nVidia vs Futuremark Continued - Guess what nVidia's doing!

A

Arun

Unknown.
Moderator
Legend
( Disclaimer: I just posted the exact same thing at nV News, didn't feel like doing 2 different posts for no good reason )

Hey everyone,

As always, I'll just quote GPU:RW :)

Not a lot of new info nowadays, but don't worry, because here's some GPU:RW-only info!
First of all, nVidia is set to rejoin FutureMark's beta program. Amusing, isn't it? :)
And secondly, FutureMark agreed to do a demo ( I don't believe this is a benchmark demo, just something like Dawn ) for nVidia's NV40, to be launched at Comdex.
Click to expand...


In an unrelated note, I'm going on vacation as of tommorow, for five days, so don't worry if I don't update the site ( not like I did it much nowadays, wasn't my fault then, eh ) - I am *still* alive ( Okay, I don't know if I'm alive right now, but this ain't a phylosophical site :p )

Thanks, and hope you enjoyed the info! Don't have many precisions, but you could always ask now and I'll see if I can suppose anything... Doubt I can though :devilish:


Uttar

EDIT: Err, just noticed it might not be the right forum, sorry mods. Could you move it please?
 
Get out! :D

I hope this is a sign that FM, if not 3DM03, is here to stay. Now ;et's see if their next version will include separate paths, or more of a nod toward the FX's strengths.
 
Perhaps its wasn't too expensive, but too much to pay for what they got out of it.

Apparently its worth more than they thought it was.
 
Hmm, and I wonder which product is now holding the number one slot in the 3DMark03 ORB? :rolleyes:
 
Neeyik said:
Hmm, and I wonder which product is now holding the number one slot in the 3DMark03 ORB? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If that's a 5900U with the latest drivers with the cheats re-enabled, shouldn't those be excluded from the online browser? Are Futuremark giving up on keeping up to date with driver cheats for 3DMark2003, and are thus including invalid results in the ORB?
 
Well theres no proof that the cheats have been reenabled yet.

Nvidia could have done entirely legit driver optimisations...... :rolleyes: :D

I like the way that they're WHQL for all cards except GF FX :)
 
It will be a more effective benchmark with everyone "on song" as it were, rather than one on the outskirts crying foul. AFAIK it has never been FM's intention to completely alienate NVIDIA, however there are still a number of initiative being pushed by FM in order to maintain a slightly fairer driver playgound - we'll have to wait a while to see if any of these actually come off though.
 
DaveBaumann said:
It will be a more effective benchmark with everyone "on song" as it were, rather than one on the outskirts crying foul. AFAIK it has never been FM's intention to completely alienate NVIDIA, however there are still a number of initiative being pushed by FM in order to maintain a slightly fairer driver playgound - we'll have to wait a while to see if any of these actually come off though.
Click to expand...

The Futuremark position of "render the output we want, how we want, using the methods we want" is incompatible with Nvidia's position of "optimise/cheat as we want, with different output, out of DX spec and specifically using non-game techniques".

I can't see them coming together unless one or the other gives up on their fundamental positions.
 
[quote="Bouncing Zabaglione Bros]
The Futuremark position of "render the output we want, how we want, using the methods we want" is incompatible with Nvidia's position of "optimise/cheat as we want, with different output, out of DX spec and specifically using non-game techniques".

I can't see them coming together unless one or the other gives up on their fundamental positions.[/quote]

FM has given up on their fundamental position! Their benchmark can no longer be viewed as an objective performance test. It is obvious from nVidia's recent drivers that the cheats are back.
 
You people amuse me. You praise FutureMark for going their job as a soverign company whose goal is to provide inclusive benchmarks that are of industry standard levels, recognized for it's cross-IHV consistency and the legitamicy of the company [Futuremark] as seen in calling out nVidia's prior actions. Yet, when they stick to their underlying and fundimental principle to be inclusive to the IHV community and accept input from the entire, broad, spectrum of the 3D field - you bitch.

So, f*ck Futuremark for not adhering to your slanted anti-nVidia agenda. How dare they... Perhaps the sooner you attempt to listen to Mr. Baumann (whose intelligence and logic concerning these matters outclasses most every responce to the origional post combined) the sooner you'll realize just how slanted your thinking is.
 
I know I predicted around here somewhere that this would be the quid-pro-quo for Futuremark backing off from "cheating" after a decent interval. Sort of like those missiles in Turkey that we (well, for those of you who are 'muricuns) absolutely positively no way traded for the ones in Cuba back in the day. No sirree!
 
Vince said:
You people amuse me. You praise FutureMark for going their job as a soverign company whose goal is to provide inclusive benchmarks that are of industry standard levels, recognized for it's cross-IHV consistency and the legitamicy of the company [Futuremark] as seen in calling out nVidia's prior actions. Yet, when they stick to their underlying and fundimental principle to be inclusive to the IHV community and accept input from the entire, broad, spectrum of the 3D field - you bitch.

So, f*ck Futuremark for not adhering to your slanted anti-nVidia agenda. How dare they... Perhaps the sooner you attempt to listen to Mr. Baumann (whose intelligence and logic concerning these matters outclasses most every responce to the origional post combined) the sooner you'll realize just how slanted your thinking is.
Click to expand...

What strange comments... It was nVidia, as I recall, last December who quit the 3DMark program and started publicly disparaging the benchmark. T'was nVidia doing the bitching initially, as I recall...

T'was also nVidia doing the cheating, which nVidia's never owned up to...yet, although it's a foregone conclusion that they've grossly cheated the benchmark.

Certainly, I'm sure you don't wish to consider FM as "slanted" when they officially proved nVidia was cheating their benchmark...? Or do you think we should just sweep that under the rug and turn a blind eye to it from now on?

BTW, what do you mean "prior actions"...? I see no resolution of the matter yet. Do you? If so, please point me to a statement from nVidia acknowledging the issues FM raised and promising different behavior. Your point about "input from the entire, broad, spectrum of the 3D field" seems inept to me and completely incongruent with any facts I've seen. When was nVidia excluded from providing such input? FM didn't push nVidia out--nVidia left of its own accord.

What people are concerned with is the specter of nVidia usurping the benchmark in the future, and that to nVidia "input" means "control." I see no reason that's an illegitimate concern, considering nVidia's behavior to date.

I'm not sure what Dave means about a "slightly fairer driver playground" as that would imply something was "unfair" to begin with, and imply that these issues were not of nVidia's construction--which I don't think Dave means to say. IE, nVidia was not forced to quit the program initially, to publicly criticize the benchmark, and then to cheat it. Those were all actions taken exclusively by nVidia.

Considering that FM has already allowed nVidia to attempt to pervert the word "optimize" so that it's confused with "cheating," people are rightfully wondering whether the company is actually run by IHV rubber stamps, or whether they are interested in producing legitimate benchmark software. Prior to FM's retraction-that-wasn't-a-retraction, people assumed the latter. Now...who knows?

IMO, until nVidia acknowledges its actions and its responsibility, and pledges to chart a future course in a different direction, nothing has been resolved.
 
Vince said:
You people amuse me. You praise FutureMark for going their job as a soverign company whose goal is to provide inclusive benchmarks that are of industry standard levels, recognized for it's cross-IHV consistency and the legitamicy of the company [Futuremark] as seen in calling out nVidia's prior actions. Yet, when they stick to their underlying and fundimental principle to be inclusive to the IHV community and accept input from the entire, broad, spectrum of the 3D field - you bitch.

So, f*ck Futuremark for not adhering to your slanted anti-nVidia agenda. How dare they... Perhaps the sooner you attempt to listen to Mr. Baumann (whose intelligence and logic concerning these matters outclasses most every responce to the origional post combined) the sooner you'll realize just how slanted your thinking is.
Click to expand...


vince back off . Calm down before you post. Don't use the words your using your better than that .

When futuremark called nvidia on thier bs that was great. When futuremark back down and stoped calling htem cheats that was bad . Nvidia entering the beta program right after haviing its way with futuremark is bad. If nvidia can now controll futuremark with out being in the beta program how much worse is it going to be now that they are back in. Those are my feelings based on prior events.
 
IMHO, maybe Nvidia realized that OEMs prefer to have a standard bench mark to use. Perhaps, on the other hand, cheating in every game out there is just to daunting a task for the driver devs. Think of how much time and money could be saved by cheating in just 3Dmark and not having to worry about all the other bench marks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
NVIDIA Q3 Earnings + CC
2
Replies
32
Views
9K
Arun
A
A
NVIDIA Q2 Results
2 3
Replies
47
Views
10K
Razor1
R
S
NVIDIA nForce 4 = disaster
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
swaaye
S
S
About NVIDIA, Futuremark and HardOCP
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
XForce
X
S
About NVIDIA, Futuremark and HardOCP
Replies
0
Views
2K
Scali
S
Back
Top