How strong an influence has BAPCo had on MadOnion benchmarks

[Mummy]

3Dmark 2001 doesn't reflect gaming peformance either...a Geforce 2 MX scores higher than Kyro cards yet in MAX PAYNE gets killed by the Kyro

I hope u arent going to compare completely different scenes (even though its same engine) right? how can you compare, for example, the Dragon test (Game 2), Car Test (Game 1) or Nature (Game 4) with Max Payne ?

How would they run the same having a completely different content ?

I can only speculate that in 3DMark a Geforce 2 mx is faster than a kyro (is it?) because there are more polys involved, while in Max Payne the amount is quite ridicle.

...this benchmark was showing a P4 Wiliamette beating a AMD Thunderbird...OK but in the real world in Unreal Tournament a CPU intensive game it was getting killed

U can be sure that when a game needs bandwidth a P4 will be faster, and when a game needs raw FPU power Athlon will be faster.

So tell me exactly what is accurate about this benchmark, IMO its whoever pays the most cash as it certainly doesn't reflect games today.

Yes, it surely doesnt reflect games today, there is no doubt on that, games today have a ridicle amount of polygons compared to 3DMark, though im sure if u try the "game demo", the playable car test, it will likely reflect the performance seen during the benchmark.

In the Advanced pixel shader demo even by doing a single pass vs the double pass a Geforce3/4 have to do, R8500 is slower, this is exactly what JC verified and said in his interviews.

There's another point made by fanATics, that 3DMark 2001 should of made a test that wouldnt work at all on a non pixel shader 1.4 card (then i guess the whole 3DMark should of have used pixel shaders in every test and make the benchmark incompatible with any Kyro, Geforce 2 and rest of cards), i dunno honestly if it would be better, my view is that in doing this, if it wasnt for the R8500 fault, the advanced pixel shader test would be an ADVANTAGE for ATi considering it would show a ~2x performance improvement compared to a PS 1.3- card because of the double pass needed (infact a R9700 completely destroys the Geforce 4 in the adv. pix. test).

The NVidia chamaleon test and BenMark show bigger performance difference for the R9700 compared to 3DMark, where is the point? maybe NV deliberately UNoptimized their tests waiting for ATi to release the new card so it would show a 3x difference even for like the BenMark ? (38,xMPoly vs around 111M) i guess there's a conspiarcy going on between nVidia workers, i think Mulder should investigate

Dont get me wrong, those things can and DO happen, i followed the whole SysMark crap (new Sysmark having the "Athlon friendly" tests removed) and it sounds resonable, but its a different story compared to 3DMark.

 

[Doomtrooper]

I still don't get what Doomtrooper's point about the CPU business is supposed to prove - if it's indeed supposed to prove anything. Oh why bother anyway; as far as MO/3DM are concerned I've yet to see DT ever concede a point or agree with anything in their "favour", regardless of whether the point is a benefit to his beloved ATI

One last thing though - DT, if you are going to raise an argument then at least be consistent...

Max Payne Scores
GeForce2 GTS = 36.1 fps
Kyro II 64MB = 30.1 fps
GeForce2 MX = 20.6 fps

I'm gonna get me a P4 and Geforce 2

Which would be the right thing to do as it's faster in MP than a Kyro II!


...and before anyone jumps down my throat, yes I KNOW he meant GF2 MX...

Wait a minute here, the total score is what everyone bases their system from..very few people actually sit down and compare individual tests.

Madonions benchmark would tell me that if I had a Kyro II a Geforce 2 MX 400 has faster 3D peformance than my Kyro based on '3Dmarks' which of course is a total lie.
Example:
Compare a Kyro II with a Pentium 3 1000 - 3Dmarks 2429

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3769229
vs.
A Geforce 2 MX 400 with a Pentium 3 1000- 3Dmarks =3231
http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=1931405

 

[Reverend]

With my own italics in the above quote, perhaps that should tell you why it is useless to argue with certain individuals in this forum or try to discuss certain things with certain individuals in this forum.

You are a legend in your mind, you are correct about certain individuals and you are no exception..your head is so fat with EGO

you think you are above everyone else.

Your opinions of myself mean little to me the one IHV wonder, go back to pimping Nvidia PR and cards...thats all you are good for.

Hey DT, thanks for thinking so highly of me.

Er, and what are *you* good for DT? Surely it can't be for pimping ATI PR and cards? Whoa... lightbulb there?

Talk about hypocrites. LOL.

[edit] Re OpenGL guys' locked "New Poll" thread and DT's question about asking NVIDIA guys coming over to these forums. How do you know there aren't a *bunch* of NVIDIA folks lurking in these forums? There's a difference between those that feel a need or want to post/reply and those that read.

 

[Galilee]

DT how about a MDK2 compare? After all it use TnL:

Or maybe MBTR another D3D game:

Why do you only pick those graphs that favour your argumentation?
If the only problem 3DMark has is that Kyro II performs mediocre on it, it does not have many problems

It's also possible to turn this around and say: Hey, Radeon 8500 beats Ti500 in 3dMark, but not in games?
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1558&p=4

I guess 3DMark IS a crappy benchmark, it can't even rate Ti500 above Radeon 8500.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Ummm those are great examples Galilee considering the Kyro II is still doubling the frames of a Geforce MX in one scenario, on your T&L example ...yet Madonion still reports the Geforce MX as the superior card..so people can twist it around all they want...it is simply not a accurate way of measuring 3D performance.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Er, and what are *you* good for DT? Surely it can't be for pimping ATI PR and cards? Whoa... lightbulb there?

Telling the truth...I get no freebie cards to sway my decision either Not to mention I'm not a internet 3D technology reviewer and believe it or not 3D technology does not reside only at one IHV...

Talk about hypocrites. LOL.

Hmmm I'm on a message board, a 3D technology one at that...seeing other IHV engineers being here bothers you so much go hang out on Voodooextreme where you can pimp CG to your hearts content the 'one IHV wonder'.

 

[walkndude]

...and Droolscooper drives yet another happless thread over a cliff, his face contorted by that unnerving tic which seems to surface at any mention of the word Nvidia...




Can't you give it a rest Doomtrooper and find something constructive to do ? Finding that bottle of ritalin you seemed to have missed place would be a great start!!!!

 

[RussSchultz]

I wonder when John Reynolds wakes up on Sunday.

 

[demalion]

Doom,

Do you think it would be possible to resist the temptation to gutter fight when you feel slighted? In case you haven't noticed, about everyone crticizes you when you get into the swing, and any valid points you may have gets lost in the shuffle.

Here is something you could try...someone says something that you feel slights you, quote it and point out why it is silly if you can. Here is the key...do this without throwing in name calling and "subtle" insults as well. That subtle is in quotes...if it isn't clear they don't come across that way, they come across as angry, emotionally charged, and non-informative. Your points are defensible, name calling is not...guess what might just happen if your posts are free of them and it is only other posts that have them?

One result could be that you would be attacked less, and would encounteer the provocation less and less to respond in that way, instead of more and more as you currently do and have been doing for the past few months in an ever descending and self-feeding spiral. The alternative seems to be that the volume of the emotional/angry/insulting parts of your posts overwhelm any points that might be associated with it (because that's the way human languages tend to work, imagine that), and people respond to that, and you wonder why the point you had in mind in the midst of your post didn't get across and wasn't addressed fully.

But this is just a theory, of course...and, to be clear, this is IMO.

 

[noko]

Benchmarks have there place, also limitations. To say that 3DMark accurately reflects a 3DCard or system ability in 3D can be misleading as DT brought out. If you understand 3DMark then it can become a very useful tool in optimizing your own system to a certain extent. 3DMark is a T&L written benchmark as I see it so games that don't use T&L as much won't necessarily follow the results of 3dMark as in Serious Sam. To say that my system will outperform your system based on 3DMark is foolish as this thread clearly indicates. This will always be the case with benchmarks, not all the variables in systems are being tested by any benchmark nor variables in how a program responds to a number of system differences. Using a P4 and Lightwave shows a big advantage over an Athlon in doing 3d, while using 3dsmax shows the opposite for the Athlon XP, just another case that comes to my mind.

To use benchmarks effectively you have to know the limitations, few people do. 3dMark cannot predict accurately other games results or outcome on any given system. It can give an indication and very useful result if you know what it is testing and why the results are what they are.

 

[Entropy]

Perhaps I should have been more articulate in my first post.

When MadOnion and BAPCo has enjoyed a strategic alliance since 99 there are three questions that can be asked.

Q1. What does MadOnion get out of it?
A1: We'll never know. MadOnion is a private business and we have no means ever to find out exactly. The only thing mentioned in their pressreleases was that BAPCo would contribute their "technical expertise in business benchmarking".

Q2. What does BAPCo get out of it?
A2: Here we DO know the answer. For the last few years BAPCo has existed to provide material that presents Intel processors in the best possible light, and to spread that as effectively as possible. If BAPCo hadn't been able to accomplish this through their deal with MadOnion, there would have been no basis for any alliance.

Q3. In what way and to what extent then have the benchmarks supplied by MadOnion been influenced by BAPCos agenda?
A3: This is basically the only question that can be researched further. WebMark seems obvious, PCMark is questionable, but there are no previous versions that allow us to see any trends in updates. 3DMark could be interesting if we followed the progression from 99 and 2000 to 2001(se). However, trends there could be attributed to "reflecting the changes in 3D game engines" for instance, so there are no means to actually prove anything there either as far as I can see.

But if anyone can go deeper into question 3, it would be interesting.

Entropy

 

[Dio]

I'm pretty dubious about this. If there is a push to make 3Dmark run better on P4, why is an Athlon 1600 their standard 'reference' system on the top ten site?

 

[noko]

What a surprise this was:

Tom's Blurb - Battle of Hypocrites

Summary:
What's happening here? Kyle Bennett is fighting Van Smith? What a great show! Find out why we love it so much! We give you background information you won't find anywhere else, including backstage footage of the AMD/BAPCo comedy that's going on right now.

BAPco and ATI's quack combined, what a read. Tom even came out of hiding to publish this tidbit. I do hope Tom will start publishing his own articles again.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Very interesting Noko, some of my lost repect for Tom Pabst is restored...as from where the information came from...I've known all along for Quack and Benett always denied it...Then people wonder if their is biased sites ...this so called hardware reviewer took inside information from a competing IHV and ran with it not knowing the 'Quake' reference had been in the drivers long before the 8500

 

[Tahir2]

That was a nice read into the behind-the-scenes of the internet.
I still have one major problem with Tom Pabst though. He loves to post big pics of himself.. I am sure it is to attract the, er, female audience

 

[noko]

I am sure it is to attract the, er, female audience

Ahmmm, who says he is trying to attract females with that perm???

Just kidding there, I always liked his articles, didn't always agreed with them but I always could figure out his reasoning and why he would position himself on a given piece of hardware.

Doom,

Yep, you where 100% right and I do remember what you said about the Quack issues way back. Some people can see through the smoke and mirrors whiles others can't .

 

[sabeehali]

I think this was a VERY interesting read.
Made me realize why I started reading tomshardware back in 97
I hope he starts writing articles soon too.

Anyway if Tom is to be believed and sysmark2002 has ONLY changed in access wouldn't it be very easy to prove?
I mean BAPCO can just come out and clarify can't it?

Although what I understood from vanshardware about the tasks being weighted according to the time it took for the processor to complete was a bit fishy. If thats true then it is downright unusable as a benchmark.

 

[John Reynolds]

I've known all along where Kyle got his info from. In fact, I can tell you the exact PR employee who gave it to him (not that I will). The fact does remain, however, that regardless of where the tool came from, there were specific references to a particular executable for a game that just so happens to be the most common benchmark. Coincidence? I don't think so. It's also a fact that ATi's next driver release fixed the texture issue with no loss of performance, so if they were trying to falsely inflate the 8500's Q3 scores they did a pretty bad job of it. Who knows. . .maybe the Quack strings bought them time to optimize their drivers.

Is there a lesson to be learned from all of this? IMO, it's that online journalism has a long, long ways to go.

 

[demalion]

How is this a credit to Tom Pabst?

It is a clear discredit to Kyle Bennet, and it seems clear he wouldn't make the specific and clear statements he did without solid grounds (i.e., I tend to believe it due to specific inclusion of the email messages, and clear delineation of its chronology relative to Kyle's article on the issue...it seems other parties would have the means to refute that relationship if it is untrue).

It is not clear it is a discredit to Van Smith, since the actual article Van Smith has on his site does not quite fit the rabid portrayal, though it does offers a clear opinion on Van that can be supported or refuted by others (anyone?).

The motivation for it seems to be a rather impressive and emotional spite and hatred, and I'm sort of surprised I didn't have to wipe rabid foam off o my monitor.

The emotions seem to be a deep offense at the way some readers addressed him for his 9/11 comments on other sites (which I can sympathize with, atleast with his representation since I wasn't reading many sites at the time) intertwined with a set of apparently fairly clear and "incriminating" revelations that reflect badly on Kyle, and another rant that attempts to carry the besmirching provided in that discussion and smear it on Van Smith.
The problem is that what is supporting this second part is only his own emotion, while the actual article (atleast the one I read...was it perhaps changed?) on Van's site doesn't quite fit the rabid picture he paints. Though it being just an echo of AMD PR speak is a valid criticism, there is no equivalent substantion to what he says about Kyle (that he hid it), and no attempt by Van to indicate that it wasn't based on AMD's statements (I saw the AMD PDF first, and recognized the wording and graphs in what Van said pretty easily...that doesn't seem like much of an attempt at hiding). It seems a calculated attempt to smear someone's name, and, in the case of Van Smith, atleast with the information I gathered from TP's article, it seems to attempt misrepresentation to do so.

I don't really know the parties involved personally, and some input on whether Van Smith (the only person of the 3 I don't have negative experience with by some impression I have of their respective comments and sites) fits the picture TP paints would be appreciated. I still stand by my impression that that article was a rather ugly thing that does credit to noone, however...all the self-congratulation and hatred would have benefited by having someone else edit his article with a cooler head.

EDIT: Here is Van's reply, inserted in edit for future reference and an attempt not to divert the thread...I'm not sure where/if a continued discussion about this belongs on this forum. No response from Kyle as of yet. What a Soap Opera this week is shaping up to be...

 

[Doomtrooper]

How is this a credit to Tom Pabst?

Its not really a credit to him, although I respect him not using insider information on something that had been there long before the 8500 launch..I'm not going to get into driver optimizations again but 'everyone does optimizations'.
Where do these famous 'press release drivers' come from if their not optimized
Bottom line as I've been writing this little article about online journalism that alot of it was theory...now alot of it is REAL.
I don't agree with any of the Van Smith crap, Tom let him go because he posted it like it is..what a journalist is supposed to do.
If Tom was really concerned about 'doing the right thing' he should have stated he was contacted by Nvidia about the quake reference..