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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-19-03, 10:59 AM   #61
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Malfunction
No one else has a problem with it, if they did... they would have a prob with the person I got the idea from as well.
That's because I wait to complain until the Dig says something, so then I can say that if the Dig is complaining about it and you don't change it, you run the risk of being banned.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 11:12 AM   #62
john19055
 
john19055's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: GREENVILLE,TX
Posts: 3,857
Default

It don't matter how many patches that FM put out ,nvidia will always get around it ,but looking at reviews nvidia's P.S and V.S is always going to be a bit slower,that is just how the chip is.but as long as they keep the games playing good without much I.Q. lost,you can hope for the best,It would sure suck if they had'nt done nothing to help the DX9 parts that are lacking.
__________________
Intel i7-3820+Corsair H-100+Gigabyte X79-UD5+16gigs G.Skill PC1600DDR3+2-ASUS DirectCU II GTX-670 in SLI+Crucial 256g-SSD+1-3Gig Seagate+2- Samsung 1-TB+3-WesternDigtial 640g+LG-12x Blu-Ray Burner+850watt XFX+Antec-P280 case+50" Plasma PM6700+Logitech Mouse+Keyboard+Pioneer VSX-1020+Polk Audio Speakers
john19055 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 11:18 AM   #63
Malfunction
 
Malfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lake Jackson, TX
Posts: 1,002
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by John Reynolds
No, I left nothing out. And this is not about one IHV or another. I wrote popular games, and by that I meant that if an IHV cheats the popular ones used as benchmarks then those benchmarks are worthless, because such "optimizations" and their performance increases are not carried over to the other games that constitute 90%+ of the titles published each year because these games never receive the loving care of a software engineer's attention.
As we have seen, the same game engine may be used although different shaders are added. So, what you are saying about one particular games performance is irrelevant.

Quote:
I'm all about games and play from just about every genre. But if you think publishers and/or developers care about protecting their code so that they're used fairly as benchmarks, you're barking up a non-existant tree.
When did I say this? I don't think they care... which is why you got me confused. All I believe they care about is how well their game is accepted, and if a IHV optimises for it to provide the best performance and visual ahh, it only makes the game more popular.

Peace,



*P.S- Baron, I had already adjusted it before you posted. Maybe you should have mention something earlier so you would have been able to notice it had been. $.02

Last edited by Malfunction; 11-19-03 at 11:29 AM.
Malfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 11:35 AM   #64
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Malfunction
When did I say this? I don't think they care... which is why you got me confused. All I believe they care about is how well their game is accepted, and if a IHV optimises for it to provide the best performance and visual ahh, it only makes the game more popular.

And that performance increase will carry over to games that aren't used as benchmarks? You know, games that make up the vast majority of the market of PC titles released each year.

I'm either not being clear enough or you're just intentionally burying your head in a patch of sand.
John Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 11:43 AM   #65
cthellis
Hoopy frood
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 549
Default

Discouraging, to say the least. I certainly hope FutureMark does NOT re-patch from here on out and stands by their policies--they'll discuss with nVidia about their issues with the new drivers while reminding people that they are not validated, and if unwanted changes make it all the way to nVidia's next WHQL'd official release... Well, THAT is where all the hub-bub will come in, because unofficial and beta drivers and the like don't bump against their official regulations.

Likely some mutterings will come out--and I can see an official public press release considering this is very much on the heels of the 340 version--but we need continual re-patching to STOP or else they lose ground and we'll never know when the waffling will end.

Offhand, the only thing I could think of worth a repatch is if they put a kind of "register randomizer" in place that would remove the ability for any IHV to cheat in that way. (Of course I doubt they can work up a method that would be TRULY random that wouldn't have performance sways, and if it's not truly random it just means it's harder--but not impossible--to modify yet again.)
cthellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 11:52 AM   #66
Malfunction
 
Malfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lake Jackson, TX
Posts: 1,002
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by John Reynolds
And that performance increase will carry over to games that aren't used as benchmarks? You know, games that make up the vast majority of the market of PC titles released each year.

I'm either not being clear enough or you're just intentionally burying your head in a patch of sand.
Quote:
Originally posted by John Reynolds
"No, I left nothing out. And this is not about one IHV or another. I wrote popular games, and by that I meant that if an IHV cheats the popular ones used as benchmarks then those benchmarks are worthless, because such "optimizations" and their performance increases are not carried over to the other games that constitute 90%+ of the titles published each year"
It's in the ability of the code that the developer chooses for the game. How much time is taken to develope the code. I think D3 Alpha runs faster and looks better than Halo on either Nvidia or ATi cards and it is a darn alpha for goodness sake!

Peace,


Last edited by Malfunction; 11-19-03 at 12:36 PM.
Malfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 01:00 PM   #67
Hanners
Elite Bastard
 
Hanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 984
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
(I'm just waiting for FM to put out a patch later today... )
My money is on no more patches, no more FutureMark certified drivers for nVidia. Assuming they leave these cheats in for the rest of the NV3x's life as a supported chipset, that will probably be another couple of years.
__________________
Owner / Editor-in-Chief - Elite Bastards
Hanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 01:11 PM   #68
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

But what is the point of including cheats in a driver if said cheats invalidates their results in 3dm2k3? They won't be able to publish those scores, and no reputable site is gonna run 'em for 3dm2k3 scores except to highlight the cheats.

Why do it?
__________________
[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 11-19-03, 01:54 PM   #69
dan2097
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
But what is the point of including cheats in a driver if said cheats invalidates their results in 3dm2k3? They won't be able to publish those scores, and no reputable site is gonna run 'em for 3dm2k3 scores except to highlight the cheats.

Why do it?
3d mark 03 does not show the gffx's on top so Nvidia doesn't really have any reason for 3d mark 03 to be the industry standard for 3d graphics performance. Already very few online review sites use it, now if all Nvidia drivers are not certifed to work with it due to cheating, what can you do, just abandon it really
dan2097 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 04:54 PM   #70
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Malfunction
Hardware updates are always going to be justified. They make a product better. Software is a different story, it puts doubt in peoples minds. Just look at the Windows XP patches and what the public feels about there being so many.

Peace,

Hardware updates are not always better than previous hardware. Take a look at anisotropic filtering performance hit with a gf4 in D3D and compare it to AF performance on a gf3. The gf4 has a higher performance hit because the hardware is bugged.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 05:07 PM   #71
Malfunction
 
Malfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lake Jackson, TX
Posts: 1,002
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
Hardware updates are not always better than previous hardware. Take a look at anisotropic filtering performance hit with a gf4 in D3D and compare it to AF performance on a gf3. The gf4 has a higher performance hit because the hardware is bugged.
So you have a choice then, to use older versions of the driver or new versions that resolve a majority of the current issues with newer games.

Like I said, they are always justified because they make improvements somewhere and are always being developed to improve imperfections from the previous versions. If the harware is faulty, the hardware is faulty. I mean, I am not too sure people are still anticipating huge improvements to the FX5800, do you?

Again, software is a different story, it puts doubt in peoples minds. Just look at the Windows XP patches and what the public feels about there being so many.

3DMark is not a game, so this has nothing to do with improving the performance of a game with game patches.

Peace,

Malfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 05:16 PM   #72
ChrisW
"I was wrong", said Chris
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: standing in the corner!
Posts: 620
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
But what is the point of including cheats in a driver if said cheats invalidates their results in 3dm2k3? They won't be able to publish those scores, and no reputable site is gonna run 'em for 3dm2k3 scores except to highlight the cheats.

Why do it?
As long as uninformed people see these benchmarks in reviews, that is all nVidia cares about. NVidia propaganda sites, like Tom's Hardware, will still include these benchmarks in their reviews and fail to mention the scores are unsupported by Futuremark. As long as nVidia is still winning the benchmark (by whatever means they have to use), 3DMark03 will still be used by the major websites. Only certain websites that have talked themselves into a corner will stop using it.
__________________
AIW 9700 Pro | 1.3GHz CeleronT | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | ECS PCIPAT Mobo (Intel 815EP)
RadLinker/RadClocker
ChrisW 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: RT @gpuscience: In this video Eric Klein from @NVIDIA talks about Kepler GPU News Archived News Items 0 06-04-12 02:24 PM
GTC Talks available, including NVIDIA OpenGL in 2012 News Archived News Items 0 05-27-12 01:00 AM
Need Help Installing NVIDIA Tesla M2070Q in Linux RHEL5 Ferianto85 NVIDIA Linux 0 05-18-12 08:35 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 PM.


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