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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-13-03, 02:49 PM   #61
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

an interesting read...

http://www.guru3d.com/article.php?ca...&pagenumber=10

Quote:
Well you have been able to see it for yourself. AquaMark 3 is without a doubt a very welcome addition towards the gaming community. It delivers us a powerful set of tools to measure performance and features of a graphics card in several ways. I'll say it immediately though, it's not a 100% DirectX 9 benchmark, it's backwards compatible to DirectX 8 and 7. So with a GeForce 4 or Radeon 8500 you'll get a very nice score .. but it's not a DX9 score, it's an overall performance score....

....

That being said Aquamark seems to be build in a very objective way without graphics card manufacturers interference. The results you were able to witness today can never have been cheated on as the chipset designers did have not even had a chance to make modifications in their drivers. Come to think of it, it's quite sad that I once again have to mention illegal performance enhancing techniques in drivers in the conclusion of a really, really nice piece of software that measures graphics performance in a variety of ways.
the bold part made me think a bit...

also there are no comments from guru3d about in game IQ differences as have been noted on the other 2 sites that have also run the game...

this is telling

Quote:
The AM3 shaders have been designed with the fallback possibility in mind. For every shader which has been written in 2.0, 1.4, 1.3, 1.1 we have fallbacks, which generate a VERY similar result on the screen. Very similar means, that we do not ignore features like shadow, double caustics, detail maps etc. and therefore the benchmark provides an identical benefit for the user (identical regarding screen content) under different techniques. This concept is frequently used in other industries to compare different techniques. To make them comparable you first have to define the result and afterwards you have to guarantee that every technique generates exactly this result. This concept is often referred as “basket of goods/benefit” concept.

But nevertheless we try to create the same screen content with every technique, we face minor differences which arise from the internal accuracy which is smaller when we select a multi-pass technique instead of a multi-texture technique. The fallback mechanisms are optimized as heavily as possible, so we can ensure that the way to achieve the defined result is a near optimal way for all ps/vs versions. For that reason, the AM3 score is comparable, because the only fact that counts is the users benefit (ignoring image quality losses, which are negligible in AM3).

But you still have to pay attenantion regarding other resulting numbers. For instance, if you want to compare the number of triangles rendered per second, you compare apples and oranges because multipass techniques lead to significantly different numbers compared to multitexture techniques.

Best regards,

Ingo
from the technical director @ massive...

tbh.. the IQ differences are far from negligible...

hopefully mike and the nvnews crew will have more information for us when the conduct their own review with the suite...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-03, 02:50 PM   #62
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeC

Sazar I haven't had any complaints about you so you must be clean




yipee... cheers
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-03, 02:52 PM   #63
RogerAdam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by G6-200
It's amazing that even before the AquaMark3 benchmark is released it's credibility as an unbiased benchmark is already in question.
In my humble opinion nVidia has lost all credibility and they should be working to get that back, not working at digging the hole deeper.

G6
What's amazing is that credibilty has been lost where it shouldn't have originally (re 3Dmark03), of course 3Dm caved, but the point is NV's BS not only loses their own credibilty, but in a scorched earth-like scenario, they're bringing down many with them. I'm just wondering when are ALL (not just a few) sites are going to a service for their userbase and call a duck a duck, NV$$$ should be second fiddle.
RogerAdam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-03, 02:53 PM   #64
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeC
I get sick and tired of the NV bashing myself. I will start banning continued offenders. That's the only warning many of you will get, so you all know what to "expect".
I was just thinking about this situation myself earlier today. I'm getting tired of seeing the same people constantly spouting the same negative comment over 'n over. It's like the noise ratio has gone through the roof on almost every forum and it's getting fairly irritating.

That said, however, what's also annoying is how Nvidia just doesn't seem to get the message. They blatantly continue to lie to their customers and the gaming community about cheating (let's be honest, they've yet to admit any wrong-doing whatsoever, which is, to be frank, quite insulting to anyone's intelligence if you consider the level of evidence that's been gathered against them this summer), they offer up slides that supposedly represent their internal driver development process and the safeguards that're supposed to prevent overly aggressive optimizations, and yet the latest driver build that's offered to reviewers seems to be just more of the same-old. Will any of this ever stop? Will it continue to the point that Nvidia's competitors feel that they too must start crossing the line with their optimizations so that their products are no longer unfairly represented, leaving hardware reviewers with an almost impossible job of gathering and presenting clear and accurate information to their readers as they waste their time and effort trying to work around all the cheating (which, from the screenshot detection disclosure, seem to be becoming more insidious)?

This has got to stop. The conclusion I came to this morning was that while watching the same people constantly repeating themselves in their cyclic Nvidia bashing posts is annoying, it's more important that hardware reviewers attempt some collective effort to put an end to Nvidia's parade of cheating. Stop that, and perhaps the Nvidia bashing will stop too. Until then, people are going to continue harshly criticizing the company and no amount of bannings will stop it. And ban too much and you risk becoming another [H], and we both know that is hardly desirable.

Edit: So what should be done. Draft up a document that states that there will be no further reviews, articles, editorials, or even publishing of press releases from Nvidia until they can release a WHQLed set of drivers that do not manifest any cheats once thoroughly examined. This document, to be effective, would have to be signed by the major hardware sites (Anand, Tom, [H]), and as many of the smaller sites as possible (B3D, NVNews, Tech-Report, ET, 3DGPU, ad nauseum) and people would have to stick to their guns. But even as I type this I know it's a pipe dream, that those who make their livings from their sites would immediately inject their egos into the process, and it would fail.

Last edited by John Reynolds; 09-13-03 at 03:01 PM.
John Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-03, 02:55 PM   #65
RogerAdam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sazar
an interesting read...

http://www.guru3d.com/article.php?ca...&pagenumber=10



the bold part made me think a bit...

also there are no comments from guru3d about in game IQ differences as have been noted on the other 2 sites that have also run the game...

this is telling



from the technical director @ massive...

tbh.. the IQ differences are far from negligible...

hopefully mike and the nvnews crew will have more information for us when the conduct their own review with the suite...
BUT these WILL BE used as DX9 performance in marketing, that said what is "objective" about it?
RogerAdam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-03, 02:58 PM   #66
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

hmm... info from b3d...

Quote:
30 PS 1.1 Shaders

5 PS 1.4 Shaders

4 PS 2.0 Shaders
thats supposedly whats being used in aquamark3... compared to an apparent total of around 14 ps 2.0 shaders found in the new tomb raider game...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-03, 03:02 PM   #67
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Here you go

is it just me or does that shot also seem to show a lack of at least 1 light source ? or a lack of proper shadow effects...

just look @ the tires... and the ground in the middle of the screen... depth wise...

I am soooo lookin forward to the nvnews/b3d reviews on this to see what you guys have to say and if you can publish anymore screenies...

certainly need more information..
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-03, 03:03 PM   #68
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
MIKEC responds:

I'm not the Spade you can understand that can't you. This isn't NVIDIA's website they just turn their head and Myself and the Staff deal with the outrage. So remember that the next time somebody posts flamebait.
I see what you are saying. Point taken.

Quote:
But nevertheless we try to create the same screen content with every technique, we face minor differences which arise from the internal accuracy which is smaller when we select a multi-pass technique instead of a multi-texture technique. The fallback mechanisms are optimized as heavily as possible, so we can ensure that the way to achieve the defined result is a near optimal way for all ps/vs versions. For that reason, the AM3 score is comparable, because the only fact that counts is the users benefit (ignoring image quality losses, which are negligible in AM3).
Moving on to this statement by Massive.

IMO it is simply Ridiculous to Suggest that you can impliment *Maximum Optimizations* For Specific Vendors Who need Fall back Routines... and Still claim that the Results are Comparable. Unless the Image is Completely and totally Unafected.

Case in point. How can one card be allowed to run the HQ mode against another card HQ mode. When one of the Two by Internal Design is never actually running the same level of testing? Im not talking about FP16/FP24 at all. Which I personally think is an Acceptable comparrison. Im talking about one card getting to use VASTLY Lower Percision and Specially optomized code. Like Shaders Dynamically Recompiled into PS 1.4 routines Vs Full PS 2.0

I just dont think it works out with legit Results at all.
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-03, 03:50 PM   #69
tertsi
www.fornvidiots.net
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 340
Default

This 5600 vs 9800 "demo" (orginal images are from 3DGPU) works great with NS and IE...

http://www.skenegroup.net/onsekumma/

Have fun!

edit:typo

Last edited by tertsi; 09-13-03 at 04:57 PM.
tertsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-03, 03:52 PM   #70
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by John Reynolds
I was just thinking about this situation myself earlier today. I'm getting tired of seeing the same people constantly spouting the same negative comment over 'n over. It's like the noise ratio has gone through the roof on almost every forum and it's getting fairly irritating.

That said, however, what's also annoying is how Nvidia just doesn't seem to get the message. They blatantly continue to lie to their customers and the gaming community about cheating (let's be honest, they've yet to admit any wrong-doing whatsoever, which is, to be frank, quite insulting to anyone's intelligence if you consider the level of evidence that's been gathered against them this summer), they offer up slides that supposedly represent their internal driver development process and the safeguards that're supposed to prevent overly aggressive optimizations, and yet the latest driver build that's offered to reviewers seems to be just more of the same-old. Will any of this ever stop? Will it continue to the point that Nvidia's competitors feel that they too must start crossing the line with their optimizations so that their products are no longer unfairly represented, leaving hardware reviewers with an almost impossible job of gathering and presenting clear and accurate information to their readers as they waste their time and effort trying to work around all the cheating (which, from the screenshot detection disclosure, seem to be becoming more insidious)?

This has got to stop. The conclusion I came to this morning was that while watching the same people constantly repeating themselves in their cyclic Nvidia bashing posts is annoying, it's more important that hardware reviewers attempt some collective effort to put an end to Nvidia's parade of cheating. Stop that, and perhaps the Nvidia bashing will stop too. Until then, people are going to continue harshly criticizing the company and no amount of bannings will stop it. And ban too much and you risk becoming another [H], and we both know that is hardly desirable.

Edit: So what should be done. Draft up a document that states that there will be no further reviews, articles, editorials, or even publishing of press releases from Nvidia until they can release a WHQLed set of drivers that do not manifest any cheats once thoroughly examined. This document, to be effective, would have to be signed by the major hardware sites (Anand, Tom, [H]), and as many of the smaller sites as possible (B3D, NVNews, Tech-Report, ET, 3DGPU, ad nauseum) and people would have to stick to their guns. But even as I type this I know it's a pipe dream, that those who make their livings from their sites would immediately inject their egos into the process, and it would fail.
I don't actually think the situation will last much longer, the longer it goes the closer the endgame gets....and when Half-life2 becomes available (or the benchmark, whichever comes first) it will be the final nail in the coffin and no amount of PR is going to be able to belay the fact that the FX series won't run it very well while the R3xx will. THAT is when this will all stop, and I hope when nVidia finally wakes up and starts getting real honest with themselves really fast.

I'm sorry for the headaches I caused you Mike, I truly am. It wasn't my intent, I guess I just got carried away with the moment. (For a couple of days, but it's just felt soooo good to be vindicated! )

I'll really try and stop, please just yell at me if I get on nerves again and I'll try and keep my posts meaningful.
__________________
[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 09-13-03, 04:20 PM   #71
nyt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3
Default

(fast) mirror of the animated gif comparisons from demonic:
http://207.35.94.138/mirror/difference.gif (5600 vs 9800)
and
http://207.35.94.138/mirror/difference2.gif (45.33 vs 51.75)
http://207.35.94.138/mirror/difference3.gif
(closeup)

Last edited by nyt; 09-13-03 at 07:18 PM.
nyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-03, 04:30 PM   #72
ChrisW
"I was wrong", said Chris
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: standing in the corner!
Posts: 620
Default

What ever happened to the "good ol' days" (about six months ago) when games would have check boxes where the end user could decide what features they wanted to turn off to improve performance?
__________________
AIW 9700 Pro | 1.3GHz CeleronT | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | ECS PCIPAT Mobo (Intel 815EP)
RadLinker/RadClocker
ChrisW 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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 AM.


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