Futuremark's First Monthly Media Newsletter Is Here!

[digitalwanderer]

I was just disgustingly pleased to get the following e-mail in me DW account at EB, Futuremark's first Monthly Media Newsletter:

There has been a lot of discussion amongst the media and users about
benchmarking. In our ongoing strive to improve the flow of information between
benchmark developers and the press, we are now starting a new newsletter! These
newsletters will contain fresh information about our current and upcoming
products, first-hand information on possible patches, exclusive screenshots &
first-hand scoopage of yet-to-be-announced products, list of 3Mark03 approved
drivers and more.

Newsletters will be published on monthly basis, and additional issues will be
published as needed (for hot-fixes, patches and so on).

We hope you will find these newsletters useful!

I'll be happy to post up the whole thing if anyone is curious, there's nothing too contraversial in it but it is interesting and I think a great step to help keep people informed about what the what is with FM. 8)

 

[Evildeus]

Anything on the last Nv drivers?

 

[digitalwanderer]

Anything on the last Nv drivers?

Only by their omission:

===============================================================================
                     Futuremark's Monthly Media Newsletter
                                  March 2004
===============================================================================


In this month's issue:

:: Introduction
:: Current 3DMark03 Approved Drivers
:: PCMark2002 discontinued
:: Special: Next 3DMark Is In The Works!
:: Meet us at GDC
:: New Reviews/Previews or News?
:: Resources & Documents
:: Contact Information

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

:: Introduction

Dear member(s) off the press,

The past year has been an interesting one indeed in the graphics and 
benchmarking business, and we all have seen a lot of activity on the market. 

There has been a lot of discussion amongst the media and users about 
benchmarking. In our ongoing strive to improve the flow of information between 
benchmark developers and the press, we are now starting a new newsletter! These
newsletters will contain fresh information about our current and upcoming 
products, first-hand information on possible patches, exclusive screenshots & 
first-hand scoopage of yet-to-be-announced products, list of 3Mark03 approved 
drivers and more.

Newsletters will be published on monthly basis, and additional issues will be 
published as needed (for hot-fixes, patches and so on).

We hope you will find these newsletters useful!

In order to unsubscribe from our monthly newsletter mailing list, please email 
[email]newsletter-admin@NOSPAMfuturemark.com[/email] with the subject as "unsubscribe".


Best Regards,

Nicklas Renqvist
Futuremark Corporation

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:: Current 3DMark03 Approved Drivers

The objective of Futuremark benchmarks is to enable objective performance 
comparison between various IHVs hardware. In order to achieve this, we have 
specified a set of rules that a driver must fulfill in order for us to 
recommend it for 3DMark03 usage. Below is a list of the latest drivers that 
fulfill the rules.

Futuremark recommends the following drivers to be used for dependable 
benchmarking with 3DMark03 Build 340:

ATI CATALYST DRIVERS

Latest Approved:
» ATI Catalyst 4.3 Drivers - WinXP 
» ATI Catalyst 4.3 Drivers - Win2000 
» ATI Catalyst 4.3 Drivers - WinME

MATROX PARHELIA DRIVERS

Latest Approved:
» Matrox 1.04.02.007 Drivers - WinXP 
» Matrox 1.04.02.007 Drivers - Win2000

NVIDIA FORCEWARE DRIVERS

Latest Approved:
» NVIDIA ForceWare 52.16 Drivers - WinXP 
» NVIDIA ForceWare 52.16 Drivers - Win2000

Please note that the 52.16 drivers have 3DMark03 specific optimizations for 
the Feature Pixel Shader 2.0 test and that specific score is solely comparable 
between NVIDIA cards. It does not affect the Game Test 4 result, though both 
use PixelShader 2.0.

SIS XABRE DRIVERS

Latest Approved:
» SiS Xabre 3.10 Drivers - WinXP 
» SiS Xabre 3.10 Drivers - Win2000 
» SiS Xabre 3.10 Drivers - WinME


Tested official WHQL Drivers:

» ATI Catalyst 3.9, 3.10, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Drivers
» Matrox 1.04.02.007 Drivers
» NVIDIA ForceWare 52.16, 53.03 Drivers
» SiS Xabre 3.10 Drivers
» Volari-Reactor 1.01 Drivers

For further information, list of older driver versions and notes about the 
drivers, please look here:

http://www.futuremark.com/community/drivers/?approved

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:: PCMark2002 discontinued

On the 3rd of March 2004, we discontinued PCMark2002. This means that there 
will no longer be any support available for the benchmark, nor will there be 
any updates for it. The PCMark2002 ORB functionalities will continue to work 
for a period of time, but will eventually be disabled.

We strongly advice to download PCMark04 for more up-to-date full system 
benchmarking.

Download: http://www.futuremark.com/download/?pcmark04.shtml
More Info: http://www.futuremark.com/products/pcmark04/

Note to Editors: For your free evaluation copy of PCMark04, please email 
[email]marketingNOSPAM@NOSPAMfuturemark.com[/email] (subject: PCMark04Eval) and tell us the publication 
that you represent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:: Special: Next 3DMark Is In The Works!

We can't spill the beans yet, but we wanted to let you know that the next 
3DMark is already well in the works! We will announce more information about 
it at the GDC 2004. Keep your eyes open in upcoming Futuremark Monthly 
Newsletters for maybe some nice exclusive screenshots and more detailed 
information about it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:: Meet us at GDC

We will be demoing our forthcoming Symbian smartphone benchmark in GDC at 
Khronos’ booth #431.  We’ll also speak and demo in the Khronos press 
conference 3-5pm on Wednesday March 24th in Crowne Plaza Hotel, 
282 Almaden Blvd, San Jose.

Stop by and see the world’s first 3D smartphone benchmark in action!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:: New Reviews, Previews, Articles or even some juicy news?

If you have anything you would like our readers to know, maybe a new review on 
some new hardware, don't be shy to send it in to our news team! We have a 
large audience reading our news on daily basis, so why not let your articles 
& news be posted in our news? Please email any articles and/or news to 
[email]newsNOSPAM@NOSPAMfuturemark.com[/email]. And remember, any news is good news!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:: Resources

The Hardware Reviewer's Guide for 3DMark03:
http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/reviewers_guide_3dmark03.pdf

Process to Enforce Optimization Guidelines:
http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/Enforcement_Process.pdf

More released PDF's & Documents:
http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark03/

3DMark03 Approved Drivers:
http://www.futuremark.com/community/drivers/?approved

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

:: Contact Information

Mr. Nicklas Renqvist
Web Producer
email: [email]nickNOSPAM@NOSPAMfuturemark.com[/email]

Futuremark Corporation
Kappelitie 6 D
FIN-02200 Espoo
FINLAND
Tel: +358-9-4355 045
Fax: +358-9-4355 0445

EDITED BITS: Modded the e-dresses a bit to avoid spammage.

 

[Althornin]

Well, who here noticed the blurb at [H]:

Futuremarks Flies the NVBird:
Futuremark, the company behind the most widely used canned 3D benchmark on the planet, plays nice once again with ATI, but tells NVIDIA to stuff their latest version of Forceware that is WHQL and being shipped with retail cards.

ATI CATALYST DRIVERS - Latest Approved:
» ATI Catalyst 4.3 Drivers - WinXP

NVIDIA FORCEWARE DRIVERS - Latest Approved:
» NVIDIA ForceWare 52.16 Drivers - WinXP

So be warned reviewers. If you don't use "approved" drivers that give results that Futuremark wants, you will get a nasty email about your "violation." (And you might think about why you use a benchmark from a company that takes money from any IHV willing to give it to them, then let that company tell you how to benchmark.) For those of you at home, we suggest you use whatever drivers you wish.

Once again, there goes the Clue Train, choo-choo-ing right past Kyle.

 

[Hanners]

Anything on the last Nv drivers?

They actually mention which drivers have been tested in the Newsletter, which is 'a good thing' - Nice one FutureMark! Of course, the 56.56 set won't be tested because they haven't been released officially through nVidia.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Well, who here noticed the blurb at [H]:

Futuremarks Flies the NVBird:
Futuremark, the company behind the most widely used canned 3D benchmark on the planet, plays nice once again with ATI, but tells NVIDIA to stuff their latest version of Forceware that is WHQL and being shipped with retail cards.

ATI CATALYST DRIVERS - Latest Approved:
» ATI Catalyst 4.3 Drivers - WinXP

NVIDIA FORCEWARE DRIVERS - Latest Approved:
» NVIDIA ForceWare 52.16 Drivers - WinXP

So be warned reviewers. If you don't use "approved" drivers that give results that Futuremark wants, you will get a nasty email about your "violation." (And you might think about why you use a benchmark from a company that takes money from any IHV willing to give it to them, then let that company tell you how to benchmark.) For those of you at home, we suggest you use whatever drivers you wish.

Once again, there goes the Clue Train, choo-choo-ing right past Kyle.

Did Kyle write that? I was at least hoping to find out it was something Steve wrote.

If Kyle wrote that then I guess he never did nor will learn.

 

[MrBond]

Well, who here noticed the blurb at [H]:

Futuremarks Flies the NVBird:
Futuremark, the company behind the most widely used canned 3D benchmark on the planet, plays nice once again with ATI, but tells NVIDIA to stuff their latest version of Forceware that is WHQL and being shipped with retail cards.

ATI CATALYST DRIVERS - Latest Approved:
» ATI Catalyst 4.3 Drivers - WinXP

NVIDIA FORCEWARE DRIVERS - Latest Approved:
» NVIDIA ForceWare 52.16 Drivers - WinXP

So be warned reviewers. If you don't use "approved" drivers that give results that Futuremark wants, you will get a nasty email about your "violation." (And you might think about why you use a benchmark from a company that takes money from any IHV willing to give it to them, then let that company tell you how to benchmark.) For those of you at home, we suggest you use whatever drivers you wish.

Once again, there goes the Clue Train, choo-choo-ing right past Kyle.

Yep, just saw that myself, and was amazed he's still missing the point entirely...

I'd say someone should explain it to him again, but then again, what's the point? It seems to fly in one ear and out the other anyway w/ regards to Futuremark.

 

[Nick[FM]]

I am also very happy that we finally got it out! Sorry for the small delay. This was the first issue, and if you guys (anyone of you) have any suggestions or comments, don't be shy to email me about them! I am already eager to get the next month's issue out, as there might be something interesting coming up..

 

[Pete]

Minor grammatical/spelling errors aside, it looks promising. I'm looking forward to GDC.

 

[StealthHawk]

Tested official WHQL Drivers:

» ATI Catalyst 3.9, 3.10, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Drivers
» Matrox 1.04.02.007 Drivers
» NVIDIA ForceWare 52.16, 53.03 Drivers
» SiS Xabre 3.10 Drivers
» Volari-Reactor 1.01 Drivers

This is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to see 8) Which drivers were tested...then I know for sure which ones failed.

 

[Reverend]

Much like we have nWire, can we call this FutureWire, Nick?

 

[MrGaribaldi]

Tested official WHQL Drivers:

» ATI Catalyst 3.9, 3.10, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Drivers
» Matrox 1.04.02.007 Drivers
» NVIDIA ForceWare 52.16, 53.03 Drivers
» SiS Xabre 3.10 Drivers
» Volari-Reactor 1.01 Drivers

This is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to see 8) Which drivers were tested...then I know for sure which ones failed.

Ah, yes, one less excuse for reviewers to claim ignorance and/or use other drivers under the pretext of Futuremark not having tested the latest drivers.

Good

 

[Nick[FM]]

Minor grammatical/spelling errors aside, it looks promising. I'm looking forward to GDC.

Oh well, at least some room for improvement for the next issue!

If you are headed for GDC, do go and meet up our chaps. At least Tero Sarkkinen & Patric Ojala will be there.

 

[Veridian3]

Slightly off topic...

...as your working on 2004 just now it may be a good thing to involve Kyle in the beta program. You all may have a strong dislike for him/his views however i think he would be a very useful addition to the beta partners...he has some strong opinions on 2003 and some views which differ greatly from many of the existing partners. It will better enable you to get the wider spectrum of opinions before releasing the product and will imho help create a better end product.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Slightly off topic...

...as your working on 2004 just now it may be a good thing to involve Kyle in the beta program. You all may have a strong dislike for him/his views however i think he would be a very useful addition to the beta partners...he has some strong opinions on 2003 and some views which differ greatly from many of the existing partners. It will better enable you to get the wider spectrum of opinions before releasing the product and will imho help create a better end product.

Well except for that being a genuine crazy thought and a terrible plan it's...well, it's crazy.

Kyle has just done too much and held his wrong views too hard in the face of all the evidence...what's next, make DH a member since they crapped on it too? :|

 

[Tim Murray]

If they can turn Kyle to the Dark Side... err... 3DMark, then they can turn anyone.

I see what V is saying.

 

[Veridian3]

Well except for that being a genuine crazy thought and a terrible plan it's...well, it's crazy.

Kyle has just done too much and held his wrong views too hard in the face of all the evidence...what's next, make DH a member since they crapped on it too? :|

Why is it crazy to have someone who has oposing viewpoints in on the product development? It means that the final product is more balanced. Additionally it would also benefit Futuremark to have one of the (if not the) biggest tech websites onside.

 

[digitalwanderer]

If they can turn Kyle to the Dark Side... err... 3DMark, then they can turn anyone.

They can't, Kyle already has all the facts and has chosen to interpret them incorrectly despite everyone's best efforts to straighten him out...asking him for input would just be giving him ammo to attack them with.

I've written off Kyle entirely for anything useful or productive in regards to Futuremark, he's now just entertaining commentary and a living example of self-imposed cluelessness as far as I'm concerned.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Why is it crazy to have someone who has oposing viewpoints in on the product development?

Because Kyle doesn't have "opposing" viewpoints, he has entirely incorrect viewpoints based on a personal bias which is a totally different kettle-o-fish.

Kyle has a specific agenda against FM to discredit them at all costs, he CAN'T help them without admitting that there is some use for their product which he will NOT do!

Sorry V3, I ain't trying to flame or insult you. I just really don't see it as happening or being at all a good idea. Even if he did agree and it all worked out peachy, would you REALLY want Kyle's input on the next 3dm?

Hell, the last good thing he had input on was the ratpad...and that was a while ago!

 

[Veridian3]

he CAN'T help them without admitting that there is some use for their product which he will NOT do!

Even if he did agree and it all worked out peachy, would you REALLY want Kyle's input on the next 3dm?

He wouldnt be admitting there is a use for 3dmark03 or previous versions, he would be helping ensure that the next one does have a use. I personally dont care who has input, i would just like the product to be as good as it can be. (Rather than have the mess that 2003 has ended up in...) Despite the omission of 3dmark from HardOCP's recent Abit 98XT review you couldnt say that the review lacked anything so this goes some way to justifying Kyles stance.

Whilst we have gone way OT here are the two things 04 should be/have. Then maybe we can get back on topic...

1. No demo's on the rails... take levels using real game engines and allow the user to play through them whilst 04 records performance. You could have synthetic versions which are on rails but are their for info only/dont contribute to the final score.

2. Better support when things go wrong, i.e. patches, anti cheat methods. I know Worm mentioned there are no anti cheat methods that work...but that doesnt mean one cant be created.

Those two things would go a long way to resolving peoples concerns.

Sorry for the thread hijack.