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 02-19-03, 02:57 PM   #73
DEM BONES
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7
Default

Dr. Pabst has a good read on the subject.

http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20030219/index.html

Very interesting read.
DEM BONES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-03, 03:09 PM   #74
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

lol, thats Lars Weinand's article that link above twice already man.
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-03, 07:47 PM   #75
hithere
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 176
Default

It's easy to see why Nvidia would fear such a benchmark: It exposes the weaknesses of the FX when running unoptimized code.

Nvidia may have a point when they say, "games are always optimized for hardware"....but it only holds true when said hardware is on the market and in demand by consumers.

It's sort of a catch 22: They need to ship hardware to make sure they get support from coders, and they need to get support to be sure they can ship hardware.

Funny, this time last year, they were screaming and hollering about PS 1.4 being "proprietary" and how "no one would use it"and how "the same things could be accomplished in 1.1" and how we "should all be on the same page when it comes to pixel shaders." They flip-flopped on support for 1.3 in their own drivers, saying again, "the same things could be accomplished in 1.1." Now they whine when it doesn't get used in a benchmark. Now, they have their own special requirements for coders to munch on, and they expect the industry to just bend over and go out of their way to code for them, while at the same time forgetting about optimization in a general, rather than hardware specific, case.

Nvidia is flat-out asking coders to support the extra effort in optimizing for thier own hardware, and forget about optimizations for others.

"Want your game to run well on the FX as well as the rest? Well, you'll just have to code us a special path...

...What, you can't seriously expect the same path to support the FX as well as other cards, can you? That sort of attitude would be healthy for the entire industry, shortening the coding process and making it easier on....um...developers, and not just Nvidia....What sort of nutjob company would want that?

ATI? ...Really?

....oh. well, there's always CG....it makes it easier, I swear!"
hithere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-03, 04:19 PM   #76
jjjayb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 101
Default

I think now I see even more why Nvidia is putting down 3dmark03:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=270840

If it wasn't bad enough that the mx400's ran really poorly on 3dmark03, their gforcefx non ultra is showing some pretty pitiful performance with it also.
jjjayb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-03, 09:26 PM   #77
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default Nvidias latest response to 3dmark03

Quote:
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. And, because the vendors of these games have licensed their game engines to other game developers, you can expect that the next generation of games will have these game engines at their core.
Doom-III is not even OUT YET!!!! How can they even mention this as a measure for game performance now??? They know perfectly well that the leaked Alpha does not show what the current state of doom-III is. Besides it uses PS 1.4, it also uses real time stecncil shadows. Not to mention that the GF4 series are much slower than the 9700 series according to the info I have.

UT2003 Also performs much better on the 9700 series and it ALSO uses PS 1.4

The Serious Sam engine in no way shape or Form shows ANY indication of future game rendering techniques. Neither Does UT 2003. Which apart for a couple things is primarily DX7. Regardless NONE of these applications even begin to tap the Pixel or Vertex shader uses that games coming out in the next 3 years will. Nor do they use any DX9 feature. Not a damn one of them. Doom-III does, but again its not out yet, and its not DirectX. Further Doom-III mimics the performance seen in 3dmark03 across the entire spectrum of todays cards. However, It does not test specific areas of the Hardware. It also has only ONE rendering mode, of Which 3dmark03 uses 3 different methods.

How the hell can they call the Series Sam engine a next gen game engine..
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-03, 09:44 PM   #78
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

I agree with most of your comments...

also this IS a synthetic benchie and the design team has been very forthcoming explaining EXACTLY what their benchie does...

its getting to be a little ugly...

much ado about nothing IMO...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-03, 09:47 PM   #79
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

Don't start new topics while we have few open on the same/similar subject.

Thanks
__________________
[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 02-23-03, 10:46 PM   #80
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Wow, no kidding about that Non Ultra score. My 9700pro just KILLS it!!

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=270840

Which is not suprising considering that at 500mhz the GFFX barely beats the 9700pro in the first 4 game tests by 3-5 FPS here and there. -100mhz and its game over...
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-03, 03:10 AM   #81
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Nvidias latest response to 3dmark03

Quote:
Originally posted by Hellbinder
UT2003 Also performs much better on the 9700 series and it ALSO uses PS 1.4
Daniel Vogel has said that PS1.4 offers very little extra speed vs PS1.1 in UT2003. so it doesn't sound like the reason why the r9700 performs well is because of PS1.4 in this case.
Quote:
So, to sum it up, we do use PS 1.4 though it doesn't result in a noticeable performance improvement in normal scenarios.
http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dm.../index.php?p=3
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-03, 07:51 AM   #82
swanlee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 22
Angry Nvidia continues to look like Hypocrites

I simply love Nvidia's all of a sudden change of pace about a "real gamers benchmark". Considering how much they pushed 3dmark in the past when it made their cards look good, you'd think if they were serious about actual games being a good benchmark they would have been saying that years ago.

Nvidia needs to drop there marketing division now before they do anymore damage. Every day that Nvidia releases some offical statement as to why the FX doesn't live up to the hype or why they all of a sudden don't like 3dmark it just makes them look worse and worse.

Nvidia if you hadn't pushed 3dmark so much in the past it wouldn't be an issue now. Nvidia brought this on themselves legitimizing a synthetic bencmark that madde their cards look good. now that the shoe is on the other foot they cry foul and make themsleves look stupid in the process.

Last edited by swanlee; 02-24-03 at 08:01 AM.
swanlee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-03, 08:14 AM   #83
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Nah....I hope they keep it up. It don't get much easier/funner to poke fun at a big company than this, and they just keep making it easier/funner with each relevation.
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-03, 08:22 AM   #84
swanlee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 22
Default

All Nvidia execs should just walk around with targets on their foreheads. I have never seen a company whine and complain and try and cover up their lack of producing a good product before. They are really making themselves look completely silly and childish. My god it's like they can't deal with a little competition. Thhey were fine with any tactics needed to bump 3dfx off the top of the hill, but now ATI has done it under legit conditions they start freaking out making fools of themselves.

Looks like the bad carma from killing 3dfx has come back to haunt them.
swanlee 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 08:35 PM
Rumor regarding lack of 680 availability ViN86 Rumor Mill 6 05-09-12 04:48 PM
rh7.3 and nvidia vcrispo NVIDIA Linux 11 07-31-02 08:57 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 PM.


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