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

Newegg Daily Deals

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-23-03, 05:18 PM   #13
DivotMaker
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 823
Default

I highly doubt that this is nVidia's "official" response. A statement from an anonymous employee is not what I had in mind for their response and I am pretty sure there will be an official response at some point.
DivotMaker is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 05:26 PM   #14
zakelwe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 768
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by GNNR |AVault|
I think the other question is why does the NV35 perform well in games but not in 3DMark 03... someone needs to disect the drivers and look to see if it's 'cheating' in the more common demos as well... there are hints of it, but not enough evidence to say with any assurance this is a happeningy... doesn't make sense. If they aren't, why not bother to do the right thing in 3DMark03?

Or... is 3DMark03 really bent out of whack from center towards ATI equipment?

YOu could take the reply to mean what it hints at... ATI worked their drivers to do well in 3DMark03 (or 3DMark leaned towards ATI hardware) and Nvidia decided that it wasn't representative and they wouldn't bother.

But that lstill eaves the question of why bother with the 'cheat' after the fact?

What a mess... seems like an answer crafted to raise more questions and throw up more FUD/FOG than it answers... typical corporate speak.
Maybe their thinking was that the bench was skewed in Ati's favour and decided to skew it back themselves. Bit shortsighted considering the public relations nightmare now.

Regards

Andy
zakelwe is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 05:44 PM   #15
Humus
Coder
 
Humus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 135
Send a message via ICQ to Humus
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by GNNR |AVault|
I think the other question is why does the NV35 perform well in games but not in 3DMark 03...
A question that was already asked and answered in this thread. Basically, 3dmarks depends a lot on pixel and vertex shader 2.0 functionality. This is not used in current games, but will be at some point in the future. The NV3x hardware simply is way slow at ps2.0.
__________________
Visit my site for cool demos
Humus is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 06:07 PM   #16
indio
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 116
Default

this what I found interesting in the article .

Dean McCarron, an analyst with Mercury Research, said benchmark results are valuable for graphics chip makers if they want to claim general bragging rights for the fastest chip. But the results hold little sway with the hard-core PC game players who make up the bulk of the customer base for high-end graphics chips

I guess 3dmark don't matter to hardcore gamers

I have never seen a single negative thing come out of Mercury Research. My guess is there paid "analysts for Nvidia

from there website
One of the industry's most quoted analysts, Dean A. McCarron, gained his national reputation for reliable -- and bankable -- microprocessor industry analysis as Vice President of Technology for In-Stat, with responsibility for technology content in the entire semiconductor research products portfolio. He has contributed to Microprocessor Report and OEM Magazine, and leads seminars on PC and chip markets.

We all remember Microprocessor Report don't we? Remember their editor-in-chief
Peter N. Glaskowsky
Who gave the NV30 the "Best Graphics Processor of the Years Award 2002" Strange considering it wasn't available.
Nvidia's Marketing and mass media manipulation is out of control and needs to be aborted.
It is going to be the death of the company if they don't smarten up.
indio is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 06:09 PM   #17
rokzy
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Humus
A question that was already asked and answered in this thread. Basically, 3dmarks depends a lot on pixel and vertex shader 2.0 functionality. This is not used in current games, but will be at some point in the future. The NV3x hardware simply is way slow at ps2.0.
agreed
rokzy is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 06:13 PM   #18
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by indio
Nvidia's Marketing and mass media manipulation is out of control and needs to be aborted.
It is going to be the death of the company if they don't smarten up.
Whole-hearted agreement, it's time for nVidia to clean house...from the top on down.
__________________
[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  
Old 05-23-03, 06:14 PM   #19
Grrrpoop
Wey aye man!
 
Grrrpoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by GNNR |AVault|
I think the other question is why does the NV35 perform well in games but not in 3DMark 03...
Because its shader performance is less than that of the R350, because 3Dmark03 is heavily geared towards shader performance and towards testing how hardware will / might perform in tomorrows games, not todays.

A lot of the posts I've been reading today from nVidia fans all seem to be saying that if nVidia is cheating, then ATI must be cheating too, to an even greater extent. That's pretty weak..

FM are gonna investigate ATI's 8% drop in Game4, there might be something shifty going on there, but otherwise ATI cards are performing well because they have hardware which closely follows the DX9 spec, and which doesn't need extra work put in to get it up and running.

3Dmark03, whilst not the best piece of coding around, closely follows the DX9 spec for shaders.

If you don't believe me about nV35's shader performance then check out this:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcyLDEy

Unless ShaderMark is also conspiring against nvidia
__________________
Don't be Care Less with your language
Grrrpoop is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 06:17 PM   #20
vampireuk
**** Holster
 
vampireuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The armoury
Posts: 2,813
Send a message via AIM to vampireuk
Default

Meh they completly screwed up this time, lets hope a lesson is learned from this and they recover to be our nice saviour from the evil hell of ATI

that was a joke about the evil hell btw...
vampireuk is offline  

Old 05-23-03, 06:20 PM   #21
Eymar
GF4 ti4600
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 46
Default

What is happening with Nvidia? Did the 9700pro throw off their roadmap that much that they are now spending as much time in marketing as with R&D. Their hardware was and still is top notch. For the reason why the nv3x perform just as well against r3xx in games and not 3dmark2k3 is that most games run on DX8 and opengl. The game 1 score is still pretty high with the patch. I'm just confused as why the DX9 performance is not as high. Does fill rate performance factor less in terms of how well the card does in pixel shader perfomance?
Eymar is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 06:23 PM   #22
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Humus
A question that was already asked and answered in this thread. Basically, 3dmarks depends a lot on pixel and vertex shader 2.0 functionality. This is not used in current games, but will be at some point in the future. The NV3x hardware simply is way slow at ps2.0.

3dmark2003 barely use PS2.0/VS2.0 as much as 5%?

the reason ATI perform so well and
NVidia not is because 3dmak2003 = (is the selection of ati best test in 3dmark2001)
Ps1.4/SIngle texturing/ ridiculous use of VS.. where ATi hardware
feels at home.. but at the same time lack of MUltitexturing test /and PS1.x
were ATI cards generally slower.. because both companies
have a diferent vision for the design of their hardware,but FUture mark
does everything so conveniently for ATI cards..
first generation of NV3x cards (not Nv35) are slower at PS2.0 than ATI but only at using 128bits.. ATi is faster obviously for rendering less..
while Nvidia does 32bits higher that the precision used by ATI in 3dmark.
means 3dmark2003 is not an apples vs apples benchmark ,
as many gamers think .and Futuremark fail to inform the public about this ,
when the benchmark show the scores .

Last edited by Nv40; 05-23-03 at 06:41 PM.
Nv40 is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 06:30 PM   #23
CaptNKILL
CUBE
 
CaptNKILL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 18,844
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Humus
A question that was already asked and answered in this thread. Basically, 3dmarks depends a lot on pixel and vertex shader 2.0 functionality. This is not used in current games, but will be at some point in the future. The NV3x hardware simply is way slow at ps2.0.
What games do you KNOW are going to use pixel shader 2.0?
I dont know how far into the "future" 3DMark2003 (2006?) is looking, but you have to think about what you are saying. If you were making a game and had a choice between pixel shader 1.x and 2.0 instructions, which ones would you use:
The ones that work well on all pixel-shader capable cards.
or
The ones that only work well on ONLY ATI hardware?

If I knew everyone was going to complain about pixel shader performance when the game was released, I sure as hell wouldnt USE those pixel shaders.

I'll admit, im no pixel-shader expert, but PS2.0 would have to SHOW me a hell of an improvement for me to want it over the much FASTER PS1.4 (?) if I owned an NV3x.

Nvidia IS holding us back technologicly because of this, but since they are, 3dM2k3 is NOT an accurate representation of future games.
__________________
---- Primary Rig ---- CoolerMaster 690 II Advance - Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0Ghz + Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme
6GB DDR2 @ 942Mhz 5-5-5-20 1.9v (2x1Gb Wintec AMPX PC2-8500 & 2x2Gb G.Skill PC2-6400) - EVGA Geforce GTX 470 @ 750/1500/1850 (1.050v)
Sparkle Geforce GTS 250 1Gb Low-Profile (Physx) - Crucial RealSSD C300 64Gb SSD - Seagate 7200.12 500Gb SATA - Seagate 7200.10 320Gb SATA
ASUS VW266H 25.5" LCD - OCZ GameXStream 700W PSU - ASUS Xonar DX - Logitech Z-5500 5.1 Surround - Windows 7 Professional x64
---- HTPC ---- Asus M3A78-EM 780G - AMD Athlon X2 5050e 45W @ 2.6Ghz - 2x2GB Kingston PC2-6400 DDR2 - Sparkle 350W PSU
Seagate 7200.10 320Gb SATA - Seagate 7200.10 250Gb SATA - Athenatech A100BB.350 MicroATX Desktop - Creative X-Fi XtremeMusic
CaptNKILL is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 06:38 PM   #24
Humus
Coder
 
Humus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 135
Send a message via ICQ to Humus
Default

Well, Doom III. Yes, it's OpenGL, but it's using ps2.0 equivalent on capable cards, GL_ARB_fragment_program and GL_NV_fragment_program.

When it comes to 1.x vs 2.0, well, if you have a choice you will probably always choose the one with wider compability so long as there's no significant performance difference. However, if you're desiding to use some cool techniques you're most likely forced to use 2.0 anyway, or scrap the idea all together.

Yes, games is always a step behind, but that doesn't make ps2.0 tests invalid. If nothing else there's always techdemos available on my site to take advantage of it.
__________________
Visit my site for cool demos
Humus 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
PR Response to Linus Torvald's Inflammatory Comments News Archived News Items 0 06-19-12 12:00 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 01:20 AM.


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