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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-12-03, 07:58 PM   #217
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveBaumann
I suggested that HB, not NVIDIA.

However, I think the real issue here is not the 3DMark performance, but whether the optimisation guidelines they have reiterated to the press on two different occasions now are actually real or not. Upon first looks it would appear that the 52.16 violates all three of their guidelines in 3DMark. Are they serious about these guidelines or are they just paying lip service to appease the press?

Thats you you should think about IMO.
has FM come up with any formal agreement as to what will happen if there are continued violations or perceived violations Dave?

afaik there is no stated actions to be taken in such a case but i could be mistaken...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-03, 08:03 PM   #218
ChrisRay
Registered User
 
ChrisRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sazar
has FM come up with any formal agreement as to what will happen if there are continued violations or perceived violations Dave?

afaik there is no stated actions to be taken in such a case but i could be mistaken...

They just wont recognise the results on there orb, Nothing futuremark can really do about it. Cept Kick Nvidia out of their program. Which wasnt good for them last time. ( I mean Nvidia being out of the program, Not being kicked by futuremark)

It was just give Nvidia more PR Leverage to use against them and appear like a victom. And i have no Doubt Nvidia would so such a thing.
__________________
|CPU: Intel I7 Lynnfield @ 3.0 Ghz|Mobo:Asus P7P55 WS Supercomputer |Memory:8 Gigs DDR3 1333|Video:Geforce GTX 295 Quad SLI|Monitor:Samsung Syncmaster 1680x1080 3D Vision\/Olevia 27 Inch Widescreen HDTV 1920x1080

|CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.5 Ghz|Mobo:Asus M3n HT Deluxe Nforce 780A|Memory: 4 gigs DDR2 800| Video: Geforce GTX 280x2 SLI

Nzone
SLI Forum Administrator

NVIDIA User Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members
ChrisRay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-03, 08:04 PM   #219
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveBaumann
I think the real issue here is not the 3DMark performance, but whether the optimisation guidelines they have reiterated to the press on two different occasions now are actually real or not. Upon first looks it would appear that the 52.16 violates all three of their guidelines in 3DMark. Are they serious about these guidelines or are they just paying lip service to appease the press?
Ooooh, OOOOH!!! I know this one, it's just paying lip service to appease the press...isn't it?

Although I think you'd have to make that "the gullible press" too...
__________________
[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 11-12-03, 08:47 PM   #220
Sickness
Registered User
 
Sickness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10
Default

Benchmark specific optimizations are wrong where 3DMark is concerned. I agree with Dave on this. (Err, I think.) If FutureMark was not able to stifle the cheating they would not have the semblance of being objective in their performance comparisons. It is pretty clear that if you are not applying optimizations that do not work across the board for all DX9 applications that you are making performance improvements for a specific app. In this case the app. is meant to help end users determine general performance on a variety of software that uses DX9 API. Unless nvidia is creating these "optimizations" for all DX9 apps it isn't likely that you are going to get consistent results. In short the "optimizations" that nvidia made specifically for 3Dmark 2003 are totally unethical. But what is worse is that these optimizations change the output so that not only are the performance numbers unqualified but also the developers desired product is distorted, which is another no-no. To answer the question that Dave presented with regards to nvidia playing lip service the answer is most definitely ....YES, in my opinion of course.
__________________
"I like a man who grins when he fights."
Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by Sickness; 11-12-03 at 08:55 PM.
Sickness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-03, 09:26 PM   #221
lukar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 163
Default

3DMark03 uses DX 9.0API, and that's why r3xx doesn't suffer. But, NV3x is a different story, and in order to perform DX 9.0 applications as well as ATI card does, they have to hack and 'optimize' everything. People do not want to admit a one thing, NV3x chip is a garbage. Still, they are buying it!

Futuremark and Nvidia will play the game called 'the cat is chasing the mouse' till Nvidia release NV40. After that, NV3x won't have any support in the sense of 'cheating', and a dozens of users can suck.

The real punch in the face would be if ATI release the card which is going to kick NV40 as r3xx kicks NV30.
lukar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-03, 09:52 PM   #222
Sickness
Registered User
 
Sickness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by lukar
3DMark03 uses DX 9.0API, and that's why r3xx doesn't suffer. But, NV3x is a different story, and in order to perform DX 9.0 applications as well as ATI card does, they have to hack and 'optimize' everything. People do not want to admit a one thing, NV3x chip is a garbage. Still, they are buying it!

Futuremark and Nvidia will play the game called 'the cat is chasing the mouse' till Nvidia release NV40. After that, NV3x won't have any support in the sense of 'cheating', and a dozens of users can suck.

The real punch in the face would be if ATI release the card which is going to kick NV40 as r3xx kicks NV30.
What nvidia is selling tons of is the 5200, which is a piece of "garbage" no question. The R300 was a "punch in the face", if ATi can top the NV40 it would be more a kin to "kicking them when their down."
__________________
"I like a man who grins when he fights."
Sir Winston Churchill
Sickness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-03, 10:22 PM   #223
sebazve
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Montevideo, Uruguay
Posts: 421
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sazar
has FM come up with any formal agreement as to what will happen if there are continued violations or perceived violations Dave?

afaik there is no stated actions to be taken in such a case but i could be mistaken...
they should ban the ****ing drivers end of story what happens when you cheat on a online game you get ****ing ban


but problably half nvidia owners would be pissed off cause they wont be able to post their results, so FM would be in deep **** cause many peope is gonna stop using 3dmark so its bad bussiness.

i guess they should stop bitching or do something or we are gonna have 1000 patches trying to stop nvidia from cheating
__________________
Signatures are a waste of bandwidth!
thanks rwolf!!!!! :-P
sebazve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-03, 10:26 PM   #224
vandersl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 43
Default

The more I think about it, the more I think the problem FutureMark has is that people can see their benchmark.

Their business model kind of depends on having a benchmark with eye candy - they want end-users to download it, use it, and care about their scores. That is what makes the benchmark a powerful tool in selling graphics chips (to both end users and OEMs).

However, it seems that since the output is 'visual', people insist that 'close enough' is acceptable. If they can't see the difference in the output, then they don't care. This attitude allows IHVs to cheat on the benchmark, making it invalid for the very purpose it was intended.

Other synthetics don't seem to be treated the same way. I've never seen anyone make this type of argument about any other benchmark with a quantitative output.

If 3DMark was just a benchmark that computed numbers as an output, instead of colors, would anyone really argue that generating incorrect but 'close' numbers is OK? Really, I'd like to know.
vandersl is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 11-12-03, 11:30 PM   #225
lukar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 163
Default

ChrisW said here that the score for NV3x now drops in the 4000+ range, not in 3xxx range like before. So, I guess that Futuremark approved some of the 'optimizations' by Nvidia. I assume that Nvidia goes even further, something what Gabe mentioned for HL2 scenario.

The score that NV38 produces using the latest drivers in patched 3DMark03 which is in 4xxx range, was done by using FP16. I think Futuremak allowed it, and that's why we se 4xxx range score, but not 3xxx.

But the truth is they are using FX12, and that's unacceptable for Futuremark.

I don't blame Nvidia. They have to do what they have to do, to make $500
card to perform like supposed to, otherwise they are screwed. It's all about business and money, but not about consumers, and all we know that NV3x represents TITANIC...
lukar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-03, 11:37 PM   #226
phial
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisRay
That is the most insulting thing I have ever heard.

Ya I bought an Nvidia product because I dont mind being ripped off. And I hate Image Quality

People like you deserve to be out right banned for making such stupid comments. Heaven Forbid there might be "good" reasons for us making the decisions we make!


THE MOST INSULTING thing you have ever heard? ohhhh poor thing, did i hurt your ego by making you realize that your couple hundred dollar purchase wasnt as wise as you originally thought?

i had a nicer more detailed response to you but the thread was so conveniently locked before i could hit respond yesterday



dude, chill, you dont owe nvidia a thing. its a company , not a football team

obviously i have no idea why YOU bought an nvidia card (really i dont, when a 9800 or 9700 would more than likely perform better .. perhaps you play alot of old games), i was obviously generalizing but thats because i HAVE talked to ALOT of nvidia fans and they all say the same thing;

"i dont care if they cheat and make it look worse, as long as my game goes faster"

why do we upgrade then, if IQ doesnt matter? go buy a used GF2 GTS and play in bi-linear glory! over 85FPS doesnt matter anyways as most monitor refresh rates dont go higher than this, and most people cant tell the difference between 60fps and 85fps on top of that

if you personally had reasons to buy a 5900, then cool, aewsome man glad you found something that most people dont know about. perhaps you should share why did? or was it just beacuse of a sentimental attachment to high-school gaming and the name "nvidia". kinda like wen people hear the word "ferrarri" they go "oooo nice car"

again, this isnt directed at you, because i have no idea about you. just made me laugh how insulted you got


ANYWAYS, how come Futuremark isnt doing anything about this if it directly violates the white paper they released stating teh guidelines ? i mean wtf ... why eeven release it in the first place?
__________________
[url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nVidiot]im surrounded by nVidiot's[/url]
phial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-03, 11:42 PM   #227
Ruined
Registered User
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,447
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by lukar
The score that NV38 produces using the latest drivers in patched 3DMark03 which is in 4xxx range, was done by using FP16. I think Futuremak allowed it, and that's why we se 4xxx range score, but not 3xxx.

But the truth is they are using FX12, and that's unacceptable for Futuremark.
I'm glad the truth is finally unveiled, as the NV35, NV36, and NV38 do not have FX12 shader units.
__________________
We're all in it together.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz CPU | Intel G965WH mobo | 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667mhz CAS5 RAM (1066MHz FSB) | BFG GeForce 285 GTX OC 1GB | Dell E228WFP 22" DVI-HDCP LCD Monitor | 1TB Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Main Drive | 500GBx2 Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Scratch Drives in RAID0 | Western Digital RE3 1TB SATA2 Media Drive | External 2TB Western Digital MyBook Backup Drive | Adaptec eSATA 3.0gbps PCI-E interface | Sandisk External 12-in-1 Flash Card Reader | LG GGC-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD writer | LG GGW-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD/BD writer | Microsoft E4000 Ergonomic Keyboard | Logitech Trackman Wheel | Antec P182 ATX Case | Thermaltake ToughPower XT 850w modular PSU | KRK RP-8 Rokit Studio Monitors | Windows Vista Ultimate x64
Ruined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-03, 11:44 PM   #228
Ruined
Registered User
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,447
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by phial
obviously i have no idea why YOU bought an nvidia card
Perhaps because he prefers stability over speed increases on games that won't be released for some time? 3dmark03 is great, but an actual game that uses intensive DX9 shaders would actually make the 9800PRO's PS2.0 speed far more worthwhile.
__________________
We're all in it together.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz CPU | Intel G965WH mobo | 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667mhz CAS5 RAM (1066MHz FSB) | BFG GeForce 285 GTX OC 1GB | Dell E228WFP 22" DVI-HDCP LCD Monitor | 1TB Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Main Drive | 500GBx2 Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Scratch Drives in RAID0 | Western Digital RE3 1TB SATA2 Media Drive | External 2TB Western Digital MyBook Backup Drive | Adaptec eSATA 3.0gbps PCI-E interface | Sandisk External 12-in-1 Flash Card Reader | LG GGC-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD writer | LG GGW-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD/BD writer | Microsoft E4000 Ergonomic Keyboard | Logitech Trackman Wheel | Antec P182 ATX Case | Thermaltake ToughPower XT 850w modular PSU | KRK RP-8 Rokit Studio Monitors | Windows Vista Ultimate x64
Ruined 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 06:54 PM.


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