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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-16-03, 04:38 AM   #1
Typedef Enum
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 191
Default FutureMark License/HardOCP

There was a link over @ Beyond3D, linking to a post made over here; however, I couldn't find the post (at least, according to the link provided).

At any rate, this is what was said in the FutureMark PDF (verbatim)...

Quote:
Futuremark's recommendation has always been that default WHQL certified drivers should be used for benchmarking purposes. This is because any specific driver tuning might produce results that are not genuinely comparable. According to 3DMark03 license agreement, any review to be published has to use generally available, shipping versions of products and drivers.
Just to make sure there wasn't any misunderstanding with the license, I found the relevant section

Quote:
VII. State that all products used to obtain the Result were shipping versions available to the general public.
As you can plainly see, the results posted @ HardOCP are in violation of the license agreement, and therefore must be considered invalid
Typedef Enum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-03, 04:48 AM   #2
5150 Joker
100% Certified nVidiot
 
5150 Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Davis, California
Posts: 759
Default Re: FutureMark License/HardOCP

Quote:
Originally posted by Typedef Enum
There was a link over @ Beyond3D, linking to a post made over here; however, I couldn't find the post (at least, according to the link provided).

At any rate, this is what was said in the FutureMark PDF (verbatim)...



Just to make sure there wasn't any misunderstanding with the license, I found the relevant section



As you can plainly see, the results posted @ HardOCP are in violation of the license agreement, and therefore must be considered invalid
Brent is an ok reviewer but HardOCP in general is a ****ty website. Toms is even worse though.
__________________
CLICK FOR MY HEATWARE!

Desktop: DFI LANPARTY nF4 SLI-DR | AMD64 3000+@2.6ghz | Leadtek 7800 GTX | 2 GB Crucial PC3200 | 2x120 GB 8mb WD | Dell 2005FPW 20" LCD | Antec "TrueControl" v2 550w PSU | Lian Li PC75 modded case with H20 Cooling

Laptop: XPS Gen 2 | Samsung LCD | P-M 2.13 | nVidia 6800 Go Ultra | 2 GB DDR2 | 60GB 7200RPM HD | 8x DVD-RW/CD-RW| Dell Wireless 1450 a/b/g | Windows XP Home | 3 Yr Warranty/Complete Care.
5150 Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-03, 04:54 AM   #3
Evildeus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 309
Default Re: FutureMark License/HardOCP

Quote:
Originally posted by Typedef Enum
As you can plainly see, the results posted @ HardOCP are in violation of the license agreement, and therefore must be considered invalid [/b]
Yes, but as a consequences, all 3DMark test on non available products are invalid. Therefore, no more preview of products using 3DMark. Think that reviews won't use it as a consequence
__________________
But if they think they're going to hold onto it, they're smoking something hallucinogenic - Jen-Hsun Huang
Evildeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-03, 05:40 AM   #4
The_KELRaTH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Heath UK
Posts: 44
Default

IXBT has 3Dmark scores based on 42.68, they are much the same as 42.67 and can be dled from Guru3D
The_KELRaTH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-03, 09:40 AM   #5
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default Re: Re: FutureMark License/HardOCP

Quote:
Originally posted by Evildeus
Yes, but as a consequences, all 3DMark test on non available products are invalid. Therefore, no more preview of products using 3DMark. Think that reviews won't use it as a consequence
?

sry yer sentence structure is all screwy

3dmark03 will be used still IMO... but perhaps WHQL certified is the key word lol
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-03, 09:41 AM   #6
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

So which are WHQL ? To me none of them should be considered as such.
__________________
[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 02-16-03, 09:58 AM   #7
Evildeus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 309
Default Re: Re: Re: FutureMark License/HardOCP

Quote:
Originally posted by Sazar
?

sry yer sentence structure is all screwy

3dmark03 will be used still IMO... but perhaps WHQL certified is the key word lol
Sorry didn't look back at my spelling/structure

The article VII says you need to :
Quote:
State that all products used to obtain the Result were shipping versions available to the general public.
Then, you can't use 3DMark, for any preview cos the product's not available, and make reviews before the product is available even if you use WHQL drivers.

So, what do i do as a reviewer? I wait till the product is available or do i make the preview/review without 3Dmark? I think that as a reviewer, i do the review and i say f... u to FutureMark.

That's why i think this article will never be enforced or FutureMark can say bye bye to its selling

Hope i'm clear
__________________
But if they think they're going to hold onto it, they're smoking something hallucinogenic - Jen-Hsun Huang
Evildeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-03, 10:11 AM   #8
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

Evildeus,

I completely agree with you. Futuremark will never take legal action against a site for using their software in a product preview. That said, Typedef's point still stands. . .it's very crappy to use 'special', non-public, non-WHQL drivers on hardware that's not even on store shelves and when it does reach store shelves rumored to then be extremely limited in quantities. Actually, it's crappy to do the above and then compare it against an available product using public drivers. If it weren't for the direct comparisons I wouldn't mind so much. But when has any of the major review sites ever used common sense or objective standards?
John Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-03, 10:24 AM   #9
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

I think I will copyright my signature
__________________
[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 02-16-03, 10:28 AM   #10
Evildeus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 309
Default

John Reynolds,

Well, i disagree with his last comment "must be considered invalid ". Then the 42.68 is available to the public even if not on Nvidia's site and anyone can compare.

I understand your point, but as the product is still not available, the drivers should be still beta.

BTW, there's a lot of people using beta drivers and prefer them over WHQL.
__________________
But if they think they're going to hold onto it, they're smoking something hallucinogenic - Jen-Hsun Huang
Evildeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-03, 10:34 AM   #11
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Evildeus
Well, i disagree with his last comment "must be considered invalid ". Then the 42.68 is available to the public even if not on Nvidia's site and anyone can compare.
I'm not sure the 42.68s were available late last week when used (and a reviewer has no idea at that point if they would become publically available).

The entire situation is just shoddy, IMO. But not worth getting my panties in a bind since I've never used 3DMark and never fretted over the #s it generates.
John Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-03, 10:35 AM   #12
Evildeus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 309
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by volt
I think I will copyright my signature
I'm not sure you were using them before me , and you didn't say them
__________________
But if they think they're going to hold onto it, they're smoking something hallucinogenic - Jen-Hsun Huang
Evildeus 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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:09 AM.


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