Stonewalling: ( Ooops... Nvidia was and is cheating on 3dmark03 after all)

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:29:15 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:


Lets wait for them to specifically code drivers to play games
the way they want to shall we? ;-)

If there coded as bad as 3dmark I hope so!
So John what exactly do you know about the way 3dmarks coded it
other than what Nvidia told you ? Who btw way are simply trying to
cover their ass after being found out.

If you look at what they did then I would say Futuremarks coded it
much better. You have looked haven't you ?

"Ben Pope" wrote in message
...


The retraction was basically to say "NVIDIA's driver design is an
application specific optimization and not a cheat ".

In my humble opinion I would say that when the application is a benchmark,
the optimisation is cheating.


And that sentiment is more damaging than any inflated number. Because both
you and I, with differing degrees of intensity over the claim of 'cheat'
both feel 'cheated' by nvidia. This is what needs to be addressed, not the
final score in 3DM.

Maybe this is simply growing pains in the industry, a maturing of how we are
soon to quanitfy performance. Benchmarks are now suspect due to the ability
of GPU's to adapt to the running application, so anything that might be
previosuly-known-as-cheating is now, application specific optimization.

Surely, you wouldn't call it cheating if there was a table, in the driver
suite, that modified certain aspects of the rendering engine based on what
application was running, if the goal was to get a 'better' end result? But
as you say, when the end result is treated as a yardstick to the general
capacity of the card, you delve into murky ethical waters.

"Folk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:29:53 GMT, "Derek Wildstar"
wrote:

More effort should be put into innovation and optimization, the leading
players are too busy dicking around with 3dmark, and they are both guilty
of
disappointing their customers.

Problem is, in the enthusiast press arena, those companies live and
die by benchmark results. So what are they to do? Both ATI and
Nvidia would be dumb to simply ignore 3DMark, so they spend time
optimizing for it. If review sites would ignore the synthetic
benchmarks, and gauge performance based on actual games, then we would
all benefit.


I posit it's now *not* dumb to ignore 3DMark, you with me?

I'd rather throw my support behind nvidia *and* ATI, and toss out
Futuremark. They have done nothing to bring gaming forward!

"Ben Pope" wrote in message
...


Hot damn, you got me. Actually, I'm glad I don't. I don't want to
defend their behavior, but the sky isn't falling on nvidia, not over
this issue at least.

Thats 'cos the sky has been clipped away!!


Only the part I wasn't looking at.

"John Russell" wrote in
:




If they have any sense then they will view 3dmark as one
of a large range of tools to test hardware, whether by
others or themselves. If 3dmark is showing it as running
slower, then people should be pleased when game x runs
faster because of these 'optimisations'.

Anyone with any sense will NOT be using 3dmark to make
judgements as to how well cards run GAMES! Anyone who does
advise people to do so is being as deceitful as they would
make Nvidia out to be.




Isn't that what I just said?

Please don't be an nvidia fanboy. All card makes have their pros
& cons as do various means of benchmarking them.

Personally I've gone with the best card available at the time I
have the money/desire to upgrade after checking a wide variety
of sources. This time nvidia have dropped the ball, as voodoo
did way back when. However they have the money & the skill to
pick it back up, and may well be my card of choice at the next
upgrade.


What I won't do is listen to pointless posts like yours that
ignore facts from unbiased sources & simply quote those of a
single biased source as you can't see beyond your own fandom.


If 3dmark is an 'unfair' benchmark it is unfair for all
manafacturers, or can you provide evidence otherwise? Rather
than fanboy raving?

"Roger Squires" wrote in message
.com...

Websites now realize that benchmarking is a problem:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDkx

rms

This benchmarking issue might be brand spanking new news to Kyle, but it's
not to those who have treated benchmarks with healthy suspicion ever since
we learned to count to three.

Notice how the focus of the talk is on Futuremark, and their methodologies,
not some scandalous trickery by nVidia. It's absurdly ironic that the
on-line press, supposedly the most up to the minute in breaking news and
trends, lag so far behind when it comes to issues such as this.

hOCP is like the dingy saloon in the basement of the frathouse. Always
entertaining when frequented (I check them everyday), but utterly devoid of
meaningful commentary.

The fact that they finally acknowledge that *they* are part of the problem,
gives me great hope that they might graduate with honors!

Roger, you have toned down your condemnation of nvidia, have you changed
your opinion?

really...the Fx 5900 are selling as fast as they get in stock.

All 7 of them?
Hehe....



new egg got in the 5900 and 5900 ultra and sold them all in
less than an hour...HE....HE...HE...HE

In article , Ben Pope
writes
Toby Groves wrote:

Now let's look at Ben's claim:

Careful when quoting please - I did not say that.

My apologies, you're quite correct, my mistake.
--
Toby

Only the part I wasn't looking at.

...or the part you didn't know was there...hehe

My apologies, you're quite correct, my mistake.

Now there's a shocker...hehe