A bad trend?
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Colourless said:
It would be because I didn't notice it till you mentioned it
{Sniping}Waste
Regular
John Reynolds said:jb said:Brent,
no offense but why do you say this now? Gabe from Value told us the same thing back on the ATI shader day (yea I can see how listening to one IHV event my swade your judgment, but after looking at the TONs of results of many different synthetic most of us could see that Gabe was right to avoid the weekness of the FX line, its DX9 path). We also have had other developers in this forum echo Gabe's comment:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7873
Thus I am bit puzzled on the timing of the post is all good sir
Edit: Added linkage
I agree. Brent, this only strengthens the reasoning why it's important to try and test all facets of new graphics chips. If current games don't expose certain technology to testing, then use a synthetic.
The synthetic benchmarks and test showed the truth back in the days of the 9700PRO arival. All that bash the synthetic test need to take a new look at it and see from bak then to now and see how true the test were.
The synthetic tests systematic bashing started with 3dmark 2003 dismiss by nVIDIA if I remember correctly ? Even though other tests already showed similar figures. I mean, we knew even before 3dmark2003 launch that nV30 had problems. The HDR demo, rthdribl, had already shown poor image quality and poor performance on nV30.
What would be interesting to learn (after reading that thread Brent linked) is what nVidia's developer support tells game developers to code for when using FX boards. What PS/VS model they recommend for that particular generation.
Brent said:
mabye you can discuss this with your boss and get him to change his stance on the value of synthetic tests such as 3dmark. granted it would be compleatly uncharacteristic of him to change his stance on anything regardless of how much evedence is in his face, but it is still a noble cause.
Tagrineth said:
Absence of "L" yes (with rare expeptions like MDK2 f.e.), "T" no
Was 3dmark2001 for instance really aimed to predict in relative terms performance for games in 2001? It really comes down to as to how someone really wants to interpret the results of a synthetic application that aims to predict relative game performance ahead of it's time.
Is software T&L on the other hand really a viable sollution for UT2k3? Apart from any possible objections it is a game with pure T&L optimized code.
Ailuros said:Absence of "L" yes (with rare expeptions like MDK2 f.e.), "T" no
Silly... ^^
No, software T&L destroys performance for UT2003... but keep in mind, that when we say software T&L was a viable alternative, we're pretty much referring to the 2000-2001 timeframe, where the only game in which it truly made a difference was MDK2...
well i can't agree with you there Tagrineth as futuremark's goal to be repersentitive of future gameing performace, hence the name and all.
that said, a voodoo5 runs ut2003 reasonably well for as old as a card as it is and i doubt a geforce2gts does a whole lot better. however, 3dmark2000 required hardware t&l just to run some tests and therby negating the fact that t&l can be accompished though software.
that said, a voodoo5 runs ut2003 reasonably well for as old as a card as it is and i doubt a geforce2gts does a whole lot better. however, 3dmark2000 required hardware t&l just to run some tests and therby negating the fact that t&l can be accompished though software.
Isn't 3dmark03 sort of unfair to none ps2.0 capable cards then? Many of the tests can't be run without a ps2.0 capable card, and it puts a lot more weight on shader performance than any game available when 03 was new, and possibly now as well.(or at least I don't think a radeon 9700 pro is 4 or 5x as fast a geforce 4 ti 4600 outside of pixel shading)
[quote="Tagrineth]Actually, they always said that 3DMark03 isn't a fair judge of pre-DX9 hardware, and that 3DMark2001 should be used instead for older cards. [/quote]
so its Ok to for 3dmark03 to not run tests on pre DX9 hardware and score it badly, but it wasnt ok to score an effectivley DX6 card (the V5) badly on a Dx7 test?
oh and the only test not run on a V5 in 3dmark2000 was the environmental bumpmapping test, which is nothing to do with hardware t&l, it was a a pure lack of hardware support.
this horse is sooo dead its fossilised
[/quote]so its Ok to for 3dmark03 to not run tests on pre DX9 hardware and score it badly, but it wasnt ok to score an effectivley DX6 card (the V5) badly on a Dx7 test?
oh and the only test not run on a V5 in 3dmark2000 was the environmental bumpmapping test, which is nothing to do with hardware t&l, it was a a pure lack of hardware support.
this horse is sooo dead its fossilised