|
|
#97 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 205
|
Dave over at B3D commented on the 3.9's...he said there was no difference between them and the past few ATI releases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#98 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
yes i've got the latest drivers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#99 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
|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 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#100 | ||
|
Sittin in the Sun
|
Quote:
Quote:
Change is inevitable in the computer industry though. Especially graphics that seems to move faster than the other parts. Often a problem is this moving too fast, is that there isn't any standards put in place to make sure we go in the right direction. Wasn't it only after NV's cut down precision renderings that MS decided to implement a refrast comparison system? |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#101 | |
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
__________________
[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] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#102 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#103 | |
|
"I was wrong", said Chris
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: standing in the corner!
Posts: 620
|
Quote:
__________________
AIW 9700 Pro | 1.3GHz CeleronT | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | ECS PCIPAT Mobo (Intel 815EP) RadLinker/RadClocker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 | |
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
|
Quote:
Who said i am overly upset about it... I was Simply trying to make a SOLID point. My days of being overly upset about anything like this are over. ![]()
__________________
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] Last edited by Hellbinder; 11-11-03 at 06:04 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#105 | |
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Trust me. ![]()
__________________
[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] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#106 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
I have no problem with compiler technology. But having the compiler decide which parts of the task are 'important' is not a valid optimization, at least for a benchmark. If some enterprising hard drive manufacturer decided that all the reads/writes to a temporary file during a benchmark didn't do any meaningful work (after all, there's nothing left on the drive, is there?) and decided to just skip the whole thing and report 'done', would we call it a cheat, or congratulate them for an aggressive optimization? If I benchmark MP3 encoding on a CPU, is performing the encoding at 128kbps instead of the requested 256kbps acceptable if I can't hear the difference? Personally, I think not. It's all about equal work. Who cares if the work being requested is inefficient? Just do the work (all of it) in the most efficient way you can. No sweeping things under the rug. No cutting corners. Just do it. Is this too much to ask? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
"I was wrong", said Chris
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: standing in the corner!
Posts: 620
|
You guys are assuming that ATI can't also gain performance from optimizing for 3DMark03. Do you really think ATI can't also gain performance by replacing shaders that look "close enough" or some other things?
__________________
AIW 9700 Pro | 1.3GHz CeleronT | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | ECS PCIPAT Mobo (Intel 815EP) RadLinker/RadClocker |
|
|
|
|
|
#108 | |
|
Bit Bumper
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Here
Posts: 782
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Stuff Happenz! |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
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 |