HardOCP's position on the 3DMark2003/Nvidia issue
- Thread starter Nite_Hawk
- Start date
Hilarious.
The most important thing is not why ET did that or vulnerability of synthetic benchmark but what nvidia really did.
They're focusing on something not really important and that coincidentally beneficial to nvidia.
1. They are saying synthetic benchmarks are pointless.
No. They have their own rights and uses.
Especially for universal comparison among varying systems on standardized setup. And that can be done with efficiency, quickness, covenience, and so on.
Also, you can refer to vast database that can help you to check if anything have gone wrong with your system.
2. They are saying synthetic benchmarks don't represent real games.
Partially true, partially wrong. They don't represent real gaming of each game exactly. But they represent overall gaming in general roughly.
3. They are ignoring the fact that so many ppl will use 3DMark03 for choosing vga. I hate to see 3DMark03 being the holy bible for vga. Sad. But it's a simple truth. Silly world, but you can't change the truth. With this fact, this so-called "bug" will increase the sale of nvidia products and decrease that of rivals' and consumers will get inferior products than expected.
But they are wasting their and our time, bickering about the behind motive of ET rather than showing the truth and improving the good of the consumers, then defending their stance.
Kyle, if you're out there. Answer to this.
The most important thing is not why ET did that or vulnerability of synthetic benchmark but what nvidia really did.
They're focusing on something not really important and that coincidentally beneficial to nvidia.
1. They are saying synthetic benchmarks are pointless.
No. They have their own rights and uses.
Especially for universal comparison among varying systems on standardized setup. And that can be done with efficiency, quickness, covenience, and so on.
Also, you can refer to vast database that can help you to check if anything have gone wrong with your system.
2. They are saying synthetic benchmarks don't represent real games.
Partially true, partially wrong. They don't represent real gaming of each game exactly. But they represent overall gaming in general roughly.
3. They are ignoring the fact that so many ppl will use 3DMark03 for choosing vga. I hate to see 3DMark03 being the holy bible for vga. Sad. But it's a simple truth. Silly world, but you can't change the truth. With this fact, this so-called "bug" will increase the sale of nvidia products and decrease that of rivals' and consumers will get inferior products than expected.
But they are wasting their and our time, bickering about the behind motive of ET rather than showing the truth and improving the good of the consumers, then defending their stance.
Kyle, if you're out there. Answer to this.
I'm also quite troubled by their (both Kyle and Brent) seeming assertion that "it doesn't matter because it isn't an actual game". The fact of the matter is that these scores are most likely going to be displayed on Retail boxes stocking the shelves at Best Buy. Customers are going to end up buying videocards based on artificially inflated benchmark scores. (This same line of reasoning goes for publishing Radeon scores for Doom III when it is obviously not representative of what actual shipping scores will be). Customers WILL be mislead, much like when movie reviews saying "Amazingly Boring" miraculously being quoted as "Amazing" on the box, (OK the analogy isn't perfect. What is true about it however is that what is put on the box that people buy is not telling the whole story of the review). What ever happened to journalistic integrity?
Hellbinder
Banned
If they want to take that route.. then the Quake thing did not matter either. Or if it did, then simply say its this fast but some of the floor textures are blurry. IMO you cannot have it both ways or where its convieniet for you.
This should also apply to the way Nvidia Does AF. They Reduce the Quality of the whole scene to gain speed accross all applications. Yet why is this not consitered Cheating the same way Quak was? after all it effects everything. The only reson its not is becuase ATi themselves have a specialized Algorithm that cuts some corners. The main difference here is that Nvidias method cuts *all* the corners and clearly affect IQ on the entire screen, and in every game.
The reason i am brining this up is not to address AF specifically but to show that there really seems to be no standards that anyone follows when judging what is a Cheat and what is not. IMO by [H] own standards set by their history they should have written big articles addressing Nvidia AF as *cheating*. Which they did to some degree.
I guess what really needs to happen is there is a *Review* board just like the ARB board. That sets rules and standards that all Registered Web sites and magazines follow. Where everyoen is on the same page. With carefully tested for Integrity benchmarks and Predefined IQ Comparrison Guidlines..
But thats a pretty tall order.
Reverend,
Aren't you as a beta member bond to confidentiality? Then i would say that both B3D/ET have used some internal information to make a scoop. And then also Futuremark (and Ati?) has used these site to make some sort of press release.
There's an issue, but only beta members can saw it if i understand correctly, and then only Futuremark should speek/write/make a public statemant on these issues. I think that the type of statement you just put on, is reducing, unfortunately, the reputation of B3D.
I don't think that we would like to see Ati writing some internal information from the beta program, and i think that is the same for all beta members. The only one you should make is Futuremark.
The issue is there, [H] isn't an angel, and beta members should stay members, and Futuremark talk about cheating drivers.
Aren't you as a beta member bond to confidentiality? Then i would say that both B3D/ET have used some internal information to make a scoop. And then also Futuremark (and Ati?) has used these site to make some sort of press release.
There's an issue, but only beta members can saw it if i understand correctly, and then only Futuremark should speek/write/make a public statemant on these issues. I think that the type of statement you just put on, is reducing, unfortunately, the reputation of B3D.
I don't think that we would like to see Ati writing some internal information from the beta program, and i think that is the same for all beta members. The only one you should make is Futuremark.
The issue is there, [H] isn't an angel, and beta members should stay members, and Futuremark talk about cheating drivers.
Reverend said:
[/quote]Evildeus said:
If you're referring to the developer build of 3DMark2K3 that allows free camera movement, It's stated quite clearly that Futuremark authorized the use of the screenshots on the front page to illustrate the problem, which would indicate that they've been made aware of the situation. If they had any objections to the material being made public, I imagine they'd have said something to Extremetech/B3D by now.
You know the N.T.S.B. crashes cars into a concrete barrier every year to test for crash saftey. Following Kyle's logic these test are useless. The cars tested are being occupied by crash test dummy's. They are being pulled by cables instead of there own power. Now we all know that crash test dummys do not drive cars pulled by cables. So what good are these test. If a car company supllies a test car that has design enhancements or features added which are not on the actual production car but improve the test results, this is inmaterial because it does not effect real people. :?
I'll await some more technical proof and responses from the parties involved than some screenshots before I pass my judgement. I might well be a bug in the nVidia drivers, intentionally cheating or a bug in 3DMark 2003. Because the bug doesn't occur on the Radeon 9700 doesn't mean that it is nVidias fault.
You don't wanna know how many times as a programmer I experience the 'it works on your machine' bugs. In other words, small bugs that result in errors on other peoples hardware but not on mine.
Lets await more information before we all start accusing nVidia.
You don't wanna know how many times as a programmer I experience the 'it works on your machine' bugs. In other words, small bugs that result in errors on other peoples hardware but not on mine.
Lets await more information before we all start accusing nVidia.
Hellbinder
Banned
Evil
What.. No one is supposed to expose unethical behavior?? You are sounding like one of those lawyers who gets murderers off on some technicality. Or sues the family of the Victim becasue they supposedly were at fault somehow...
The problem here is all this beta member talkof yours means absolutly nothing. I cant even fathom where you are comming from. WTH does being a beta member of Futuremark have to do at all with this? From an imperical evidence standpoint? There are no NDA issues here or anything else. These sites have ways to do detailed tests and others dont. its that simple. Just becuase *you* dont like the fact that this was exposed and made public does not suddenly make this some kind of ethics issue. Other than the cheater.
What.. No one is supposed to expose unethical behavior?? You are sounding like one of those lawyers who gets murderers off on some technicality. Or sues the family of the Victim becasue they supposedly were at fault somehow...
Something that Kyle doesn't seem to to appreciate is that OEM's use this, and sometimes ONLY this, as a purchasing decision for which graphics card they will select. It makes no odds that this isn't a gaming benchmark, there's there's lots of cahs behind it.
Hellbinder
Banned
More technical proof??? Did you read the article? or just look at the pics and asume thats all the info there was.
This is not a bug... these are carefully placed Clip planes that reduce the rendering load.
Main Entry: jour·nal·istmuted said:
Pronunciation: -n&l-ist
Function: noun
Date: 1693
1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2 : a person who keeps a journal
I think they could fit under the especially or 1b parts. Their role in informing the public extends far beyond just the people who read their website.
Kyle makes a conclusion based upon analysis of data as he sees it and then gets slammed for doing so? One certainly has a right to disagree with his ideas, but to question his right to provide this analysis is largely hypocritical. The ET article did the same exact thing: it made a conclusion based upon the data it discovered - that nvidia was most likely cheating. Certainly, it allowed for other possibilities (as does Kyle's article), but it was pretty clear as to where they stood just by the title of thier article. Thus, while one can disagree with either conclusion, you can't question the integrity of either without including the other. Of course, this is not to mention all the posts on message boards which I suppose are always true .
.ninelven said:
Kyle made an analysis of assumed motivation. At no point did he analyze ET's evidence or means of gathering evidence. And being the original author of the Quack scandal, a minor, and temporary, driver-based degradation in Quake 3's MIP mapping that was very readily noticeable to the end user, through the use of a progie delivered to him by ATi's primary competitor in the graphics market, what is truly hypocritical here is Kyle's 'theory' of ET/Salvatore's motivation for publishing their article.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
ninelven said:
Odd...half of you in "support" of kyle are saying he didn't "conclude" anything, and now you're saying he did?
Kyle is getting slammed because he is NOT providing any relevant facts or evidence that rebut ET's findings. Just mentions "rumors" as some means to just discredit the source, rather than discredit the data.
Who's questioning his right?
We're questioning the (lack of) analysis.
Disagree completley, because I see no "argument" presented by Kyle, only slams on a cometing site's integrity.
So ET didn't assume nvidia's motivation was higher 3dm2k3 scores (cheating)? Like I said, it doesn't matter... a conclusion is still a conclusion - not a fact.
EDIT: It doesn't matter if one is 99% likely to be true and the other 1%... both are unverifiable and thus not representative of the truth.
EDIT2: I like how everyone accusses Kyle of assuming motivations but then pretend to know Kyle's motivation... that's pretty funny heh.
EDIT: It doesn't matter if one is 99% likely to be true and the other 1%... both are unverifiable and thus not representative of the truth.
EDIT2: I like how everyone accusses Kyle of assuming motivations but then pretend to know Kyle's motivation... that's pretty funny heh.
ninelven said:
As has been repeatedly noted on this board, as the anomalies have increased with each driver update so too have the scores. A pattern like that makes it logical to reach such a conclusion, and while Salvatore didn't note this trend in the article it's been tracked.
And think about the nature of the anomalies. They clearly imply manually inserted clip planes, which requires the time spent to analyze the benchmark frame by frame. What's a company's motivation for doing this? The final score is the important metric and as Dave wrote certain OEMs make their purchase decisions based on it.
A conclusion is a conclusion, but let's use a little logic and sound reasoning, shall we?
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- PC Hardware, Software and Displays