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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-11-03, 07:41 PM   #121
ChrisW
"I was wrong", said Chris
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: standing in the corner!
Posts: 620
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Razor04
Some of you have suggested that they may in fact be valid optimizations to improve performance on the NV3X. There is one problem with that...this is a benchmark where each card is supposed to take the same path and do the same amount of work. Any time you leave that path (i.e. application specific optimizations) you are making it easier for your card and ruining the benchmarks purpose which is to compare two or more cards running the same path.
Some of the previous "cheats" may very well now be considered valid "optimizations" by Futuremark's new policy on optimizations.
__________________
AIW 9700 Pro | 1.3GHz CeleronT | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | ECS PCIPAT Mobo (Intel 815EP)
RadLinker/RadClocker
ChrisW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 07:54 PM   #122
Razor04
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 205
Default

That's fine...and if it is a valid optimization then I find it hard to believe that FutureMark would remove it in the new patch if that was the case.

Seems to me that this isn't the case though and I was just trying to show that they are still cheating...probably in countless other applications too.

And why is it that everytime I come out of the woodwork and post my post ends up as the last one on a page that most people will overlook? Guess I just have bad luck.
Razor04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 08:00 PM   #123
ChrisW
"I was wrong", said Chris
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: standing in the corner!
Posts: 620
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Razor04
That's fine...and if it is a valid optimization then I find it hard to believe that FutureMark would remove it in the new patch if that was the case.
Who said they are disabling the new "legitimate optimizations". They only disabled 800 points worth of what they currently consider "cheats". All we know they may be allowing 1000 points of what were previously considered cheats. Who knows?
__________________
AIW 9700 Pro | 1.3GHz CeleronT | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | ECS PCIPAT Mobo (Intel 815EP)
RadLinker/RadClocker
ChrisW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 08:01 PM   #124
Socos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
What are you talking about? The big difference is between nVidia's pre and post patch scores, and that difference says that nVidia is still cheating.

I'd love to hear any other explanations...at least ones that make one tiny little iota of sense.
Dig... I think you will here the vidiots come out of the wood work here shortly and say, "well because you can't see it its no a cheat"

And so we go.....
__________________
AMD 64 3000 + - 1 GB Kingston HyperX - Chaintech ZNF-150 MB - Audigy 2 Gamer ZS - 200GB SATA HD -
ATI X800 Pro OC 520/540 - 21" Cybervison monitor - Thermaltake Butterfly 450 watt PS - UFO Custom Case
Socos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 08:37 PM   #125
SurfMonkey
QuadCore G80 PS3 Overload
 
SurfMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a small room surrounded by vast, inscrutable, machines...
Posts: 491
Default

And what optimisations are these supposed to be?

What's not to say that FutureMark aren't just getting their own back by writing shaders that aren't easily optimised by the re-scheduler in the current NV drivers?

And why do we care anyway? ATI are in the lead, it's only sad sacks of s***t that actually enjoy pointing these things out. Let them bang on about nothing and think its important.

And who plays 3dmark anyway? Let the owners of all cards speak for themselves and the games they play do the talking.

It's just another sad thread based around assumptions and poorley interpreted information.
__________________
Folding for Beyond3D
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Sir Winston Churchill

"Halflife2 got halfway around the world before Gabe had a chance to get his pants on."
Anon
SurfMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 08:48 PM   #126
Rogozhin
Registered User
 
Rogozhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: oregon
Posts: 826
Default

I like the work "inscrutable"

I've forgotten it.

rogo
Rogozhin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 08:54 PM   #127
scott123
Registered User
 
scott123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 473
Default

This whole thing is stupid!!

Futuremark is simply making a last ditch effort to validate their benchmark program. Lets see now....this is the 3rd patch? How many times do they need to patch a benchmark to make it accurate and valid?

If you notice; 3dmark03 is hardly used anymore on most review sites, and I think Futuremark is seeing the writing on the wall. They screwed up when they released 3dmark03 but failed to admit it. Now their constantly having to do damage control, and spend most of their time blaming someone else.

The only thing I can confirm this patch does, is it removes the "Pro" registration code thats been floating around everywhere on Kazaa.

Futuremark needs to just throw in the towell and start over with a decent benchmark, and stop trying to gloss over a piece of junk,

Scott
__________________
ASUS P5B Deluxe
Intel Core Duo 6600
eVGA 8800GTX
Creative Xfi
Cooler Master CM Stacker STC-T01
scott123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 09:06 PM   #128
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nutty
The point is, they wouldn't. Unless IQ is being sacrificed. If its not, then wheres the problem?

I mean I dont care that NV is cheating if the IQ stays the same. I really dont.

I dont see the difference with having a compiler in a driver making shaders work better, or a driver engineer making shaders work better. Ideally the former is preferred, but until they get a miracle compiler built, it aint gonna happen.

The whole issue of benchmarks is just totally flawed. I thought everyone agree'd ages ago to stop paying attention to PenisMarks.. sorry 3dmarks?

You should judge a card on what you're gonna use it for. If you're gonna play games, bench it with games. If you're gonna be a 3dmark bragger, then yeah use 3dmark. But frankly, I couldn't care less if NV said, yeah we cheat our ass off in 3dmarks.. I mean I just dont care. As long as my games run fine, and my programming works, thats all I care about.

Whats also annoying is that Futuremark are being paid by IHV money, which comes from you ppl that buy cards, to just sit there and churn out more anti-cheat patches that in the grand scheme of things just dont mean squat.

Why is it okay for JC to code a path for NV3X, but Benchmarks wont?

I'm starting to sound like a right nvidiot now, (which I prolly am) but I'm just soo bored of this 3dmark thing.

I can see the point of view of having a program that is supposed to run identical on hardware, to test performance. But that _isn't_ how things work!

I cant emphasise the point enough, whats the difference between the compiler optimizing a shader, and a person optimizing it, _provided_ the shader never changes? Which it most probably wont in a game.

Shader compilers are here to stay. The next generation of shader systems will be totally high-level, meaning there will be big differences in how each IHV compiles it down to suit their hardware. You just cant have a 1 path fits all valid comparison anymore.
I would like to point out.. that if Nvidias "Compiler" was doing what it is touted as doing then this patch would have had no effect at all.

This simply points out the Truth once again that this "Automatic shader optomizer" stuff is nothing bu a PR coverup for application detection and Shader Replacement

There is nothing in here at all that suggest that the Compiler is honestly taking the base code and interpreting it in a way that better suits Nvidia hardware.
__________________
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 11-11-03, 09:09 PM   #129
creedamd
 
creedamd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 597
Default

bad nvidia! It's just a shame for all of the people that don't know what is going on and still buy an nvidia card thinking that they are getting the best. That's ok though, at least those people help keep the good hardware cheap
__________________
System 1: 2500xp@3200|1gigHyperXPC4000|AbNF7s|Fortissimo7.1|SonyDJV700|DvdR+&CDRW|160gbHD
|9800pro|21"IBM-P260

System2: 2500xp@3200|abitNF7-s|512XMS|9700pro|160Gbhd

System3: 2400xp|512xms|Epox 8rda+|9500pro
creedamd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 09:11 PM   #130
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scott123
This whole thing is stupid!!

Futuremark is simply making a last ditch effort to validate their benchmark program. Lets see now....this is the 3rd patch? How many times do they need to patch a benchmark to make it accurate and valid?

If you notice; 3dmark03 is hardly used anymore on most review sites, and I think Futuremark is seeing the writing on the wall. They screwed up when they released 3dmark03 but failed to admit it. Now their constantly having to do damage control, and spend most of their time blaming someone else.

The only thing I can confirm this patch does, is it removes the "Pro" registration code thats been floating around everywhere on Kazaa.

Futuremark needs to just throw in the towell and start over with a decent benchmark, and stop trying to gloss over a piece of junk,

Scott
Come on man... Obviously They need to keep patching it until Nvidia Quits CHEATING

Just a Guess...
__________________
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 11-11-03, 09:12 PM   #131
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Come on man... Obviously They need to keep patching it until Nvidia Quits CHEATING

Just a Guess...
I'd much rather they make a cheatproof benchmark.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 09:14 PM   #132
Eck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 41
Send a message via AIM to Eck
Default

I benched and can see exactly what's affected. My 3.3 results are light gray with 3.4 the dark gray. Video card frequencies are the same.

__________________
• Windows XP Home Edition SP1
• Pentium 4 3.0GHz
• 1 GB Kingston HyperX DDR 3200
• Asus P4P800 Motherboard
• GeForce FX 5900 w/ 5950 Ultra Bios
• SB Audigy 2 ZS
• WD 120 GB 7200 HD w/ 8MB Cache
• 12x DVD • 52x24x52 CD-RW
Screenshot | Desk | System Info | 3D Benchmarks
Cardomain.com - My Camaro
Eck 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NVIDIA Driver 295.53 installs into kernel 3.4 without a patch! jdmcdaniel3 NVIDIA Linux 3 06-08-12 09:41 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 08:01 AM.


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