Ops,"I" did it again. Why does Futuremark still ke
- Thread starter engall
- Start date
DeathKnight
Regular
All I care is that my 9500 Pro with a 1.46GHz T-Bird gets 3353 3DMarks in it.
StealthHawk
Regular
Chalnoth said:
And it just happened to bring scores to the same level as when NVIDIA was cheating? Talk about coincidences. Considering that in 44.65 we know NVIDIA is altering the shader code I don't see how they are getting similar scores without altering it in 44.67
Accepting this continued behaviour is quite damaging to FutureMark.
They lost a lot of public goodwill and interest already in nVidias initial attack against their product. They then proceed to alienate the substantial group who still saw value in the benchmark with their continued acceptance of nVidia and their shenanigans, making the benchmark useless for comparisons between IHVs, and generally reducing the value of their data base.
They are progressively loosing public interest in their products, and as they loose public interest, some of their revenue streams will eventually dry out.
IMHO, being passive and hoping that things will blow over just isn't an option at this point. The downward spiral is firmly in place, now it's simply a question of pace.
While it might be damaging to their short term financials, taking steps to ensure that their benchmark products can produce useful data might give the company some kind of long term viability. That way, they produce something that is actually interesting or even useful to some parties. It also provides a handle to turn the continued loss of public interest around.
Going down the other path, where they only produce benchmarketing material, is a dead end route when the public no longer cares about the numbers that are produced. Then they are useless even to the companies that have an interest in paying for benchmarketing to promote their wares.
Entropy
They lost a lot of public goodwill and interest already in nVidias initial attack against their product. They then proceed to alienate the substantial group who still saw value in the benchmark with their continued acceptance of nVidia and their shenanigans, making the benchmark useless for comparisons between IHVs, and generally reducing the value of their data base.
They are progressively loosing public interest in their products, and as they loose public interest, some of their revenue streams will eventually dry out.
IMHO, being passive and hoping that things will blow over just isn't an option at this point. The downward spiral is firmly in place, now it's simply a question of pace.
While it might be damaging to their short term financials, taking steps to ensure that their benchmark products can produce useful data might give the company some kind of long term viability. That way, they produce something that is actually interesting or even useful to some parties. It also provides a handle to turn the continued loss of public interest around.
Going down the other path, where they only produce benchmarketing material, is a dead end route when the public no longer cares about the numbers that are produced. Then they are useless even to the companies that have an interest in paying for benchmarketing to promote their wares.
Entropy
As of Monday NVIDIA rejoined the Beta program. As of Monday one of the most stand up guys I know left Futuremark.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
DaveBaumann said:
So it's official - Futuremark sold out to Nvidia.
Nvidia couldn't be top of the test fairly, so they cheated, then threatened the company with court, and now have given a load of cash to Futuremark to keep quiet about the cheating. All for this "useless" benchmark.
What have the other 3DMark members got to say about this? Will B3D withdraw from membership of Futuremark? Will ATI introduce blatent cheats now that Futuremark have sanctioned such behaviour?
What are Nvidia apologist sites like [H] going to say now that Nvidia endorses 3Dmark, and even quotes their (cheating) results during their financial conferences? Will they start using 3Dmark results under pressure from Nvidia, now their masters tell them the test isn't "useless", even when the rest of us know it's more broken than ever?
Fred, there was no accusations there, that was just two statements that I found out to be the case yesterday. However, it doesn't take a mind reader to to fathom that they are inevitably linked - take a look back at some of the posts by Rev over the history of this issue.
I'm expecting a call from Futuremark on Monday to find out some more details. As for an interview it wouldn't do much good because he'll inevitably still be bound by his NDA's - we already know far more about the situation than we can ever talk about publically.
I'm expecting a call from Futuremark on Monday to find out some more details. As for an interview it wouldn't do much good because he'll inevitably still be bound by his NDA's - we already know far more about the situation than we can ever talk about publically.
Oh, come on.Fred said:
How on earth can you suggest that "this guy" is at liberty to discuss the internals of Futuremark, never mind that it is hardly in his best interests to do so no matter what?
It has been bleeding obvious that there has been internal conflicts regarding how the situation with nVidia should be handled. Not surprising. Nor is it surprising that there might be individuals who feel that Futuremark may now be a less attractive place to spend their professional futures than, say, a year ago.
Dave is a human being, not only a representative of B3D. It is obvious that it was Dave-the-human who spoke above, about a guy he would seem to respect a lot.
Entropy
Edit: Dave beat me to it. There is nothing that says that everything he posts here must be checked and accepted by the legal and PR departments of various companies. Live with it.
StealthHawk
Regular
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:DaveBaumann said:
So it's official - Futuremark sold out to Nvidia.
Nvidia couldn't be top of the test fairly, so they cheated, then threatened the company with court, and now have given a load of cash to Futuremark to keep quiet about the cheating. All for this "useless" benchmark.
What have the other 3DMark members got to say about this? Will B3D withdraw from membership of Futuremark? Will ATI introduce blatent cheats now that Futuremark have sanctioned such behaviour?
What are Nvidia apologist sites like [H] going to say now that Nvidia endorses 3Dmark, and even quotes their (cheating) results during their financial conferences? Will they start using 3Dmark results under pressure from Nvidia, now their masters tell them the test isn't "useless", even when the rest of us know it's more broken than ever?
Since when did Futuremark sanction cheating? I'd say they are turning a blind eye to it. I haven't yet seen them say "yes, NVIDIA's optimizations are acceptable." In fact, we've heard the opposite. That cheating or optimization, they are still invalid.
The question is, once NVIDIA launches some new official drivers which bring the scores back up, will Futuremark do anything or stay silent? I'm betting at this point that they will just keep quiet.
While this is true in general, can you look at the facts of this whole nVidia/3DMark03-thing and still believe valid optimizations to be the cause for the recent re-alignment of 3DMark-scores?Chalnoth said:
Very interesting info, thanks for sharing, Dave!DaveBaumann said:
Good questions, very good questions.Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
I don't see much of difference between sanctioning the suspect increases and just keeping quite about it while allowing scores to be entered into the ORB using suspect drivers.StealthHawk said:
cu
incurable
Similar threads
