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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-26-03, 11:27 PM   #61
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

You might have a point if we didn't have an HLSL that can compile to specific hardware.
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 11:58 PM   #62
gravioli
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cosmopolis, WA
Posts: 276
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by gokickrocks
since this 2k3 has not been solved, here is my take on it...

in engineering notation and scientific for that matter...
k = e^3

you dont have numbers after the notation unless its the order of the power, so you would have to take the 3 as a multiplication

it would be...
2(e^3)3 = 6000

for 2003, you would have to put...
2.003k or 2k+3
Talk about beating dead horse. Anyway, if you type in "2k3" as a google search, the most common references that pop up refer to the abbreviation of 2003. Therefore, I think it is safe to conclude that a reference to "2k3" clearly communicates "2003" to the majority of people.

Okay, back on topic. Maybe we can have the 2k3 debate in the Off-Topic forum.
__________________
Windows 7 Ultimate|Intel i7 2700K|Gigabyte Z68XP-3DP|16GB GeIL Enhance CORSA|EVGA Geforce GTX 560Ti|OCZ Vertex2 120GB
gravioli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 02:18 AM   #63
Kruno
TypeDef's assistant
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,641
Send a message via ICQ to Kruno Send a message via AIM to Kruno
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by gokickrocks
since this 2k3 has not been solved, here is my take on it...

in engineering notation and scientific for that matter...
k = e^3

you dont have numbers after the notation unless its the order of the power, so you would have to take the 3 as a multiplication

it would be...
2(e^3)3 = 6000

for 2003, you would have to put...
2.003k or 2k+3
That's what I have been trying to say. You adding 3 to 2k that will give you 2003. 2k3 would be 2300.
__________________
"Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Mr. Anderson" - Elrond LOTR
Kruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 02:59 AM   #64
Shinri Hikari
Lantern in the dark
 
Shinri Hikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: nomadic
Posts: 175
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by kyleb
k = 1000

2k = 2000

2k3 =2003


thats math on my part of the planet
No matter where I am, I agree.
__________________
Insanity by definition is the repeated attempts to get different results from doing the same thing repeatedly...
Shinri Hikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 03:34 AM   #65
DaveBaumann
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
I think that Futuremark's "sticking with the standards to remain neutral" is flawed. They should optimize for all video cards, not the standards.
Errr, its a benchmark that will be used by several generations of boards by several manufacturers - they could only optimise to the ones that are available now, so how on earth could it be a fair an impartial benchmark for those that come out six month down the line? How would it be fair on S3, SiS and perhaps the next 3Dlabs part?

Again, the only route to take to make it an impartial benchmark is to optimise to the API, not vendors boards.
DaveBaumann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 04:08 AM   #66
Kruno
TypeDef's assistant
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,641
Send a message via ICQ to Kruno Send a message via AIM to Kruno
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinri Hikari
No matter where I am, I agree.
Come down to Australia and say that. My physics, maths and electrical teachers would spank your buttox.
__________________
"Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Mr. Anderson" - Elrond LOTR
Kruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 06:32 AM   #67
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

And yet, with support for PS 1.4, they manage not to use any VS/PS 2.0 extended (this would probably give benefits for skinning, for one).
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 06:37 AM   #68
DaveBaumann
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
And yet, with support for PS 1.4, they manage not to use any VS/PS 2.0 extended (this would probably give benefits for skinning, for one).
Those that require skinning are DX8 compliant tests, and PS1.4 is part of DX8.
DaveBaumann is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-03, 06:41 AM   #69
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

And VS/PS 2.0 extended is part of DX9. If this is supposed to be a DX9 benchmark, where are the VS/PS 2.0 extended tests?

From what I've read about the performance characteristics of the R300 (specifically, that it's faster running PS 1.4-level shaders than PS 2.0-level), the choices that Futuremark made to "optimize for the API" seem to conspicuously look like they optimized for the R300. Whether this is intentional or not is of little consequence. Any decisions made will always favor one architecture over another, so it is better to just attempt to optimize for all architectures.
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 07:02 AM   #70
DaveBaumann
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 98
Default

Its supposed to be a test for new boards - the majority of gaming titles DX9 board will operate on will be using DX8 features, and that is what they are representing. However, I even documented that I would have preferred to have seen a more far reaching DX9 benchmark generated via HLSL instead of the rather pointles DX7 benchmark - even if that were the case I doubt that they would have used extended PS2.0 as most games are not likely to go that far either - performance on that number of instructions is poor, and the majority target for DX9 support is R300. As with previous revisions you are likely to see most game developers (I'm sure there will be some that use the extended support) target to withing the lowest common demoninator of the API in order to hit the widest range of boards.

And, so what if R300 does have support for PS1.4 - thats immaterial to Futuremark since PS1.4 is just a part of the API. Everyone is free to add dedicated support if they wish. If you really want to winge at someone, winge at MS for including PS1.4.
DaveBaumann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 07:42 AM   #71
Kruno
TypeDef's assistant
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,641
Send a message via ICQ to Kruno Send a message via AIM to Kruno
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveBaumann
Its supposed to be a test for new boards - the majority of gaming titles DX9 board will operate on will be using DX8 features, and that is what they are representing. However, I even documented that I would have preferred to have seen a more far reaching DX9 benchmark generated via HLSL instead of the rather pointles DX7 benchmark - even if that were the case I doubt that they would have used extended PS2.0 as most games are not likely to go that far either - performance on that number of instructions is poor, and the majority target for DX9 support is R300. As with previous revisions you are likely to see most game developers (I'm sure there will be some that use the extended support) target to withing the lowest common demoninator of the API in order to hit the widest range of boards.

And, so what if R300 does have support for PS1.4 - thats immaterial to Futuremark since PS1.4 is just a part of the API. Everyone is free to add dedicated support if they wish. If you really want to winge at someone, winge at MS for including PS1.4.
Very well said. I agree 100%.
__________________
"Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Mr. Anderson" - Elrond LOTR
Kruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 09:41 AM   #72
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveBaumann
I doubt that they would have used extended PS2.0 as most games are not likely to go that far either - performance on that number of instructions is poor, and the majority target for DX9 support is R300.
There are more benefits than just the number of instructions.
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth 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
The Most Popular Linux News Of Eight Years News Archived News Items 0 06-06-12 02:50 PM
Popular Surveillance Cameras Open to Hackers, Researcher Says News Archived News Items 0 05-15-12 06:30 AM
nCore Schedules Popular Multicore Programming Course for Houston News Archived News Items 0 05-14-12 06:00 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 PM.


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