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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-19-03, 05:29 PM   #73
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Malfunction
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,

You just entirely dodged what I said. You said hardware updates always make the product better. I gave an example of where that is not true.

I don't understand why you are trying to bring drivers into this As drivers have nothing to do with the performance hits I'm talking about. The GeForce3 has lower hit AF than the GeForce4. From the first driver to the latest driver. The IQ is the same between the two cards.

NV30 has documented bugs over previous cards too. Which have been worked around via software. Sometimes software can coverup hardware flaws, and sometimes they can't. In the case of the GeForce4 and AF, software can't.

As for your gfFX5800 comment, with all the comments about shaders and they mythical DX9.1, I would think people are still expecting speedups for that card. Considering that drivers released after the launch of the gfFX5900 continually helped the gfFX5800, and that the shader compiler of "Det50" has helped the gfFX5800, it is fair to say that future software may very well continue to help the gfFX5800.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 05:56 PM   #74
Malfunction
 
Malfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lake Jackson, TX
Posts: 1,002
Default

I responded to it in my last post when I said, "If the hardware is faulty, the hardware is faulty." How soon was it discovered that the AF took more of a hit than the GeForce 3? Did people still buy the GeForce 4, yes.

Why? In knowing that the AF takes more of a performance hit, why subject yourself to a GeForce 4 series piece of hardware? Because it was faster than the Radeon 8500, that's your answer. I am sure that they didn't mean to fall so short in the AF algorythms, well some of the Nvidia employees didn't. I make that statement given the current points of veiw of Nvidia's hardware releases this year.

I am sure they were very truthful in what they wanted out of the NV30. Did it happen, no... it didn't. Has the image quality improved since the GeForce 3, I think so... many others believe so as well. Infact, many say it is comparable to the ATi 9800. Do I believe they are making an effort to bring high image quality with high performance? I think so, they have shown that with the 5700 Ultra.

I think Nvidia may be taking notes from ATi now, in that they are trying out new things with their mainstream products first. Which I imagine they will bring what they have learned into their enthusiast product soon.

Make a mistake, learn from it. As long as they learn from their mistake, I am no longer gonna be on this "Nvidia DIE!!!" trip that many around here appear to be on.

I still recommend ATi products, however I don't recommend all of them. I see to many good deals to ignore.

I hope I answered your question, if I haven't... I am not really sure the answer you are looking for then. If I didn't, I don't think you are gonna get the answer your looking for... but I will try to clear things up.

Peace,

Malfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 05:59 PM   #75
ChrisRay
Registered User
 
ChrisRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisW
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.
Actually no, If you use 3dmark03 (according to Futuremark anyway) you are a member of there program. If you bench with non certified drivers, You are breaking there licensing agreement. (This is with hardware review sites anyway, I dont see how they can really enforce this anyway unless you signed there agreement)

I actually imagine future reviews just wont use 3dmark03. It's pointless to force reviewers to use licensed drivers, Since most reviewers are going to try and use the latest certified drivers from the site.
__________________
|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 11-19-03, 06:17 PM   #76
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisRay
Actually no, If you use 3dmark03 (according to Futuremark anyway) you are a member of there program. If you bench with non certified drivers, You are breaking there licensing agreement. (This is with hardware review sites anyway, I dont see how they can really enforce this anyway unless you signed there agreement)
EULA. Interesting. I should email that to my grandfather; he's actually an expert on EULAs (big time Pittsburgh lawyer, was president of Duquesne University there, dean of law school at UPitt, I believe, and has written quite a bit on EULAs. I think I will).
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 06:18 PM   #77
ChrisW
"I was wrong", said Chris
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: standing in the corner!
Posts: 620
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisRay
Actually no, If you use 3dmark03 (according to Futuremark anyway) you are a member of there program. If you bench with non certified drivers, You are breaking there licensing agreement. (This is with hardware review sites anyway, I dont see how they can really enforce this anyway unless you signed there agreement)

I actually imagine future reviews just wont use 3dmark03. It's pointless to force reviewers to use licensed drivers, Since most reviewers are going to try and use the latest certified drivers from the site.
Ok, I just saw that in their fine print. Tom's Hardware will probably still use it and burry the details on another page in small print. Otherwise, they will not use it at all as long as nVidia does not win the benchmark.
__________________
AIW 9700 Pro | 1.3GHz CeleronT | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | ECS PCIPAT Mobo (Intel 815EP)
RadLinker/RadClocker
ChrisW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 06:19 PM   #78
ChrisRay
Registered User
 
ChrisRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisW
Ok, I just saw that in their fine print. Tom's Hardware will probably still use it and burry the details on another page in small print. Otherwise, they will not use it at all as long as nVidia does not win the benchmark.
You think Toms Hardware will even bother using it? Why them paticularly :P
__________________
|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 11-19-03, 06:22 PM   #79
ChrisW
"I was wrong", said Chris
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: standing in the corner!
Posts: 620
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisRay
You think Toms Hardware will even bother using it? Why them paticularly :P
They will use it as long as it helps nVidia look better. Tom's Hardware is the most biased (pro-nVidia) review site on the internet. They are well known for their dirty tricks in their reviews.
__________________
AIW 9700 Pro | 1.3GHz CeleronT | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | ECS PCIPAT Mobo (Intel 815EP)
RadLinker/RadClocker
ChrisW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 06:28 PM   #80
ChrisRay
Registered User
 
ChrisRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisW
They will use it as long as it helps nVidia look better. Tom's Hardware is the most biased (pro-nVidia) review site on the internet. They are well known for their dirty tricks in their reviews.

Ahh I figured them the first to bury it because it didnt show Nvidia ina good light since they could get sued for using other drivers.
__________________
|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 11-19-03, 06:34 PM   #81
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Malfunction
Make a mistake, learn from it. As long as they learn from their mistake, I am no longer gonna be on this "Nvidia DIE!!!" trip that many around here appear to be on.
Where exactly is there any sign that nVidia has learned anything? This latest "release a beta set that 'fixes' the 3.40 patch 'issue' " seems more like the same old backhanded tactics they've been using all along that has annoyed so many with them....where do you see any signs that they've learned or changed?
__________________
[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, 06:37 PM   #82
Malfunction
 
Malfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lake Jackson, TX
Posts: 1,002
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisRay
Ahh I figured them the first to bury it because it didnt show Nvidia ina good light since they could get sued for using other drivers.
Terrific!!! It just keeps getting better and better. So, in essence... FM shot themselves in the foot because Nvidia will always cheat 3DMark and the only way to prove it is for FM to keep releasing patches? And since FM's EULA prevents benching with non certified drivers, they may not be used in any reviews any longer.

Bah ha ha! That is pretty damn funny if ya ask me.

Peace,


Last edited by Malfunction; 11-19-03 at 06:59 PM.
Malfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 08:42 PM   #83
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Malfunction
I responded to it in my last post when I said, "If the hardware is faulty, the hardware is faulty." How soon was it discovered that the AF took more of a hit than the GeForce 3? Did people still buy the GeForce 4, yes.

Why? In knowing that the AF takes more of a performance hit, why subject yourself to a GeForce 4 series piece of hardware? Because it was faster than the Radeon 8500, that's your answer. I am sure that they didn't mean to fall so short in the AF algorythms, well some of the Nvidia employees didn't. I make that statement given the current points of veiw of Nvidia's hardware releases this year.
Well, the AF performance seems to be tied to multitexturing, not the AF algorithm itself.

Quite frankly, NVIDIA was asked about AF performance and they acknowledged there was a bug, but they promised increased performance in a later driver release. They did fix AF performance under OpenGL, and even GeForce3 owners got a speedup. But they never did fix the problem under Direct3D.

So for those who bought a GeForce4 and knew about the problem, they were expecting NVIDIA to fix it. Either through their own hope that NVIDIA driver programmers are Godly, or because they read NVIDIA's response.

There were still other advantages to owning a GeForce4, I am just stating that your asserting that hardware always improves is misleading and false. Overall hardware should get better over time, but you certainly can't say every aspect is better.

Quote:
I hope I answered your question, if I haven't... I am not really sure the answer you are looking for then. If I didn't, I don't think you are gonna get the answer your looking for... but I will try to clear things up.

Peace,

Well, my main question is "why did you bring software into our discussion?" Because I did not mention software, and it was not relevant to the problem at hand. Just a matter of interest as to why you did it, is all.

Basically I am saying you absolutely cannot say that next generation hardware is always better. What you can safely say is that next generation hardware is usually better overall than the generation that preceded it. And even that may be too much of a generalization! Some people feel that the move from SSAA to MSAA was too much of a step backward from an IQ perspective. And some people feel that the added performance was worth the switch.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-03, 08:52 PM   #84
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
Well, my main question is "why did you bring software into our discussion?" Because I did not mention software, and it was not relevant to the problem at hand. Just a matter of interest as to why you did it, is all.
Look at how he constantly ducked my questions and/or changed the subject earlier in this thread. Trying to have a discussion with such people is a waste of time.
John Reynolds 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 03:08 AM.


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