On 3DMark Issues
- Thread starter Dave Baumann
- Start date
Yes, they could be right that Beyond3D and ET were "hired" purely to be Futuremark's "assassins". It could also be that ET and B3D are truthful about what they reported observing, and are even right to have concluded what they did based on that.
The problem is that one of those beliefs is only substantiated by 100% innuendo, and the other matches extremely well with the observation of reality as it stands.
You're consistent in your preference for the former belief, but please understand that people are free to form negative opinions about your opinion and intents when you consistently promote the innuendo, and only the innuendo, at every turn.
Thank you for now atleast clearly indicating that restatement of that belief was your intent, but I'll note that I manage to find it a singularly pointless reply to the contents and direction of my post, as well as it being a rather confusing quote selection if addressing the point of my post was your intent.
The problem is that one of those beliefs is only substantiated by 100% innuendo, and the other matches extremely well with the observation of reality as it stands.
You're consistent in your preference for the former belief, but please understand that people are free to form negative opinions about your opinion and intents when you consistently promote the innuendo, and only the innuendo, at every turn.
Thank you for now atleast clearly indicating that restatement of that belief was your intent, but I'll note that I manage to find it a singularly pointless reply to the contents and direction of my post, as well as it being a rather confusing quote selection if addressing the point of my post was your intent.
I think Futuremark was smart in bringing 2 INDEPENDANT websites into the beta program. If Futuremark themselves would have come out with this info then people would be saying "futuremark is just mad at Nvidia because Nvidia said bad things about them"
Having outside sources investigate this and report the findings is much better in my opinion. Yet 3dchipset finds fault with this? Why do you think Nvidia sent the quack program to Kyle and other sites rather than release this info themselves? Wouldn't have been as believable coming straight from Nvidia. Independant testing had to be done.
By the way, these websites were included in the beta program BEFORE Nvidia released these buggy* drivers. Did Futuremark know in advance that Nvidia would release these optimized** drivers? Are these sites only going to investigate Nvidia shenanigans?
So far I still haven't seen any of these sites such as 3dchipset propose any credible rebuttles to Extreme techs findings. ExtremeTech did a great job of laying out all of the facts from their investigation. These other sites have done nothing but attack ExtremeTechs motive, with no evidence to support their theories about extreme techs motive, nor without actually presenting any evidence to refute ExtremeTechs findings.
*My politically correct way of saying cheating.
**I really mean cheating here too.
John Reynolds said:Randell said:
That's right! If you can't see it, it's an optimization and not a cheat!
In any game, with no loss of IQ - yes. Come on John you know where I usually come from, I just dont think its helpful to assume every hint of an 'optimisation' = cheat.
Of course I dont agree with Kyles stance on the 3DMark03 'cheat' but no-ones proved that's how the splash screen in 2001SE worked.
Randell said:
Sorry, my post probably came off as more sarcastic than I intended.
IMO, a true optimization works across the board, in timedemos and, more importantly, during actual use of the app. You start taking advantage of fixed view angles used during a synthetic or timedemo and that immediately falls into the category of cheat, at least in my book.
Well, i've already talked about that.
jjayb> Do you think that because they are independant, they can't be used as a tool? For the rest, well, ET and B3D have accessed to the beta project and FM didn't have any press release on this issue, and will or will not release one.
Demalion> Can't Grilla speak of the possible effects of relationship between FM and ET/B3D? I'm just talking of what you are quoting.
jjayb> Do you think that because they are independant, they can't be used as a tool? For the rest, well, ET and B3D have accessed to the beta project and FM didn't have any press release on this issue, and will or will not release one.
Demalion> Can't Grilla speak of the possible effects of relationship between FM and ET/B3D? I'm just talking of what you are quoting.
OpenGL guy
Veteran
Actually, the developer version of 3D Mark 2001 has a free camera mode.Randell said:
Randell said:
I wasn't trying to shout cheat at anything. At least not this time. 8)
Of course they can, and they ARE being used as a tool. A good tool I might add. An INDEPENDANT, NEUTRAL source to investigate any issues like these. Futuremark is not commenting on this which is the smart thing to do. Beyond3d and Extremetech have the technical knowledge to spot and investigate these types of things, which they did.
I can't see any reason for you having issue with independant websites doing the investigation. Other than the fact that it was your precious Nvidia being investigated in this case. Oh wait, there's the mysterious and vague "they could be used as tools". Implying something bad, but not showing how it is bad. I'm showing you how they ARE being used as tools and why it is GOOD that they are being used as tools.
Evildeus said:
And people have already given their opinion on what you've said. Your choice seems to be to ignore those issues and seek every opportunity to say the same things again, seemingly failing to understand certain aspects of what several people point out to you.
Yes, GRilla can.
And I can offer my opinion of it, which I did.
And I can relate that opinion to the topic of the thread, which I also believe I did.
Given what you are stating, it would have been proper to quote GRilla and not quote me, as quoting me implies that you are proposing something that addresses the content of my post. That's not what you were doing...what you were doing is simply repeating an opinion that is unsupported (by other than innuendo), without adding anything in the way of support, and leaving the entire point of my post unaddressed: that I can offer innuendo about GRilla's comments with atleast as much direct correlation to observed reality that GRilla's comments themself have.
Further, GRilla's comments don't provide any factual correspondence to make my innuendo contrast unfavorably with what it is addressing.
Really...do you not understand the statements just made? If you really don't, please ask instead of just repeating yourself and ignoring it. Hopefully this will go better than the PMs.
Because you are not restating the same thing times after times? I think my quote was accurate "Something at 3DChipset that reminds me of Kyle's rant".
Moreover, you are putting 3DChipset and [H] at the same level, that's the reason of my quote if you want to know.
Furthermore, what AJ says, does sound like ET/B3D being 2 "convenient outlets".
Finally, it's not because the sun rises each day that it will tomorow.
PS: I do my quotes as i want to, if you don't like it, don't look at it. Till you are not the owner of this board, i don't owe you anything in any way i quote anybody.
Moreover, you are putting 3DChipset and [H] at the same level, that's the reason of my quote if you want to know.
Furthermore, what AJ says, does sound like ET/B3D being 2 "convenient outlets".
Finally, it's not because the sun rises each day that it will tomorow.
PS: I do my quotes as i want to, if you don't like it, don't look at it. Till you are not the owner of this board, i don't owe you anything in any way i quote anybody.
OpenGL guy
Veteran
I have no idea. I was merely pointing out that this is not a feature new to 3D Mark 2003.Randell said:
Evildeus said:
Yes, and I went and said why, as part of bringing it up as a new occurrence of something I found worthy of criticism. If you have a problem with my actual reasons, then address them. Did you read the rest of the post after that quote? How does your commentary address even that comparison to Kyle that you did quote? You think this write-up had one shred more substantiation to support your stated viewpoint on this matter?
When I asked you for clarification, you simply said "If they don't make any comment, the guy at 3Dchipset could be right." If I'd known you were disputing the rest of my post that supported that quote, I would simply have directed you to read my post again, as you failed to address any of it. That trend continues here...it really seems to me that you have a whole set of things you think are self-evident that goes along with your statements, not realizing that when everyone disagreed with them before they really meant it, and so don't read your text with the same set of assumptions.
Umm...yes, we've been all over your concern for how it is "just odd" that Beyond 3D actually had an opinion on the matter, and that in your evaluation GRilla's statements are justified. That's why I said you were just repeating yourself without adding anything new, because your extent of support is that someone else said it.
Here, ED, really read this if you read anything:
demalion said:
Is there any hope of ceasing simple repetition, or are you just going to object to criticism and leave the reasons for that criticism unaddressed again? If you reply, I ask you to do more than attack the idea of me criticizing you, and give some thought to addressing the statements I've made, when typing your text.
Evlideus said:
Sure.
Err...you quoted me, and I replied. Is it only you that is allowed to quote me? Are you having a problem because I continue to criticize you? That's my reaction to you doing exactly the same thing I've found reason to criticize before...if you want to disagree, the beginning of productivity in that regard is to address the reasons I give instead of just the idea of my having any right to criticize you. It is in response to you quoting me that I addressed you, I've already been informed of your opinion.
You don't see me saying you don't have a right to address my text, I'm only asking you to make sense outside of your own set of assumptions when doing so.
Demalion, this discussion is useless. Perhaps i'm not enough smart, but you don't seems to understand that you are yourself repeating what you have already said.
It's not because you are using different word that's it's different, it's not because 3Dchipset uses different words that its stance is not the same as [H]. You haven't said anything new whatever you think.
And, the word of AJ IS new for me. If you had the information before, good for you, but i didn't. And if you fail to see where this new information, can fuel MY position as you like to say (and those of 3Dchipset and [H]), i can't do more.
It's not because you are using different word that's it's different, it's not because 3Dchipset uses different words that its stance is not the same as [H]. You haven't said anything new whatever you think.
And, the word of AJ IS new for me. If you had the information before, good for you, but i didn't. And if you fail to see where this new information, can fuel MY position as you like to say (and those of 3Dchipset and [H]), i can't do more.
