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

Newegg Daily Deals

View Poll Results: Choose One
NVIDIA's new products (NV31 and NV34) are not DX9 parts and their current line lacks the technology to do well 62 65.26%
3DMark03 is a poor benchmark 18 18.95%
Both, but more of option number 1 9 9.47%
Both, but more of option number 2 6 6.32%
Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-18-03, 03:18 PM   #49
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Spiritwalker
Just to refresh your memory, Doom]l[ is an OpenGL game NOT a DX9 game so you cannot make the comparison.

That and the fact that JC has specifically coded the game for the nV30.
There are 5 paths for the Doom3 to render only one of which is NV30 specific. There is one that was coding for the R8500 as well. This path that the 8500 uses the OpenGL version of PS1.4.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-03, 03:28 PM   #50
Spiritwalker
Headstone
 
Spiritwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary, Ab
Posts: 169
Send a message via ICQ to Spiritwalker Send a message via Yahoo to Spiritwalker
Default

R8500 not 9700

Benchmarks should test spec against spec or vendor specific against vendor specific.

Using the 8500 path the 9700 is faster but uses lower quality textures and rendering (like the nV30 does at points) but ATi hardware is all or nothing, so JC is using the higher quality slightly slower ARB2 path for the 9700. He could code a specific 9700 path (and I dont know why he is not going to), but all I am saying is lets play fair with benchmarking.

Remember the stink we used to hear in the cpu benches when Intel SSE2 code was run against AMD FP? Now most sites state the fact and/or use both versions of the test to highlight the differences. That is all I am asking.
__________________
In the fight between you and the world, back the world.
Spiritwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-03, 03:29 PM   #51
vitocorleone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39
Default

Look, it's tagged as being the "Gamer's Benchmark", NOT the "Gaming Benchmark". There's a very distinct difference. "Gamer's Benchmark" means that people who play games on their computer - hence "gamer's" - use it to benchmark their system, primarily the graphics. It does not imply that the benchmark (no one is disputing that it produces a benchmark score) is meant to represent real games. If it did, then I would agree that the tag was misleading and that it should instead be the "Gaming Benchmark".
vitocorleone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-03, 03:35 PM   #52
sebazve
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Montevideo, Uruguay
Posts: 421
Default

vote 1
__________________
Signatures are a waste of bandwidth!
thanks rwolf!!!!! :-P
sebazve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-03, 03:48 PM   #53
Myrmecophagavir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Spiritwalker
Benchmarks should test spec against spec or vendor specific against vendor specific.
No, they should test the fastest method the hardware exposes to get the same outcome. If one card only exposes the minimum spec use that, if another card provides extensions to spec which enable it to get the job done quicker then use them. The benchmark tells you which card can get the desired results the fastest, regardless of how it does it.

BTW, PS/VS 2.0+ is still DX9 spec.
Myrmecophagavir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-03, 03:50 PM   #54
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

some one aught to send the url for this pole to Jen-Hsun Huang, it would be nice if he would realise he is wasteing time trying to pull strings and if he realy wants to make more of an effort then he should put it into doing good for the future of the nvidia.
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-03, 03:53 PM   #55
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Spiritwalker
Benchmarks should test spec against spec or vendor specific against vendor specific.
ya, and runers should all be alowed to use their own tracks to race on as well!
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-03, 04:02 PM   #56
tamattack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 159
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Spiritwalker
He could code a specific 9700 path (and I dont know why he is not going to).
Simply because there is no proprietary ATI OpenGL extensions for DX9-level pixel shaders. The optimal codepath for R300 is the same as the OpenGL ARB standard. ATI is all about standard APIs these days.

Whereas JC has to resort to using NV's proprietary extensions just to get competitive performance on NV30. (And there's some debate as to whether the use of NV's proprietary extensions is dropping to FP16 mode or, even worse, integer mode).
tamattack is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-18-03, 04:05 PM   #57
Spiritwalker
Headstone
 
Spiritwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary, Ab
Posts: 169
Send a message via ICQ to Spiritwalker Send a message via Yahoo to Spiritwalker
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Myrmecophagavir
No, they should test the fastest method the hardware exposes to get the same outcome. If one card only exposes the minimum spec use that, if another card provides extensions to spec which enable it to get the job done quicker then use them. The benchmark tells you which card can get the desired results the fastest, regardless of how it does it.

BTW, PS/VS 2.0+ is still DX9 spec.
I agree with you, but in this case both cards are more than spec so it is up to the drivers to make proper use of the hardware, not the benchmark. The benchmark is written to spec and that is all it claims to be. Some may dissagree because of PS 1.4 but they are DX8.1 spec.

What I am trying to say is test using all available avenues, whether they be vendor specific or spec and compare them. That is the true purpose of a benchmark. But let ppl know which is using what.
__________________
In the fight between you and the world, back the world.
Spiritwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-03, 04:14 PM   #58
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:
You refer to 3Dm03 as a demo, when it's clearly more than that.
Is it interactive? No, its a rolling demo.

If it were interactive, the character would have to have head collision to stop them jumping up through ceilings. As this doesn't happen in the rolling demo, it's probably omitted.. Along with alot of other items.
Nutty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-03, 04:38 PM   #59
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

ohh ya well go check out the game nwo, it had some serious collsion problems last i knew and they still called that a game.
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-03, 04:53 PM   #60
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

They called it a game, because you could actually play it. Man, am I talking to morons here or what?
Nutty 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
Need Help Installing NVIDIA Tesla M2070Q in Linux RHEL5 Ferianto85 NVIDIA Linux 0 05-18-12 09:35 PM
Rumor regarding lack of 680 availability ViN86 Rumor Mill 6 05-09-12 05:48 PM
rh7.3 and nvidia vcrispo NVIDIA Linux 11 07-31-02 09:57 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 AM.


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