HardOCP's position on the 3DMark2003/Nvidia issue

[Doomtrooper]

With todays technology being so advanced, you just can't be the 'average gamer' anymore to review video cards technically.

And why I respect this site and it's forum members and especially the STAFF, as they are some of the most technically qualified reviewers.

Anyone can rent a server and start a webpage, that doesn't make them a Authority on anything, it's the content of the website and the credability of the reviewer that makes a good website.
I directly think that [H]'s video card review quality improved from influence from this site.

 

[boobs]

Why does all the other cards not show this, do people actually think Futuremark is doing this on purpose ??

I'm sure these members would allow that.

All other cards in this case pretty much means Ati, and I'm sure these members wouldn't know enough about 3DMark's operations to find out.

In a world where Wall Street was able to bilk 2 trillion dollars from the American investor, it's only prudent to wait for facts before jumping to conclusions about the trustworthiness of any one company or group of companies or group of interested individuals over any other.

 

[LeStoffer]

This is almost too funny: Now the issue isn't about what the hell might be going on with those drivers, but how somebody called Kyle feel about it, and how people feel about what other people feel about what Kyle say.

Okay, who is in benefit of this change of focus - and who is fooling who (hint: Kyle might not even a clue himself).

Whatever other webdudes say I stand firmly by the stance that the beyond3d staff have at this point.

 

[Doomtrooper]

All other cards in this case pretty much means Ati

I hope you are kidding....Yes Microsoft and Dell are going to allow Futuremark to sabotage a benchmark

 

[boobs]

d) an intentional hack in 3DM2K3

But why?

Nvidia has been dead set against 3DM2K3 since the day it was released. Why wouldn't 3DMark want to discredit a rival? It's working isn't it?

The point is not that 3DMark is doing something unscrupulous, the point, I think, is that at this point there are several alternatives, and there isn't enough evidence to decide what has really happened.

This just goes to show that open source benchmarking needs to be looked at.

Would this even be possible? In order for there to be an intentional hack aimed at discrediting nvidia it seems as though 3dmark would need to detect a specific driver version of nvidia cards, (which it can do), and alter it's engine to screw up the benchmark *only when it is not normally noticeable*. Moreover, why this driver set instead of one earlier? How could it be based on this driver set at all? As I'm guessing people have had this developer version of 3dmark for some time, they would have to have been planning to get *bugger up* this driver set for months before it was even announced.

Am I making sense here?

You're making a lot of sense and that's one set of facts that needs to be dug out.

 

[Doomtrooper]

I think further investigation will show that it is not all in all driver sets, maybe this site or a follow up article may comment on that.

 

[RussSchultz]

Again, if all you're concerned about are the facts

I didn't say that

This is just a smear tactic and, IMO, woefully unprofessional. And Kyle's not alone either. I've seen NVNews' webmaster posting a less-than-subtle insinuation that Salvatore didn't even write the article. Both he and Kyle's comments fail to address the means by which the article reaches the conclusion that Nvidia was 'tweaking' their drives to obtain the inflated scores.

Its funny how last year with the quack thing, the tables were polar opposites. ATI supporters were shocked at who had leaked the information and called it unprofessional and suggested Kyle had an axe to grind, and that NVIDIA was behind the expose.

Actually, the whole 3d market is funny as hell to watch. The major players fight their proxy wars through websites by leaking information. Previews have become horribly politicized; EVERYTHING is a plot one way or another. Peoples opinions on actions flip/flop based on who's done what. And everybody gets so worked up over it, and most of the debate boils down to ad hominem attacks.

 

[WaltC]

...Nvidia has been dead set against 3DM2K3 since the day it was released. Why wouldn't 3DMark want to discredit a rival? It's working isn't it?

The point is not that 3DMark is doing something unscrupulous, the point, I think, is that at this point there are several alternatives, and there isn't enough evidence to decide what has really happened.

This just goes to show that open source benchmarking needs to be looked at.

A "rival"...? A "rival" to what?....*chuckle* Last I looked FutureMark has no plans to become a 3D chip maker....

BTW, IIRC nVidia was a full-fledged, paying member of the 3DMark program up until December of '02, and had been for years. So much for your "opposition" theory. nVidia has opposed '03 simply because nVidia wants to go its own way and nVidia wants to set its own standards for APIs and does not like playing the API game--nVidia has bucked M$ and DX for quite some time. nVidia is in the process of learning its britches are not as big as it thinks...

At the root of this whole thing is a power struggle--the best way for nVidia to monopolize the market and do what its CEO has long stated is the company's goal, to "light every pixel on every screen," is to call the shots and dictate to M$ what the APIs will support and what they won't. Simply put, an API which supports everyone's hardware provided they use API-compliant drivers is apparently not something nVidia feels is in its best interests any longer (although they thought it was great when they were battling 3dfx.) They're doing the same thing with OpenGL via the extensions route--which interestingly enough was a route Carmack originally kicked off for the API.

 

[T2k]

With todays technology being so advanced, you just can't be the 'average gamer' anymore to review video cards technically.

And why I respect this site and it's forum members and especially the STAFF, as they are some of the most technically qualified reviewers.

Anyone can rent a server and start a webpage, that doesn't make them a Authority on anything, it's the content of the website and the credability of the reviewer that makes a good website.
I directly think that [H]'s video card review quality improved from influence from this site.

Agreed but I still think [H] reached its lowest level point now.
I don't want to impugn certain timing of ET's article, it's obvious - but these [H]-guys are in my eyes just a bunch of cheap scribblers from now... (I used to work for newspapers, TVs as a journalist; long years.)

 

[boobs]

All other cards in this case pretty much means Ati

I hope you are kidding....Yes Microsoft and Dell are going to allow Futuremark to sabotage a benchmark

You think 3DMark is the first thing on Bill Gate's mind when he wakes up in the morning? Does Michael Dell have benchmarking Gestapo running all over 3DMark headquarters?

Do you understand the contractual relationship between 3DMark and its partners?

If you do then dig that info up and the fog will lift a little bit. Otherwise, how can you use M$ and Dell in support of any position that any one of us is taking?

 

[Clashman]

I think further investigation will show that it is not all in all driver sets, maybe this site or a follow up article may comment on that.

Yeah, I realized it may encompass more than a single instance. Changed the wording of it to as follows:

Would this even be possible? In order for there to be an intentional hack aimed at discrediting nvidia it seems as though 3dmark would need to detect a specific driver version of nvidia cards, (which it can do), and alter it's engine to screw up the benchmark *only when it is not normally noticeable*. In addition, knowledge that futuremark intentionally attempted to harm the scores of one of the major vendors would likely put them out of business. Is petty anger over nvidia criticism worth risking the fate of your company? Moreover, why mess with this driver set, (or the past two or three, as it may be), instead of one earlier? How could it be based on this driver set at all? As I'm guessing people have had this developer version of 3dmark for some time, they would have to have been planning to *bugger up* this driver set for months before it was even announced.

Am I making sense here?

 

[Doomtrooper]

Maybe you should ask BETA partners how it works, like this site. To even claim that Futuremark would intentionally do this is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Agreed but I still think [H] reached its lowest level point now.
I don't want to impugn certain timing of ET's article, it's obvious - but these [H]-guys are in my eyes just a bunch of cheap scribblers from now... (I used to work for newspapers, TVs as a journalist; long years.)

I can't hold Brent Accountable for a Webmaster that is legendary for 'Jerry Springer' (trash Internet---Hits) tatics.

 

[MuFu]

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

kyle@hardocp.com

Ah crap, I think I pissed him off. =\

MuFu.

 

[RussSchultz]

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

kyle@hardocp.com

Ah crap, I think I pissed him off. =\

MuFu.

Or his mailbox is full.

 

[boobs]

A "rival"...? A "rival" to what?....*chuckle* Last I looked FutureMark has no plans to become a 3D chip maker....

Do you agree that Nvidia would like to see 3dMark cease to exist as a benchmark and a company? Yes/No? Does that not make Nvidia 3dMark's enemy? Yes/No?

Between Nvidia cheating and 3DMark sabotage, which is more likely? I'd say Nvidia cheating, but that doesn't affect the validity of the second being a
possibility.

Just pointing out that at this point, we don't quite know what a lot of people seem to think we know.

 

[MuFu]

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

kyle@hardocp.com

Ah crap, I think I pissed him off. =\

MuFu.

Or his mailbox is full.

Well something's full of something, that's for sure.

MuFu.

 

[binmaze]

Whenever Kyle post a sensitive article, it's just hilarious.
He is criticizing the motive. Since when [H] is a metasite that observe and supervise the minds of the hardware sites?

And without any in-depth tests or information about this matter, just criticize the motive and that only of extremetech, not of nvidia. :?

He says they did this because they got pissed off. Then what about this?
Kyle did this because he wants to announce their stance that "3DMark03 is pointless" is valid. Or,
Just because [H] got favors of nvidia.

And about the weakness of synthetic benchmark vulnerable to cheats.
Just because students do cheat on exams, you should abandon the method?

Synthetic benchmark doesn't show the real gaming?
Yes, it shows, though not exactly. It surely has strong positivie correlation with real gaming.

Let me show you another example.
An airforce cadet here. He's doing good at fighting in simulation machine. Unless he has some physical disability or extremely timid mind, he will make a better pilot. Just because it's not real, and can be cheated with manipulation of the machine, you should ditch it? Especially when it is convenient/economical with many useful side-effects and with vast data on so many different situation?

And what about their role in ATi Quack situation?

 

[Doomtrooper]

Do you agree that Nvidia would like to see 3dMark cease to exist as a benchmark and a company? Yes/No? Does that not make Nvidia 3dMark's enemy? Yes/No?

Between Nvidia cheating and 3DMark sabotage, which is more likely? I'd say Nvidia cheating, but that doesn't affect the validity of the second being a
possibility.

Just pointing out that at this point, we don't quite know what a lot of people seem to think we know.

Did Futuremark wite this driver ??

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5833&start=0

 

[Tim]

The instances of software failing on specific vendor platforms are too numerous to list. Nvidia and Ati are pretty much the only players in the DX9 field, saying that it only fails on Nvidia drivers is like saying it only fails 50% of the time, so it must be right.

It is more like saying it only fails 10% of the time, so it must be right remember the specific drivers part. And I have a hard time imagining a bug that inflates the scores with a specific driver without introducing any visual problems in areas shown on the predefined camera path, yes this possible but so is winning the grand price in lottery two weeks in a row.

Nvidia has been dead set against 3DM2K3 since the day it was released. Why wouldn't 3DMark want to discredit a rival? It's working isn't it?

It would be suicide if they got caught, they will never be accepted as a viable benchmark again. NVIDIA obviously has the technical to expose Futuremark if they tried to pull a stunt like this.

And, no this is not working to Futuremark’s advantage, it is not only NVIDIA being discredited so is 3dmark.

The point is not that 3DMark is doing something unscrupulous, the point, I think, is that at this point there are several alternatives, and there isn't enough evidence to decide what has really happened.

There are always alternatives, but if the alternatives are unlikely enough you have to dismiss them. This could all be conspiracy thought up by Saddam Hussein to make western world forget about him and everything else because they discussing something far more important like benchmarking.

This just goes to show that open source benchmarking needs to be looked at.

I doubt open source benchmarks would make cheating harder.