PDA

View Full Version : Nvidia cheats on benchmarks...


MDA
30-05-2003, 18:32:44
Cnet article (http://news.com.com/2100-1046-1009574.html)

dorks.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
30-05-2003, 18:37:59
Isn't this the same thing they were accused of a few months ago? And before that, I think there was some sort of debacle about NVidia getting higher frame rates in the Quake3 demo because of detection software that made it run faster by cutting corners. Or something. My memory is not what it used to be...

zmama
30-05-2003, 18:39:04
Harr harr harr

The Canadians are still the best.

MDA
30-05-2003, 18:40:56
So long as the same detection software is present in the drivers I download, I'm OK with it. Doing it for the sake of skewing benchmark results... that's unethical, at the least.

A representative at Nvidia questioned the validity of Futuremark's conclusions. blah..."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."

Motive, please.

Asher
30-05-2003, 20:26:37
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
Isn't this the same thing they were accused of a few months ago? And before that, I think there was some sort of debacle about NVidia getting higher frame rates in the Quake3 demo because of detection software that made it run faster by cutting corners. Or something. My memory is not what it used to be...
That was ATI, actually. :p The "Quack" fiasco.

And 3DMark03 is heavily biased, for no good reason, towards ATI. ATI send developers over to "help" in programming it, and they selected PixelShaders 1.4 which are in use in virtually no real-world games, over 1.3 and 2.0.

It's a stupid decision, because the GeForce FX has to emulate 1.4 which is ass-slow. Games use 1.1/1.3 or 2.0, no one uses 1.4 'cept ATI tech demos...and 3DMark.

No wonder Nvidia quit their developer program months ago in protest.

Sir Penguin
30-05-2003, 20:37:17
Originally posted by MDA
Motive, please.

NVidia left the Futuremark BETA program a few months ago, and Futuremark is mad at them.

Originally posted by zmama
Harr harr harr

The Canadians are still the best.

Only because they "optimised", too (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=174096756&m=3970916765&r=3970916765). :)

SP

Sir Penguin
30-05-2003, 20:39:02
See?

SP

MDA
30-05-2003, 21:20:03
So Futuremark is mad, AND they lost money when Nvidia left... right?

Drekkus
30-05-2003, 22:32:40
What other ways of finding out how fast graphics cards are compared to others? I want to buy a new one, but with all this nonsense I still can't tell what's good and what's not. But I guess that a ati radeon 9700 pro or 9800 pro won't be a bad choice. :)

Deacon
31-05-2003, 02:06:36
I still prefer Nvidia. They know how to write drivers that don't make me yell.

Sir Penguin
31-05-2003, 03:44:38
Yeah, ATi's Catalyst drivers generally suck, although I've heard good things about the latest ones.

In the hardware arena, I think the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra has possession of the performance crown (theoretically, not for long since the latest Radeons are older). But frankly, I'm pretty sure it's stupid to pay almost US$400 something like that unless you want to run bleeding edge games at high resolution, or do obscure graphics stuff and can't wait that extra half hour.

SP

Asher
31-05-2003, 03:56:09
Actually the 5900 Ultra is $499 US.

Drekkus
01-06-2003, 08:11:23
Originally posted by Sir Penguin
Yeah, ATi's Catalyst drivers generally suck, although I've heard good things about the latest ones.

In the hardware arena, I think the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra has possession of the performance crown (theoretically, not for long since the latest Radeons are older). But frankly, I'm pretty sure it's stupid to pay almost US$400 something like that unless you want to run bleeding edge games at high resolution, or do obscure graphics stuff and can't wait that extra half hour.

SP So what would be a good card for playing games like MOHAA, BF1942 and IL-2 sturmovik? Especially in flight sims my current card doesn't really cut it and shows faltering images.

Sir Penguin
01-06-2003, 08:29:34
I dunno. Probably the Radeon 9500 Pro or Geforce4 Ti4200 overclocked.

SP

MDA
02-06-2003, 16:15:51
I've heard good things about the IL-2 expansion, Drekkus. If you're into flight/combat sims, anyway.

Drekkus
03-06-2003, 20:39:20
I have it. Not yet installed though. I'm waiting to buy a new monitor and graphics card for 2 weeks from now, when my g/f has finished her final paper. Then I'll go crazy and install new stuff.

zmama
03-06-2003, 21:01:24
Just looked at pricewatch and the Radeon 9700 pro is down to about $290. Looks a good deal to me.

I've been happy with the past two radeons we've had, but we don't play anything more demanding than Morrowind.

MDA
03-06-2003, 21:50:24
Morrowind seemed unusually demanding... but the weather and water DID look great.

Sir Penguin
03-06-2003, 22:45:48
I've been playing Morrowind again recently (it came with my video card), with everything set to max (I think), at 1024x768. It looks great (I love those moons). I think Trip' mentioned a while ago that the reason it is demanding is that it renders everything in a scene, regardless of whether or not it is visible. The thing that pisses me off most is that it doesn't stop raining when you're under a covering (well, that and all the God damned walking around). Definitely more graphically pleasing than the other four first person games I've played and enjoyed.

SP

Sir Penguin
04-06-2003, 03:16:42
I love this article (http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/1054655009.html).

Editorial: It's nice to see such nice companies realise the error of their ways, and kiss and make up. First AOL and Microsoft, now NVidia and Futuremark. Next up, SCO will try it with IBM.

SP

Asher
04-06-2003, 03:23:26
Who said this would happen? Oh oh!!!

Deacon
04-06-2003, 05:08:59
I hope IBM buries the hatchet in SCO's face. :)

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
04-06-2003, 15:52:58
That's a fair, if unusually violent, outcome :)