Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: NVIDIA Didn't Cheat




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    4,308

    Default

    The following is a joint statement from Futuremark and NVIDIA relating to 3DMark03 and optimizations.

    Futuremark Statement

    For the first time in 6 months, as a result of Futuremark's White Paper on May 23rd, 2003, Futuremark and NVIDIA have had detailed discussions regarding NVIDIA GPUs and Futuremark's 3DMark03 benchmark.

    Futuremark now has a deeper understanding of the situation and NVIDIA's optimization strategy. In the light of this, Futuremark now states that NVIDIA's driver design is an application specific optimization and not a cheat.

    The world of 3D Graphics has changed dramatically with the latest generation of highly programmable GPUs. Much like the world of CPUs, each GPU has a different architecture and a unique optimal code path. For example, Futuremark's PCMark2002 has different CPU test compilations for AMD's AthlonXP and Intel's Pentium4 CPUs.

    3DMark03 is designed as an un-optimized DirectX test and it provides performance comparisons accordingly. It does not contain manufacturer specific optimized code paths. Because all modifications that change the workload in 3DMark03 are forbidden, we were obliged to update the product to eliminate the effect of optimizations identified in different drivers so that 3DMark03 continued to produce comparable results.

    However, recent developments in the graphics industry and game development suggest that a different approach for game performance benchmarking might be needed, where manufacturer-specific code path optimization is directly in the code source. Futuremark will consider whether this approach is needed in its future benchmarks.

    NVIDIA Statement

    NVIDIA works closely with developers to optimize games for GeForceFX. These optimizations (including shader optimizations) are the result of the co-development process. This is the approach NVIDIA would have preferred also for 3DMark03.

    Joint NVIDIA-Futuremark Statement

    Both NVIDIA and Futuremark want to define clear rules with the industry about how benchmarks should be developed and how they should be used. We believe that common rules will prevent these types of unfortunate situations moving forward.
    Cameron "Mr.Tweak" Wilmot
    Managing Director
    Tweak Town Pty Ltd

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    92

    Default

    so, to read between the lines a little, nVidia decided to pay gross amounts of money to be part of the FutureMark clan again, and in return, FutureMark now says they didn't cheat?

    :blah:
    386 DX40, 4mb 80ns EDO RAM, .5mb Trident VGA, 120mb 2200rpm JTS HDD, SoundBlaster ISA, Zoltrix 2400bps modem, 2x Creative CDROM (tray loading), Panasonic 3.5" FDD/5.25" FDD, Samsung 14" UVGA Monitor
    -----

    /Z

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    494

    Default

    i dont see how not rendering non-viewed parts is cheating, its not cheating. =) technically, its not changing the benchmark, as in image quality or anything. it just defined rendering borders, which doesnt affect the viewed image. cheating, i think, would be like image degration. and only image degration, i dont think theres anything else that could be considered cheating. maybe i missed something, but thats my opinion.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    See, no cheat..

    How unbelievable unexpected..


  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    92

    Default

    I think it'd be because 3dmark was designed as an unoptimized test, and nVidia optimized their code (thus, giving them an unfair advantage over ATI, and skirting around the edges of what the program was designed to do).. now they're re-defining what the program is supposed to do, and it seems they *will* allow optimizations... however, ATI gets to play ball then, too
    386 DX40, 4mb 80ns EDO RAM, .5mb Trident VGA, 120mb 2200rpm JTS HDD, SoundBlaster ISA, Zoltrix 2400bps modem, 2x Creative CDROM (tray loading), Panasonic 3.5" FDD/5.25" FDD, Samsung 14" UVGA Monitor
    -----

    /Z

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaltec
    I think it'd be because 3dmark was designed as an unoptimized test, and nVidia optimized their code (thus, giving them an unfair advantage over ATI, and skirting around the edges of what the program was designed to do)
    May I ask where you got this info..:?: Or is it just your personal view..


  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    92

    Default

    3DMark03 is designed as an un-optimized DirectX test and it provides performance comparisons accordingly. It does not contain manufacturer specific optimized code paths. Because all modifications that change the workload in 3DMark03 are forbidden, we were obliged to update the product to eliminate the effect of optimizations identified in different drivers so that 3DMark03 continued to produce comparable results.
    right there
    386 DX40, 4mb 80ns EDO RAM, .5mb Trident VGA, 120mb 2200rpm JTS HDD, SoundBlaster ISA, Zoltrix 2400bps modem, 2x Creative CDROM (tray loading), Panasonic 3.5" FDD/5.25" FDD, Samsung 14" UVGA Monitor
    -----

    /Z

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Tweak
    The following is a joint statement from Futuremark and NVIDIA relating to 3DMark03 and optimizations.

    Futuremark Statement

    ...

    Futuremark now has a deeper understanding of the situation and NVIDIA's optimization strategy. In the light of this, Futuremark now states that NVIDIA's driver design is an application specific optimization and not a cheat.

    ...
    However, recent developments in the graphics industry and game development suggest that a different approach for game performance benchmarking might be needed, where manufacturer-specific code path optimization is directly in the code source. Futuremark will consider whether this approach is needed in its future benchmarks.
    [/b]
    well hopefully they dont consider any optimizations in the future because that defeats the whole purpose of their product. [for those of us who use it]

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    78

    Default

    Itīs all bout the money.

    I think it isnīt serious at all.

    We users lost in this round.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •