Go Back   nV News Forums > Website Related > Feedback Forum

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-03, 02:15 PM   #25
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
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.
Bull**** Kyle.

Again for the same reasons I stated above. I am SICK of you guys playing favroties all the time. Enough is enough. You do everything with one eye open. Even if the Quak thing was a cheat, it is only one case out of the DOZENS of times Nvidia has pulled driver bull**** with fake launches, tweaks that only affect benchgmark apps etc etc etc. Besides which there is no doubt that they are outright CHEATING in some game benchmarks. or dont you fintd it odd that the GF4 has a higher score in SS:SE with 4x FSAA and 8x AF than the 9700pro. Or look at Quake benchmarks. The ones that use the 1.17demo to test score considerably higher than what is seen with the full retail release.

As For 3dmark03
They use vertex shader 1.1 routines 36 times. are you actually going to say that Simple Vertex shader 1.1 routines are NOT going to be used in future games? We are not in the future yet Kyle now are we. What you have allowed yourself to do AGAIN is be bought lock stock and barrel by Nvidia.

What you have done is embrase NVIDIAS view of the future of games and how THEY want games to be programed to support THEIR hardware better than everyone elses. You better step back and think a little deeper about what you are embrasing, and the road you are going down with this.

Are you really prepared to say that Nvidia has a lock on how future games will be coded? Further they are complete hypocrites. The Entire direction game design and coding is going is TOWARD single-textured Shader Rich designs. This has been getting pushed by ATi, Nvidia and Dx9. It is common knowledge. 3dmark is made to show ralative game performance in FUTURE games. Thus lots of single textureing. Lots of DX8.1 Vertex shaders, lots of PS 1.1 and 1.4.. and some DX9 code starting to appear. How can any HONEST person argue agaisnt that?

Futuremark is not supposed to show performance on CURRENT games. not at all. That is so self apparant its not even funny.

I am sick of the utter hypocracy. Will people ever stop allowign themselves to be brainwashed by Nvidias Cleverly worded PR spins?

Its not looking like it.
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:23 PM   #26
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

As for my getting excited. You are damn right. Its time everyone gets excited. What Nvidia is trying to do with their ouotright DECIETFULL PR bull**** HAS to be confronted. They pull this **** all teh time. NO MORE.

I am not letting anyone get away wth explaining away, justifying, excusing Wht Nvidia is trying o do here. Anyone looking at the details, who knows the the Hell they are talking about understand that Not a single one of Nvidias points revolving around the details of the games, benchmarks, or features used caries ANY real world merrit.

Ill give them one point. But they have to follow through with everyone else. The complete abandonment of Synthetic benchmarking, and or Tweaking their drivers for performance boosting only benchmarked apps.
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:28 PM   #27
FrgMstr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 47
Default

Hellbinder, you don't have to be rude to have a discussion with me. I would ask that you calm down as you get way too emotional about these things and I think that in turn leads you to not think clearly.

For the sake of your argument (and you have changed gears a bit on what you’re complaining about in your last post) let's say you are 100% fully correct and 3DMark03 is the greatest thing since sliced bread and you are going to use it for all of your benchmarking needs.

Please read what we have to say here as this issue is much bigger than arguments about the validity of 3DMark03. 3DMark03 simply is a great example of what is wrong with 3D benchmarks IMO.

I find it hard to argue that we would not want more real world benchmarks. If you want to keep using 3DMark, then you certainly can. We on the other hand are not.
__________________
Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief @ HardOCP.com
FrgMstr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:29 PM   #28
Rogozhin
Registered User
 
Rogozhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: oregon
Posts: 826
Default

A purchasing decision (a necessary not a sufficient condition) based on the ehtical integrity of a company.

That is a philosophy I hold to rigidly.

I don't know how you extrapolated that other philosophy from my post.

rogo

Last edited by Rogozhin; 02-12-03 at 02:33 PM.
Rogozhin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:32 PM   #29
jonjay
nvidiot
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: England
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by FrgMstr
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)
I totally agree with this post, most sense anyone has talked on here. It seems like nvidia were conned by Futuremark/ATI, as the techniques nvidia use are not present in 3D Mark and only ATI's are hence the huge score difference between Geforce4 and Radeon Pro. Nvidia have a brilliant arguement due to this.
__________________
T`Take Xaser III::Tagan 480w::ASUS A7N8X::AMD Barton 2.2ghz::OCZ 1GB PC4200 CAS2::NEC 3500A DVD-RW::Galaxy Glacier 6800 @ 400/845 12x1,6vp::LG 1730B LCD::2x 74GB Raptor RAID0 & WD 80GB
jonjay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:34 PM   #30
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Rogozhin
That is a philosophy I hold to rigidly.
Then lest you be labeled a hypocrite, you best take out your ATI card and pop in something from SiS or Trident. I'm sure you've read the stories about ATI settling litigation threats from its shareholders.
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:38 PM   #31
Rogozhin
Registered User
 
Rogozhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: oregon
Posts: 826
Default

If nvidia was in development with futuremark until december why then didn't they issue a statement regarding the fact that they didn't support the new benchmark?

Why did they wait until AFTER the outcome of benchmarking the fx and the 9700?

It matters little what you and I, the computer hobbiests and professionals, think of the benchmark. What matters is the two numbers that are printed in the dozens of computer periodicals that your average joe reads to decide on what video card to buy.

Those two numbers are the 3dmark scores of the fx and 9700 or the 9900 and g5, or any other future video card. Therefore nvidia does not want to get dusted in the benchie no matter how relevant or irrelevant the technology is the the future of gaming.

rogo
Rogozhin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:40 PM   #32
Rogozhin
Registered User
 
Rogozhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: oregon
Posts: 826
Default

i said it was a necessary condition.

And that has been cleared up regarding the insider traiding.

rogo
Rogozhin is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-03, 02:44 PM   #33
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

Hellbinder,

Tone down a bit, this isn't Rage3D.
__________________
[b]Optimization guidelines by Koji Ashida of NVIDIA:[/b][list][*]Use fx12 instructions whenever possible[*]Use lowest pixel shader version[/list][url=http://developer.nvidia.com/docs/IO/10878/ChinaJoy2004_OptimizationAndTools.pdf]source[/url]

[size=1]The politics are invading the technology. We don't really like to mess with politics because that kind of adversarial relationship has nothing to do with pure technical operations and the technical specifications of what we like to play with, the hardware![/size]
volt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:45 PM   #34
SnakeEyes
Registered User
 
SnakeEyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Zurich, IL
Posts: 502
Send a message via ICQ to SnakeEyes
Thumbs up

3DMarkxxxx - If you seriously think the tool's a waste, it might be, but only for you. I find it gives me useful information for making system tweaks, overclocking (stability testing especially ), etc. It also allows me to see the specific capabilities of my hardware (video especially - pixel shaders, vertex shaders, fill rate, etc.). I can look at these same areas when I've made changes to my drivers and see where improvements may have been made.

As far as the benchmark being a 'Gamer's Benchmark', I can agree and disagree. I agree in the aspect that gamers make up a large portion of the people using the tool, versus using some 3D cad program. I disagree because it doesn't necessarily represent a single thing about how my hardware will run game xyz, on the simple grounds that the benchmark itself ideally isn't optimized to specific hardware as much as to the API, while games on the other hand tend to be extremely optimized in order to guarantee as much of an enjoyable experience for a majority of potential buyers as possible.

As far as nVidia's current whining goes- they can suck it up. I didn't mind them advocating the tool when they were on top, and at least this meant every manufacturer was striving to compete on even ground (optimizing for the benches AND our games). Now that someone's beaten them at their own game they wanna go crying about it? They finally are willing to admit what we've all said all along, which is basically that it's all about real performance in our games at the end of the day, regardless of the score 3DMark shows.

(p.s.- speaking of the 3DMark scores- I find those a bit less useful than the detailed listing of test results. These are mainly useful for a subset of people that get their thrills from figuring out the best way to reach the highest scores so that they can hold the top spot in the online results browser )

One other use of the 3Dmark software has always been to show off the sort of effects that the latest generation of hardware could make possible in games. This doesn't mean that they will, or even that games that look like the benchmarks will run the same as the benchmarks (assuming the games aren't written by the same coders and optimized the same). I don't know about the rest of you, but I like seeing the eye-candy capability of my hardware shown off, even if I can't use it in a game right now.
__________________
Snake-Eyes
SnakeEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:53 PM   #35
Solomon
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a House
Posts: 502
Default

Since Kyle is here. How about shedding light on picking which benchmarks to run for your FX review? Why didn't you use AA + AF during the Serious Sam results? I never understood that one. You seem to use AA+AF on other results you used? Seems to be you didn't use the AA+AF on Serious Sam because it showed that the ATi Radeon 9700 was leaps ahead of the FX. Only Anandtech seem to show that test result. Why was it left out on yours Mr. Kyle Bennet.

The only reason why I brought up the ATi issue was that it seemed people would jump up saing ATi is optimizing for specifics. Now that people are finally saying that Nvidia was optimizing for benchmarks seemed ironic that before everyone was hush hush in saying that.

Pretty fast in judging me and my site just because my understanding of the ATi situation differs from you. You seemed pretty fast on slamming ATi about that quake.exe issue. You never seemed to mention that the quake.exe was in the drivers well before the ATi 8500 ever surfaced. You never seemed to mentioned it didn't affect the Radeon 64mb video card when it was implemented. You never seemed to mentioned that the drivers are universal base so how can you seriously have facts that it wasn't for the 64mb Radeon instead of the 8500 ? When it was known ATi fixed it in the next release. So in theory it was only in one release from ATi even though it was in months before in beta releases.

There are two sides of this quake.exe issue. Apparently it's your opinion that matters and there is no other side to it. To each his own.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:58 PM   #36
Rogozhin
Registered User
 
Rogozhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: oregon
Posts: 826
Lightbulb

I love you guys.
Rogozhin 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 09:30 AM
Computex: 3DMark Announces Windows 8 Benchmarking - First Screenshots News Archived News Items 0 06-05-12 07:30 PM
poor 3Dmark score wysiwyg Benchmarking And Overclocking 4 09-27-02 05:25 AM
3dmark reports my fsb is 66? Gator Benchmarking And Overclocking 7 09-21-02 11:10 PM
3DMark, Fastest Webmasters and Me. intercede007 Benchmarking And Overclocking 4 08-17-02 11:49 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16 PM.


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