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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-26-03, 06:37 AM   #13
R.Carter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 138
Default

So what they are saying is that "Nvidia" should be considered to be the "reference standard" and not an API like DirectX8.1 or OpenGL 1.3.

I guess...
R.Carter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-03, 07:46 AM   #14
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

No, what he means is, the developers probably use nvidia cards as their primary work machines. They then test on other cards to make sure it works okay. But initial testing, research, and getting things right are done on their cards.

As JC said, the majority of his work on doom3 was done using an nvidia card in his work machine.
Nutty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-03, 08:45 AM   #15
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nutty
No, what he means is, the developers probably use nvidia cards as their primary work machines. They then test on other cards to make sure it works okay. But initial testing, research, and getting things right are done on their cards.

As JC said, the majority of his work on doom3 was done using an nvidia card in his work machine.
JC also said that a year ago and considering his OpenGL stance that's certainly reasonable. However, a lot has changed in that past year:

1) ATi beat Nvidia to market with a DX9 part by over six months and have given quite a few 9700 boards to developers
2) ATi's drivers have continued to improve by quite a bit.

I still think it's fairly safe to say that Nvidia holds a plurality of developer support, though.
John Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-03, 08:56 AM   #16
Grrrpoop
Wey aye man!
 
Grrrpoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nutty
No, what he means is, the developers probably use nvidia cards as their primary work machines. They then test on other cards to make sure it works okay. But initial testing, research, and getting things right are done on their cards.

As JC said, the majority of his work on doom3 was done using an nvidia card in his work machine.
That's certainly true for cards pre-FX.

IIRC Epic didn't even bother doing exhaustive testing on the 9700pro, they dev'd UT2k3 with nVidia cards and it still worked fine on the 9700Pro right off

With FX it seems to be different tho - S.T.A.L.K.E.R is being dev'd on 9700pros as the dev's have to put in extra work on the FX. Seems to be similar to what JC reports with the FX needing its own path as it doesn't perform to its full potential on a generic path. The 9700pro does perform well on generic paths tho..

Why is that? I'm not being facetious, seriously, someone explain why that could be

Is something not quite right with how the FX interprets standard DX and OGL, or are they deliberately making dev's put in extra work on nVidia cards?


Getting back OT, I'm not surprised nVidia didn't respond to Futuremarks decision. IIRC the dodgy Det's were meant to be an example of how drivers could be manupulated to increase synthetic benchmark performance, thus invalidating 3Dmark2k3 .. except most ppl have jumped on it saying "look! nVidia are cheating!!". I think it was reasonable for Futuremark to ban drivers which decrease IQ for extra points, and no doubt nV don't want to give FM any more publicity by continuing a tit-for-tat b*tch-fest at each other.
__________________
Don't be Care Less with your language
Grrrpoop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-03, 09:26 AM   #17
sebazve
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Montevideo, Uruguay
Posts: 421
Default

i guess he hasnt look at games with AF/AA in his geforce fx...
__________________
Signatures are a waste of bandwidth!
thanks rwolf!!!!! :-P
sebazve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-03, 09:28 AM   #18
mwat
Laptop gaming...Myth?
 
mwat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In front of my computer
Posts: 49
Default

Quote:
Futuremark
Since the release of 3DMark03, there has been some uncertainty about which drivers to use for impartial and useful benchmarking.

Based on the feedback we have received from users worldwide, all official performance listings at www.futuremark.com will be derived entirely from results obtained with WHQL’d drivers.

Microsoft’s WHQL is an important program that guarantees reliability and consistent performance in users’ daily computing needs. Futuremark endorses WHQL as a positive aspect of consumers’ computing experiences and we officially support the use of Microsoft WHQL drivers.

To accommodate an enthusiastic community of users who wish to experiment and learn more about maximum performance of their hardware, Futuremark will also enable comparisons of results obtained by non-WHQL’d drivers. To ensure objectivity, benchmark results will be clearly separated between both categories.
Ok, so what this means is that we will continue to allow the use of any driver-type (beta, unofficial, WHQL, modded etc etc), but we will distinguish the WHQL drivers in the ORB by marking them. They will have a column that clearly displays that they are WHQL.

And FYI, in the non-WHQL category, we will also re-enable the Detonator 42.67, 42.68 42.69 drivers.

Please note that this task will require some time. Please be patient. We will set this as our ORB priority #1, but it will still require a lot of work and time. .
Looks like the community has spoken!!!

Cheers
__________________
AMD T-Bird 1.33, Abit KT7-RAID, 2- 80 GiG WD ATA 133 7200rpm HDDs Running Raid 0, Fortissimo II, Sony DVD+RW, ATi Radeon 7500 AIW.
eMac,G4 700 Mhz, 256 RAM PC 100, 40 GiG HDD, 16x CD-RW, 6x DVD,GeForce 2MX.
mwat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-03, 09:52 AM   #19
Solomon
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a House
Posts: 502
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by mwat
Looks like the community has spoken!!!

Cheers
This is what they should have done in the beginning. This result is from their fan base upset in the way they just removed certain versions. It's sad that they choose this path not because they seem they wanted too, but because of the pressure their users with their feedback was saying.

They should of done this way back in the 3DMark99 stage. Only use WHQL for official comparising, leave the beta, modded for the individual user who wants to see the performance of "beta" or "modded" drivers on their particular system.

Just funny how peer pressure still works these days! Hehe.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-03, 09:58 AM   #20
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Solomon
This is what they should have done in the beginning. This result is from their fan base upset in the way they just removed certain versions. It's sad that they choose this path not because they seem they wanted too, but because of the pressure their users with their feedback was saying.

They should of done this way back in the 3DMark99 stage. Only use WHQL for official comparising, leave the beta, modded for the individual user who wants to see the performance of "beta" or "modded" drivers on their particular system.

Just funny how peer pressure still works these days! Hehe.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
their WHITEPAPER states this though solomon... the exact same sentiments...

it is not in their hands unfortunately what the reviewers are going to do when told to bench with specific drivers...

besides... this is hardly going to stop reviewers from using the particular drivers in question for benching... i doubt submitting results is a top priority... I have not personally seen too many compare links
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-03, 11:24 AM   #21
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Solomon
This is what they should have done in the beginning. This result is from their fan base upset in the way they just removed certain versions. It's sad that they choose this path not because they seem they wanted too, but because of the pressure their users with their feedback was saying.
Actually there was a post on B3D made a few days ago by the 3Dmark pres or vice-pres hinting that they had planed to do this (remove/change all non-WHQL dirvers not just nV)....for what that is worth....
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-03, 11:24 AM   #22
SnakeEyes
Registered User
 
SnakeEyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Zurich, IL
Posts: 502
Send a message via ICQ to SnakeEyes
Exclamation

Quote:
4 . <Scott> To Mr. RehBock: Can we expect significant performance and quality enhancements in terms of AA and AF in the upcoming NV products? ( e.g NV35 )
<NV_Bill> Absolutely; the AA and AF enhancements were a key consideration in the overall design of the GF FX family.
Uh.. sure.. right.

I think this answer was definitely all PR, unless you consider the fact that the only real changes made for AA and AF were to add driver options to castrate the AF (turning off / down the use of trilinear filtering unless in Application mode) and to add a couple additional (useless, no less, based on IQ comparisons with the modes that were already available on the GF4 that carried over) software-based AA modes. I'm afraid that from what I've seen of the IQ capabilities of the GF-FX, I'd be running in what I consider to be GF4 emulation mode- ie. 4xS or lower AA, application mode with 8x or lower aniso enabled. The only improvement I see as far as AA and AF are concerned is just based in reality on speed improvements in the new chip- basically, it can run higher AA and aniso modes playably than the GF4 could. The downside is that since ATI did such a bang-up job with the R300, even the increased levels (playable, remember) aren't really a match for the levels that are still playable on the 9700.

Heh. Interesting read though.
__________________
Snake-Eyes
SnakeEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-03, 11:48 AM   #23
MazeWing
Registered User
 
MazeWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
<NV_Bill> Absolutely; the AA and AF enhancements were a key consideration in the overall design of the GF FX family.
Something went wrong on that part..........
MazeWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-03, 11:48 AM   #24
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default Good new news from Futuremark

I like the duel scoring system with the official/un-official drivers, it'll give the best of both worlds.
__________________
[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
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
Redhat 8.0 NVIDIA works - INSTRUCTIONS STEEL1 NVIDIA Linux 267 04-15-03 06:48 PM
Getting the proprietary nvidia driver to run with Debian 3.0 r0 (woody) Katchina404 NVIDIA Linux 9 01-12-03 08:49 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 AM.


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