NVIDIA's detailed slam of 3DMark03

[Myrmecophagavir]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
hmm, but the botmatch scores in UT2003 ARE more CPU limited than the other timedemos, doesn't that mean in multiplayer UT2003 becomes more CPU limited?

The bots need lots of CPU time for AI, that's completely removed in multiplayer.

true enough. but the original UT was a bad example of a 3d accelerated game. the engine was coded the way it was because Sweeney did not forsee the advent of 3d accelerators.

UT's Glide support was very good. I'd say he just didn't foresee hardware T&L.

Originally posted by Myrmecophagavir
The bots need lots of CPU time for AI, that's completely removed in multiplayer.

is the botmatch benchmark a recorded demo or is AI actually being calculated?

this question came up in an Intel vs AMD thread and nothing conclusive ever came out of it.

actually, everyone but me said it was just a recorded demo with no AI in it at all.

so....which is correct?

[kyleb]

yes, ai is acutaly calculated in the benchmark, and they are all on the unreal setting asweel. so unless you play a bunch of unreal bots all the time, the benchmark is prety syntetic as well. although it is still a nice little benchmark in its own right.

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
hmm, but the botmatch scores in UT2003 ARE more CPU limited than the other timedemos, doesn't that mean in multiplayer UT2003 becomes more CPU limited?

Not necessarily. The question remains as to where those additional CPU cycles come from. Do they come from just drawing the bots? Or is there a whole lot of AI being calculated?

After all, if a very significant part is just the AI, then that part will never be used in multiplayer (since it will all be done server-side). In fact, regardless of where the limitations lie, the game will be somewhat less CPU-limited in multiplayer than it would be in a botmatch.

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by Myrmecophagavir
UT's Glide support was very good. I'd say he just didn't foresee hardware T&L.

Nope. If you pay attention to how the game was rendered in 3D, it totally does not make sense for any 3D accelerator. The benefit with Glide was basically that Sweeney was able to code more "to the metal," and thus avoid many of the stalls that the engine caused for other accelerators.

Said another way, Glide just allowed Sweeney to avoid the inefficiencies he put it in the focus for software rendering. It's not that the engine supported Glide well, it's that Glide was well-suited for the engine.

[jbirney]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
is the botmatch benchmark a recorded demo or is AI actually being calculated?

this question came up in an Intel vs AMD thread and nothing conclusive ever came out of it.

Hmm I have the source code at home so I can check tonight for ya...

[kyleb]

Originally posted by kyleb
yes, ai is acutaly calculated in the benchmark, and they are all on the unreal setting as well. so unless you play a bunch of unreal bots all the time, the benchmark is prety syntetic as well. although it is still a nice little benchmark in its own right.

!!!!

[Chalnoth]

Yes, this means that the botmatch scores are also much more unreliable than the flyby scores. In other words, whenever using botmatch scores, make sure you take a few runs. And whenever looking at them, expect that the benchmarker did not, and so the scores can vary by a few fps and still be within the statistical error of the benchmark.

The flyby scores appear to be highly repeatable by contrast, and make an excellent video card benchmark (whereas the botmatch benches make for more of a CPU benchmark).