Have we forgiven Nvidia?

Maybe this will better explain how I see 3dMark: Imagine the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins want to play a game to see who is the best football team in the NFC East. They will need a referee and a scorekeeper to make sure the game is played on evil footing. So the NFL pays them to referee the game in an unbiased manner.

Now take ATI and Nvidia and imagine them going head to head in a game of football. Only there is no league paying the referees. The referees (Futuremark) demand that the teams themselves pay them. How many sporting events do you know of where the teams competing actually pay the referees/officials? In the professional world, none do. Little League Baseball yes. Big league ball, no. There is a good reason for this that I am sure is obvious to you.

Explain this to me as well: If 3dMark 2003 was strictly a DirectX 9.0 benchmark, then why do ATI and Nvidia have to participate in their "beta" program? They write the code to Directx 9.0 standards and then you benchmark ATI and Nvidia's hardware. Why should ATI or Nvidia have to participate? And when you answer my question with what I think you're going to answer, then you will see my point. Once again, I don't view 3dMark as a valid benchmark. I firmly believe that the Radeon 9700 was a better card than the 5800fx. But I do not believe that 3dMark should be taken as a "perfectly good benchmark".

 

If you want to compare with american football, a better image is ATI was following the 10 yards rule while Nvidia team decided they could play same game but just had to follow a 8 yard rule because it was more convenient.

 

Hahaha ondaedg. Futuremark wouldn't be referee's they would be the event organisers. Who are the referees? Well sites like B3D, Techreport(good referees) and even the dreaded [H](think here of a really bad referee) are of course. It's not up to Futuremark to say who is good or bad. Futuremark made the benchmark just like any organiser sets up a tournament. While it's up to the organisers to try and keep the tournament with equal rules(in this case with DX9 which just happens to have been created by MS(which you can describe as the world governing body e.g. in rest of the world terms FIFA for Football)), it doesn't mean that the player won't try to cheat(again football terms, Yellow cards and Red cards). Players all around the world will try to gain the upper hand by any means neccessary(drugs) or in graphic card terms cheating with drivers, replacing shaders etc.

Still it's up to the referee to decide on how the game is decided. No two referee's are the same unfortunately and this can be why you see different sites come to different conclusions. They do try and stay neutral but as the game progresses they might get pulled into favouring a side. It's not common of course but it has been known to happen [H].

As for payment for the organisers. Well Futuremark is a small benchmark. Do you really expect them not to ask IHV's for money if it can help to improve the benchmark? Why does it always have to be made to sound like some kind of pay off?? You are just too paranoid.

Take 3DMark2003 again. Nvidia didn't want to pay Futuremark the money and left the benchmark program(which they are entitled to do), yet they were still able to use the benchmark to show off what it's cards could do. The rules were still the same. But just because they sucked in the benchmark they decided to slant it. Is that fair? Hell no!

US

 

The only problem I have with 3Dmark03 is that GT4 relies on vertex shaders more than an average DX9 game.

 

The statement that they ask the IHVs to pay money to be able to "improve" their benchmark is illogical to me. Fact is you nor I know what happens in the Futuremark beta program. The only thing we do know as stated by the CEO of Futuremark is that the Beta Program is one of their larger sources of revenue. Therefore I put little emphasis in 3dMark as a decision making tool when it comes to video cards. I will reiterate my point once again: ATI AND Nvidia have both misbehaved in some way or another. I hold neither as ethically being superior over the other. I will continue to judge which videocard I purchase based on their merits and not on biased opinions of others. I get better stuff to be pissed off about.

 

Why is it illogical? Don't the US Navy pay McDonnell Douglas to create a plane so that they can get the benefits out of it? The fact that the IHV's is a large source of revenue for Futuremark would actually reiterate my point that in order for Futuremark to develope a non-biased, show what the future can hold, technological benchmark it needs money to help it do so.

Sure Both IHV's have been shown to have misbehaved in the passed but which company has done so more often than not? ATI or Nvidia? I seem to remember more cheating happening with Nvidia than with ATI.

US

 

Really big difference here. Beside MickyD not being in business anymore when the product is complete the Navy owns it. From a testing point of view you don't publish the test until the test is given. What is happening now is much more along the lines of the Navy needing an acceptance test and having the supplier of the part write it. At least that is the apperance.

Sure futuremark needs revenue but taking money from the IHV's that there are testing as always seemed to me to be unethical. I would be much more statisfed if they stop letting people use it for free and created the benchmarks without any influence from the IHV's. The input should come from only the testing community.

 

Like Khedlar, I can not accept a benchmark who is "financed" so to speak by the companies who are being benchmarked. I can not accept nor will I accept it. The demos are nice to look at that is for sure. Furthermore, the way their developers produce beautiful eye candy with very new APIs should be commended.

 

Fine.. don't accept it .. it's your choice. Just don't force your thoughts down other peoples throats. (and before you reply and say I should do the same .. just remember who started this).

 

force thoughts? hehe. Ya. I am forcing thoughts alright. How about if I force this thought down your throat: Be objective!

Do you feel violated?

 

I feel bored with people that have problem to accept reality. And the reality is 3dmark perfectly predicted what would be theses cards performance with DX 9 games. All you can dream will not change that simple fact.

 

If I was defending a certain video card, I would agree with you. But since I am not nor have I once in this thread, then your statement is irrelevant.
Be objective is all I am saying.

 

I don't usually take part in these discussions, but I just thought to inform you that NVIDIA and ATI are not the only ones in our Benchmark Development Program. A full list of companies in the PCMark and 3DMark BDP can be found here:

http://www.futuremark.com/bdp/?pc

and the smartphone BDP:

http://www.futuremark.com/bdp/?smartphone

and while you are at it, you can read what the BDP is about here:

http://www.futuremark.com/bdp/?objectivesandguidelines

 

Don't worry worn, he will criticize until nvidia tells him 3dmark05 is the best benchmark ever

 

I could really care less about driver optimizations.. if it doesnt ruin quality then Im all for it... but as for nVidia... the only reason I dont like them... is because of the company... not the hardware.... (long story)

 

Have I mentioned that I have NOT forgiven nVidia yet in the last few pages?

 

Is this thread getting boring?

 

Does bashing nvidia ever get boring.......?