stupid) as ATI morons using the totally idiotic notion that if the newer drivers showed similar speed improvements without image quality degradation then that proves the previous drivers weren't cheats.

Cheat means to violate the rules deliberately (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cheat). In the case of FutureMark's products (or any benchmark for that matter), the companies are expected not to "optimize" specifically for their benchmark. That is, it is expected that the optmizations would be apparent for any Direct3D applications, not just 3DMark200x. So those attempts at blurrying the textures in 3DMark2001 (that ATI was also caught doing) on the Radeon 8500s would be obvious examples of cheats.

When it comes to static benchmarks (like 3DMarks or Quake 3 pre-recorded timedemo playbacks), the scenes are rendered essentially the same way every time. (Thus, I call them static as in not changing). Because of that, adventurious drivers programmers can "hard-wire" code into the drivers that would exploit the knowledge gained from knowing what frames are being rendered, how they are being rendered, and when.

For playing games in real-time, adventurious drivers programmers are not psychic and thus do now know ahead of time what frames are going to be rendered, etc.. The techniques based on knowing ahead of time what frames are to be rendered, knowing ahead of time how the frames are to be rendered, and knowing ahead of time when they would be rendered would not be transferred to real-time gaming.

It should go without saying that consumers play games in real-time.
legion88 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 05-18-03, 05:47 PM   #93
muzz
 
muzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 816
Default

The funniest part about this 3DMark issue with Jimmyjames is this....

The image quality went up even in 3DMark03....

So What? The image quality of that Bench is just a means to the end, that bench is NOT REALLY about image quality now is it ( it IS supposed to look nice, and show a bit of tommorrows technology, but NOT the MAIN [<<<<---did you get that]FOCUS.
The MAIN focus of that bench is to show what the card is capable of, render SPEED is one of the MAIN [ooops there it is again.... DOH!] functions of it.
HOW LONG DOES CARD A TAKE COMPARED TO CARD B.. period.

There is alot of $ riding on that stupid benchmark, but it is what it is, which is a tool to figure out if card A can render all these things CORRECTLY ( visually), and HOW LONG does it take to do it... PERIOD.
Like it or not, that is the reason that bench exists, and making something NOT render the EXPECTED WORKLOAD ( that is the benchmarks decision, not the manufacturers) invalidates the scores ( call it whatever ya like).

Think what ya feel ya have to.

Alot of cash rides on things like benchies, or else noone would do anything unethical regarding them.

Great it LOOKS good while going through the bench.................. but for ANYONE not able to grasp the real purpose of this tool ( and others like it) my suggestion is ya really need to think about it, instead of making up excuses as is the common goal it seems ( not everyone).

Good Day

Edit. my spelling blows chunks sometimes....
__________________
muzz

Last edited by muzz; 05-18-03 at 05:50 PM.
muzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 06:10 PM   #94
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
Cheat means to violate the rules deliberately (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cheat). In the case of FutureMark's products (or any benchmark for that matter), the companies are expected not to "optimize" specifically for their benchmark.
Then both NVIDIA and ATI are cheating. Like it or not, both of these companies "optimize" for this benchmark. This makes a perfectly level comparison using a synthetic benchmark very difficult, no doubt about that.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 06:16 PM   #95
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
Great it LOOKS good while going through the bench.................. but for ANYONE not able to grasp the real purpose of this tool ( and others like it) my suggestion is ya really need to think about it, instead of making up excuses as is the common goal it seems ( not everyone).
The use of 3dmark03 as an accurate gaming "tool" is in itself debatable unfortunately, and that is part of the problem. Companies can and will optimize for these synthetic benchmark's so that the benchmark's will run smoother on their cards, so that's why most reviewers try to include actual gaming benchmarks to give a better picture of how the product performs. I almost get the sense that 3dmark is more for bragging rights nowadays.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-03, 06:24 PM   #96
Onde Pik
Thrakhath nar Kiranka
 
Onde Pik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Kilrah
Posts: 92
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on "Optimization"

Quote:
Originally posted by Nv40
unless you believe that J.C was not present there ,and will allow to benchamrks ATI and NVidia cards if he doesnt believe that *his* timedemo cant be trusted. i think is safe to say ,we can trust.
U make me laugh, you say that we have JC's word that this test is how the game is really gonna play. And this is how u back up that satement. I am sorry but the fact that u think it is trustworthy != JCs word that it is.

Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Would you also have me tell me we have Bush's word that US troops planted evidence in Iraq, just because you think that that is the only way it could have gotten there???

Not the best analogy but come on. How do expect to be taken seriously, when you flat out lie. And the give some useless ( and very poorly written) explaination about what u meant. Well excuse, but wtf.
__________________
Ek’rah skabak erg Thrak’Kilrah maks Ragnith
Onde Pik 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 08:56 AM.


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