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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-13-03, 02:38 PM   #265
Uttar
Registered User
 
Uttar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,354
Send a message via AIM to Uttar Send a message via Yahoo to Uttar
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DMA
See? You know you can't stop giving us hints about new GPU's/VPU's, so please, start updating NFI again!

..at least once a week?

No.
Certain plans for a similar system not operated by myself are in the works, however.


Uttar
Uttar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-03, 02:55 PM   #266
ClyssaN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Uttar
No.
Certain plans for a similar system not operated by myself are in the works, however.


Uttar
MuFu FuDo ?
__________________
9700 Pro built by ATI (342/344)
Barton 2500+@2500 (11x227)
A7N8X Delx 2.0
512 Kingston PC3200
WD800JB, Maxtor DM Plus 60
Dual Display -> Samsung 1100DF (21) & Sampo 811 (19)
Antec 430W

ANIMATED ALGORITHMS IN JAVA
Click here to visit
ClyssaN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-03, 03:14 PM   #267
vandersl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 43
Default

Not to nitpick Uttar, but

Quote:
According to the 3DMark03 original audit PDF file from FutureMark, the score dropped from 5806 to 4679 on a GFFX 5900U and the 44.03 drivers.
DaveB reported the score going from 6412 to 5538 on a 5950U with 52.16 drivers.

The first is a 24.1% drop, while the second is a 13.6% drop. That means the detection degrades performance by 43.6% less than last time. Not amazing, but not bad either!
Actually, the first is a 19.4% drop, and the second is a 13.6% drop. Or to put it the other way, they used to get a 24.1% boost from optimizations FM considered 'illegal' and now get a 15.8% boost.

In terms of 'legal' optimizations, they went from 4679 on the 5900U to 5538 on the 5950U (not sure if CPU/system is the same for these numbers). This is a gain of 18.3%. Considering they had a core/mem speed increase of ~10%, this leaves around 7.5% gain from 'legal' compiler and driver optimizations.

Granted, only GT3 and GT4 benefit from their compiler improvements, but that's definitely not amazing, but as you said, not bad either.

P.S. Can anyone come up with the GT4 score change from 44.03 to 52.16 with the anti-cheat patches in place? This should give an indication of how good their 'real' compiler technology is.
vandersl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-03, 12:16 AM   #268
ChrisRay
Registered User
 
ChrisRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
Default

Anyone read this? Dont shoot the messenger.


Quote:

By Fuad Abazovic: Thursday 13 November 2003, 11:29

FUTUREMARK IS OBVIOUSLY a hot spot but not of the wi-fi variety, as Nvidia decided to comment on the statement Futuremark made yesterday.
Rather than weave our own interpretation into it, we'll provide the Nvidia statement in full, below.

No doubt a frenetic game of graphics ping pong will follow.



With the introduction of the GeForce FX - we built a sophisticated real-time compiler called the Unified Compiler technology. This compiler does real-time optimizations of code in applications to take full advantage of the GeForce FX architecture.

Game developers LOVE this - they work with us to make sure their code is written in a way to fully exploit the compiler.

The end result - a better user experience.

One of the questions we always get is what does this compiler do? The unified compiler does things like instruction reordering and register allocation. The unified compiler is carefully architected so as to maintain perfect image quality while significantly increasing performance. The unified compiler a collection of techniques that are not specific to any particular application but expose the full power of GeForce FX. These techniques are applied with a fingerprinting mechanism which evaluates shaders and, in some cases substitutes hand tuned shaders, but increasingly generates optimal code in real-time.

Futuremark does not consider their application a "game". They consider it a "synthetic benchmark". The problem is that the primary use of 3DMark03 is as a proxy for game play. A website or magazine will run it as a general predictor of graphics application performance. So it is vital that the benchmark reflect the true relative performance of our GPUs versus competitors.

And, while they admit that our unified compiler is behaving exactly the way it behaves in games and that it produces accurate image quality, they do not endorse the optimizations for synthetic use. Hence, Futuremark released a patch that intentionally handicapped our unified compiler.

So, we advocate that when reviewers are using 3DMark as a game proxy, they must run with the unified compiler fully enabled. All games run this way. That means running with the previous version of 3DMark, or running with a version of our drivers that behave properly.

Derek Perez
Director of Nvidia PR
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12657
__________________
|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 11-14-03, 12:24 AM   #269
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisRay
Anyone read this? Dont shoot the messenger.[/url]
I better not shoot the messanger, I put that story on EB's front-page as soon as I read the post by Rookie over at B3D about it.

I 'specially liked the bit where Chuckle-boy pretty much outright said that nVidia feels that Futuremarks rules are wrong and nVidia has a right to cheat.

I think this is it in a nutshell. Doesn't the second sentence here contradict the first?
Quote:
Chuckle-boy wrote:
The unified compiler a collection of techniques that are not specific to any particular application but expose the full power of GeForce FX. These techniques are applied with a fingerprinting mechanism which evaluates shaders and, in some cases substitutes hand tuned shaders, but increasingly generates optimal code in real-time.
__________________
[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 11-14-03, 03:13 AM   #270
silence
 
silence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 425
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by digitalwanderer

I think this is it in a nutshell. Doesn't the second sentence here contradict the first?

heh.....well....maybe if u use that shader in two different aplications then it isnt "aplication specific", cause it works in different apps, but you still replace with hand written shaders?...maybe Nvidia uses those shaders in...urm....some demos, so they work in diff applicatons??



imagine them making few demos, so they can tell "no, those shaders are used in many applications, so we decided to replace them and give better performace on wide range of applications"...hi hi hi....
silence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-03, 05:10 AM   #271
Voudoun
Registered User
 
Voudoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
I better not shoot the messanger, I put that story on EB's front-page as soon as I read the post by Rookie over at B3D about it.

I 'specially liked the bit where Chuckle-boy pretty much outright said that nVidia feels that Futuremarks rules are wrong and nVidia has a right to cheat.

I think this is it in a nutshell. Doesn't the second sentence here contradict the first?
Uttar, are you really sure that this is purely bad communication? I can buy that for internal nVidia communication. This, however, is beginning to look like a practised tactical response. It looks just like the way the Labour government handles media in England. Like that time they tried spinning that they weren't spinning.

Voudoun
Voudoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-03, 07:41 AM   #272
vandersl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 43
Default

Voudoun, I too read that and was reminded of a political statement - say nothing that is an outright lie by phrasing things very carefully.

I especially love this tidbit:

Quote:
Game developers LOVE this - they work with us to make sure their code is written in a way to fully exploit the compiler.
Wow - I can't remember the last time I paid any attention to writing code so that the compiler could optimize it properly. That's kinda the whole point of a compiler. It should have gone something like:

Quote:
Game developers HATE this - they would prefer to work without interacting with us or our competitors and write standard code that could be compiled optimally by our Unified Compiler.

Quote:
The unified compiler is carefully architected so as to maintain perfect image quality while significantly increasing performance.
Maybe this is true for the run-time compiler, but the replacement shaders are still shown to produce an 'imperfect' image.

Quote:
The unified compiler a collection of techniques that are not specific to any particular application but expose the full power of GeForce FX. These techniques are applied with a fingerprinting mechanism which evaluates shaders and, in some cases substitutes hand tuned shaders, but increasingly generates optimal code in real-time.
Yup - the techniques aren't specific to any particular application. The shaders are.

Quote:
And, while they admit that our unified compiler is behaving exactly the way it behaves in games and that it produces accurate image quality, they do not endorse the optimizations for synthetic use. Hence, Futuremark released a patch that intentionally handicapped our unified compiler.
Where does FM admit this? Or is this admission after the 'fingerprinted shaders' are disabled?

Quote:
So, we advocate that when reviewers are using 3DMark as a game proxy, they must run with the unified compiler fully enabled. All games run this way.
Hmm - how does a reviewer know when they are using 3DMark as a game proxy? How about if they just call it a synthetic benchmark, like it is? And 'all games run this way'? Really? NVidia has hand-written shaders for all games? Wow, I am impressed.

Finally, something I agree with

Quote:
That means running with the previous version of 3DMark, or running with a version of our drivers that behave properly.
Seems FM believes the 52.16's behave properly with the newest patch of 3DMark, I think NVidia just gave the 340 patch it's blessing.
vandersl is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 11-14-03, 09:17 AM   #273
Deathlike2
Driver Reinstall Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Nowhere Near NVidia or NVNews
Posts: 336
Default

vandersl, I think you translated the last part incorrectly...

Quote:
That means running with the previous version of 3DMark, or running with a version of our drivers that behave properly.
What NVidia is suggesting is that their "unified compiler" which actually has some "hand coded shaders" should be used in 3DMark tests...

Older versions of 3DMark do not have anti-shader detection related stuff (build 330 affected 44.03 and a few other Dets)..

Futuremark gave their blessings to the 52.16 ONLY because the anti-shader detection (which is really changing the variables around and getting the same output) actually works against the Det 52.16..

NVidia is not giving build 340 their blessing... in fact.. they want you to use OLDER version of 3DMark...

Contrast to what Futuremark says... only the 340 build AND reviewed and approved drivers are acceptable for comparison..

So when NVidia creates the next few Dets... you'd have to wait til Futuremark gives the go...
__________________
PR = crap
War Against FUD
What is FUD? - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/9267/fuddef.html
Deathlike2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-03, 10:09 AM   #274
vandersl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 43
Default

Oops, Deathlike2, I forgot to put a smiley next to that last one

I understand why FM considers the 52.16's 'approved' - it's their own political way of saying 'defeated'.

I was making a slight on NVidia's implication that the 52.16's worked 'properly' before the patch, and FM's assertion that they work properly after the patch.
vandersl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-03, 12:33 PM   #275
ringu61
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 103
Default

.......

Futuremark = Can of Coke
NV = Guy with a Straw
ATi = Guy with Mouth

Normally people drink can of coke with mouth straight away, ok ATi drink like that too. Nvidia drink the can of coke with straw, ok why not, just another way of drinking.

WHy can't NV work around with their driver to make it it run better on 3DMark03 without quality reduce or watever. Can u even tell with ur naked eyes without looking at the scores and ****?
__________________
My Computer Spec:

*Microsoft WindowsXp Professional Edition + Service Pack 1
*AMD AthlonXP/MP-M +L12 Mod Barton 2500+ FSB 232.7 x Multi 11 = 2559.5MHz @ 4100+ Still Testing
+ThermalTake AqariusII Liquid Cooling Kits (Modified)
*DFI Lanparty NF2 Ultra B Mainboard (Official LP-B BIOS 2004/05/05)
*KingMax 2x 512MB [1GB] DDR433 DDRRAM
*Gigabyte GV-N595U-GT TDH MyVIVO 128MB DDR AGP8X @ 555/1000
+Thermaltake Giant III HeatPipe Cooler
*Creative Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS
*Thermaltake Purepower ButterFly 480W + Active PFC


PS: Never believe in Reviews until u tried it~
ringu61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-03, 01:12 PM   #276
NickSpolec
 
NickSpolec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Burning Inferno, Arizona
Posts: 371
Default

Quote:
WHy can't NV work around with their driver to make it it run better on 3DMark03 without quality reduce or watever. Can u even tell with ur naked eyes without looking at the scores and ****?
Because 3DMark is *supposed* to produce subjective, comparitive results of video hardware and how they will perform in future games. And when Nvidia cheats, they are lying and misleading people on how their hardware will perform in future games.

Of course, Nvidia will optimize, hack, ect, upcoming games. But it's a simply fact --- Nvidia can't, and WON'T, optimize all new games that come out the same way they *heavily* optimize 3DMark (or Halo). A lot of new games already show this.
__________________
Snake's System:

[size=1][list][*]AthlonXP Mobile 2500+ (@2.5ghz, 1.850v)[*]Albatron KX18D PRO (NForce 2 Ultra @227FSB)[*]512MB's OCZ Platinum PC3200 EL (@DDR454, CAS 2.5, 6,3,3)[*]GeForce3 (@230c, 460m)[*]Fortissimo III, Gamesurround 7.1[*]POS Intel 56k Modem (soon to get high speed, though)[*]Maxtor DiamondPlus 9 120GB, ATA133 (8mb)[*]Samsung DVD/CD-RW Combo (52x32x52x16x)[*]Lite-On LTR 16102B (16x8x40x)

[/size][/list]

Last edited by NickSpolec; 11-14-03 at 01:18 PM.
NickSpolec 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 05:48 PM.


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