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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-03, 11:28 AM   #37
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

I'm not a conspiracy type of person, but we are talking about the same site who gladly used a certain little .exe they got from one IHV to lambast the new product from a competitor of that IHV. Great journalistic standards. Oh well.
John Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 11:31 AM   #38
sxotty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 522
Default

Hellbinder do you work for ATI? Or are you just a fanatic for no reason. I discount every single thing you say simply b/c everything I read from you contains illogical and biased statements.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 11:47 AM   #39
creedamd
 
creedamd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 597
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by sxotty
Hellbinder do you work for ATI? Or are you just a fanatic for no reason. I discount every single thing you say simply b/c everything I read from you contains illogical and biased statements.
break them down and show that they are illogical and biased. Don't slam this guy without argument.
creedamd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 12:31 PM   #40
sxotty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 522
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by creedamd
break them down and show that they are illogical and biased. Don't slam this guy without argument.
You are correct on two levels, one I should not have said it b/c there was no point, and 2 one should state their reasons if they are going to make such a claim, however I have seen so many people arguing with him before there is no point, it is like arguing with a brick wall it will simply not move, even if you are very persuasive. In any case I will refrain from such useless comments, but I would appreciate it if others did not try to incite arguments needlessly.

Any synthetic application is by definition not a marker of how games will perform. All of these benchmarks get way to much attention, and they really do not indiacate enough of reality to merit it. Luckily all sites use real games as well, but I still believe that the usefulness of these benchmarks is overated.

I just bought a 9500 pro and am happy with it, so I am not just an nvidiot, but I still do not see the purpose of comments that are so needlessly rude, and pointless.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Its pretty sad, Now they are slamming flight simulators..

I could counter every single one of their arguments, but the outrigth absurdity of these comments is readily apparent to any honest person. What is really sad are all the comments i have read at futuremark message boards about how Nvidia has a point...

Ill tell you why. Becuase Nvidia are a bunch of deciefull LIARS. PS 1.2/1.3 dont affect performance AT ALL. You dont get any performance gain over PS 1.1 which is why is does not make any sense to use them. and nearly no one does. Wheras PS 1.4 is a subset of PS 2.0 and basically Cuts the numer of passes needed to render compaitable scenes by 1/2.

Yet another patently Unethical and decietfull move by Nvidia.
Neither ATI or Nvidia are run by the devil, or angels they are both companies that try to profit, the were both involved in fraudulent activity or at least their employees were. They both overhype their cards and often deliver lack luster products in proportion to the PR. Nvidia's point about the FS made perfect sense, the scene is useless, the "games" are horribly done, kind of like the trash that some developers do truly put out, but not any good ones. The Unreal2k2 engine and DOOM3 will be so diferent from the fake games that the fake games are irrelevant.

Sure it has some uses but not as many as the people who make it (who are just a company trying to make money) would have you believe.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 12:36 PM   #41
Fusion
Sapphire Atlantis 9700Pro
 
Fusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Couldn't have said it any better myself. I won't argue with NVIDIA's credibility going down the crapper, but I'm not about to get my undies in a bunch over what some people say about a synthetic benchmark.
]

Thats probably the best thing yet said, in this thread.

I think some of you are a wee bit sad, and use ANY little excuse to put down NVidia. Sad.
__________________
MSI K7N2G Series Nforce 2
2x 512Mb PC3200 Corsair in Dual mode
Athlon XP 2.4 ghz, 200 mhz Bus at 11x - 2.2ghz Internal.
Sapphire Radeon 9700 Pro
SBLive ! Audigy 2
Bungholio Marks - 147
Fusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 12:51 PM   #42
Captain Beige
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Fusion
]

Thats probably the best thing yet said, in this thread.

I think some of you are a wee bit sad, and use ANY little excuse to put down NVidia. Sad.
yeah almost as sad as your avatar

but not quite.
Captain Beige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 01:16 PM   #43
creedamd
 
creedamd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 597
Default

I don't understand the fuss. 3dmark is saying that the 9700pro kicks all of the other cards ass. EVERYONE KNEW THAT!! Why is it a shock because the benchmark is less cpu dependant as 3dmark01 was?

Upgrade your videocard or stop whining. Yes the ti4600 is fine if you don't like all of the eyecandy of gaming. The 9500/9700pro is the next level. Get over it!
creedamd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 03:30 PM   #44
Nutty
Sittin in the Sun
 
Nutty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,835
Send a message via MSN to Nutty
Default

Quote:
Nutty when/if developers start using more Pixel Shaders then the need for the TMUs which helps out in Multi-texturing will soften. The trend is going away from multi-textured games.
You're wrong.

Why do you assume that heavier use of pixel shaders will mean less multi-texturing? You can multi-texture in pixel shaders you know.

As pixel shaders get _more_ powerful and faster, then we'll be able to do the graphics in less and less passes. Which means fewer shaders passes and more textures per pass.

The whole point of going from 4 simultaneous textures on GF4 to 16 simultaneous textures on GF-FX is to make heavy multi-texturing easier! I'd call 16 textures in 1 pass, pretty well multi-textured.

Multi-texturing and pixel shading are _not_ mutually exclusive.
Nutty is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-03, 03:53 PM   #45
Fusion
Sapphire Atlantis 9700Pro
 
Fusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Upgrade your videocard or stop whining. Yes the ti4600 is fine if you don't like all of the eyecandy of gaming. The 9500/9700pro is the next level. Get over it!
Yes, lets all upgrade our video cards to PLAY 3dmark2003.


Quote:
yeah almost as sad as your avatar
I used this avatar in the 8500 days when I RMA'd my crap 8500 for a GF3.
ATI *did* suck back then, and I haven't bothered to change it.

Still not as sad as some of the stuff going on in this thread
__________________
MSI K7N2G Series Nforce 2
2x 512Mb PC3200 Corsair in Dual mode
Athlon XP 2.4 ghz, 200 mhz Bus at 11x - 2.2ghz Internal.
Sapphire Radeon 9700 Pro
SBLive ! Audigy 2
Bungholio Marks - 147
Fusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 03:55 PM   #46
creedamd
 
creedamd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 597
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Fusion
Yes, lets all upgrade our video cards to PLAY 3dmark2003.




I used this avatar in the 8500 days when I RMA'd my crap 8500 for a GF3.
ATI *did* suck back then, and I haven't bothered to change it.

Still not as sad as some of the stuff going on in this thread
Don't upgrade to play 3dmark2003, upgrade because your eyes love you. You owe it to them. 3dmark just helps you see into the future (hence futuremark)
creedamd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 05:29 PM   #47
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by creedamd
Don't upgrade to play 3dmark2003, upgrade because your eyes love you. You owe it to them. 3dmark just helps you see into the future (hence futuremark)
the question on everyone's mind is how far into the future are we looking?

will real games play like that in 1 year's time? 2 years? 3 years?

even when games finally start using Shaders will the game you play with a gf3 or gf4 match the abysmal performance seen in 3dmark03?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 05:32 PM   #48
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scott123
Obviously Nvidia (once again) chose to make their comments at a rather awkard time, but as a whole I agree with what they are saying. I use 3dmark to verifiy that nothing has changed with my computer from the last test, as a way to insure everything is ok. Beyond that, I have never seen a corralation between better scores from new drivers, and actual games that play faster. In every case that 3dmark goes up, the games I play remain the same.
exactly. nvidia's statement about benchmarking games is a cop out. however, it is the preferable reality. i'd rather have them optimize for more games than spend time optimizing for useless benchmarks. at least then there's a chance that some games i actually play would run faster.
  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
NV30 name poll sancheuz NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 72 10-19-05 02:23 AM
Any details on Nvidia's failed NV2 for SEGA? suburbanguy Rumor Mill 1 08-21-02 11:30 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14 AM.


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