Motherboards.org uses 53.03 benching 3dm2k3?!?

He doesn't seem to be putting up much of a fight. Honest reviewers suck! :LOL:

MuFu.
 
None other than our Benjamin Sun of this forum. I guess he never got the guidelines from Futuremark :rolleyes:

We sent out the updated 3DMark03 Benchmarking Guidelines to all of our online and offline contacts (media), and we sincerily hope that everyone who got it, follows it when using 3DMark03 in their reviews. When/if a website uses drivers in a review with 3DMark03 which we haven't approved, we will of course contact them. We have encouraged the media to only use the approved drivers when using 3DMark03. If you check out the guidelines we sent out, it clearly says what we ask the reviewer to do when/if he uses 3DMark03. Besides, eventhough we would post the non-approved drivers & reasons for not being approved, people reading the reviews would STILL need to check our lists. Doesn't really do no good. We really hope that all professional reviewers out there understands the situation, and follows our 3DMark03 guidelines whenever they use it. That way the reader is not misinformed, and knows what he/she is reading. The guidelines aren't that complicated & difficult to follow.

If anyone is interested, please check out the guidelines here:

http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/reviewers_guide_3dmark03.pdf
Click to expand...

Ummm I think we also need to look at the history of reviews from that site, there is something wrong with this chart, can't quite place my finger on it:

reviewtestany.html



eek7.gif
 
Doomtrooper said:
None other than our Benjamin Sun of this forum. I guess he never got the guidelines from Futuremark :rolleyes:

We sent out the updated 3DMark03 Benchmarking Guidelines to all of our online and offline contacts (media), and we sincerily hope that everyone who got it, follows it when using 3DMark03 in their reviews. When/if a website uses drivers in a review with 3DMark03 which we haven't approved, we will of course contact them. We have encouraged the media to only use the approved drivers when using 3DMark03. If you check out the guidelines we sent out, it clearly says what we ask the reviewer to do when/if he uses 3DMark03. Besides, eventhough we would post the non-approved drivers & reasons for not being approved, people reading the reviews would STILL need to check our lists. Doesn't really do no good. We really hope that all professional reviewers out there understands the situation, and follows our 3DMark03 guidelines whenever they use it. That way the reader is not misinformed, and knows what he/she is reading. The guidelines aren't that complicated & difficult to follow.

If anyone is interested, please check out the guidelines here:

http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/reviewers_guide_3dmark03.pdf
Click to expand...

Ummm I think we also need to look at the history of reviews from that site, there is something wrong with this chart, can't quite place my finger on it:

reviewtestany.html



eek7.gif
Click to expand...
ROFLMFAO~~~~

Ok, that is freaking hilarious!!!

Be nice to Ben though, I like him...I'm pretty sure it was an honest mistake. (I'm still holding him accountable, just in a nice way. ;) )
 
That chart was strange. It in fact took a long time for me to make sure that something like that never happened again. I made a mistake on the driver set on this review so kill me already. ;)
 
I won't be killing you, you're mistake was just a symptom....I'd rather fix the problem.

Yo Worm! Do you think that maybe Futuremark isn't doing enough to get the word out about which drivers are and are not acceptable when beta members of Futuremark don't even know 'em?

I think the problem is that FM is letting nVidia slide and it's just the start of another slippery slope. :(
 
digitalwanderer said:
I won't be killing you, you're mistake was just a symptom....I'd rather fix the problem.

Yo Worm! Do you think that maybe Futuremark isn't doing enough to get the word out about which drivers are and are not acceptable when beta members of Futuremark don't even know 'em?

I think the problem is that FM is letting nVidia slide and it's just the start of another slippery slope. :(
Click to expand...


I wonder if FM realizes what tools they are.
 
Doomtrooper said:
None other than our Benjamin Sun of this forum. I guess he never got the guidelines from Futuremark :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ben has been great to our community, what the hell have you ever done for it :rolleyes:
 
I am not quite sure what to make of this chart. The TI-4600 I am going to assume was a 3DMark 2001 result as there is no way it would get that high. But there are some other really screwy things in there too like the TI-4200's that come within 300 points of the 9700 Pro. Now even if we are talking about the label being wrong and it is indeed 3DMark 2001 shouldn't there be a big difference between the two? Going to have to agree with DoomTrooper here...there is something strange about that graph and I can't quite figure it out. Nothing seems to be what you would expect in there. Also if that is indeed 3DMark 2003 how the hell did the RADEON 9000 come so close to the 9700 Pro? I'm confused... :rolleyes:

reviewtestany.html
 
to tell you the truth, I still don't have a satisfactory explanation from either the benchmarker (who wasn't me) or the editor, even though my name was on the review and the text of the review was mine. My gut feeling is that the benchmarker wrote 3dmark 2001 scores in the 2003 excel spreadsheet by mistake.
 
ben6 said:
to tell you the truth, I still don't have a satisfactory explanation from either the benchmarker (who wasn't me) or the editor, even though my name was on the review and the text of the review was mine. My gut feeling is that the benchmarker wrote 3dmark 2001 scores in the 2003 excel spreadsheet by mistake.
Click to expand...

There has to be more to it than that. A ti4200 is scoring less than 1/2 of what a ti4600 is scoring? A 4600 should perform about 20% better than a 4200. And there is no way a 4200 was getting 4k in 3dmark03.

Perhaps they were all 3dmark01 and some cards were tested with AA/AF and at different resolutions.
 
MuFu said:
He doesn't seem to be putting up much of a fight. Honest reviewers suck! :LOL:

MuFu.
Click to expand...

Yeah...well this is one reason why, a few months ago, I was hoping that Futuremark would release new patches every time nVidia released a new driver.

Here, Ben made an honest mistake. But the basis behind the mistake was exactly what I was figuring on happening: every other test is done with the "latest" drivers, and it's a burden on the reviewers to have to swap drivers "just" to test 3DMark '03.

I can see lots of other reviewers who just "couldn't be bothered", and would purposely just test with nVidia's latest, rather than the "approved" drivers.

To be sure, this puts Futuremark in a tough spot: having to patch 3DMark every time nVidia releases a new driver. But I think it's worth it.
 
Oh, and I was being a wee-bit of a dick (who, me? naaahh) when I made that post on NVNews this morning. Hey, I'm not a morning person so sue me. Anyways, the review isn't worthless, but the most of the benchmark scores sure as hell are, at least in my less-than-humble opinion.

Oh, and post 1,000. Hercules! Hercules!

P.S. Man, you tend to regress when you spend your afternoon trying to entertain a 6-month-old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
The first Evil Within still has remarkably sophisticated lighting
Replies
2
Views
451
Phantom88
P
P
GTX 970@1.5Ghz and 2500k vs Q9550 in 70+ benchmarks (+bonus i7-860)
2 3
Replies
42
Views
14K
Malo
Malo
N
Spatio-Temporal upsampling and/vs object space texture shading - amateur's view..
Replies
0
Views
2K
Nevod
N
A
Forza: A Test Case for next gen hardware discussion
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
tuna
T
P
How to link to Facebook etc
Replies
3
Views
2K
Davros
D
Back
Top