3dmark03 Pro and GeForceFX Cards

I think some of you guys have 3dmark03 Pro.

For those that do, and who also own a GeForceFX card, could you please run the test normally, and also enable the option that forces cards to use PS1.1 instead of PS1.4 and post the results?

Thanks.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
I think some of you guys have 3dmark03 Pro.

For those that do, and who also own a GeForceFX card, could you please run the test normally, and also enable the option that forces cards to use PS1.1 instead of PS1.4 and post the results?

Thanks.

why ?

the scores will automatically be lower ?

experiment ?

[Uttar]

My bet: With cheating drivers, they'll be lower. With non-cheating drivers, they'll be higher.
Simply because with cheating drivers, nV is *already* using FX12 even though it isn't normally permitted by PS1.4. ( but it is by PS1.1. ) - and then, all you get is an additional performance hit of having to do multiple passes...


Uttar

[Sazar]

uttar... concerning the new 44.6x driver set... per the grapevine @ b3d... the scores are back @ pre patch 330 levels with the 44.03...

comments ?

[Nutty]

if FX12 isn't allowed in PS1.4, then what format did the R8500 use?

[Uttar]

Nutty: The R(v)2xx supports FX16. Yeah, small difference, but MS cares I guess

Sazar: My guess is that the 44.65 do the same thing as the 44.03 did. But there's another upcoming driver release which will retrieve a few 3DMark "optimizations", but keep most in.


Uttar

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Uttar
Nutty: The R(v)2xx supports FX16. Yeah, small difference, but MS cares I guess

Sazar: My guess is that the 44.65 do the same thing as the 44.03 did. But there's another upcoming driver release which will retrieve a few 3DMark "optimizations", but keep most in.


Uttar

seemed interesting.. since a lad with a 5900U on b3d posted a thread about perceived 'optimizations'

ah well..

[SurfMonkey]

Originally posted by Uttar
Nutty: The R(v)2xx supports FX16. Yeah, small difference, but MS cares I guess

Sazar: My guess is that the 44.65 do the same thing as the 44.03 did. But there's another upcoming driver release which will retrieve a few 3DMark "optimizations", but keep most in.


Uttar

The 44.65's don't seem to have the same problems as the 44.03's had in 3DMark, renaming it has no effect and there are no glitches when you go 'off the rail'. So either they moved really quickly in making sure these optimisations aren't as easily detected or they already had the code in place ready for such a situation.

Which means that if it was the former, then they just don't care about peoples perceptions of them or, if it was the latter, they were working with malice afore thought. They always knew they'd get caught eventually and were already set up to combat it. Either way it's quite sad. Now if these peformance boosts were legitimate then all well and good... but I don't think they are somehow.

[Uttar]

Hmm, likely the 44.65 includes the same changes as those upcoming drivers ( official release likely to finish by "7" )

From my understanding, they managed to agree with 3DMark that some "optimizations" were "alright" ( that is, thanks to their legal department ) , but still some had to go.
95% of the "optimizations" are still there though I believe.

Just what part of "Everyone is being paranoid about cheating now and wants to trap you everywhere they can for the fun" can't nVidia understand?

As I said, they're footing themselves in the shoot.


Uttar

[Nutty]

Yup, even apple fudged the benchmarking of their new G5.

http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Nutty
Yup, even apple fudged the benchmarking of their new G5.

http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/

they took it a step further...

apple == teh suck...

teh very GOOD LOOKING suck... but teh suck nevertheless

Originally posted by Sazar
why ?

the scores will automatically be lower ?

experiment ?

Well, I would assume that running PS1.4 would give higher scores than running PS1.1. But until someone tests, there really is no clear cut evidence of that....and it is still an assumption.