ATI's and Futuremarks Response to Nvidia Claims

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Doomtrooper, Feb 15, 2003.

  1. Doomtrooper

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  2. Nick[FM]

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Err.. I think this thread's subject is kinda wrong. :wink:

    *edit: That's ok.. Hehe! 8)
     
  3. mr

    mr
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah it should read:

    ATI's response to nvidia's comments on Futuremarks claims of being an DX9.0 benchmark. :p
     
  4. Doomtrooper

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Sorry won't fit..I tried :D
     
  5. THe_KELRaTH

    Regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Surrey Heath UK
    I'd love to know ATI's comments on optimized / cheat drivers for benchmarks, do they, or have they done anything similar in Cat drivers for instance.

    Maybe it would have been wiser that rather than just recommending WHQL drivers be used the licence should say ONLY WHQL drivers be used for public tests, comparision reviews.

    "Furthermore, 3DMark03 includes advanced analytical tools to enable independent observers to catch any potential questionable driver optimizations. By taking a tough stance against any kind of driver optimization, the media can discourage this practice"

    So.. Worm, with this info are Nvidia's 42.67/68 using optimizations / cheats and if so how? Or did they just change the direction of their prayer mat :lol:
     
  6. SanGreal

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Where were you when the 8500 was released?!
     
  7. Randell

    Randell Senior Daddy
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    London
    in context the Quake3 optimization had been there for the R100 as well. Cheat or optimization?

    IMO

    Cheat = not rendering things properly or completely to gain speed.

    Optimization = studying app code and adjusting drivers accordingly to respond better to the nature of that app, which may also have beneficial effects on other, similarly coded apps or ones driven by the same engine.

    Should benchmarks be optimized for? In Utopia not specifically no, games should always be higher on the priority list - in the real world - what IHV isnt going to spend time optimising their code, evena littl bit, for the most common benchmarks be they synthetic or games?
     
  8. demalion

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    CT
    Here is my take on the issue of optimization, and my reasoning as to why 3dmark03 doesn't worry me as much in this regard as prior 3dmark applications.

    The beginning of my text:

     
  9. Mulciber

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston
    I think IIRC that he's refering to the fact that when the Radeon 8500 was released it soundly beat the GF3 Ti500 in 3DMark01, yet lost in nearly every single game benchmark.
     
  10. THe_KELRaTH

    Regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Surrey Heath UK
    Yup, and let's not forget it wasn't using CAT drivers :wink:

    I consider a game cheat as something like the missing Fog. My reasoning is that it's back on in WHQL drivers but disappears in all the recent beta's.
    It has a high impact on multiplayer fps games as the gamer with the fog cheat can view much further than a gamer with fog effects on.
    I believe it was DICE, in a recent interview, (Battlefield1942), that classified it as a cheat when asked if players could turn it off ingame.
    In this situation Nvidia are deliberately making sure their graphics cards have an advantage for gamers - if it were a coding error it wouldn't just be on in WHQL drivers.

    In a recent statement from Futuremark they claim they have code that checks for optimizing for 3Dmark2003. If this is true then why not supply this information about the 42.67/68 drivers and put an end to all the speculation.
     
  11. alexsok

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    That's a very wise advice, sort of like a machine that checks whether the person is lying or telling the truth :D
     
  12. Joe DeFuria

    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,994
    Likes Received:
    70
    Did it "soundly beat" the ti500? Or "beat, but by a small amount."

    What about games today? (Which is essentially where 3DMark2001 was trying to 'predict' performance.) Does the GeForce3 Ti500 beat the Radeon 8500 in "nearly every single benchmark?" Or is it the other way around? (I believe it's the latter, though it's hard to find Geforce3 benchmarks around today.)

    Was 3DMark01 ultimately more correct in assessing Radeon 8500 vs. GeForce3?
     
  13. Sabastian

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Canada
    Thats a good point Joe. From what I have read in terms of reviews the Ti500 looses substantially to the Radeon 8500 now. In fact I saw a few reviews where the Radeon 8500 actually gave the Geforce 4 Ti 4600 a run for its money with AA and AF turned off. The Radeon 8500 is a little more on par with the Geforce 4 Ti 4200 IMO. But back to the driver issue upon the initial previews of the Radeon 8500 some sites (EG TomsHardwareGuide and Anandtech) received some special drivers (wink wink nudge nudge) from Nvidia that according to Anandtech were supposed to be released not more then a few days after the preview but never did show up for nearly three months. Without these speacial drivers from Nvidia the Radeon 8500 soundly beat the Geforce 3 IIRC at launch but there were very few up in arms with regards to that matter.

    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1516


    Likely the drivers were buggy as hell anyway, same goes with the ones used recently on 3DMark2003 @ [H]. Likely won't see these wink-wink nudge-nudge drivers shipping with the GeforceFX either.

    BTW nvidia did a bunch of optimising on their GeforceFX drivers does anyone know if they gave up on trying to use PS1.1? God knows how much faster PS1.4 is compared, they must have gone with PS1.4 on GeforceFX to get the boost they needed. Does anyone know for sure though?
     
  14. Bambers

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    781
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    NOt sure if this is still the case but back in june an 8500 could beat a ti4600 at higher res jk2 and a ti4200 at RTCW. MOst of the time now its a little below the ti4200.
     
Loading...

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...