Go Back   nV News Forums > Website Related > Feedback Forum

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-03, 02:04 PM   #37
Solomon
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a House
Posts: 502
Default

I love you too man!

I'm just puzzled on why other opinions seem not to matter when Kyle Bennett speaks? I just never understood that. My ATi quake thing was only brought up to bring up something I've noticed. It was never taken as a factual spec about the whole quake.exe issue. It was just used in context to show that people did know about Nvidia optimizing for various benchmarks. Before it was like pulling teeth to try to get them to say it was so. That's all it was meant as. No can of worms was meant to be open out of that. If it was taken out of context then that wasn't the intention.

On regarding this whole Quake.exe issue. I agree it was showing that it was just for that specific game. It caused uglyness while increasing the frame rate. That's not right. O.k. I agree with that.

But why Kyle seems to lay the smack down on my various opinions/views regarding the issue is odd. I bring up valid points regarding it and then it's just pointing at me and saying, "Nice way to represent your site, blah blah blah!". It's odd that the points we brought up seemed to never been explored on more. Oh well. That's way way in the past.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:11 PM   #38
Ratchet
The Tool
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 96
Send a message via ICQ to Ratchet Send a message via MSN to Ratchet
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Solomon
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
It's quite simple really, nVidia told him what to do about the whole quake.exe thing. He listened to nVidia and never thought things through himself - much like he is doing now with this whole 3DMark03 thing. I'm sure he now wishes he had handled the whole quake.exe situation better, but that's way in the past.

What I'm concerned about is his nV-inspired "opinion" that 3DMark is worthless - it's not. Obviously the benchmark isn't going to tell you much about what current games may perform like (pervious version of 3DMark were never any good for current games either), but I really do think that it will give you a good idea of what future games will play like. That's just as important, if not more so, especially considering how much videocards cost these days - not everyone can afford to upgrade whenever a new game comes out.
Ratchet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:15 PM   #39
Solomon
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a House
Posts: 502
Default

Hey Ratchet,

Cool icon. You got a site that shows your Flash work?

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:17 PM   #40
Smokey
Team Rainbow
 
Smokey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 2,273
Default

I really think 3dmark03 has some probs, or is just crap!

Since 3dmark2000, I have never had a 3dmark run so bad.
For eg. When 3dmark2001 came out, I had an Athlon SlotA + geforceDDR, old hardware for a DirectX8 benchmark, and I got about 1500 marks.
When I upgraded to a GF3, score went up to about 4000+
Upgrade to an AthlonXP1800+ and turn in a score of 8500+ marks.

Today with 3dmark03, sure my specs arent steller, but on game test 1&2, I get an average of 2.6 FPS (these test have nothing to do with directx9 btw) and turn in a total score of 444 yippe

Now people with a 1GHz cpu + a 9700 are turning in scores of 4000+, people with 3GHz cpu + 9700 will get you 5000+, only an extra 1000 points!!

Now in 3dmark01 when I upgraded my cpu from a 700 to a 1800+, I got like 4000+ points/marks.

Sure the benchmark is nice, but really has nothing to do with games. Remember ATI cards used to always be faster in 3dmark01 (8500vsgf3) yet the gf3 was/is faster in almost every game!!

Using time demos will always be better than using 3dmarkXX for giving an idea of system performance in games, and that is the main purpose for my pc, not winning benchmarks in 3dmarkXX.
__________________
HTPC/Gaming
| Hiper Type R 580W PSU
| Intel Q9550 @ 4GHz | Gigabyte EP45 UD3R |4x 1024MB OCZ Reaper PC9200 DDR2 | Seagate 320GB/ Maxtor 320GB/ Maxtor 500GB HDD|Sapphire HD5850 | Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Pro | Harmon Kardon AVR135 reciever | Jamo S718 speakers | 42" Plasma 720p (lounge room)-Samsung P2450H (bedroom)
Smokey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:19 PM   #41
sebazve
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Montevideo, Uruguay
Posts: 421
Default

really who was the idiot that didnt know companies optimize their drivers for specific games or engines???

how the **** did you expect to have faster games, by some ****ing miracle!!????
__________________
Signatures are a waste of bandwidth!
thanks rwolf!!!!! :-P
sebazve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:46 PM   #42
gmontem
Registered User
 
gmontem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 536
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jonjay
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.
How old is the PS1.4 spec anyways? Was it around way before the GF4 lineup surfaced? If it was then it sounds more like NVIDIA's problem for not implementing PS1.4 when the opportunity was there.
gmontem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:49 PM   #44
SnakeEyes
Registered User
 
SnakeEyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Zurich, IL
Posts: 502
Send a message via ICQ to SnakeEyes
Default

Smokey:

It goes back to what jbirney posted earlier (which I agree 100% with). Basically his point was that the final weighted score is worthless, but the tests themselves as well as their results are extremely useful.

Ignore the final '3DMark' score, and instead look at the details to see what the average framerates for the game scenes is. Those will tell you more about your card's performance than the score ever could. (For instance, getting 40+ fps for the 9700Pro vs. the FX's ~15 at the moment would tell me that for what that particular scene is testing, the FX is especially weak. The weighting of the scores to determine the final 3DMark combined score can hide things like that.)
__________________
Snake-Eyes
SnakeEyes is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-03, 02:53 PM   #45
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Solomon
Hey Ratchet,

Cool icon. You got a site that shows your Flash work?

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
That's not flash
Animated GIF
__________________
[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, 02:53 PM   #46
Brent
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Solomon
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.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
I did the FX Preview so I should answer this question:

First of all keep in mind we were on an extremely tight time crunch, the whole preview was done in two days, we didn't have a lot of time to go in-depth.

I wanted to show at least one game where only AA was used so you could see how much turning on AA decreased performance on each card. Ideally we should have also done an AF only test as well, and done more then one game.
Brent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:56 PM   #47
Brent
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by gmontem
How old is the PS1.4 spec anyways? Was it around way before the GF4 lineup surfaced? If it was then it sounds more like NVIDIA's problem for not implementing PS1.4 when the opportunity was there.
The 8500 was the first to implement PS 1.4

the GF3 and GF4 only support PS 1.3

the fallback to PS 1.1 is obvioulsy in 3dmark03 so these cards can also run the game test, else they wouldn't be able to run cause they don't support PS 1.4
Brent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:58 PM   #48
Brent
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Smokey:

It goes back to what jbirney posted earlier (which I agree 100% with). Basically his point was that the final weighted score is worthless, but the tests themselves as well as their results are extremely useful.

Ignore the final '3DMark' score, and instead look at the details to see what the average framerates for the game scenes is. Those will tell you more about your card's performance than the score ever could. (For instance, getting 40+ fps for the 9700Pro vs. the FX's ~15 at the moment would tell me that for what that particular scene is testing, the FX is especially weak. The weighting of the scores to determine the final 3DMark combined score can hide things like that.)
Couldn't agree with ya more
Brent 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 01:35 PM.


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