I'll reserve final judgement until I see how the new rules will look like - and equally important - how FutureMark will react if a specific unnamed IHV doesn't follow those rules. If things will finally play out alright, I'm willing to give FutureMark another chance. However, I must say that I'm definately not glad how things were handled during the last few months.
Futuremark Announcement Delayed
- Thread starter Nick[FM]
- Start date
- Status
I do think Futuremark deserves abundant criticism. I've levelled a fair share, and been disappointed by the lack of a response that assuages my concerns.
My thought: such a response being later than it should and could have been is not the same as a response being too late to have useful effect on the situation.
This proposition does not try to propose that having the opinion that it is too late for Futuremark in your eyes will be made invalid by the announcement, as if what came before will disappear, it is just me proposing a thought that might give you reason to change your mind (or not, which is not a decision I think can be invalidated any time soon, if ever) if you have it made up at the moment.
My thought: such a response being later than it should and could have been is not the same as a response being too late to have useful effect on the situation.
This proposition does not try to propose that having the opinion that it is too late for Futuremark in your eyes will be made invalid by the announcement, as if what came before will disappear, it is just me proposing a thought that might give you reason to change your mind (or not, which is not a decision I think can be invalidated any time soon, if ever) if you have it made up at the moment.
Deathlike2
Regular
If Futuremark doesn't fix itself up with the new guidelines.. Futuremark as a reliable benchmark developer will be tarnished (for good)..
I suspect these guidelines will be up probably Monday (it'll give the big companies the weekend to dissect them to death)... but we'll see...
As it stands.. Futuremark is NOT a reliable benchmark since NVidia cheats have continued to be released through new driver revisions (past 44.03) and don't have a value in terms of "fair benchmarking" is concerned...
I suspect these guidelines will be up probably Monday (it'll give the big companies the weekend to dissect them to death)... but we'll see...
As it stands.. Futuremark is NOT a reliable benchmark since NVidia cheats have continued to be released through new driver revisions (past 44.03) and don't have a value in terms of "fair benchmarking" is concerned...
I was at the point where I would have given Futuremark my first born after the "nVidia is a bunch of dirty rotten cheats" PDF a few months ago. Then, even after they released the "nVidia did no wrong" document I would have still given them the benefit of the doubt. However, since the "nVidia has rejoined out beta program at great profit to us" announcement, I would need the power equivelant of the Big Bang to get me back to where I was happy with them as a company. They will never -never- regain the trust I once foolishly had in them.
Deathlike2 said:
Note though, that regardless of merit, guidelines are not enough.
Enforcing the guidelines is the key issue.
Picking nits, nVidias cheating at 3DMark doesn't make it a less reliable benchmark per se, it just makes it useless for comparative purposes between IHVs. (Which obviously is what most people want to use a gfx benchmark for).
Frankly, I don't see what FutureMark can do at this point to repair their credibility. But unless they manage to do that, they have no hope whatsoever of maintaining much interest among reviewers or enthusiasts, in which case no business will be much inclined to sustainably finance them for marketing reasons either. Why pay for advertising nobody cares about?
If they allow different cards to do different amounts of work, that's it, they are dead for good. If however they don't, they will have continous problems with cheating, or to be more specific, the public finding out about cheating. Building their business on a deception, i.e. hoping that noone will find out that they look the other way when IHVs cheat - well, it didn't work this time around, and at this point when public confidence in them is approaching nil, their chances are very slim indeed to get away with it.
The only hope I can see for them is if they actually drive the hard line their original paper on nVidias cheating indicated - expose the cheaters, and disallow posting such results in the ORB. At this point in time, after Valves presentation, and when the public has accepted that nVidias present generation of products do not perform to par on all DX9 functionality, they should be able to adopt such a policy in spite of any objections from nVidia. They would have consumer and industry understanding and support, which was not necessarily something they could rely on some months ago.
The upcoming announcement can damn them utterly, but not clear them. The combination of a policy that makes sense for a benchmark, and a demonstrated ability and intention to enforce that policy is the only way I can see for them to maintain a degree of relevance today, and have any hope to build interest in their products in the long term.
Entropy
I agree that would be the logical, practical, and best course of action for Futuremark; but when has that had any bearing on what they do?Entropy said:
I really does miff me off a bit that Futuremark posted up the lame explanation it did...it kind of implied to me how well they were going to enforce their new guidelines.
Kind of hard to have faith in strict guideline adherences/enforcement when you can't even enforce a reasonable time period for all beta partners to review the new policy...and they did announce a while back that there would be an announcement today so they had to see it coming.
It's not just disrespectful to the enthusiast crowd, I view it as another sign for reasons to doubt their sincerity by their wishy-washy attitude and inability to resolve problems/address questions in a timely manner.
May I ask all of you a favor?
May we please hold the catty comments until after FutureMark releases their paper? It would really help the signal/noise ratio around here, and reduce the time I spend skimming over uselessly negative posts. I think quite a few members of this forum need to just ratchet their rhetoric down a notch or two for everyone's benefit. Thank you.
May we please hold the catty comments until after FutureMark releases their paper? It would really help the signal/noise ratio around here, and reduce the time I spend skimming over uselessly negative posts. I think quite a few members of this forum need to just ratchet their rhetoric down a notch or two for everyone's benefit. Thank you.
Well, you have to remember that B3D is a Beta member...
Magnum PI said:
I would imagine that he has read the proposed document, and may also have commented on it and contributed his point of view to FutureMark.
But that knowledge and influence concerns a PR-document. That's it.
I think it's important to clearly realize the limits of B3Ds involvement in FutureMark the company. Both for the B3D staff, so they don't feel too compelled to support either the company or their product, and for forum members so that they don't make B3D share the blame for whatever FutureMark may or may not do. Just because B3D is a point of reference for one of FutureMarks products doesn't mean that they in any way, shape or form decide how the company is run.
Entropy
Some of you really do need to learn some manners.
I was hoping this wouldn't turn out into a "Bash Worm" thread, thankfully it hasn't turned into one either.
If I were a FM employee would I get bashed too?
I'm sure "Mr DigitalWanderer" would have added me to his shamelessly bash employees of company X list.
The decisions made by FM doesn't mean every FM employee holds that view.
People like "Mr DigitalWanderer" piss me off. If he wants to bash a company over their decisions then by all means go for it but please don't assume that everyone working for the company holds the same view as the CEO/[insert person in charge].
What's even more funny are the people who think they know everything going on behind the curtain.
Such arrogance only makes people look stupid.
Yes, I am defending Worm and I don't see what HE has done wrong. Maybe "Mr DigitalWanderer" can tell me what Worm has done to wrong everyone or him specifically?
This might come as a surprise to you all but I really didn't like FM's(Madonion's) decisions over the last several years.
In no way do I bash ANY FM/MO employee over an entire company's/CEO's decisions.
In fact I wish every FM employee the best of luck and a happy life.
I was hoping this wouldn't turn out into a "Bash Worm" thread, thankfully it hasn't turned into one either.
If I were a FM employee would I get bashed too?
I'm sure "Mr DigitalWanderer" would have added me to his shamelessly bash employees of company X list.
The decisions made by FM doesn't mean every FM employee holds that view.
People like "Mr DigitalWanderer" piss me off. If he wants to bash a company over their decisions then by all means go for it but please don't assume that everyone working for the company holds the same view as the CEO/[insert person in charge].
What's even more funny are the people who think they know everything going on behind the curtain.
Such arrogance only makes people look stupid.
Yes, I am defending Worm and I don't see what HE has done wrong. Maybe "Mr DigitalWanderer" can tell me what Worm has done to wrong everyone or him specifically?
This might come as a surprise to you all but I really didn't like FM's(Madonion's) decisions over the last several years.
In no way do I bash ANY FM/MO employee over an entire company's/CEO's decisions.
In fact I wish every FM employee the best of luck and a happy life.
Err... In this thread, I've seen DigitalWanderer make a negative comment about FutureMark the company (in his first post), then Worm reply with a similar comment about DW... Not the other way around. The first ad hominem is on Worm's part.
While I agree with your basic point (that people should not resort to ad hominem against individuals because said individuals work for company XXX or YYY), in this thread Worm was actually the one attacking individuals. Now, I won't hold a grudge against Worm, because it must be pretty stressful for him currently, but if he's here as the representative of a company, then he should act in a more professional manner.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a lowering of the level of insults/sniping comments directed at individuals... in this forum. I'm just saying that if we are to reach this goal, we better not start by making false accusations and shifting the blame around. Just MHO...
I assumed that Worm was joking because he used the ' ' smilie after the ' ' smilie. When I joke around I use the ' ' smilie a lot.
There are a lot of other cases where I have seen Worm do absolutely nothing (no jokes, no attacks) and he had been sniped at by Mr DigitalWanderer.
Worm is a very good person, in the past he has helped me quite a few times and he is a fun type of guy.
It would be totally out of character for him to attack someone even if they attack him first.
' smilie after the ' ' smilie. When I joke around I use the ' ' smilie a lot.There are a lot of other cases where I have seen Worm do absolutely nothing (no jokes, no attacks) and he had been sniped at by Mr DigitalWanderer.
Worm is a very good person, in the past he has helped me quite a few times and he is a fun type of guy.
It would be totally out of character for him to attack someone even if they attack him first.
CorwinB said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked