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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-11-03, 09:57 PM   #145
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisW
I think this statement about what nVidia's future driver plans speak for themselves:

So, there you have it. The next driver set will just re-enable the cheats.
Like i said above.. I personally dont really care at all if they do this kind of thing In games. If it makes their Users happy then great. As long as it looks nice and people are happy with their product great...

The problem is every time a web site does a FRAPS basesed series of tests with a slew of different games *generally* it ends up looking pretty bad for Nvidia. There are clearly a few cases where this is not True and Nvidia actually looks better. However *generally* this is not true.

Also look at any web site that Bench with non standard Curtom levels and Nvidia performance is almost Always lacking. Or as the Quote from 3dmark says what about the other 30 games a year that are not specifically "optomized" for.

This is why Honesty in performance, Featues and Compatabiity are important. It keeps you from spending your money on a product that may or may not be what you think it is.

For me personally though its about integrity. How can a company brag about an 81% advatage which is clearly not true in any case anywher anyhow especially the one referenced. On top of which they know they are Cheating and telling everyone they are not? But thats Just me personally.
__________________
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, 09:59 PM   #146
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scott123
Define cheating....yada, yada, yada. Its senceless. if it looks good and plays good, does it really matter?...answer NO.
Yes it matters.. it matters a LOT for the reasons i just stated above.
__________________
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, 10:09 PM   #147
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Thumbs up Beyond3D has the skinny on the 3dm2k3 3.40 patch.

Dave Baumann over at Beyond3D has done an extensive test of the new 3dm2k3 patch on a selection of cards from nVidia, ATi, and even Matrox both pre & post 3.40 patch and including image comparisons...and to top it all off with a cherry they got a response out of nVidia about it:
Quote:
Dave Baumann wrote on the last page of that article:
NVIDIA asked for a conference call with us to go over some of the points, and in general some of the responses from Derek Perez were fairly frank and honest. It would seem that NVIDIA agrees with tome of the optimisation policy that Futuremark have put in place, but not all as they don't necessarily tally with the internal policies that NVIDIA have. From the gist of the conversation it seems that NVIDIA feels that it is their right to optimise specifically for applications as long as it doesn't interfere with image quality - which is fine if it is benefiting games as it will benefit the end user, however in this case the image quality can be argued as there are differences in the image produce with the optimisations that NVIDIA have used in the 52.16 drivers for the 3.3.0 patch. Derek went on to suggest that they may well end up chasing each patch release and re-optimising as Futuremark puts a patch that defeats previous detections!

At one we asked Derek how this sat with the optimisations guidelines that were given to press by NVIDIA, specifically the guideline that suggests "An optimization must accelerate more than just a benchmark" To which Derek's reply was "But 3DMark03 is only a benchmark" -- it was suggested that this particular guideline should read "An optimization must accelerate more than just a benchmark unless the application is just a benchmark"!
__________________
[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 11-11-03, 10:14 PM   #148
Rogozhin
Registered User
 
Rogozhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: oregon
Posts: 826
Default

"coded in a way intended to hinder ATi performance"

Context of this quote was "stalker" and since it is optimized and coded for nvidia hardware it will hinder (if it was a true dx9 game without hardware specific ops it wouldn't) ati.

That is logical and not FUD.

Rogo
Rogozhin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 10:21 PM   #149
Rogozhin
Registered User
 
Rogozhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: oregon
Posts: 826
Default

"An optimization must accelerate more than just a benchmark unless the application is just a benchmark."

If this is TRUE I will never buy nvidia again !!!

I can't belive they had the balls to say such a piece of rhetorical garbage!


THey have way too much money and clout.

rogo
Rogozhin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 10:22 PM   #150
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
Not in a synthetic benchmark. I absolutely cannot believe any impartial consumer would write what you did. It truly boggles the mind.
I absolutely cannot believe that you are trying to paint yourself as impartial!

I kept flipping back and forth between all of those images, and most people would be very hard pressed to tell any differences between them. Also, without some type of reference image, we don't know exactly what the images are supposed to look like.

If NVIDIA can "optimize" in such a fashion so that image quality is "for all practical purposes" the same during game/demo play, while gaining +15 to +30% in performance, I'd say that is a pretty effective "optimization". However, obviously this doesn't bode so well with Futuremark.

Some people claim that both cards are supposed to be doing the same amount of "work". Unfortunately, there is no great way to do this, especially since ATI and NVIDIA use different precisions and process data very differently.

Futuremark can't win no matter what they do. If they allow optimizations, then their benchmark loses some of it's objectivity. If they do not allow optimizations, then their benchmark may not represent true performance of the card in games where optimizations are allowed and even encouraged.

I think the obvious point is that NVIDIA needs to optimize carefully to get decent performance in DirectX 9 games. We've all known this for a long time. We also know that their new ForceWare driver and compiler really does somewhat help the performance of their cards in DirectX 9 games. This 3dmark03 fiasco further strengthens the idea that smart and rational people should try to gather up as much evidence as possible before making a decision on what to buy, as opposed to putting a lot of stock into just one benchmark program.

Quote:
I just hope a certain company gets--and excuse my French--b*tch-slapped by Dell again.
Last I saw, Intel integrated and NVDIA GeForceFX 5200 cards were used on most of Dell's configurations, almost certainly being used in the vast majority of the computers that they sold over the past year or so.

Last edited by jimmyjames123; 11-11-03 at 10:28 PM.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 10:28 PM   #151
Joe DeFuria
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
I kept flipping back and forth between all of those images, and most people would be very hard pressed to tell any differences between them.
Don't you understand that's not the point? (More below).

Quote:
Also, without some type of reference image, we don't know exactly what the images are supposed to look like.
Lol...indeed, an ATI employee commented in the forums at B3D that yes, B3D should have included some reference images to satisfy skeptics.

Quote:
If NVIDIA can "optimize" in such a fashion so that image quality is "for all practical purposes" the same during game/demo play, while gaining +15 to +30% in performance, I'd say that is a pretty effective "optimization".
Yes...now tell me that nVidia can and will "optimize" in such a fashion for each and every game out there that needs it....or will it only be those games that are typically used for benchmarks? What do you think?

Quote:
This 3dmark03 fiasco further strengthens the idea that smart and rational people should try to gather up as much evidence as possible before making a decision on what to buy, as opposed to putting a lot of stock into just one benchmark program.
No one...not even FutureMark, tries to claim that 3DMark is "all you need." It's not. But it it certainly is valuable...especially if they continue to detect and disable cheats.
Joe DeFuria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 10:31 PM   #152
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
"An optimization must accelerate more than just a benchmark unless the application is just a benchmark."

If this is TRUE I will never buy nvidia again !!!

I can't belive they had the balls to say such a piece of rhetorical garbage!
NVIDIA never said that, Dave Bauman said that! I'm not sure why anyone would claim that the ForceWare drivers only accelerate a benchmark. Clearly that is not true, as the cards saw improvements in several DirectX 9 applications.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-03, 10:40 PM   #153
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
Don't you understand that's not the point? (More below).
That was an observation about the effectiveness of their optimization.

[quote]Lol...indeed, an ATI employee commented in the forums at B3D that yes, B3D should have included some reference images to satisfy skeptics.

Quote:
Lol...indeed, an ATI employee commented in the forums at B3D that yes, B3D should have included some reference images to satisfy skeptics.
It is not a question of skepticm. It is a question of how close the card is coming to rendering the reference image.

Quote:
Yes...now tell me that nVidia can and will "optimize" in such a fashion for each and every game out there that needs it....or will it only be those games that are typically used for benchmarks? What do you think?
Their compiler has helped things somewhat without them needing to optimize specifically for each title. Otherwise, no one really knows how much and for what games they have optimized.

Quote:
No one...not even FutureMark, tries to claim that 3DMark is "all you need." It's not. But it it certainly is valuable...especially if they continue to detect and disable cheats.
The value of 3dmark03 on it's own is debatable, it depends on one's point of view. In the overall scheme of things, it's good to have in a collection of benchmarks. The "best" choice of cards ultimately depends on user preferences, what settings they play at, what games they play, etc.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 10:40 PM   #154
Joe DeFuria
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
NVIDIA never said that, Dave Bauman said that!
Correct. Dave is paraphasing Brian Burke's "answer" to the conflictory nature of nvidia's "driver optimization guidelines", and their targeting 3DMark for app specific optimizations.

Quote:
I'm not sure why anyone would claim that the ForceWare drivers only accelerate a benchmark.
Me either...of course, no one is claiming that.

The claim is that there are 3DMark specific optimizations in the ForceWare drivers. And one of nVidia's "optimization guidelines" is that "an optimization must accelerate more than a benchmark."
Joe DeFuria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 10:44 PM   #155
Joe DeFuria
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
That was an observation about the effectiveness of their optimization.
And my observation was about the ineffectiveness of their optimizations. (They break the 3DMark guidelines.)

Quote:
Their compiler has helped things somewhat without them needing to optimize specifically for each title.
How do you reach that conclusion?

Quote:
Otherwise, no one really knows how much and for what games they have optimized.
Exactly...we DO KNOW that there is "minimal" optimization applied to 3DMark. (Can't rule out the possibility of some optimizations slipping through there.) That's the point.

How else are we supposed to judge how nVidia (or any other) cards perform on games that DON'T get the "app specific optimization" treatment? We need to have a benchmark that tries to answer this.

3DMark is it.

Quote:
In the overall scheme of things, it's good to have in a collection of benchmarks. The "best" choice of cards ultimately depends on user preferences, what settings they play at, what games they play, etc.
Agreed.
Joe DeFuria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-03, 10:47 PM   #156
Joe DeFuria
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
And the optimizations that were included in the ForceWare driver package did indeed accelerate "more than a benchmark" (most notably the compiler).
How do application specific optimizations accelerate more than that application?

Quote:
How exactly are they not following those guidelines?
Are you Brian Burke, by any chance?

Quote:
Obviously if Futuremark renders the compiler ineffective, then we wouldn't see any of those gains in the new build of 3dmark with the 52.16's.
Who says the compiler is ineffective? (For that matter, who says it's effective?)
Joe DeFuria 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 07:25 AM.


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