Funny error in Futuremark's 3DMark05 whitepaper.

[Rys]

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.

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.

And some sites that covered 3DMark05 on launch didn't even have the PDF at all.

Rys

 

[Scali]

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.

For the copy-paste sites, perhaps.
But there are those who have paraphrased the PDF's text, and then I suppose it's more likely that you notice the error.
And then there is Extremetech, whose article is mostly copy-paste, yet the error was corrected

 

[Nick[FM]]

C'mon Worm... are you really a girl or a boy?

Only the toes knows..

 

[digitalwanderer]

]

C'mon Worm... are you really a girl or a boy?

Only the toes knows..

I'm assuming that the "Mr." in front of you and Pat's name on the white paper kind of indicated you were of the masculine persuasion. :|

 

[WaltC]

Well, it might help to draw definitive conclusions about the existence or otherwise of the Loch Ness monster....

Yes, and that well illustrates the salient point we can all take home here...do we not see Nessie because Nessie doesn't exist, or because Nessie has managed to evade the cameras deployed to date? The ugly, brutal truth here is that just because we can't see six sea monsters in 3dMk05 that surely isn't proof that they aren't there...[Twilight Zone theme plays, then fades above the murky, churning waters of the Loch....]

 

[Reverend]

Thread Done. Locked.