If you can't see it, it's not cheating.

[Evildeus]

Let's see, if a 10 year old is asked to make up his room and he just tosses everything under the bed, what would that be? Cheating or optimizing?

Cheating, but the rule is "to make up his room " that he didn't. Now if it was i don't want to see anymore this mess, what would that be? cheating or optimisation?

The point is, you are trying to make me say that there only one rule, i.e. FM rule, which is wrong. Under FM rules, Nv cheated (well before the PR thing), but under Kyle's rules, Nv didn't cheated.

Well, i think it's enough, i don't have anymore to say, if you disagree, ok, but i think my way is valid (ie under the rules that people makes we can say if there're cheating or not). Thx.

 

[Tridam]

The first problem when talking about this is vocabulary.

Optimising : find a way to do the same work faster (no quality drop.. under the bed and everywhere)
Cheating : mislead people about performances in real world gaming (where you can look under the bed)
Compromising : increase performances with a quality decrease (of course there are good and bad compromises and this is subjective)

Optimising is always good, cheating is always bad, and compromising can be both.

NVIDIA has made some good compromises, some bad compromises, some very good optimisations and some really weird cheats. These last are the main problem (the impossibility to optionally disable some bad compromises is another one). It's very easy to cheat in public benchmarks because you can use predictability and forget about what we can't see (under the bed). The only way to avoid this is to be confident about the honesty and the integrity of IHV Sorry there's another more practical: make the benchmark to look under the bed

 

[andypski]

Let's see, if a 10 year old is asked to make up his room and he just tosses everything under the bed, what would that be? Cheating or optimizing?

I suppose it would depend on whether his parents look under the bed...

What's really good is that his parents come in and catch him the first time, and then the next time they come back he's glued boards around the bed so that they can't see under it.

He tells them that there's no junk there any more...

 

[Himself]

LOL

ED:

Wasn't trying to get you to say anything. However, there is such a thing as common sense, and NVIDIA doesn't have a staff of 10 year olds working there. Could be wrong though, would explain a lot.

 

[WaltC]

LOL

ED:

Wasn't trying to get you to say anything. However, there is such a thing as common sense, and NVIDIA doesn't have a staff of 10 year olds working there. Could be wrong though, would explain a lot.

Surprisingly, I think there's more to your tongue 'n cheek remark than you might think. I think that some of these companies really believe that it's only "10 year olds" who are very interested in "3d games" in the first place. Heh...I remember looking at the product box some company used for a $400 3D card a couple of years ago--it featured a kid on the front, male, no more than 10 years of age, whose hair was blown back and standing on end as if he'd placed a finger in a light socket... Man, oh, man...that was one case when I could truly say the picture on the box was so offensive and insulting to me that it would have put me off that company's version of the product entirely... There've been lots of companies over the past few years who have used some really childish marketing tactics for expensive 3D cards--go figure. I felt the same way a few years ago with Matrox and its Mystique marketing efforts--which seemed basically geared to pre teens. I guess it depends on your point of view, but over the years I've seen several marketing campaigns for expensive 3D cards geared to 10 year olds, literally. It just seems as if some of these companies have no clue as to the markets they serve.