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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
 
Slides said:
Magnum PI said:
drivers have per-game settings. this is not cheating.
Click to expand...
It's not cheating to reduce the quality of a specific game in order to give it better FPS? You learn new things everyday!

http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/2001/10-24_a.php
http://www.hardocp.com/files/cool_stuff/quackcompare.zip
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grall said:
Then there's always that hardware analyzer thingy that Nvidia helped you guys with who recommended people to go get slower video cards from the preferred manufacturer to replace the superior hardware in their systems... Guess that's all the evidence some people need. Well actually, I don't know how you Onion guys would explain that one in a satisfactory manner, so in this case I guess any conspiracy theorist would be correct.
*G*
Click to expand...
/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"?

misae said:
Even now reviewers are slowly moving away from synthetic benchmarks in favour of real application/game banchmarks (and it has taken too long for this to occur at any rate).
Click to expand...
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... :LOL:
 
John Reynolds said:
RussSchultz said:
Actually, neither. Its a suite of tests I call "ForumMark".

It has several tests:
Click to expand...

You forgot one, Russ, and this isn't directed at any one person:

ScornMark--those who clearly favor a particular IHV and yet possess enough technical knowledge to avoid the appearance of your typical f@nboy. Able to heap mounds of derision upon lesser f@nboys without feeling hypocritical about it.

:devilish:
Click to expand...

ouch

John you're on good form today.
 
misae said:
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... :LOL:
Click to expand...
The latest reviews I have read are still using 3DMark2001 SE. It is a 2 year old benchmark, and still going strong! :D 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? :LOL:
 
Althornin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
As you can see, mip mapping is usually affected by texture quality settings, but only a little bit. ATI's hyper-aggressive "optimization" of mip maps goes well beyond that. Also, quake3.exe shows more aggressive mip mapping than quaff3.exe with at least three of Quake III's four texture quality settings: high, medium, and low.

(It's also worth noting that the Radeon 8500's mip maps are are bounded by two lines that intersect at the middle of the screen. The GeForce3's mip map boundaries come in a smooth arc determined by their distance from the user's point of view. But I'm getting ahead of myself.)

I find it very difficult to believe that what ATI was doing here wasn't 100% intentional. Judge for yourself, but personally, I find the evidence mighty compelling.
Click to expand...

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.
 
stevem said:
As we're still yawning, perhaps Slides may be interested in the "quack" exposé @ THG. App/driver profiling is a well practised art-form...
Click to expand...
Tom isn't exactly the most honest reviewer out their either.
 
Diespinnerz said:
Althornin, grow up.
Click to expand...
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. :rolleyes:
 
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. :rolleyes:
 
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? :devilish:
 
Well, at least I can show you someone who adores 3DMark:

catmark.jpg


Seems to like the Advanced Shader test best - I'm guessing its something to do with the fish... :!:
 
worm[Futuremark said:
]
The latest reviews I have read are still using 3DMark2001 SE. It is a 2 year old benchmark, and still going strong! :D Can't say the same for any other benchmark, now can you.
Click to expand...

humm quake3 is older and we still use it for benchmark :)
 
DaveBaumann said:
Seems to like the Advanced Shader test best - I'm guessing its something to do with the fish... :!:
Click to expand...

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

Entropy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top