Futuremark Announcement Delayed

[ByteMe]

Hello Dig,

Just wanted to say hi.

To stay on topic, even IF Futuremark banned ALL nvidia based results in the ORB I still would not use that ethicly inept companies softwate.

 

[Nautis]

/me skips page 5

Im a little curious what it would take for some people to "use" 3dmark again?

It seems to me many people are able to post critacisms but not discuss solutions. Why?

 

[ByteMe]

/me skips page 5

Im a little curious what it would take for some people to "use" 3dmark again?

It seems to me many people are able to post critacisms but not discuss solutions. Why?

I believe there is no "fix" for Futuremark. I won't ever use it again. There are now others that are better, HL2 (just one example)

 

[digitalwanderer]

Hello Dig,

Just wanted to say hi.

ByteMe!!!!!!

The Dig runs across the forum and gives ByteMe a HUUUUUGE warm, fuzzy hug!!!

I have sooooo missed seeing you around the boards, it's damned fine to see ya!

On topic: What would it take for me to trust FM again? A firm commitment to protecting the integrity of their benchmark and strict enforcement of that with prompt replies to exposed cheats and an open policy.

 

[ByteMe]

On topic: What would it take for me to trust FM again? A firm commitment to protecting the integrity of their benchmark and strict enforcement of that with prompt replies to exposed cheats and an open policy.

Ever here the expression "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" ? I ain't going to even give them the chance.

Some of you say that their "business model" won't work. I would say it seems to have worked just fine until recently. If futuremark had the will to do what was right they would of been just fine. Too bad they sold out and set the stage for complete business failure.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Some of you say that their "business model" won't work. I would say it seems to have worked just fine until recently. If futuremark had the will to do what was right they would of been just fine.

We don't know that.

If FM did the "right thing", for all we know nVidia wouldn't have re-joined...and that could have been enough revenue loss to make their business non-viable.

 

[ByteMe]

Some of you say that their "business model" won't work. I would say it seems to have worked just fine until recently. If futuremark had the will to do what was right they would of been just fine.

We don't know that.

If FM did the "right thing", for all we know nVidia wouldn't have re-joined...and that could have been enough revenue loss to make their business non-viable.

Wait a sec. How long was nvidia not in the program? I don't have Futuremark finicial statements... but where they losing money?

When Futuremark "caved-in" with nvidia they just set the stage for others to come in and be MORE trusted/used. Sure if they stuck to what they initially said it would of pissed off nvidia and alot of bad press would of happened, but THEN they could say "I told you so" now. And do you think nvidia would of realy of fought Futuremark in court? If nvidia did it would of hurt them even worse than now (public realionwise).

Futuremark was in a bad situation, some would call it a no win. I'd say the only chance they had of winning was to stay with the no cheat at all. Now, I don't see Futuremark existing in two years.

 

[digitalwanderer]

If FM did the "right thing", for all we know nVidia wouldn't have re-joined...and that could have been enough revenue loss to make their business non-viable.

As opposed to them taking the course they did and just losing credibility, which can make their business just as non-viable.

I'm not really trying to argue with you Joe, just to point out that they had a choice between a financial hardship or a credibility hit and they chose the latter and will have to live with the consequences of that.

I'm kind of still waiting to see what their announcement is, hasn't there been enough time to double-check the changes with their beta members? (I really do get a little irked at their inability to enforce a policy review deadline and I think it's fair to be disheartened by it. )

 

[PaulS]

TBH, i'm fairly sure you can guess what the statement is going to say

 

[digitalwanderer]

TBH, i'm fairly sure you can guess what the statement is going to say

What? I'm really curious and not trying to flame you, what do you think it will be?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Wait a sec. How long was nvidia not in the program?

About 6 months or so.

I don't have Futuremark finicial statements... but where they losing money?

Dunno...but IIRC, they laid off a bunch of people due to "mismanagment" issues.

Futuremark was in a bad situation, some would call it a no win.

Um, yes. I am included in that "some." I am only saying that thei business model was bound to result in something like this....putting them in what I see as a no-win situation.

I'd say the only chance they had of winning was to stay with the no cheat at all.

I would have certainly favored that approach. But that doesn't mean their business would remain viable. My overall preferred approach is for Futuremark's beta fees to only cover the expenses incurred from the beta program...not propping up their business in a dependent manner.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If FM did the "right thing", for all we know nVidia wouldn't have re-joined...and that could have been enough revenue loss to make their business non-viable.

As opposed to them taking the course they did and just losing credibility, which can make their business just as non-viable.

Um, I agree. In other words, their business model put them in a no-win situation IMO.

I'm not really trying to argue with you Joe, just to point out that they had a choice between a financial hardship or a credibility hit and they chose the latter and will have to live with the consequences of that.

Right.

I'm kind of still waiting to see what their announcement is, hasn't there been enough time to double-check the changes with their beta members? (I really do get a little irked at their inability to enforce a policy review deadline and I think it's fair to be disheartened by it. )

Just take a deep breath and give it a few days.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Just take a deep breath and give it a few days.

I'm not real good with the whole "patience-thing" being Dig, I use all me patience at me day job.

 

[PaulS]

What? I'm really curious and not trying to flame you, what do you think it will be?

You don't have to keep saying you're not flaming me every time you ask anything

I highly doubt this will contain many suprises, or deviations from what they've already laid out. Can you honestly see them doing a U-Turn on nVidia, and saying that everything they've done is now a cheat and not acceptable? Hardly. It'll be packaged up as optimisations, with some such optimisations being acceptable, and some not. There's a possibility for vendor specific paths, but i'd be saddened if that turns out to be the case.

 

[digitalwanderer]

You don't have to keep saying you're not flaming me every time you ask anything

Sorry, reflex. For some weird reason people keep thinking I'm flaming them whenever I get into an nVidia/FM discussion lately...

 

[MightyPez]

Looks like the rules were finally published. Have a gander at them. I'm sure Worm will post in a second too.

 

[demalion]

Publically and explicitly stating the following is encouraging to me:

In contrast to generic optimizations, application specific driver optimizations enhance performance in one specific program only. The performance enhancement may be done by discarding or replacing instructions, data or calculations. While this practice may be acceptable for games, it does not result in any benefit for a benchmark like 3DMark, but rather manipulates benchmark tests. Futuremark deems thus all 3DMark specific driver optimizations unacceptable.

In order to clarify its stance on driver optimizations and to help those companies who wish to have their products benchmarked with its industry standard 3DMark benchmark, Futuremark hereby publishes the following set of guidelines for creating drivers.

1. It is prohibited to change the rendering quality level that is requested by 3DMark.

2. It is prohibited to detect 3DMark directly or indirectly. In its sole discretion, Futuremark may approve detection in order to fix a specified hardware error.

3. Optimizations that utilize the empirical data of 3DMark are prohibited.

4. Generic optimizations that do not violate the above rules and benefit applications in general are acceptable only if the rendering is mathematically consistent with that of Microsoft® DirectX® reference rasterizer.

They still don't seem to consider some mentioned alternatives to their silence between the joint press release and this could have much better served consumers and themselves, unfortunately.

 

[Mariner]

So, basically FM started off saying that what NV was doing with their drivers were cheats. They then hastily changed their minds and said they were optimisations. Now, they have decided, once again, that they are cheats or at least 'illegal optimisations'. :?

It's a pity they caved in to the pressure from NV originally as they've damaged their credibility in doing so, but at least they are on the right track once again.

 

[CorwinB]

In its sole discretion, Futuremark may approve detection in order to fix a specified hardware error.

Does "our super-complicated hardware performs like crap for a generic DX9 workload" counts as an "hardware error" ? If not, then I guess that this could make 3DMark useful again provided FM "sticks to their guns" this time around...

 

[digitalwanderer]

I like what they wrote, but I want to see how their enforcement of their new policy is implemented.