3DMark05 scores courtesy the Inq

Discussion in '3D Hardware, Software & Output Devices' started by trinibwoy, Sep 28, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,430
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    New York
    That is a very personal and subjective assertion and completely depends on your regard for both B3D and Futuremark. I don't think most gamers/enthusiasts particularly care whether B3D is involved in the Futuremark beta program or are affiliated with them in any way. I'm sure it means a lot to Rev and Dave but to the masses it's just not that serious.

    If you meant that FM would suffer through the absence of B3D then maybe they will, maybe they won't. Only one way to find out.
     
  2. Ichneumon

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm going to take a wild stab here, but i'd wager this went through someones head at FM in the course of making the decision on this...

    It appears that what putting in DST and PCM in for Nvidia does is bring it up to rough parity with the ATI scores. FM had no choice to implement something like this, because if they don't show Nvidia cards equal to ATI cards performance (10% behind would be rather noticable I think), then Nvidia will pull another 3dm03 on them, thereby arsing everything up.

    This argument was had back with 3dm03, but it seems that yet again, FMs financial model precludes it from putting out an unbiased benchmark, and forces them to play favorites to maintain their revenue stream.

    I can't entirely blame Nvidia for forcing the issue, as a 10% deficit over what they currently score would look really bad for them. So you figure they pull the monetary strings of FM because they can.

    I would at least hope that FM tried to do everything they could in the original design of 3dm05 to have the cards be roughly equal, but they only way the NV cards could come out equal was to put in sime NV specific optimization and use really poor logic to try and justify it.

    Shame on them any way you look at it.
     
  3. PatrickL

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,315
    Likes Received:
    13
    Hum dont know if you were following things closely around 3dmark03 launch, but without sites like extremetech and beyond3d, FM had no chance to have the public support they had. Only stance that was spread out was Nvidia one thru sites like Hordocp, Tom's hardware and so on ...
     
  4. termikk

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    they had to do it, if not nvidia would be even more behind and would have to bitch and leave again, isn't it obvious? it's a business decision

    and of course not all is black and white
     
  5. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,274
    Likes Received:
    1,788
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Of course...but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. 8)
     
  6. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,274
    Likes Received:
    1,788
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    No, but this matter pretty much is...and I think you and Ichy hit it bang-on right. :(
     
  7. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,430
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    New York
    I wasn't following things that closely. Never really took an interest in the politics of benchmarking before today. I've used 3dmark2000, 2001, 2003 and 2005 before even finding out about B3D's affiliation. But I guess Futuremark did survive all the Nvidia bitching with support from the community.
     
  8. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,274
    Likes Received:
    1,788
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    I don't think it is an exageration to say that FM wouldn't have survived without the support of the community, at least nothing like it is today.
     
  9. termikk

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    it didn't survive, it joined the enemy it couldn't beat(?)
    first they made a bold stand but then survival instincts and what would make their life easier in the future kicked in...

    they are there to make money, they have a business, jobs
     
  10. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,430
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    New York
    Granted but let me ask you this. What do we lose if Futuremark goes kaput? It did predict the NV3x's deplorable showing in DX9 apps but did that really stop people from buying NV3x's? Or did the actual DX9 games that came out provide much more concrete and useful info? Even after that people still bought Nvidia parts so in hindsight maybe 3dmark did not (and does not) have significant influence on the big picture?

    If anybody is wondering what the hell I'm talking about I'm just trying to get some perspective :)
     
  11. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,430
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    New York
    Families, kids, dogs to feed!!! :lol:
     
  12. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    This theory is not entirely plausible in my opinion.
    Namely, 3DMark05 slaughters the GeForce FX even worse than 3DMark03 did.
    And the FX is still the main source of income for NVIDIA, the 6600/6800 cards are quite high-end, so that market is a lot smaller, and besides, they are not produced in very large numbers yet.
    So I would think that NVIDIA would rather have had the FX performing well and lose 10% at the high end than the current situation where their fastest FX loses to nearly everything that ATi has to offer.
     
  13. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,430
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    New York
    They probably can't wait for the FX to go the way of the Geforce4 and fall off the benchmarking landscape.
     
  14. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,274
    Likes Received:
    1,788
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    No way, nVidia is trying to forget that the FX ever happened...why do you think there is no "FX" in their new card line-up?

    Expect to see 'em dropping driver "optimizations" for the FX next, they're putting the whole series out to pasture.
     
  15. MrGaribaldi

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    In transit
    Just wondering about something Scali...

    Have you ever heard of a little game company called Valve?
    They have only ever released one engine, but quite a lot of people are waiting for their next game. That game has an engine which has already been licensed by others. And do you know what? It's going to support 3Dc.

    Then there's this other game company called CroTeam, who made a couple of games you might have heard about (Serious Sam, Serious Sam: Second Encounter), which also were quite popular. They too are releasing a new game soon (Serious Sam 2) which incidently supports 3Dc too.


    Now why do I ask about this?
    Because if DST is so "fundamental for next-gen game engines" wouldn't you agree that the same is the case with 3Dc?

    Or do you think both Source and the Serious Engine 2 implements "every single insignificant feature of each and every IHV. " ?


    Oh, and why are you so upset that B3D are being critical of FM's (possible) new policy and call them insignificent?

     
  16. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,274
    Likes Received:
    1,788
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Have you even confirmed if Sweeney is planning to use DST yet Scali? :|
     
  17. Blastman

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    2
    But only because NV has some illegal “optimizations” on 3DM3. Which they agreed not to do on 3DM5.

    I think Ichneumon points may be right on the mark.

    The question then arises -- why would ATI cards like the X800pro have a sizable lead over a 6800GT (-10%) without DST? The 3 games are “suppose” to represent a heavy DX9 “standard” workload. Why would the benchmark favor ATI without DST? Is there anything in these 3 games that Futuremark thought favored ATI? If so, then why didn’t they go back and adjust the rendering of the 3 games to make it more neutral. From ATI’s point of view, they could say, well, we work harder on DX9 and deserve that lead. From NV’s POV, they’d say the benchmark isn’t realistic and we’d be forced to go back to what happened with 3DM3.

    If 3Dc was put in 3DM5 and DST left out, it’s likely ATI would have a huge lead and NV would be leaving Futuremark again. ATI must have surely knew about this, so maybe they reluctantly agreed to DST to achieve the close parity of the cards. They have a sizable clock advantage with the X800 XT, so maintain a sizable lead at the top of the heap. If this is the case, I hope they don’t regret this down the road if NV closes the GPU speed gap with an update of the NV40 -- or even takes the lead.
     
  18. Fodder

    Fodder Stealth Nerd
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,112
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Sunny Melbourne
    A couple of points, someone posted a while back that NV3x suffers even more than NV4x when DST is disabled, and it'd be hard to cater specifically for NV3x (DX8 path? PP?) without people kicking up a stink, given they'd essentially be coding last year's driver cheats right into the benchmark.
     
  19. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just because games are going to use 3Dc doesn't mean it's an interesting feature for 3DMark05.
    3Dc won't greatly improve or decrease performance compared to DXT5.
    It could give slightly better image quality in some cases, but that's not that interesting for 3DMark05.
     
  20. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said I was going to. I just vaguely recall Sweeney or someone else saying that UE3.0 will use DST for its shadowmaps.
    With Carmack I'm 100% sure he will. With Sweeney I'm not.
    Then again, I don't care. I'm smart enough to figure out for myself that DST will be used a lot in the future.
    If anyone really needs confirmation from other developers, I suggest they get that themselves, I'm not going to do that for you. I'm sure there are people around here with much better connections to various developers.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...