Funny error in Futuremark's 3DMark05 whitepaper.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Scali

Regular
I noticed a funny error in the whitepaper of 3DMark05.
The description of the simple vertexshader tests speaks of 6 seamonsters being drawn. But the included screenshot shows only 4 such seamonsters.

The funny thing is... I first saw this error on a website while reading a review. Then I went to another review, and it said the same, 6 seamonsters, next to a screenshot with 4 seamonsters. So I started to see a pattern, and it looked like the press was doing what they're always doing: parroting the company's promotional material. So I looked it up in the whitepaper, and indeed, there was the error.

I bet there are a LOT of reviews with this error, and I bet that a lot of reviewers were wondering about this, but decided to trust Futuremark's information more than their own judgement, which probably illustrates their lack of knowledge, or at least, their lack of confidence in their knowledge.

As far as I've looked, Extremetech got it right, and both Bjorn3D and EliteBastards got it wrong.
 
LOL :D

That is indeed a typo. In our beta version we had six of them, and that part of the whitepaper was obviously written back then.

We'll fix it with the next update. Thanks for the heads up.

Scali said:
I noticed a funny error in the whitepaper of 3DMark05.
The description of the simple vertexshader tests speaks of 6 seamonsters being drawn. But the included screenshot shows only 4 such seamonsters.

The funny thing is... I first saw this error on a website while reading a review. Then I went to another review, and it said the same, 6 seamonsters, next to a screenshot with 4 seamonsters. So I started to see a pattern, and it looked like the press was doing what they're always doing: parroting the company's promotional material. So I looked it up in the whitepaper, and indeed, there was the error.

I bet there are a LOT of reviews with this error, and I bet that a lot of reviewers were wondering about this, but decided to trust Futuremark's information more than their own judgement, which probably illustrates their lack of knowledge, or at least, their lack of confidence in their knowledge.

As far as I've looked, Extremetech got it right, and both Bjorn3D and EliteBastards got it wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Hey Pat, how about you fix the DST on by default problem too and get 3dm2k5 into a benchmark again like your statement reads?

I am REALLY cheesed off about that blatant bit of IHV preferential treatment after all the BS last time around, and I frigging BOUGHT this bloody 3dmark and you go ahead and hose me?!?!?

The Dig is NOT pleased! :devilish:

At least tell me what kind of justification you use to try and deny that it is just blatant favoritism? :|
 
digitalwanderer said:
I want to hear what Pat says, I want to hear why a non-DX features is used by default and why you can't disable it without buying 3dm2k5.
Click to expand...

Since Patric is one of the writers of the whitepaper (the other is Nicklas Renqvist), I assume that whatever is in the whitepaper is what he has to say about it.

Agree with it or not, I don't think there's more to say about it than what is in the whitepaper.

The only thing that's not in the whitepaper is something you can figure out yourself, I guess... Futuremark, as a company, likes to sell as many copies as possible :)
 
Scali said:
Agree with it or not, I don't think there's more to say about it than what is in the whitepaper.
Click to expand...
Good for you, I want to hear what Pat thinks about it.

BTW-Fixed Hanners article, thanks for pointing out the error. :oops:
 
Dig (and others),

we will release a tech FAQ as soon as we have it done. It should clear up some things you have been discussing here (amongst other things). We are still working on it in order to get the FAQ/Q&A as thorough as possible.
 
worm[Futuremark said:
]Dig (and others),

we will release a tech FAQ as soon as we have it done. It should clear up some things you have been discussing here (amongst other things). We are still working on it in order to get the FAQ/Q&A as thorough as possible.
Click to expand...
Thanks Worm, I reserve judgement and or abuse until I get a chance to read it.
 
digitalwanderer said:
Hey Pat, how about you fix the DST on by default problem too and get 3dm2k5 into a benchmark again like your statement reads?

I am REALLY cheesed off about that blatant bit of IHV preferential treatment after all the BS last time around, and I frigging BOUGHT this bloody 3dmark and you go ahead and hose me?!?!?

The Dig is NOT pleased! :devilish:

At least tell me what kind of justification you use to try and deny that it is just blatant favoritism? :|
Click to expand...
This thread is not about DST, DW. Start another one about DST or email/PM Patric about DST if you want.
 
Patric Ojala said:
LOL :D

That is indeed a typo. In our beta version we had six of them, and that part of the whitepaper was obviously written back then.
Click to expand...
Ha! Serves you right for not getting me to check it this time! Tee hee... ;)
 
Reverend said:
....
This thread is not about DST, DW. Start another one about DST or email/PM Patric about DST if you want.
Click to expand...

Come on, Rev...you can't be serious...;) Someone starts a thread over a typo describing "six sea monsters" instead of the "four sea monsters" actually present, and you think there's grist for an actual "discussion" about the "missing" sea monsters? Heh...;)

I mean, unless Scali can show that he has reason to believe the MIA sea monsters are being held for ransom in Iraq and might show up sans their heads in a few days, I think DW's observation is quite a bit more interesting (considering that the DST thread was *locked* before it could really take off....;) Ah, nothing like killing one thread before it can get interesting and then inviting someone else to start another thread on the same subject, apparently so that it, too, can be locked before enough sane people can comment in numbers sufficient to balance the nutcases..? I mean, I cannot imagine anyone thinking that "DX9" is a political manifesto but that "DST" is not...;))

Seriously, is there *really* anything "funny" about common, ordinary typos unearthed in "whitepapers" so dry and self- serving that few people bother to read them? Next we'll be reading about "Funny errors in nVidia's whitepapers: Six mermaids mentioned but there are actually only four that are visible!" Yep, what a chuckle, indeed...;)

But the truth is that I know where the other sea monsters are in the benchmark even if Patrick has forgotten...they simply dived too deep to remain in range of the camera. Pretty common behavior for sea monsters last I checked...;) I'm a bit surprised that you can see any of them in the first place, actually.
 
digitalwanderer said:
worm[Futuremark said:
]Dig (and others),

we will release a tech FAQ as soon as we have it done. It should clear up some things you have been discussing here (amongst other things). We are still working on it in order to get the FAQ/Q&A as thorough as possible.
Click to expand...
Thanks Worm, I reserve judgement and or abuse until I get a chance to read it.
Click to expand...


sorry to say worm but it doesn't. There is a double standard is seriously high.

But i already stoped seriously using 3dmark along time ago.
 
Reverend said:
This thread is not about DST, DW. Start another one about DST or email/PM Patric about DST if you want.
Click to expand...
Sorry again Rev, but I did take your advice to heart and e-mailed Nick and Pat....and I give Worm points for at least having the balls to reply to me.

(I have a weird tendancy to write what I'm thinking, so I can't post me e-mail to 'em here. :oops: )
 
digitalwanderer said:
Reverend said:
This thread is not about DST, DW. Start another one about DST or email/PM Patric about DST if you want.
Click to expand...
Sorry again Rev, but I did take your advice to heart and e-mailed Nick and Pat....and I give Worm points for at least having the balls to reply to me.

(I have a weird tendancy to write what I'm thinking, so I can't post me e-mail to 'em here. :oops: )
Click to expand...
You mean Worm only attaches his balls when, and only when, replying to you? C'mon Worm... are you really a girl or a boy?
 
Reverend said:
You mean Worm only attaches his balls when, and only when, replying to you? C'mon Worm... are you really a girl or a boy?
Click to expand...
No, I mean I used the term "FUCK YOU!!!!" quite a bit and let me feelings be known quite clearly on how unhappy I was with their decision and explanation.
 
WaltC said:
Come on, Rev...you can't be serious...;) Someone starts a thread over a typo describing "six sea monsters" instead of the "four sea monsters" actually present, and you think there's grist for an actual "discussion" about the "missing" sea monsters? Heh...;)
Click to expand...

Well, it might help to draw definitive conclusions about the existence or otherwise of the Loch Ness monster....
 
Scali said:
I bet there are a LOT of reviews with this error, and I bet that a lot of reviewers were wondering about this, but decided to trust Futuremark's information more than their own judgement, which probably illustrates their lack of knowledge, or at least, their lack of confidence in their knowledge.
Click to expand...
Just noticed this comment - the other possibility (and more likely explanation) is that the websites simply used the pdf in order to quickly get out an article to coincide with the release of the software.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shortbread
Phil Spencer Interview: Redfall Reviews, Activision Deal - Kinda Funny Xcast Ep. 137
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
12K
trinibwoy
T
Shortbread
Gaming Journalism
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Cyan
Cyan
N
  • Poll
Launch Post Mortem: PS4 ,XB1, Wii U (now includes poll)*
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
11K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
R
Error correction in modern GPUs
Replies
9
Views
5K
dkanter
D
N
How to deal with idiots in your office
Replies
17
Views
3K
KimB
K
Back
Top