Futuremark is full of shit.How can they bear this?

[engall]

Recently Nvidia released new Official Drivers 45.23.
But it still contains "Specific application Optimization".
Futuremark claimed they couldnt permit this before .
Now 3dmark03 is completely useless even Nvidia have already taken part
in Beta member Because nothing has be changed.

 

[cthellis42]

Yeah, fun isn't it?

...or not.

 

[micron]

 

[FoxDie]

8) Good news

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Welcome to the 1960's.

Pssst: 3dmark03 isn't useless as I can still compare my results (Radeon 9700 Pro ) up against each other for differences if I'm looking for something specific.

 

[Unit01]

3dmark itself isn't useless
but comparison between cards like FX5600vs9600 and 5900Uvs9800P is useless.

 

[engall]

3dmark itself isn't useless
but comparison between cards like FX5600vs9600 and 5900Uvs9800P is useless.

What is the purpose of 3dmark03?

According to Futuremark,That is
"Use 3DMark03 for a comparable overall performance measurement of DirectX 9 compatible
hardware"
Now 3dmark03 cant do it well.

 

[Freak'n Big Panda]

yeah 3dmark03 is completly useless these days the only thing its good for is comparing between diffrent radeons...

 

[digitalwanderer]

yeah 3dmark03 is completly useless these days

I have got to disagree with that, it still provides us with oodles of topics for conversation/debate and such...

 

[Sxotty]

3dmark was always useless what is the big deal? They decide what to test, and what they test is always going to be biased. The only point it ever had was to test video cards lke the 9700-9800 and see how much better it is at the same things, or to see why your system sucks compared to someone with the same type of system. And it is still useful for these things.

 

[Patric Ojala]

Recently Nvidia released new Official Drivers 45.23.
But it still contains "Specific application Optimization".
Futuremark claimed they couldnt permit this before .
Now 3dmark03 is completely useless even Nvidia have already taken part
in Beta member Because nothing has be changed.

We have never permitted 3DMark specific optimizations, and we still don't do that. Currently we are working with our development program members to form rules about what type of driver optimizations are permitted for 3DMark, and we are trying to get them published ASAP. I don't wan't to go into details until it's ready, but one thing is clear, benchmark identification and benchmark specific optimizations are not permitted.

I know the 45.23 dets were marketed as 'Futuremark approved'. The truth is that we studied the optimizations in those drivers and informed Nvidia of a number of such we were not pleased with.

 

[FUDie]

We have never permitted 3DMark specific optimizations, and we still don't do that. Currently we are working with our development program members to form rules about what type of driver optimizations are permitted for 3DMark, and we are trying to get them published ASAP. I don't wan't to go into details until it's ready, but one thing is clear, benchmark identification and benchmark specific optimizations are not permitted.

I know the 45.23 dets were marketed as 'Futuremark approved'. The truth is that we studied the optimizations in those drivers and informed Nvidia of a number of such we were not pleased with.

We can tell that NVIDIA very concerned about this

-FUDie

 

[Tim]

We have never permitted 3DMark specific optimizations

,

But you are doing so by allowing scores with these drivers to be posted.

 

[cthellis42]

But you are doing so by allowing scores with these drivers to be posted.

Well you're in luck. Currently they ain't.

 

[Tim]

But you are doing so by allowing scores with these drivers to be posted.

Well you're in luck. Currently they ain't.

Try looking again there are plenty of FX results using the 45.23 drivers.

 

[xGL]

Anyone knows why S3 is no more part of the Futuremark BETA program?

Maybe it's a repeat of the NV30 scenario : they noticed their Deltachrome performed very badly in 3D Mark and therefore decided to boycott it...

 

[dan2097]

Patric why dont you just disable publishing on benchmarks made with the 45.23s if you are unhappy with the validity of benchmarks made with them whilst making jabs about how its Nvidia's fault you cant publish

 

[bloodbob]

Recently Nvidia released new Official Drivers 45.23.
But it still contains "Specific application Optimization".
Futuremark claimed they couldnt permit this before .
Now 3dmark03 is completely useless even Nvidia have already taken part
in Beta member Because nothing has be changed.

We have never permitted 3DMark specific optimizations, and we still don't do that. Currently we are working with our development program members to form rules about what type of driver optimizations are permitted for 3DMark, and we are trying to get them published ASAP. I don't wan't to go into details until it's ready, but one thing is clear, benchmark identification and benchmark specific optimizations are not permitted.

I know the 45.23 dets were marketed as 'Futuremark approved'. The truth is that we studied the optimizations in those drivers and informed Nvidia of a number of such we were not pleased with.

Basicly what we want to hear is if nvidia continue we these optimisations will futuremark set in and stop the recording of scores at some point in the future. Frankly most of us are confident that this will happen but I guess if nvidia keeps upthis behavior time will tell if you step in.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I know the 45.23 dets were marketed as 'Futuremark approved'. The truth is that we studied the optimizations in those drivers and informed Nvidia of a number of such we were not pleased with.

Uhm, so what exactly are you going to DO about your displeasure with their optimizations? Mention that you don't like them on a few forums but permit them to post results using them?

Oh yeah, THAT makes me all confident...

 

[WaltC]

Patric why dont you just disable publishing on benchmarks made with the 45.23s if you are unhappy with the validity of benchmarks made with them whilst making jabs about how its Nvidia's fault you cant publish

It's sad...it truly is. I noticed they had no trouble refusing input from certain drivers when nVidia was outside the program. Now that the cash spigot is turned on once again, they go from publicly disallowing certain drivers to merely making buried comments in forums about being merely "unhappy" with them. These guys have the backbones of jellyfish... The really sad part is that backbone--not interim dues-paying--is what FM will need to survive long term. Every time they wilt in this manner they just further erode the one commodity they absolutely need--credibility.