Late, noisy, HUGE!!! - makes 17k Mark...

As DaveB said it is old news... the point is the differences are so obvious that it must have been a mistake/bug in the drivers as it did something horrendous to the textures/mip maps.... there is another article on www.tech-report.com.

And no offence but do not link to that P.O.S site HardOCP.com as his [Kyle] journalistic integrity has been called into question over this issue as well as another.. simply put he [Kyle] did not discover the quack references on his own but got help from another source seeking to discredit their competitors product.

This happens a lot especially with online journalism... what pisses me off about Kyle is that he is such a hypocrite.

So there you go: the Quack deal existed BEFORE the Radeon 8500 ... however some bug/mistake made the IQ disastrous (if it was done intentionally then it was still a HUGE MISTAKE).

NVIDIA also optimises their drivers for Quake3 and even 3DMARK as has been mentioned in the past.. is it still cheating? Is it cheating when your drivers activate Point Sampling by mistake (no filtering at all!)?

So even though you are new if you want more information do a search through these forums and you will see a gazillion posts dedicated to this new 'news'.

 

Yes, we can all see a difference.

The point being, the string was there before this occured (with no detriment to quality) and was removed (with no detriment to performance) after this. No matter how much you go on about it there will always be those that will take ATI's words on trust and argue its a bug, and those that will argue that its a cheat - continuing on about it will get nowhere.

 

As we're still yawning, perhaps Slides may be interested in the "quack" exposé @ THG. App/driver profiling is a well practised art-form...

 

Good god, moron, i explained this too you.
IF it gets fixed (no degraded texture quality) and the speed is the same (which it was, with next driver rev) - how can you say the speed was a result of texture degredation?
please, use some logic.
Besides which, we have argued this one till we are blue in the face.
dont come here thinking to "enlighten" people - you are not smart enough to do that.

 

Althornin, grow up.

 

/me is still a bit confused about this PA thing.

As you (and many others) should know by now, NVIDIA was not the only one using the PA. Their rival ATI also used the PA. Besides, NVIDIA didn't help us in that. Not sure how you came up with that? I'm not really sure how the PA could even be a piece of some "evidence"?

They have? Hmm.. We haven't updated our Media Usage Report in a while, but you can view last year's here http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/?companypdfs. It gives a pretty good indication how used 3DMark really is.

Anyway, I think we have discussed this issue so many times that we all can it by heart.

 

worm:
yes reviews online still use 3DMark however what I meant is that they are no longer pushiing out all those 3DMark + Quake3 benches and calling it a day.

Now can I have a free copy of 3DMark03 for evaluation purposes please.

Thanks in advance...

 

ouch

John you're on good form today.

 

The latest reviews I have read are still using 3DMark2001 SE. It is a 2 year old benchmark, and still going strong! Can't say the same for any other benchmark, now can you.

Anyway, 3DMark03 is coming and is introducing a new line of tests again. We did also focus a bit more on the image quality this year. I did my best on pushing more IQ testing into 3DMark.

A free copy? Let's see.. Ok, if you post 100 threads (at least 50 here at B3D) with the subject as "I love Futuremark and I urge you all to use 3DMark03 in all your reviews!" I could send you a free version of 3DMark03 PRO on CD. Doesn't that sound fair?

 

Look here little fanboy, ATI most deliberately lowered the quality of the mipmaping for Quake3, which they were FORCED to fix later on when they were discovered. And performance never increased as much afterwards.

http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2001q4/radeon-q3/index.x?pg=5

And here's a good balanced editorial by rage3d on the subject: http://www.rage3d.com/articles/editorials/quakequack/

My point is not to call ATI a cheat or break back old arguments this board has already dealt with, but to just make certain fanboys realize that both ATI and Nvidia are in this to earn profit (duh!), not to give warm fuzzy feelings to fanboys.

 

Tom isn't exactly the most honest reviewer out their either.

 

lol, i'm not the one bringing up a dead horse to beat on some more.
Everyone already has an opinion on the subject. No new info=no new opinions.
I'm tired of the trolls.

THe only thing i should have done is to not bite at all.
But thanks for your informative (and usefull) post.
I will certainly take it into consideration.

 

quit bringing the ati quack thing back up, its been beaten to death in the past...MOVE ON

 

Good God. I feel like someone jumped into the way-back machine.

Seriously, people still bringing up the ATI Quake/Quack fiasco...and not mentioning the Nvidia SplashScreen fiasco.

And to add something actually relevant to the original intention of this thread, I don't consider a 17K 3DMark2K1 that impressive. I'm sitting at 16910 as it is. That's with an AMD CPU (seems Intel scores higher) and a 9700Pro card that hardly overclocks at all.

BTW: Russ, you forgot a very important criteria for your ForumMark:
DerailmentMark: It determines how quickly(or likely) a thread is(to be) hijacked.

 

I bought it up since some people kept bringing up the nvidia+futuremark conspiracy. It's only fair. You'd think I insulted somebody’s mother.

 

Didn't see it mentioned in relation to ForumMark, but what about SpeculationMark, which measures the amount of factual to speculated information. This could also tie in to PredictiveMark, which measures how accurate the speculation or rumors has turned out over time.

Seriously, there are quite a few marks that I think could be quite useful in a forum. So who's up for coding the logic so the server can do all this automagicly, Marco?

 

Well, at least I can show you someone who adores 3DMark:



Seems to like the Advanced Shader test best - I'm guessing its something to do with the fish...

 

humm quake3 is older and we still use it for benchmark

 

LOL!

 

You've never seen cats and real butterflies? Cats just - can't - Resist!

Entropy