Go Back   nV News Forums > Website Related > Feedback Forum

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-03, 12:14 PM   #13
|JuiceZ|
Registered User
 
|JuiceZ|'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Louisville
Posts: 3,286
Send a message via Skype™ to |JuiceZ|
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by saturnotaku
And what have I been saying since practically the first day I joined these forums?

About the the only thing I think 3dmark is good for is stressing the graphics subsystems to test overclocking. Anything else is pittance. I bought my video card to play games and play games is what I do.
right on sat, I too only use it for testing stability after overclocking and have always been a fan of realworld benchmarking.
__________________
primary MBP Core i5 2010 | HR | OCZ 120GB SSD
gaming Core i5-2500K @ 4.1GHz w/ CM Hyper212+ | MSI N560GTX-Ti TF II/OC | MSI P67A-GD55 | Silverstone FT02 | X360 250GB + Kinect
htpc IONITX-A-U | 2GB | M350 | XBMC Linux | SABnzbd, sickbeard, couchpotato | NAS Synology DS411J | 4TB
hometheater KURO PDP-5020 | Marantz SR6005 | Definitive BP7001s, CLR3000, BPVXPs
|JuiceZ| is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 12:16 PM   #14
Rogozhin
Registered User
 
Rogozhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: oregon
Posts: 826
Default

"3DMark03 combines custom artwork with a custom rendering engine that creates a set of demo scenes that, while pretty, have very little to do with actual games. It is much better termed a demo than a benchmark. The examples included in this report illustrate that 3DMark03 does not represent games, can never be used as a stand-in for games, and should not be used as a gamers’ benchmark."

NVIDIA:
"Unfortunately, Futuremark chose a flight simulation scene for this test (game 1). This genre of games is not only a small fraction of the game market (approximately 1%), but utilizes a simplistic rendering style common to this genre. Further, the specific scene chosen is a high altitude flight simulation, which is indicative of only a small fraction of that 1%."

"For all intents and purposes game tests 2 and 3 are the same test. They use the same rendering paths and the same feature set. The sole difference in these tests appears to be the artwork. This fact alone raises some questions about breadth of game genres addressed by 3DMark03. --- These two tests attempt to duplicate the “Z-first” rendering style used in the upcoming first-person shooter game, “Doom 3”. They have a “Doom-like” look, but use a bizarre rendering method that is far from Doom 3 or any other known game application."

"Finally, the choice of pixel shaders in game tests 2 and 3 is also odd. These tests use ps1.4 for all the pixel shaders in the scenes. Fallback versions of the pixel shaders are provided in ps1.1 for hardware that doesn’t support ps1.4. Conspicuously absent from these scenes, however, is any ps1.3 pixel shaders. Current DirectX 8.0 (DX8) games, such as Tiger Woods and Unreal Tournament 2003, all use ps1.1 and ps1.3 pixel shaders. Few, if any, are using ps1.4."

"This year’s 3DMark has a new nature scene (game 4). It is intended to represent the new DirectX 9.0 (DX9) applications targeted for release this year. The key issue with this game scene is that it is barely DX9."

NVIDIA:
"So, where do you find a true gamers’ benchmark? How about running actual games? Most popular games include a benchmark mode for just this purpose. Doom3, Unreal Tournament 2003, and Serious Sam Second Encounter are all far better indicators of current and upcoming game performance."

Also almost all of their statements are false.

1.Pixel shader 1.3vs1.4. They mention the only two games that use 1.3 and state that there are many more without citiing them. PS1.3 is NOT being used in Doom 3 ps1.4 IS. And they never moaned when ps 1.1 was used in the nature demo.

" 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. Where as PS 1.4 is a subset of the functionality of PS 2.0 and basically Cuts the numer of passes needed to render compaitable scenes by 1/2. Last years nature demo even in the Nature test only used PS 1.1 even though it came out after the GF4. meaning they never cried at all that their precious PS 1.2/1.3 (that do nothing noteworthy) were not used. Even though the radeon 8500 got completely blown off and not properly supported in any of teh SE benchmarks." Hellbinder quote from rage3d.

2.Plus they are dissing flight simulation which I and many others find one of the best game genres of all time explified by a great game IL-2sturmovik. And WE are asking for more high level interception and bombing runs, which nvidia thinks inane.


The statement quoted above reaks of unprofessionalism. That fact alone regardless of the malicious intention of slandering the hard work of futuremark has completely turned me off of nvidia's products. I will never buy another one again.

You don't see ANY other companys doing this. ATI, AMD, INTEL, VIA, SIS, MATROX. NONE!

Nvidia is just pathetic.

Even my little nephew is more grown up.


Rogo
Rogozhin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 12:30 PM   #15
Zeno
Registered User
 
Zeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Solomon
Isn't this sort of ironic. Considering ATi and their Quake3.exe debacle in the drivers. How everyone harped on them for this cheating bit. Now it seems that people are coming out of the wood work saying that Nvidia did indeed optimize drivers for the synthetic benchmark when before all of this no one really wanted to say such words. Now it seems people can't get enough of saying that Nvidia is mad because their drivers aren't optimized or what not for a specific benchmark.

It's weird. First Nvidia users wouldn't admit that Nvidia was indeed doing that. Now that this has happened you can't get enough of them saying that they are mad because their optimizations aren't happening right or what not.

It's like the Twilight Zone!

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
You're misunderstanding what people's problem was with the Quack3 issue.

One way that graphics card vendors optimize their drivers for games is to watch the OpenGL or Direct3D calls that the game makes, and optimize those calls or combinations of calls within the driver. This is a legitimate thing to do. Any optimizations done here will benefit ALL programs that make those API calls.

However, what ATI did was watch for a specific game instead of specific API function calls, and then they actually lowered the image quality some to gain additional speed.

This is cheating in 2 ways: 1) Those optimizations won't apply to ANY OTHER GAME. If you're not playing Quake3, then the time they spent doing that work was wasted on you. 2) They're not really optimizations....they're image quality reduction. It's a totally different thing.

-- Zeno
Zeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 12:30 PM   #16
Solomon
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a House
Posts: 502
Default

WoW! That's a pretty bold move to base a purchasing decision just because of a synthetic benchmark. If Nvidia whined, but their graphic cards were excelling in games you still wouldn't buy their hardware? Interesting philosphy.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 12:33 PM   #17
Solomon
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a House
Posts: 502
Default

Zeno,

Some call it cheating some call it a conflict with the hardware. I don't want to get into the worms of things again with this situation. I wanted to bring it up because it just seemed that's how people are responding to Nvidia's comments about not supporting 3DMark03. That people were like, "Well their drivers were optmized for the previous ones, just because they aren't now they are crying?" I've seen that in a lot of forums.

That's why i brought it up. I thought it was kinda funny to see people blatantly say that the drivers are optimized for the benchmark when before no one wanted to admit it or say it. Odd. Hehe.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 12:43 PM   #18
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

For me I would be perfectly happy with 3dmark if it just drops the total score. I dont like how they wieght the score. I understand why, I just dont buy it.

I would rather see just the scores from each teast. And no final tally. Thats what I think makes 3dmarks neat and provided the most usefull info...
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 12:56 PM   #19
jnd3
Sword Saint
 
jnd3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alpharetta, GA USA
Posts: 465
Send a message via AIM to jnd3 Send a message via Yahoo to jnd3
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Typedef Enum
I don't know who these guys are fooling, but it's certainly not me. nVidia rised to the top by doing that EXACT same thing...what the heck are they talking about? They have been tweaking their own drivers to sport significantly high Quake/3DMark numbers for years, and then using that data to demonstrate just how much performance their engineers could eek out of their drivers...
Wait, isn't Quake3 a game...? And aren't quite a lot of games are based on the Quake3 engine...?



Cheers,
JND
jnd3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 12:57 PM   #20
FrgMstr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Solomon
Isn't this sort of ironic. Considering ATi and their Quake3.exe debacle in the drivers. How everyone harped on them for this cheating bit. Now it seems that people are coming out of the wood work saying that Nvidia did indeed optimize drivers for the synthetic benchmark when before all of this no one really wanted to say such words. Now it seems people can't get enough of saying that Nvidia is mad because their drivers aren't optimized or what not for a specific benchmark.

It's weird. First Nvidia users wouldn't admit that Nvidia was indeed doing that. Now that this has happened you can't get enough of them saying that they are mad because their optimizations aren't happening right or what not.

It's like the Twilight Zone!

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

I think these statements show a general ignorance of the entire situation surrounding the issues above. Your comparison is off base.

What ATI did during the "Quack" issue and what you are seeing NVIDIA currently do, (and I think we are the only ones to prove this currently) are two totally different issues. I would think that someone that runs a site that caters to the 3d crowd would easily see the differences but obviously not.

ATI cheated on the QuakeIII benchmarks by putting QuakeIII specific optimizations in the driver. They did NOT optimize for the QIII engine (which is used by countless games), they only optimized for the game that is widely used as a benchmark, hence they cheated on the benchmark and ignored all the other games out there that could have "benefited" from the technology. That opens up a whole other argument that what they did was of no benefit at all, but rather just and exercise in turning down the overall quality to get better FPS.

NVIDIA optimized it drivers for the techniques that were specifically being used inside 3DMark03. Any game that uses those techniques will benefit from their changes.

So in theory, NV's changes could have far reaching effects that benefit the community at large where ATI's did not.

NV's argument here is that the changes they made in their driver benefit no one, as the techniques being used inside 3Dmark03 are not indicative of any game that we will see now or likely see in the future. They "won" the benchmark with their GFFX and they still don't like the benchmark.

It's only like the Twilight Zone if you don't understand what you are looking at.

(EDIT: DITTO Zeno)
__________________
Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief @ HardOCP.com

Last edited by FrgMstr; 02-12-03 at 01:00 PM.
FrgMstr is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-03, 12:58 PM   #21
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
You're misunderstanding what people's problem was with the Quack3 issue.

One way that graphics card vendors optimize their drivers for games is to watch the OpenGL or Direct3D calls that the game makes, and optimize those calls or combinations of calls within the driver. This is a legitimate thing to do. Any optimizations done here will benefit ALL programs that make those API calls.

However, what ATI did was watch for a specific game instead of specific API function calls, and then they actually lowered the image quality some to gain additional speed.
This statement is really Nieve.

All video card drivers detect certain apps or function calls used by specific apps. Just like the recent Nvidia splash screen 3dmark score *debacle*

I am SICK of this bull**** spin you guys put on that quake issue. Ati came out publically and stated that Yes there are game specific optimizations, and yes it was a bug. The bottom line is it only affected 5 total textures in the game, affected the score by 5 FPS and lasted a total of 2 weeks before it was fixed.

Need i bring up the Nvidia 40.41 dets? or any of the other Driver false starts that were conveniently released only to benchmark sites just prior to other companies product releases, but never released to the public? how they only affected a few programs but adversly affected the majority of other sofware???

And you guys CONSTANTLY blow all the unethical **** Nvidia does off, and shout the *quak* issue from the rooftops. Well tht stops here and now. Its bull****.
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 01:05 PM   #22
batterbrain101
"TAZ LIKE!"
 
batterbrain101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Spokane, Washington, USA
Posts: 191
Default

Game play is what matters when you get right down to it, most of us have known for awhile now that video drivers are optimized not only for games, usually they make damn sure that the drivers are optimized for peak performance with most popular benchmark programs. I've noticed none to no change in gameplay from the last 9 or 10 Det's I've installed, 3dmark usually increased though. Got to have the latest and "greatest" though, and hell running the benches and trying new drivers is fun to me. Now the most popular bechmark prog is all new and makes your system look really slow in points value (remember this happening when 3dMark2001 replaced the 2oo version?) so you can get that "my system is inferior" complex and run for new upgrades (which is also fun) and get the cash flowing. That's the way its always been and as long as techology advances, I know I'll be chasing it. Most of us NvNews members are members for that reason. anyway, thank you Muke for the best video card site (and tech news) around IMO. Nv news rules!
__________________
] My village called, their Idiot is missing!

My rig:
Asus Maximus VI Hero
Intel i7 4770K@ 4.2 GHz
16GB G-Skill Trident X DDR3 2400 Ram
Corsair 750HX "Silver Certified" PSU
Corsair H70 Hydro CPU Cooler
2x PNY GTX 770 OC2 4GB in SLI
180 GB Intel 520 SSD
2 TB Barracuda HD, 2 TB WD Caviar Green
Logitech G-510 Keyboard
Windows 7 Professional 64 bit
3 Samsung 24" LED SyncMaster Monitors

batterbrain101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 01:06 PM   #23
FrgMstr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hellbinder
This statement is really Nieve.

All video card drivers detect certain apps or function calls used by specific apps. Just like the recent Nvidia splash screen 3dmark score *debacle*

I am SICK of this bull**** spin you guys put on that quake issue. Ati came out publically and stated that Yes there are game specific optimizations, and yes it was a bug. The bottom line is it only affected 5 total textures in the game, affected the score by 5 FPS and lasted a total of 2 weeks before it was fixed.

Need i bring up the Nvidia 40.41 dets? or any of the other Driver false starts that were conveniently released only to benchmark sites just prior to other companies product releases, but never released to the public? how they only affected a few programs but adversly affected the majority of other sofware???

And you guys CONSTANTLY blow all the unethical **** Nvidia does off, and shout the *quak* issue from the rooftops. Well tht stops here and now. Its bull****.
Wow, you got excited. All that ATI koolaid is going to your head bro, calm down.

ATI cheated and they got busted, you can SPIN that however you like.

I agree with you onthe 40.41 dets, that was bad business that we did not agree with. Also you did not see use those on [H]ardOCP.

To say what NVIDIA does business-wise gets blown off it actaully quite funny as I think they are under a big a microscope as anyone else. You seem to be too emotionally attached to the issues at hand and maybe stepping back for a moment and looking at the big picture will give you some clarity.
__________________
Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief @ HardOCP.com
FrgMstr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 01:08 PM   #24
FrgMstr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 47
Default

Here are our thoughts on what needs to be done overall in order to "fix" things. If we had solid tools to begin with, we would not be having this discussion. We of course would be arguing about something else totally!
__________________
Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief @ HardOCP.com
FrgMstr 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
(PR) New 3DMark Trailer Shows Stunning DirectX 11 Graphics News Archived News Items 0 06-21-12 08:30 AM
Computex: 3DMark Announces Windows 8 Benchmarking - First Screenshots News Archived News Items 0 06-05-12 06:30 PM
poor 3Dmark score wysiwyg Benchmarking And Overclocking 4 09-27-02 04:25 AM
3dmark reports my fsb is 66? Gator Benchmarking And Overclocking 7 09-21-02 10:10 PM
3DMark, Fastest Webmasters and Me. intercede007 Benchmarking And Overclocking 4 08-17-02 10:49 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 PM.


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