[rainz]

19167 3dmark03 Score on the Hall of Fame (FM) (6800) Dunno this one seems to be bugged if we look at the core/mem.

17717 3dmark03 Score on the Hall of Fame (FM) (X800) = Currently the fastest ATI score. ( and fastest score at all if the 19.1K is bugged. )

http://www.futuremark.com/community/halloffame/

I hope the 19,1K is bugged !

EDIT: 19,1K score from 6800 is gone now. Think whatever you want.

RainZ

[Evildeus]

I'm sure it's bugged, since his AM3 score is not that high, but anyway i'm

[gokickrocks]

its not a bug, its a cheat...nvidia added an "option" to "null PS" in their drivers

shamino aka lardarse who held the previous high score (legitamate) in 3dmark03 talks about it here http://www.vrforums.com/showthread.p...threadid=15242

in another thread at http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...146#post495146 , he showed a 3dmark03 score with the "option" enabled and broke 23k with it

[rainz]

omg ... damn Nvidia ... they simply cant stop to cheat/lie ?

RainZ

[jimmyjames123]

LOL, how quick you are to lynch NVIDIA without knowing any facts (but then again, maybe it is your Canadian pride speaking up).

This hardly constitutes as a cheat from NVIDIA intended to circumvent 3dmark03 regulations...apparently the rendered output is garbage, so obviously this is not intended to be a meaningful "optimization".

[MatiasZ]

i don´t remember how PS2.0 benchs scored on regular conditions... but this guy is gettting 520 fps so i can´t think of anything but a bugged score

[rainz]

Originally Posted by jimmyjames123

LOL, how quick you are to lynch NVIDIA without knowing any facts (but then again, maybe it is your Canadian pride speaking up).

This hardly constitutes as a cheat from NVIDIA intended to circumvent 3dmark03 regulations...apparently the rendered output is garbage, so obviously this is not intended to be a meaningful "optimization".

I can quickly bitch at Nvidia since i know they are cheaters/liar ya .. nothing to do about the Canadian. And who said this ? Nvidia ? Let me guess .. Just a pure error ? and they said they got a 5 times better drivers team than ATI ?

RainZ

[jimmyjames123]

You are only fooling yourself if you think that companies like ATI and NVIDIA are forthwright and completely honest with the public. These companies have obligations first and foremost to their shareholders, and they will both do anything they can to get ahead of the other company.

That said, many consumers and reviewers feel that NVIDIA has been much more open about discussing architectural details on their new 6800 cards than ATI has been on discussing architectural details on their new X800 cards.

So when is ATI going to start letting consumers easily turn off trilinear/anisotropic/texture stage optimizations on their most powerful X800 cards?

[trinibwoy]

Originally Posted by rainz

I can quickly bitch at Nvidia since i know they are cheaters/liar ya .. nothing to do about the Canadian. And who said this ? Nvidia ? Let me guess .. Just a pure error ? and they said they got a 5 times better drivers team than ATI ?

RainZ

Wow you're flying the Maple leaf high today aren't you? So because Nvidia has an option (which is disabled by default) to output a crap image at high performance they are cheating?

[rainz]

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Wow you're flying the Maple leaf high today aren't you? So because Nvidia has an option (which is disabled by default) to output a crap image at high performance they are cheating?

I'll stop to say anything since everyones are quick to say -Fanboish. I dont freakin care if it's ATI or NV or S3 or whatever. And if you cant admit this about NV that they are suspicious all the time.

RainZ

[rainz]

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Wow you're flying the Maple leaf high today aren't you? So because Nvidia has an option (which is disabled by default) to output a crap image at high performance they are cheating?

I'm not the one who said that they are cheating but the other guy.

RainZ

[trinibwoy]

Yes Nvidia has done a lot in the past to deserve the cynicism. But this 'option' that needs to be enabled by the end user via some non-conventional method is hardly deserving of such suspicion.

[Dave Baumann]

Originally Posted by jimmyjames123

That said, many consumers and reviewers feel that NVIDIA has been much more open about discussing architectural details on their new 6800 cards than ATI has been on discussing architectural details on their new X800 cards.

Really? Strikes me as an odd one. In many cases they have fairly guarded and even misleading.

[jimmyjames123]

Really? Strikes me as an odd one. In many cases they have fairly guarded and even misleading.

You mean, like trying to hide their trilinear/aniso/texture stage optimizations from reviewers like ATI did? I don't see you chastizing ATI for that Also, I said "many" reviewers, not all, naturally.

Also, this general sentiment from you contradicts what you had said earlier near 6800 launch time about NV being much more open this time towards discussing their hardware. I'll try to dig up the quote later.

Of course, if you are privy to insider knowledge on hardware from ATI, that is another issue altogether...

[K.I.L.E.R]

Ati came out with an explanation straight after people started complaining.

nVidia dodged, evaded, avoided and made us run through loops before they explained anything a long time afterwards.

Maybe Ati wanted to avoid the same criticism(lying and cheating) that went on about nVidia?

[digitalwanderer]

Ok, without trying to appear like I'm trying to condemn nVidia, what exactly would a "null PS" option be useful for besides scoring muchly higher on benchmarks? (I am NOT flaming, I'm asking if there is any other reason to include the option. )

[rainz]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Ok, without trying to appear like I'm trying to condemn nVidia, what exactly would a "null PS" option be useful for besides scoring muchly higher on benchmarks? (I am NOT flaming, I'm asking if there is any other reason to include the option. )

Watch out Dig damn fanboism of the hell

RainZ

[Ostsol]

I must say that I really haven't cared about 3DMark scores -- especially those posted on ORB -- for a very long time. The only time I see that they have any significance is in a presumably controlled environment, such as in a hardware review from a recognized source.

[Tim Murray]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Ok, without trying to appear like I'm trying to condemn nVidia, what exactly would a "null PS" option be useful for besides scoring muchly higher on benchmarks? (I am NOT flaming, I'm asking if there is any other reason to include the option. )

It's a Quick and Easy Way to test the performance impact of shaders. More of a dev option than anything else, though.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by rainz

Watch out Dig damn fanboism of the hell

After posting up a frontpage story titled, "nVidia cheating, again?" and submitting it to all the regular places for pimpage I feel like I'm karmatically ready to face the flames. 8)

So, why besides high benchmark scores would nVidia enable this option?

[Chalnoth]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

So, why besides high benchmark scores would nVidia enable this option?

For developers, to check for bottlenecks when attempting to optimize performance. I would imagine an update to 3DMark should detect when the null PS mode is enabled.

[digitalwanderer]

Ok, so there is a valid reason for it and its something that can only be enabled by a registry hack or coolbits....I still don't like it.

[plat]

labled Performance analysis. it must be a cheat!!!!!

[Dave Baumann]

Originally Posted by jimmyjames123

You mean, like trying to hide their trilinear/aniso/texture stage optimizations from reviewers like ATI did? I don't see you chastizing ATI for that Also, I said "many" reviewers, not all, naturally.

Then you are missing things – I’ve already said it shouldn’t be on as the default, IMO, and I’ve fed that back to ATI. However, this is largely a driver element as opposed to “architectural�; architecturally the capabilities were known to be in RV350 beforehand.

But, texturing capabilities are one such example – we were told that, architecturally, NV40 features similar, full, AF capabilities to GF 3/4/FX however as yet we’ve yet to see it; is it just a driver feature the pattern that its in at the moment? Are we ever going to see the full one? If not, why tell us that it’s capable?

Another couple of examples I can think of off the top of my head:

When trying to establish the arrangement of the ALU’s in the pipeline I queried if they were instruction duplicates of one another, to which the response was along the lines of “nearly�, however it would see that two ALU’s are more of a split of instructions from than they are an overlap.

When talking about the number of colour writes, they’ve yet to mention that, so it seems, only 8 of the 16 colour writing ROP’s have blending capabilities. And this would apparently result the ability of only blending 4 pixels per clock with FP blending. (And I pushed for the fill-rate capabilities with FP filtering and blending without a response)

Also, this general sentiment from you contradicts what you had said earlier near 6800 launch time about NV being much more open this time towards discussing their hardware. I'll try to dig up the quote later.

They have been much more open than they had been before, which was a very welcome relief from the information they gave for the FX series. However, ultimately all this stuff just boils down to marketing – the proof of the pudding is putting it all to the test and see what sticks and what else falls out. The vast majority of the people in the technology briefings didn’t understand what was being told to them – I sat on a table with a bunch of journo’s who all freely admitted that they didn’t understand much of it, nor the questions I asked, but the fact of the matter is that they just don’t need to know, since their readers are only interested in how it plays the games.

The architectural details dolled out, in both cases in many ways, are meant to make things sound impressive and give the illusion of technical superiority which will make games play better – but the numbers will show that and that’s all the majority of readers actually need to know, hence that’s all the majority of reviewers need to care about. The detailed architectural information (not necessarily what “features� it is capable of, but how it does it) is worthless to those that are just interested in playing games; however we, and a number of other publications, have a larger quotient of developers and coder who are interested in the structure and of the pipelines since it gives them an understanding of how their code will work – its far more important to have accurate information here.

[Reverend]

Originally Posted by DaveBaumann

Really? Strikes me as an odd one. In many cases they have fairly guarded and even misleading.

Hey, it's you/Beyond3D NVIDIA has to deal with... what do you expect?