NVIDIA's offical response to Futuremark - Page 6

PsychoSy · 06-02-03, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeC
Heh. volt's new theme song:

I've got big balls
I've got big balls
And they're such big balls
Dirty big balls
And he's got big balls
And she's got big balls
But we've got the biggest balls of them all

I got the lead!!!!

I know those 3 chords!!!

GlowStick · 06-02-03, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NickSpolec
You need to re-read my entire post.

When I said optimized code paths in games, I was speaking about graphics hardware.

Oh my, let me recap of games that use optimized pahts.

quake, half life, quake ii, quake iii, doom iii
again, every deravative of them. not sure about the unreal engine's but i am very sure they use optmized pahts.

gordon151 · 06-02-03, 07:33 PM

Here is my take on this situation.

Futuremark blackmailed Nvidia and now that Nvidia has paid the ransom, Futuremark is now backing down. ATI escaped being blackmailed by actually owning up, but once Nvidia denied it Futuremark basically said "CHA CHING!".

Edit: Dammit, I can't spell

.

Quote:

Originally posted by GlowStick
Oh my, let me recap of games that use optimized pahts.

quake, half life, quake ii, quake iii, doom iii
again, every deravative of them. not sure about the unreal engine's but i am very sure they use optmized pahts.

AFAIK Quake III uses the standard opengl api.

ChevyBlazerBoy · 06-02-03, 07:34 PM

Yes! Nvidia Rocks!

mrtudball · 06-02-03, 07:36 PM

Jovi, overreacted? No, consumer's meaning you and me were upset that a company would intentionaly goober up a benchmark. The only thing this does is render 3dmark, in my mind, useless now (which Nvida wanted), and make me question every nvidia benchmark that I read now.

I am going to purchase a top end video card in the next month, and this is the last straw. ATI just replaced my 4200.

bkswaney · 06-02-03, 07:40 PM

Well, I for one think this is great. Maybe now Nvida will get back in the FM on upcoming benchmarks.

As for cheating... well that one no one agrees on.
So I'll just keep my 2 cents to myself.

Tho I do think to much was made out of it.

I also do not see NV bulling FM. FM would not stand for it.
They could care less how big NV is.

NickSpolec · 06-02-03, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Oh my, let me recap of games that use optimized pahts.

quake, half life, quake ii, quake iii, doom iii
again, every deravative of them. not sure about the unreal engine's but i am very sure they use optmized pahts.

Hmm.. Ok, you can only list 2 games (unless you can tell me what Quake actually had an optimized code path for... Wait.. That was only 3DFX.. proves my point further) that are actually out, and 2 games that are still being developed..

Out of the HUNDREDS of PC games that have come out since the time when optimized code paths became an option, you can name 3 that are out?

My point exactly.

If games do include optimized code paths, it's never always fair.. They usually only take the time to do one optimized code path (if they take the time to include any at all) for a single hardware set.

Just because GFFX is a horrid card at general DX9 operations doesn't mean the entire industry needs to go out of their way to make optimized code paths for Nvidia, while neglecting other hardware GPUs. Nvidia should make their cards as strong at general DX9 operations as they can, instead of just saying "**** it" and expect developers to cator to them.

edit by StealthHawk: do not circumvent the swear filter

Jovi · 06-02-03, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mrtudball
Jovi, overreacted? No, consumer's meaning you and me were upset that a company would intentionaly goober up a benchmark. The only thing this does is render 3dmark, in my mind, useless now (which Nvida wanted), and make me question every nvidia benchmark that I read now.

I am going to purchase a top end video card in the next month, and this is the last straw. ATI just replaced my 4200.

I think it's more politics involved with 3dMark than anything. I agree with (exuse me) [H] when they say "what do companies get in return for shelling out $$$?"
When People bash either camp over a sythenic bechmark, it's bad. See how it plays your games with all the eye candy on, then make your choice. I am a nvidia fan, that today prefers the ati card. Give me a chance to play with a 5900 and see if that judgement stands. Real games is where it matters. I do not spend $500 to see how it runs one benchmark.

Deathlike2 · 06-02-03, 07:47 PM

Those guys at Futuremark.... ugh

There's way too many opinions of what "may have happened to come to this conclusion"

The main problem with the Futuremark-NVidia statement is that there is no mention of ATI involvement (if they plan on getting involved) in making benchmarking standards...

Futuremark is getting closer to benchmarking.. but.. they need developer input... not just video card manufacturers...

In terms of the NVidia "special optimizations"... we can be assured that sites like Anandtech will let the rest of us know what to expect...

"Optimizing to look like crap" or "The correct and intended look of the game"

Ady · 06-02-03, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bkswaney
Well, I for one think this is great. Maybe now Nvida will get back in the FM on upcoming benchmarks.

As for cheating... well that one no one agrees on.
So I'll just keep my 2 cents to myself.

See that's where you are wrong. Nearly everybody agrees on it. It just seems you are one of the extreme few that don't.

Quote:

Originally posted by bkswaney
I also do not see NV bulling FM. FM would not stand for it.
They could care less how big NV is.

what makes you think that?

muzz · 06-02-03, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bkswaney
Well, I for one think this is great. Maybe now Nvida will get back in the FM on upcoming benchmarks.

As for cheating... well that one no one agrees on.
So I'll just keep my 2 cents to myself.

Tho I do think to much was made out of it.

I also do not see NV bulling FM. FM would not stand for it.
They could care less how big NV is.

Ahhhh I'm sorry didn't you see the logic line?

It's the one to the left.......
And please put away those blue pills, we don't allow dolts around here.

Thank You and enjoy your stay.

mrtudball · 06-02-03, 07:53 PM

I get my card to play games also Jovi, and the point is Nvidia "intentionaly" detected this bench, inserted clip plains in order to score higher in 3dmark. I dont care what their position is on 3dmark, this was done to mislead potential consumers. So, now what am I to think, this was a one time thing, or do they do this with other benchmarks. I dont like to be lied to or misled.

Honestly if they would have fessed up, and admited what they did, and came clean, I would have been upgraded to the 5900, my 4200 has been a gem. We will have to agree to disagree here, how am I to assume if they felt this was ok that if for some reason they feel that the doom III bench does not use calls that it likes to do some creative detection on that bench. Like I said ATI has my next purchase.

06-02-03, 07:34 PM	#64
ChevyBlazerBoy Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Maine Posts: 1	Yes! Nvidia Rocks! __________________ Antec File Server Case 300 W PS Intel P4 Northwood 2.0 Ghz 512k 128MB Nvidia Geforce4 Ti4400 Sound Blaster Audigy 2 Asus P4S333 Mobo 512MB DDR2700 (333Mhz) 16x Pioneer DVD 12x8x32 Burner WD 80GB SE (7200RPM 8MB Buffer) WD 40GB (7200RPM) Logitech Z560 400 Watt 4.1 System

06-02-03, 07:36 PM	#65
mrtudball Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 2	Jovi, overreacted? Jovi, overreacted? No, consumer's meaning you and me were upset that a company would intentionaly goober up a benchmark. The only thing this does is render 3dmark, in my mind, useless now (which Nvida wanted), and make me question every nvidia benchmark that I read now. I am going to purchase a top end video card in the next month, and this is the last straw. ATI just replaced my 4200.

06-02-03, 07:40 PM	#66
bkswaney Mr. Extreme! Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: SC Posts: 3,421	Well, I for one think this is great. Maybe now Nvida will get back in the FM on upcoming benchmarks. As for cheating... well that one no one agrees on. So I'll just keep my 2 cents to myself. Tho I do think to much was made out of it. I also do not see NV bulling FM. FM would not stand for it. They could care less how big NV is. __________________ Notebook! Compaq Presario CQ60-215DX AMD 64 Athlon X2 @ 2GHz (QL62) 15.6 inch HD WideScreen Nvidia 8200M-G 895mb 2Gig system ram 250Gig SATA 5400rpm HDrive Vista Premium

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
User Response : PR Response to Linus Torvald's Inflammatory Comments	Blackcrack	NVIDIA Linux	16	06-29-12 04:57 AM
PR Response to Linus Torvald's Inflammatory Comments	News	Latest Tech And Game Headlines	0	06-19-12 12:00 AM
PR Response to Linus Torvald's Inflammatory Comments	MikeC	NVIDIA Linux	0	06-18-12 10:14 PM
NV30 name poll	sancheuz	NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series	72	10-19-05 01:23 AM
Any details on Nvidia's failed NV2 for SEGA?	suburbanguy	Rumor Mill	1	08-21-02 10:30 PM

06-02-03, 07:47 PM	#69
Deathlike2 Driver Reinstall Addict Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Nowhere Near NVidia or NVNews Posts: 336	Those guys at Futuremark.... ugh There's way too many opinions of what "may have happened to come to this conclusion" The main problem with the Futuremark-NVidia statement is that there is no mention of ATI involvement (if they plan on getting involved) in making benchmarking standards... Futuremark is getting closer to benchmarking.. but.. they need developer input... not just video card manufacturers... In terms of the NVidia "special optimizations"... we can be assured that sites like Anandtech will let the rest of us know what to expect... "Optimizing to look like crap" or "The correct and intended look of the game"

06-02-03, 07:53 PM	#72
mrtudball Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 2	I get my card to play games also Jovi, and the point is Nvidia "intentionaly" detected this bench, inserted clip plains in order to score higher in 3dmark. I dont care what their position is on 3dmark, this was done to mislead potential consumers. So, now what am I to think, this was a one time thing, or do they do this with other benchmarks. I dont like to be lied to or misled. Honestly if they would have fessed up, and admited what they did, and came clean, I would have been upgraded to the 5900, my 4200 has been a gem. We will have to agree to disagree here, how am I to assume if they felt this was ok that if for some reason they feel that the doom III bench does not use calls that it likes to do some creative detection on that bench. Like I said ATI has my next purchase.