3DMark03 Updated - Build 3.3.0

[anoniem]

De Reactie van nVidia op de patch: [quote:7b570aa3fd]Since nVidia is not part in the FutureMark beta program (a program which costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in) we do not get a chance to work with Futuremark on writing the shaders like we would with a real applications developer. We don't know what they did but it looks like they have intentionally tried to create a scenario that makes our products look bad. This is obvious since our relative performance on games like Unreal Tournament 2003 and Doom3 shows that The GeForce FX 5900 is by far the fastest graphics on the market today. [/quote:7b570aa3fd]

[anoniem]

Tja, ik heb het nu gelezen over die cheats. Best erg dat ze op die manier reclame willen maken voor hun kaarten. Dat had ik nou niet verwacht.

[anoniem]

De reactie van futuremark is natuurlijk zo heftig (de grootste videokaartbakker zo aanpakken is natuurlijk erg bijzonder) omdat ze hun reputatie willen redden, maar zoals Slashhead al reageert zullen erg veel reviewers reageren (wat zij hilbert nu op guru3d, dat hij de 3dmark resultaten er maar bij had gezet omdat hij anders toch bedolven zou worden onder de verzoeken) Dus mensen, het is het einde van een tijdperk, tijd voor een nieuwe benchmark :) Testen zoals Slashhead doet is natuurlijk erg goed, maar ik als consument wil toch ook een test, welke ik thuis makkelijk kan doen om te kijken in hoever ik nog mee kan met de nieuwste kaarten, en een timedemo in een of andere game is niet altijd even makkelijk. En een test om te zien of mijn systeem wel optimaal draait is ook wel handig, daar is een 3dmark score ook erg handig voor.

[anoniem]

Daarvoor heb je hun database, zodat je kunt zien of je systeem een beetje naar behoren presteert. Voor mij heeft FutureMark helemaal afgedaan en zal ik het voorlopig niet meer gebruiken in mijn reviews. Totdat zij instaat zijn om met iets beters te komen maak ik alleen nog gebruik van echte games. Ik hoop dat ID een beetje opschiet...

[anoniem]

[quote:84ad28517d="Slashhead"]Daarvoor heb je hun database, zodat je kunt zien of je systeem een beetje naar behoren presteert.[/quote:84ad28517d] Ja, maar wat is hun database nog waard? iedere 3dmark junky met een GF installeert de patch natuurlijk niet.

[anoniem]

ja maar daar let je als eerste op als je een 3dmark score van een GeForce FX eigenaar bekijkt. alleen de build 330 scores tellen mee.

[anoniem]

[quote:8f976504ad="Red Dragon"]ja maar daar let je als eerste op als je een 3dmark score van een GeForce FX eigenaar bekijkt. alleen de build 330 scores tellen mee.[/quote:8f976504ad] 3DMark03 Revision 2 Build 0 is de foute zeker? Ga jij ook ff snel je 3dmark score update, ook ATI had een hogere score ;)

[anoniem]

[quote:d530b59708="hjs"][quote:d530b59708="Red Dragon"]ja maar daar let je als eerste op als je een 3dmark score van een GeForce FX eigenaar bekijkt. alleen de build 330 scores tellen mee.[/quote:d530b59708] 3DMark03 Revision 2 Build 0 is de foute zeker? Ga jij ook ff snel je 3dmark score update, ook ATI had een hogere score ;)[/quote:d530b59708] Yeps. maar bij ATI gaat het om maar een paar punten, misschien dat ik dan 6000 haal of zo. ik ga hem nog wel een keer opnieuw draaien. ik heb alleen nu geen zin om me 120mm fan weer in me kast te zetten.

[anoniem]

Ik gebruik 3dmark ook eigenlijk alleen om te kijken wat ik optimaal uit mijn syteem kan halen. Wat nu afvalt is dan ook eigenlijk de functie om te kijken wat je kaart waard is in de toekomst. Aangezien in elke game met aliasing 4x en aniso 8x soepel loopt interpreteerde ik de fps in enkele testen al niet als vergelijkings materiaal voor de huidige generatie spellen.

[anoniem]

:lol: nvidia doet wel leuke dingen om de aandacht te krijgen :lol: nog een voorbeeldje [quote:9823e021c0]Look's like Nvidia are Hiring Porn stars to spice up the parties Investors on a Yahoo board are wondering just how Nvidia will justify pulling in a famous porn star at a party held at the E3 games show recently. One investor said: At least the employees are having fun. Oh, and compensated. The Inquirer.net [/quote:9823e021c0] Nog een gerucht welke ik lees op t.net [quote:9823e021c0]Er gaan ook al geruchten (zie beyond3D) dat NVIDIA mensen in dienst heeft, die niets anders doen dan Splintercell optimalisaties zitten te zoeken, met als enige doel benchmarks te flessen.[/quote:9823e021c0] Zeker het spel waarvan ze verwachten dat veel mensen het als benchmark gaan gebruiken? Als het waar is, zullen die mensen welke nu splintercell zitten te ontleden eerst wel bezig zijn geweest met UT e.d. :(

[anoniem]

Tja, hoe komen indianen verhalen in de wereld... Ik heb net nog even UT2003 bekeken. Ook in de andere demo's (een stuk of 5 afgezien van asbestos en antalus) presteert de GeForce FX heel normaal. Er is geen abnormale uitkomst te zien tussen deze twee levels en de overige.

[anoniem]

[quote:b1ae1dee65="Slashhead"]Tja, hoe komen indianen verhalen in de wereld... Ik heb net nog even UT2003 bekeken. Ook in de andere demo's (een stuk of 5 afgezien van asbestos en antalus) presteert de GeForce FX heel normaal. Er is geen abnormale uitkomst te zien tussen deze twee levels en de overige.[/quote:b1ae1dee65] Komt ook van de inquier af. :-?

[anoniem]

[quote:e7ed9dd1d7]We had a chance to get the follow up remarks of Tero Sarkkinen's, Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Futuremark, regarding the recent claims of Nvidia. [quote:e7ed9dd1d7] [b:e7ed9dd1d7]HardAve[/b:e7ed9dd1d7]: In light of the recent struggles between your 3DMark2003 and Nvidia's driver set, we would like to hear your remarks regarding Nvidia's claims your software intentionally put the GeforceFX product in bad light after Nvidia passed on the opportunity in becoming a beta program partner of Futuremark's. On top of this, with the new 330 patch, it appears 3DMark2003 is the only benchmark showing the GeforceFX 5900Ultra well behind the competition, where other apps like UT2003 and Doom3 showcase the exact opposite. Why is this? [b:e7ed9dd1d7]Tero Sarkkinen[/b:e7ed9dd1d7]: Any suggestion that Futuremark would intentionally penalize or favor any specific hardware in our products is absurd and NOT TRUE. And please note that we are not attacking here, we are just defending our product. We are in the business of making objective benchmarks and we intend to keep it that way. We respect deeply our BETA members, which include the biggest in the industry, and they all have participated in the development of 3DMark03. NVIDIA themselves was an active member of the BETA program until December 2002. NVIDIA's claim that "since they are not a beta partner, they do not get a chance to write shaders like they would with real applications developer" is irrelevant and to us it seems like an attempt to shift discussion to a different topic. The topic here is that the drivers special cased 3DMark03 and resulted in an incorrect score which made false representation of their products' performance in 3DMark03. 3DMark03 was developed strictly according to DirectX9 standard in very close cooperation with Microsoft and other BETA members. If hardware performs well 3DMark03, it performs well in all applications that use DirectX 9. Note that since 3DMark is designed to be an objective evaluation tool, it does _not_ include manufacturer-specific optimizations. This is why it is exceptionally well suitable for objective performance measurement. Since we all now see how tempting it is to try to cheat in a benchmark, we have started to work with our partners in order to develop new structures and processes to weed out cheating and unfair play in all benchmarks. This is a business opportunity for us, since due to our role and position we are better suited to act in this role than e.g. game benchmark providers. We welcome all interested parties to work with us in this important initiative. NVIDIA is an extremely capable company with great products. We welcome them to continue the competition in the hardware development with fair means. In reply to your more specific question, 3DMark03 is a forward looking DirectX 9 benchmark. It stresses the hardware with workloads that will be typical of DirectX 9 games. Thus, hardware's performance in Unreal Tournament 2003 does not necessarily bear relation to that how that hardware will perform in DirectX 9 workloads, which make an extensive use of pixel and vertex shading. Doom 3 is not a published product yet but we have seen few reviews. Based on those reviews, it seems that in Doom 3 there are performance differences depending on which codepath is used for different hardware. Not much more can be said at this time, as the application is not ready and not available for public testing (although we very much would like to see it :)[/quote:e7ed9dd1d7][/quote:e7ed9dd1d7] http://www.hardavenue.com/#newsitem1054020435,86380,

[anoniem]

[quote:2618900aa7][b:2618900aa7]ATI Technologies Admits Cheating the Drivers To Achieve Higher 3DMark03 Score[/b:2618900aa7] Will Not Cheat Again by Anton Shilov 05/26/2003 | 04:02 AM ATI Technologies’ Director of PR, Chris Evenden, responded to accusations in cheating with the CATALYST drivers in order to achieve higher results in 3DMark03. The scandal broke on Friday, the 23rd of May, when Futuremark, the developer of the 3DMark03 issued a document stating that NVIDIA and ATI Technologies implemented cheats in drivers in an attempt to score better in 3DMark03 benchmark. According to ATI’s representative quoted by Beyond3D in their editorial over here, the 1.9% performance gain came from optimization of the two DirectX 9.0 shaders (water and sky) in Game Test 4. ATI rendered the scene exactly as intended by Futuremark, in full-precision floating point. Their shaders were mathematically and functionally identical to Futuremark's and there were no visual artifacts; according to ATI Technologies, the company simply shuffled instructions to take advantage of their architecture. ATI states that these were exactly the sort of optimizations that work in games to improve frame rates without reducing image quality and as such, were a realistic approach to a benchmark intended to measure in-game performance. However, ATI recognized that these can be used by some people to call into question the legitimacy of the benchmark results, and so they would remove them from their driver as soon as is physically possible. They expect them to be gone by the next release of CATALYST. ATI Technologies was less aggressive in its statements than NVIDIA Corporation, who accused Futuremark of developing unfair benchmarks. Nevertheless, I would point out that ATI will not have to remove anything from the drivers keeping in mind that Futuremark already made the patch to ignore the cheats. Another thing for you to note is that 3DMark03 is not a game and every single technique to “optimize” it can be considered as a cheat. I wonder if ATI actually optimizes anything for real games with pixel shaders. Anyway, the company claims it will not cheat again with the 3DMark03 and that is definitely a positive piece of information. But what about NVIDIA?[/quote:2618900aa7] Bron 1: http://www.tweakers.net/nieuws/27161 Bron 2: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030526040035.html

[anoniem]

Ook Carmack reageert op het cheaten van Nvidia in 3DMark03: [quote:2cc896e3d3] The significant issue that clouds current ATI / Nvidia comparisons is fragment shader precision. Nvidia can work at 12 bit integer, 16 bit float, and 32 bit float. ATI works only at 24 bit float. There isn't actually a mode where they can be exactly compared. DX9 and ARB_fragment_program assume 32 bit float operation, and ATI just converts everything to 24 bit. For just about any given set of operations, the Nvidia card operating at 16 bit float will be faster than the ATI, while the Nvidia operating at 32 bit float will be slower. When DOOM runs the NV30 specific fragment shader, it is faster than the ATI, while if they both run the ARB2 shader, the ATI is faster.[/quote:2cc896e3d3] [url=http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=65617&cid=6051216]Slashdot.org[/url]

[anoniem]

[b:636de2c07e]Small Statement on 3dmark '03 [/b:636de2c07e] [quote:636de2c07e]Posted by Hilbert on the 28th of May, 2003 It seems that a few sites out there are trying to discredit Guru3D.com by taking a oneliner from my statement regarding 3D Mark 03 yesterday which was meant to be somewhat sarcastic and as it seems is now taken the wrong way. It was probably not the most clever thing to say but hey .. I'm human you know. Here's what 2 or 3 sites are spreading: "Guru3D, applauding nVIDIA for cheating" which is totally out of context and thus complete BS. Since there is much controversion regarding the topic let me make a small statement on this all: Guru3D.com does not condone _any_ cheating in matters of obtaining objective test-results, optimizing is okay though. There's a distinct difference between the two. Now back to my statement .. I do not applaud nVIDIA for cheating .. not at all, I think it's a sorry excuse to market a product where it should not be. Why do you think we pull 3DMark 03 from the benchmark suite for the time being ? Not because we dislike FutureMark, contrary we have excellent relations with FutureMark and I intent to keep them that way as I truly believe there is a place for synthetic benchmarking. No, this a signal towards companies like ATI and nVIDIA to stop cheating. If you cheat on a benchmark, we ditch it. Which renders all the time that a programmer(s) invested into the drivers useless. The problem here however is how do we know what is and is not being cheated on ? We need objective benchmarks , these are the most important tools for sites like Guru3D.com to bring an objective review to the end user who is buying a product based on that review. Now to the point where I gave nVIDIA a small sarcastic pat on the back. nVIDIA went all the way with their cheats, they where able to hack to a gain of 25% while ATI's improvement was like 2%. So nVIDIA didn't care and hacked everything they possibly could, from my point of view they had the guts to do it all the way. It's one of my motto's if you do something, do it all the way. We do not agree with cheating itself though. nVIDIA is like 98% of the reason why we are pulling 03 from the benchmark suite for the time being. What is happening here is simply not right and we are making a signal to the industry, stop cheating! The graphics card companies are not the only ones at fault here though, I must adress FutureMark here as there is something that disturbs me. Therefore I like to close with one argument: FutureMark .. why oh why do you allow partners like nVIDIA and ATI into your beta program ?!? For a few thousand dollars a year you give them every possible piece of code they could possibly want and as you have learned by now .. they use it to optimize and cheat your objective software. What on earth did you expect ? This statement from Patric Ojala, 3DMark Producer made me go say 'What?': [color=green:636de2c07e][i:636de2c07e]First of all, you can join the Futuremark beta program, if you are in some way a significant player in the PC industry and you pay the membership fee of $5000 USD / year. And second, [b:636de2c07e]Nvidia was a member of our beta program, got pre-release builds, shader source code,[/b:636de2c07e] and participated actively in the development of 3DMark03. [/i:636de2c07e][/color:636de2c07e] How can you expect to build an objective benchmark if you hand out important code and information towards the graphics chipset designers ? [/quote:636de2c07e] Bron: www.guru3d.com

[anoniem]

Ik kwam deze nog tegen, vond hem wel toepasselijk :) [img:82a767f997]http://www.darkcrow.co.kr/image/news/0305/CheatingDrivers.jpg[/img:82a767f997] Laten we wel voorop stellen dat ik geen partij kies, nog voor ATI nog voor nVidia. Optimaliseren van drivers voor games is top, cheaten is lame, maakt niet uit wie het doet.

[anoniem]

[quote:2704522158="Red Dragon"] Optimaliseren van drivers voor games is top, cheaten is lame, maakt niet uit wie het doet.[/quote:2704522158] En daar ben ik et hard mee eens :) Idd, het optimaliseren van spellen is alleen maar goed. Meer performance uit dezelfde kaart met een spel. Maar met cheaten word de performance niet beter.....

[anoniem]

het wordt gekker : 't is nu toch geen cheat volgens Futuremark. link : http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1115365,00.asp

[anoniem]

Jahoor, nadat Futuremark enkele miljoenen van Nvidia ontving, gingen de bedrijven hand-in-hand en leefde ze nog lang en gelukkig... Het is toch niet te geloven, als je die percentages ziet, vind ik het wel iets meer dat een optimalisatie. :roll: :wink: Ik vind dat 3D Mark 2003 onderhand, zoals andere mensen hier ook al zeggen, niet meer betrouwbaar is. De vraag is alleen, welk programma komt in zijn plaats, als die er al komt?