So now we know

[bkswaney]

I think these two things say a lot.

____________________________________________

Since NVIDIA is not part in the FutureMark beta program (a program which costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in) we do not get a chance to work with Futuremark on writing the shaders like we would with a real applications developer.


__________________________________________________ __

ATI stated:

The 1.9% performance gain comes from optimization of the two DX9 shaders (water and sky) in Game Test 4 . We render the scene exactly as intended by Futuremark, in full-precision floating point. Our shaders are mathematically and functionally identical to Futuremark's and there are no visual artifacts; we simply shuffle instructions to take advantage of our architecture. These are exactly the sort of optimizations that work in games to improve frame rates without reducing image quality and as such, are a realistic approach to a benchmark intended to measure in-game performance. However, we recognize that these can be used by some people to call into question the legitimacy of benchmark results, and so we are removing them from our driver as soon as is physically possible. We expect them to be gone by the next release of CATALYST.

__________________________________________________


As I see it Nvidia got ****ed by not staying with FM's beta program.

ATI worked hand in hand with FM to make sure there shader was at top performance for "there bench".

Nvidia did not. But "Game Companies" do work very close with nvidia. Even more so than ati.
That is why you see the FX's suxing on PS 2.0 3DM03 and kicking butt in games.

It's easy to read between the lines on this one just from what both companies have said.

edit by StealthHawk: dont circumvent the swear filter. Thanks.

[jAkUp]

nvidia also said...

"We don't know what they did, but it looks like they have intentionally tried to create a scenario that makes our products look bad."


i think not staying in the futuremark program was very bad for nvidia... that money is pocket change for them

[reever2]

Originally posted by bkswaney
That is why you see the FX's suxing on PS 2.0 3DM03 and kicking butt in games.

Until you start seeing PS 2.0 games, then Nvidia has to fix its **** architecture

[bkswaney]

Originally posted by jAkUp
nvidia also said...

"We don't know what they did, but it looks like they have intentionally tried to create a scenario that makes our products look bad."


i think not staying in the futuremark program was very bad for nvidia... that money is pocket change for them

I agree big time on that one.
If nvidia had stayed with FM they would not be here today.
They got left out in the cold.
They need to sux it up and go on.
Quite trying to cheat on 3DM03 and keep focas on the games.
They can pick back up with FM on future benchmarks.

[bkswaney]

Originally posted by reever2
Until you start seeing PS 2.0 games, then Nvidia has to fix its **** architecture

That might not be true.
It seems to be Nvidia's idea of 2.0. Most every game company is going to work with nvidia to give them what they need.
Heck with 60% of the market I see why.
Nvidia just did not match there PS up with futuremarks it seems.

[Nv40]

Originally posted by jAkUp
nvidia also said...


i think not staying in the futuremark program was very bad for nvidia... that money is pocket change for them

have you ever heard what Nvidia says about 3dmark?
i know there are journalists outhere,that has backed 3dmark
as a reliable benchmark.. so maybe they are right..
but what if they are wrong and Nvidia is right?

would you still pay thousands of $$$ for SOmething you dont believe?

[jjjayb]

Since NVIDIA is not part in the FutureMark beta program (a program which costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in) we do not get a chance to work with Futuremark on writing the shaders like we would with a real applications developer

Interpreted: We did not get to have things done our way. Things were done according to dx9 spec and we didn't like that. You see, our cards don't perform so well when they run standard dx9 spec. We need for developers to write special code to get our cards to run acceptably. We didn't get our way so we left the program. Once we left the program we were forced to cheat. It's not our fault. We're a product of our environment and bad engineering decisions.

ATI worked hand in hand with FM to make sure there shader was at top performance for "there bench".

Interpreted more closely to the truth: FutureMark made sure they created the bench according to DX9 Standards. Ati, as a result of engineering their board according to dx9 specs, performs very well in a dx9 futuremark benchmark.

Nvidia did not. But "Game Companies" do work very close with nvidia. Even more so than ati.
That is why you see the FX's suxing on PS 2.0 3DM03 and kicking butt in games.

How many dx9 games have you seen? 3dmark is not the only dx9 benchmark out there. There are 2 more. Shadermark and Rightmark. Both of those also show the r300 destroying the nv30 using dx9 shaders. Games companies will HAVE to work with Nvidia or they will get poor performance in dx9 games.

Listen guys, I hear a lot of people bitching about how 3dmark is not fair to Nvidia. The only thing not fair to Nvidia is Nvidia themselves. They chose to engineer a board that does not perform well using standard dx9 coding. They chose to engineer a board that developers will have to optimize specifically for in order to get it to perform acceptably. Nvidia made some pretty bad decisions and now they have to deal with it. Ati on the other hand engineered a board that runs DX9 shaders great right from the gate. No special optimizations needed. This is not Futuremarks fault or ATI's fault that Nvidia felt they had to deviate from dx9 standards. Not all games companies are going to be willing to spend the extra time to optimize specifically for the nv30 to get it to run up to speed. I'm sure a lot will though. They won't have much choice if they want to sell their games to a wider audience.

You are right though. If Nvidia would have stayed in the Futuremark Beta they would not be in this position today. Not because the benchmark would have been programed any differently, but because they would have known about the developers version that allows you to go off the rails. They would have known they would be caught and not used that cheat, which turned out to be so easy to detect with the developers version.

[Nv40]

Originally posted by Nv40
would you pay THousands of dollars for something that
YOU DONT BELIEVE?

have you ever heard what Nvidia says about 3dmark?
i know there are journalists outhere,that has backed 3dmark
as a reliable benchmark.. so maybe they are right..
but what if they are wrong and Nvidia is right?

would you still pay thousands of $$$ for SOmething you dont believe?

[jAkUp]

Originally posted by Nv40
would you pay THousands of dollars for something that
YOU DONT BELIEVE?

lol nvidia does... they just say they dont. why do you think they spent the time to optimize for it?? not to mention winning in 3dmark03 is a very big deal because alot of consumers go by that. nvidia wants to sell.

trust me.. thousands of dollars is nothing to nvidia. they would of done it if they felt their hardware accomodated it nicely... and at that time the nv30 and 3dmark03 did not agree

[jjjayb]

Heck with 60% of the market I see why.
Nvidia just did not match there PS up with futuremarks it seems.

Again. Nvidia did not match there PS up with the DX standard. This has nothing to do with Futuremark. Quit blaming futuremark for Nvidia's poor decisions.

How long do you think that 60% is going to last with these types of shenanigans? Market share doesn't change overnight. More and more of that market share is going to slide over to ATI. Do you really think developers will like having to write special code to get nv30 cards to perform acceptably with dx9 shaders? No doubt some of them will do it. They won't like spending the extra time that could be used to do other things, but they will do it. Not all will though. The more r300 cards ATI sell, the less developers will be willing to go out of there way to optimize for Nvidia. And ATI has been selling a heck of a lot of r300's. With the type of attitude Nvidia has showed lately, I'm sure more and more people will have ATI cards in there machines.

I'm using a 9700 now, but if ATI was using the tactics Nvidia has been using you can rest assured I wouldn't have it in my machine.

[Nv40]

Originally posted by jAkUp
lol nvidia does... they just say they dont. why do you think they spent the time to optimize for it?? not to mention winning in 3dmark03 is a very big deal because alot of consumers go by that.

trust me.. thousands of dollars is nothing to nvidia. they would of done it if they felt their hardware accomodated it nicely... and at that time the nv30 and 3dmark03 did not agree

you have not answered my question JAck...

Nvidia can be millionaire ,but their money ,will not be invested in
things they dont believe..

so i ask YOU ,would you pay for something say $1 dollar or 1 million ,even if you have the money ,if you strongly feel
you dont have to do it ,for X,Y,Z reasons ,because it benefits
Nothing you ,and because you dont believe in it.?

[jAkUp]

i would. but i would also believe in it. because like i said, winning in 3dmark03 is not just a nice number to show... it sells more. you will probably double what you put into the futuremark program by just having a *legit* badass 3dmark03 score...

i dont agree with using 3dmark03 as a tool to choose what vcard you need... but millions of people do. since nvidia felt their card wasnt up to speed in 3dmark03, they dropped the program, then said "3dmark03 is useless" then we see them cheating to get good 3dmark03 scores... how strange....