×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More on Futuremark and nVidia

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the sweeten-the-pot dept.

Graphics 429

AzrealAO writes "Futuremark and nVidia have released statements regarding the controversy over nVidia driver optimzations and the FutureMark 2003 Benchmark. "Futuremark now has a deeper understanding of the situation and NVIDIA's optimization strategy. In the light of this, Futuremark now states that NVIDIA's driver design is an application specific optimization and not a cheat."" So nVidia's drivers are optimized specifically to run 3DMark2003... and that's not a cheat.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

429 comments

riiiiight... (5, Funny)

Samari711 (521187) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107392)

and i didn't use a cheat sheet, i used a memory priming sheet.

Re:riiiiight... (4, Insightful)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107434)

That is the way it sounds, isn't it?

"Application-specific optimization". . . In other words, "We're not cheating, we're just adding code to our driver to make sure our card works really well with benchmarking software." Of course, if it works better with benchmarking software than it does with real-world applications, that is cheating, isn't it?

It actually reminded me of the axiom, "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"

NVIDIA convinced them to change the rules (5, Interesting)

YetAnotherAnonymousC (594097) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107559)

I think the money quote is:

However, recent developments in the graphics industry and game development suggest that a different approach for game performance benchmarking might be needed, where manufacturer-specific code path optimization is directly in the code source. Futuremark will consider whether this approach is needed in its future benchmarks.

I can sort of see the argument here, but it basically ruins the point of having a standard interface like DirectX. It's also like telling your math teacher, "no, it would be easier for my equations if you made 1+1=3. Now do it because I'm your star student."

Re:riiiiight... (3, Funny)

confused philosopher (666299) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107625)

This just means that games have to design themselves to mimick benchmarking software.

Come to think of it, why doesn't nVidia just optimize their software for games instead of benchmarking software...?

Re:riiiiight... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107493)

You might be interested to know that I changed my diaper five minutes ago.

Latest nVidia cards available for cheap on eBay (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107505)

Re:Latest nVidia cards available for cheap on eBay (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107564)

are you retarded idiots blind? this is a link to the u.s. constitution for sale on ebay. mod this fuck face down. yeah fat ass bitch, +1 interestig to -1, troll, cock sucker!

Re:riiiiight... (4, Funny)

Jack William Bell (84469) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107617)

How many of these can we do?

"Officer, I wasn't speeding. I was driving in a manner consistant with the road, conditions and the huge motor in my car!"

"It was creative accounting sir! Not an attempt to 'cook the books'."

"We are only writing software with the features our users want. This isn't code bloat, and I never made that remark about 640k being enough for anyone!"

More?

Nope (-1, Offtopic)

SnowDeath (157414) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107394)

So, if I were to study for a test in college, would that be a cheat also?

Re:Nope (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107439)

I think this is more analogous to taking a Caplan class for the SAT.

Re:Nope (1)

k0de (619918) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107468)

Using your analogy, ATI simply building fast video cards is studying for the test. What they are doing is getting a list of the test questions and ensuring they are especially good at answering those. Although they are doing pretty damn good all around studying, they are giving themselves a bad rep by adding a layer of cheating to the mix.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107546)

No, if you learn for a test using yor textbooks, lecture notes etc.

Yes, in case you actually have an exact copy of test problems.

nVidia could optimize the drivers for typical 3d scenes in games (textbook), or even for a specific game (lecture notes), but benchmarking software is different : it produces a very specific 3d-scene, and if you optimize the drivers to fit perfectly this 3d-scene (copy of tomorrow's test), you're cheating

Parent NOT Offtopic, Fucksticks! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107594)

I think he makes a good point. I suppose NVIDIA's actions might be akin to studying with a copy of the test in front of them, but really folks, this isn't a big deal.

Fine With Me (3, Interesting)

HeelToe (615905) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107395)

Though, I do prefer they make application specific optimizations that mean better gameplay.

It's just another piece of information to keep in mind when selecting a new card.

Re:Fine With Me (1, Interesting)

floodo1 (246910) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107578)

more like its a lie. nvidia was trying to convince consumers that their product is better than it actually is.

granted you shouldnt draw conclusions from a single benchmark, but being led to use false information to base choices on is WRONG.

Cheat? (3, Funny)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107396)

So nVidia's drivers are optimized specifically to run 3DMark2003... and that's not a cheat

Errrr... that seems like a cheat to me!

Davak

Re:Cheat? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107421)

Only if those modifications are not matched by equivalent optimizations for big-name games - but they are.

So in effect, the optimizations make 3DMark a *better* predictor of in-game performance than it otherwise would have been.

Re:Cheat? (1)

menasius (202515) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107466)

The only reason it can be labeled as "not a cheat" is because it is a commonly accepted practice for ALL video card driver makers.

There was some controversy a while back with people noticing the string quake3 in the nvidia binaries. Nvidia was very open to state that this is not uncommon and for high demand programs they do construct specific optimization sets in the driver.

I know it sounds like cheating, but to say its a cheat is to say that an OS that optimizes its networking for the specific use of a Web Server is cheating too as it would inflate the web server performance but perhaps no other net based application.

Say what you will about the moral implications of false advertising, but to say it is cheating is to be very particular in a sea of "cheaters"

-bort

Re:Cheat? (1)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107527)

If it is directly designed to make quake VIII run faster, yeah! Slap that on the box! The consumer gains from that.

However, if it is designed to make a benchmark run faster... well, that's just not nice.

Davak

Re:Cheat? (4, Interesting)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107477)

Maybe I should elaborate...

Specifically designing your product to work better in a test than in real life should be considered cheating.

This could be avoided if 3DMark2003 would release different methods of testing the video cards each year... or if one could download updates from 3DMark2003 that would block any driver-specific optimizations.

I usually look at the latest and greatest fps benchmark for the latest and greatest game anyway.

Well, actually... my current Nvidia video card laughs at my little CPU anyway. I until I can find some more CPU to drive my screaming video card... I am not going to find any performance increase.

Davak

Re:Cheat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107496)

All video chip companies write certain game specific optimizations into their drivers. If you play those games then in the end it's a good thing.

Feel the need to crucify Nvidia? Need I remind you of a certain Canadian manufacturer whose drivers boosted Quake 3 performance at the expense of "fowl" image quality? (Hint, think duck).

Re:Cheat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107612)

Blame Canadaaa! Blame Canadaaaa! LALALALA!

RA-RA-RA, (going to shop to buy some ATI ;)

Re:Cheat? (5, Funny)

malia8888 (646496) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107548)

So nVidia's drivers are optimized specifically to run 3DMark2003... and that's not a cheat

That is right, this is not a cheat.. we are just redesigning the arrow and repainting the target so they match;)

Re:Cheat? (1)

fuctape (618618) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107569)

And the poster's remark was in *no* way sarcastic. Get a clue, Davak.

Re:Cheat? (1)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107611)

And the poster's remark was in *no* way sarcastic. Get a clue, Davak.

That was an editors comment, hence not in italics like the rest of the blurb. And it was posted by Michael so it probably wasn't meant to be sarcastic.

Get a clue, fuctape

Suck it, Futuremark! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107402)

Fururemark = Nvidia's bitch

Lawyers to the rescue!

whee (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107405)

Oh, it seems some careless individual has left this big pile of money on the table! Well, we'll just leave for a few moments and maybe when we come back it will have gone away.

Re:whee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107584)

See, you can't buy press releases like this! Oh wait, scratch that...my fault..

turd (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107407)

ahh, fresh shit.

Re:turd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107535)

Why did you post that? Frankly, it's offensive and lends nothing to the discussion.

Re:turd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107600)

When you hit puberty, can I pop your cherry?

Yeah, right (3, Insightful)

jabbadabbadoo (599681) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107408)

Time to update Websters. Cheat just got new semantics.

Re:Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107432)

what do you expect when disgraced former president Bill Clinton is on nVidia's board of directors.

Article text: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107410)

Futuremark Statement
For the first time in 6 months, as a result of Futuremark's White Paper on May 23rd, 2003, Futuremark and NVIDIA have had detailed discussions regarding NVIDIA GPUs and Futuremark's 3DMark03 benchmark.

Futuremark now has a deeper understanding of the situation and NVIDIA's optimization strategy. In the light of this, Futuremark now states that NVIDIA's driver design is an application specific optimization and not a cheat .

The world of 3D Graphics has changed dramatically with the latest generation of highly programmable GPUs. Much like the world of CPUs, each GPU has a different architecture and a unique optimal code path. For example, Futuremark's PCMark2002 has different CPU test compilations for AMD's AthlonXP and Intel's Pentium4 CPUs.

3DMark03 is designed as an un-optimized DirectX test and it provides performance comparisons accordingly. It does not contain manufacturer specific optimized code paths. Because all modifications that change the workload in 3DMark03 are forbidden, we were obliged to update the product to eliminate the effect of optimizations identified in different drivers so that 3DMark03 continued to produce comparable results.

However, recent developments in the graphics industry and game development suggest that a different approach for game performance benchmarking might be needed, where manufacturer-specific code path optimization is directly in the code source. Futuremark will consider whether this approach is needed in its future benchmarks.

NVIDIA Statement
NVIDIA works closely with developers to optimize games for GeForceFX. These optimizations (including shader optimizations) are the result of the co-development process. This is the approach NVIDIA would have preferred also for 3DMark03.

Joint NVIDIA-Futuremark Statement
Both NVIDIA and Futuremark want to define clear rules with the industry about how benchmarks should be developed and how they should be used. We believe that common rules will prevent these types of unfortunate situations moving forward.

About Futuremark\x{00AE} Corporation
Futuremark\x{00AE} Corporation, formerly known as MadOnion.com, is the leading provider of computer performance analysis software and services. Futuremark\x{00AE} is known around the world for its benchmark products, including the 3DMark\x{00AE} Series and PCMark2002 (with more than 30 million copies distributed worldwide) and value-added services powered by a database of over 5 million real life benchmarking results. Futuremark\x{00AE} has offices in Saratoga, California and Helsinki, Finland. For more information, please visit http://www.futuremark.com [futuremark.com].

\x{00A9} 2003 Futuremark\x{00AE} Corporation. 3DMark\x{00AE} and PCMark trademarks and logos, Futuremark\x{00AE} character names and distinctive likenesses, are the exclusive property of Futuremark Corporation. DirectX\x{00AE} is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. All other trademarks are property of their respective companies.

About NVIDIA
NVIDIA Corporation is a market leader in visual computing technology dedicated to creating products that enhance the interactive experience on consumer and professional computing platforms. Its graphics and communications processors have broad market reach and are incorporated into a wide variety of computing platforms, including consumer digital-media PCs, enterprise PCs, professional workstations, digital content creation systems, notebook PCs, military navigation systems and video game consoles.

NVIDIA is headquartered in Santa Clara, California and employs more than 1,500 people worldwide. For more information, visit the Company's Web site at www.nvidia.com [nvidia.com].

Certain statements in this press release, including any statements relating to the Company's performance expectations for NVIDIA's family of products and expectations of continued revenue growth, are forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause results to be materially different than expectations. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, manufacturing and other delays relating to new products, difficulties in the fabrication process and dependence of the Company on third-party manufacturers, general industry trends including cyclical trends in the PC and semiconductor industries, the impact of competitive products and pricing alternatives, market acceptance of the Company's new products, cmdrtaco's and michael's rampant homosexual love affair, and the Company's dependence on third-party developers and publishers. Investors are advised to read the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, particularly those sections entitled Certain Business Risks, for a fuller discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties.

Copyright \x{00A9} 2003 NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved. All company and/or product names may be trade names, trademarks and/or registered trademarks of the respective owners with which they are associated. Features, pricing, availability, and specifications are subject to change without notice.

Futuremark contact:

Tero Sarkkinen
Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing
Email: tero@futuremark.com. [mailto]
Tel: +1-408-517-0131

Futuremark shoots self in foot. (5, Insightful)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107414)

I think [H]ardOCP stated it best as "Futuremark didn't want to get sued by Nvidia". Nvidia has the legal and financial resources to totally ruin Futuremark and they know it.

And now Futuremark has totally invalidated their own benchmark software by declaring it "open season" for hardware manufacturers to distort the "tests" in any way shape or form they desire to make the numbers higher.

N.

Re:Futuremark shoots self in foot. (1)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107458)

The question of course, is if the press statement was made by a man wearing a hat made out of money...

Re:Futuremark shoots self in foot. (1)

sirius_bbr (562544) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107494)

Seems like futuremark had little choice, it's a loose/loose situation

Re:Futuremark shoots self in foot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107540)

LOOSE != LOSE

fucking retard

Re:Futuremark shoots self in foot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107556)

loose = not tied down, not tight (eg goatse's touch-hole)


lose = fail to win, to be deprived off, etc (lost, loser, etc).

Re:Futuremark shoots self in foot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107561)

you have the choice to suck a fat cock

Re:Futuremark shoots self in foot. (2, Interesting)

koh (124962) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107624)

Not really, IMHO the smart move here would be for nVidia to adapt its "optimization strategy" to release a driver with various hacks available (and accessible to the end user) that can be used on many games to increase rendering speed while sacrificing quality or some features.

Of course, each hack would or would not work with any particular game, but trial and error can be used to detect the "best set of hacks" for any particular game on any particular card. And we all know how geeks love tweaking things to the metal, just look at gentoo's current popularity.

Then FutureMark would get themselves a name as *the* benchmark software to run on end users' machines to test the hacks.

Or maybe I'm just dreaming.

Re:Futuremark shoots self in foot. (1)

override11 (516715) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107539)

Exactly. The whole point of a benchmark is to help determine real world performance, not to get some artifically generated 'performance number' so you can be higher than your friends. 3D Mark has some great eye candy, but after this I wouldnt use them as a benchmark any more, just for recreation. :)

Re:Futuremark shoots self in foot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107568)

Hey, if all vendors will cheat the same way, then the benchmark will be correct again !

teh articel in case of /. fx (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107418)

Once upon a time whilst walking in a park I asked a geek "Do you have a girlfriend?". He responded with a very puzzled look. "A girlfriend?," he mused, "Who is the developer?". I chuckled and told him this was not an open source project. He then became slightly angry and inquired, "Are you trying to insult me? Only the best geeks use open source only! What planet are you living on?!". I reassured him I was well aware of his integrity as a geek (white skin, clumsy, pants that are too short, lack of daily shower, pocket protector etc), and explained, "A girlfriend is a female who to a male (most oftenly a male) has an intimate friendship." He gave me a very confused look. "I have never heard of such a thing.. this.. g-g-irlfriend?" He asked me, sounding very baffled. "I have heard of friends before, those pets other people have. But what is this thing you say.. Grill?". "Girl," I corrected. Then I asked him to sit down on a bench nearby so I could explain it too him, the poor, helpless thing. I told him that for human beings to reproduce, sexual intercourse must occur between a male and a female. "Perhaps you hear the trolls mention a thing called "pussy" on slashdot?". The geek burst into laughter, "Haha, you have been browsing at -1 lately, haven't you? You know that is just troll talk. Those silly trolls never have anything intelligent to say."

My face turned serious. "My dear geek, are you not aware of the female population amongst you? Do you not stare in the street and want to hump a post when you pass by a hot, slim, gorgeous looking chick with a firm bust and well sculpted ass?". The geek immediately began to appear as if he was having a nervous breakdown. His glasses began to fog up and he took them off to wipe them with this linux embroidered shirt, "I think I know what you are talking about. Those things are icky. They have cooties. Get away from me!" I felt offended. "Nonsense, I pleaded! Pussy is a beautiful thing. A sacred thing that you should strive to give pleasure to." The geek would not listen and he began to cry. "STOP IT!! You are EVIL!!" He then, quite geekishly, skipped off down the path.

I walked back to my house feeling rather disheartened. 'Why don't they listen to me' I asked myself? When I got home my girlfriend opened the door. She was wearing short-shorts and a sports bra. She had been doing the thigh master for the past 30 minutes and was sweating. I could see her dark nipples underneath her slightly damp bra. Oh god I could fuck her to the moon and back. I could smell her horniness the second I took my shoes off. I chased her, both of us laughing, to our bedroom [THE FOLLOWING has been censored for the well-being of geeks].... Six hours later, finally satisfied a little, I sat up and noticed that same geek hiding in the trees. He had been watching us the entire time. I swear his penis had to have been the size of a fucking horse cock (not bad for a geek, i might add), and he appeared as if he had gone into a state of shock. I could see cum stains forming near the bulge of his pant zipper. I thought to myself. There is one geek, finally brought into the real world.

It is NOT a cheat. (0, Interesting)

Niles_Stonne (105949) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107420)

I don't think this is a cheat, as long as the energy taken to increase the performance in the test is similar to what is used to optimize for particular games.

I'm not going to complain if they can optimize the drivers to get 10% better performance in Battlefield 1942 with no degredation in quality, would you?

The only way I would call this a cheat would be if Nvidia never optimized for any other applications.

Re:It is NOT a cheat. (5, Insightful)

HalfFlat (121672) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107534)

It's not an optimization if it does not produce the same results! Recall that the shader code that the driver used did not produce the same visual results as the shader code it replaced.

More tellingly, the driver deliberately flaunts the D3D spec by omitting buffer clears, mucking about with clip planes, etc. ... based purely on application-specific pattern matching, which by its very nature is fragile. As was demonstrated so aptly by the 'off the rails' mode in Futuremark. This isn't an accidental bug: it is obvious that such mechanisms are highly fragile, and are almost certain to cause bad rendering on these applications when they are modified in small ways.

As others have said, Futuremark's statement is just covering their legal arse. If someone modifies their code to get better scores in some benchmarks while introducing deliberate bugs (i.e. incorrect rendering), it's a cheat in my book.

Re:It is NOT a cheat. (3, Informative)

gazuga (128955) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107591)

Yes, there is an increase in speed, but there was also a degradation in quality in the test. See here [extremetech.com].

That's the whole issue...

Futuremark scared? (3, Insightful)

steveit_is (650459) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107422)

Looks like someone is scared of somebody elses lawyers. Yuck! This is obviously Futuremark trying to appease Nvidia.

Re:Futuremark scared? (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107579)

This is obviously Futuremark trying to appease Nvidia.

Ha, yes and we all know how well that works, don't we? You mark my words, we'll see nVidia's tanks rolling over Poland by Christmas...

Cheating is relative. (1, Insightful)

dopaz (148229) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107425)

If nVidia intends to include driver optimizations for many popular applications, then is it really cheating? Lots of games are built upon the Quake3 engine, and I'm sure the Doom3 engine will be used for some great titles. If nVidia will optimize the drivers for specific games then I'm all for it.

Re:Cheating is relative. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107526)

The thing is that this "optimization" traded image quality for framerates. Even John Carmack said it was a cheat. An optimization would have retained image quality and increased frame rates.

In the spirit of Bill Clinton (3, Funny)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107426)

It's not cheating if you don't get caught.

Oh, I did get caught?

No, I didn't. Let's move on, shall we?

Re:In the spirit of Bill Clinton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107465)

It's just about frames-per-second. There's a vast ATI conspiracy....

Re:In the spirit of Bill Clinton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107562)

"I did not have application-specific cheats for this software."

Re:In the spirit of Bill Clinton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107618)

It's [It is]

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." -- Bill Clinton

Bullshit (4, Interesting)

Obiwan Kenobi (32807) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107429)

This is politics at its worst, and I'm calling bullshit.

There was no need for this nicey-nice statement other than NVidia threatening lawsuits and Futuremark wanting to protect what assets they have.

Futuremark had every right to call NVidia on their selfish claim and unbelievable hacks. To say that they weren't liable for their own blunder is to say that Futuremark's reputation has been replaced by corporatespeak and a lack of respect almost unparalelled.

What's worse is that I really thought "Yeah, this time the bad guy gets his due" and that NVidia should've known better.

But of course, a few weeks later we've got to put on the nice face again for the public en large.

What a complete waste of time. I know there isn't much respect left in corporate America, but hell, if you can't call a spade a spade, why even bother with the benchmarks when someone can just rewrite an ENTIRE SHADER and only keep a picture clear while the demo is on rails?

Re:Bullshit (1)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107520)

This is politics at its worst, and I'm calling bullshit.

You're calling bullshit? Okay, you can have it. I call the last piece of pie.

Why would anyone call bullshit? It tastes like, well you know.

Stack Creep (2, Insightful)

netolder (655766) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107436)

This sort of outcome is inevitable as drivers move "up the stack" into the application layer. To get better and better optimizations, the drivers need to know more and more about the application that is requesting the services - thus, we end up violating the strict separation between application and driver.

Application Specific? (1)

jagilbertvt (447707) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107442)

I think it's all fine and good to have an application specific optimization, but I think it's wrong of nVidia to do it on a application that happens to be a benchmark. The only people benefitting from this optimization is nVidia, not nVidia's customers. Do they plan on making application specific optimizations for all applications? I think we know the answer to that is a resounding no. They just want us to see there product through rose colored goggles, thus missing all it's deficiencies.

If it's a cheat, benchmark is, too! (1)

WoodstockJeff (568111) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107444)

If the benchmark truly reflects ,real world instructions, any optimizations done to make the benchmark run better should reflect in better performance in other things.

On the other hand, if such optimizations do not help other applications, the benchmark was bogus to begin with!

Great! (5, Funny)

blitzoid (618964) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107445)

Well, that's excellent... now they can put 'Designed to run 3Dmark2003' on Nvidia product boxes!

Slashpot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107446)

Newz for turds. Crap that doesn't matter

WE DONT CARE. Just use games for benchmarks! (5, Insightful)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107448)

Cripes already. No one even BOTHERS with #DMark anymore, and after this fiasco no one is ever going to bother with them again. Gamers will use REAL EVERYDAY GAMES to see what runs the fastest again. Looking at some goofy simulation app coming up with scores and people buying into the company and people tricking drivers for particular tests is just crappy and makes 3DMark 100% invalid to any of my concerns in the future. I will only trust reviews that benchmark the latest and greatest games that I will be buying these cards for, whoever can run them fastest at that particular time IS WHAT IM GOING TO BUY. Peroid. Enough of this 3DMark BS.

What if they optimize for the games? (1)

Garridan (597129) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107598)

If they optimize the drivers for specific apps, this could be a good thing. However, for the sake of quality, the driver should offer control of what getss optimized.

ha HA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107451)

all you ATI lovers are owned!

ATI? (1)

ErikJson (27997) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107459)

" NVIDIA Statement
NVIDIA works closely with developers to optimize games for GeForceFX. These optimizations (including shader optimizations) are the result of the co-development process. This is the approach NVIDIA would have preferred also for 3DMark03. "

I wonder if ATI would love close cooperation between NVidia and Futuremark...

In Other News ... (2, Funny)

Chromodromic (668389) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107464)

... FutureMark and NVidia stated that they were proud to announce that former President Bill Clinton had joined their boards and had assumed management responsibilities.

Quality is determined by REAL use. (2, Interesting)

MongooseCN (139203) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107472)

Run Quake3 with the video card and check out the frame rate and image quality. Run it under UT also and every other 3D game you can. Then compare the framerates and image quality. Who cares what it's 3DMark is. Did you a buy the card to specifically run it under 3DMark? Most people buy these cards for playing games so comparing how it runs the actual game to other cards is the only meaningful measurement.

Someone set up us the cheat! (2, Funny)

Zone5 (179243) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107478)

All your benchmarks are belong to us!

Re:Someone set up us the cheat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107576)

You have no chance to survive lawsuit, make your timedemo.

How is this news? (1)

Sean80 (567340) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107482)

Knowing that customers are going to want to know how fast a card is in comparison to everything else, nVidia would be dumb to not try to optimize their products to the very measurements which bring them dollars.

Besides, pick any other industry, any other product, and companies are optimizing their products to run fast. J2EE and Databases performance testing comes first to my mind.

Short on details, but raises questions... (3, Insightful)

MyNameIsFred (543994) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107483)

The press release is short on details. But I think it raises two points. First, Futuremark is no longer calling it cheating. Second, Futuremark is considering changes to the way it benchmarks cards.

So the question in my mind is did Futuremark learn something from the discussions? Is there something it was ignoring in its tests?

I'm trying to not be a cynic and assume a big fat envelope was passed under the table. That what Nvidia did was legitimate.

Big quality loss (4, Insightful)

1001011010110101 (305349) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107491)

Those that are following this, should check the pictures on the previous article. The quality of the nvidia "optimized" version sucked (showed big artifacts). That's no optimization, unless there was no image quality loss.
"This card is optimized for quake as long as you follow the left trail, the right trail will just look like crap but nobody follows it anyway".

perspective (1)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107498)

Why does Futuremark exsist? What do they do?

They make tests for nVidia and ATI! Their entire business is based around these two companies (ok, handful of others , too). Of course they worked out some deal with nVidia. I'm sure that nVidia has ways to lean on them so they changed their tune. FutureMark really can't afford to get on the bad side of the card makers, because if they loose the support of nVidia and ATI, what are they going to do?

It's symbiotic realtionships that make the world go round...

Personally, who gives a crap about a benchmark? I'd much rather see stats of how well cards hold up in specific games than in a damn benchmark. On that line of thinking, I'd also rather see nVidia putting time and energry into making games, not benchmarks, run better on their cards.

What's the point of a benchmark? (5, Insightful)

pjwhite (18503) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107504)

If a benchmark doesn't measure performance related to real-world applications, what's the point? If a driver is optimized to run a benchmark faster, that SHOULD mean that the real world apps should run faster, too. If not, the benchmark is useless.

Looking closer... (2, Interesting)

Infernon (460398) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107516)

While nVidia has made great cards for some time now (I still use and love my GeForce 3), could it be possible that they're not able to keep up? A lot of the reviews that I've been reading tend to favor the Radeon cards over any anything that nVidia has put out lately. While I doubht that nVidia will become another 3Dfx because they're involved in other markets and I've read about them having US government contracts for this project or that, I would propose that they will not be the huge players that they once were in the vid card market.

I call this bullshit.... (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107523)

If you want to, you can prerender the whole fucking test, stick it in your driver and just play it off instead of actually rendering when Futuremark is running, that would be an "application-specific optimization" too.

The benchmark is ment to reflect performance in the actual game, the reason it takes the same path is merely to make the results comparable. What ATI was something the game *could* have achieved in game, if the operations were properly sequenced. What Nvidia did is to fake a performance it can't actually give if a person had followed the exact same path in the game. That is cheating.

It is pathetic by Nvidia, and it's pathetic by Futuremark to present this press statement. Get some backbone and integrity.

Kjella

So much for FutureMark (4, Insightful)

corebreech (469871) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107531)

Now that all the latest games have benchmarking modes, what do we need FutureMark for?

If NVidia wants to do application-specific optimizations that make UT2003 go faster, then that would be great. That's what they should be doing. Those are optimizations that genuinely benefit the user.

Lies, Damn Lies and Benchmarks (1)

penguinlust (669507) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107536)

Come on get a life. These are afterall benchmarks. Over the years I've had to run benchmarks for various reasons and you do absolutly everything you can to get the best result you can.

This is a very normal situation. If you do not run them yourself then benchmark data is never better than marketing hype. NVidia is no more guilty than any other company. As a matter of fact they are no more guilty than any person running a benchmark. You always apply you best knowledge and, whether you realize it or not, most of the time prove a predeturmined belief.

Well than you for the summary ... (1, Funny)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107537)

So nVidia's drivers are optimized specifically to run 3DMark2003... and that's not a cheat.

Editorial comments like this are wonderful. They make the best shine out in all of us to which we can feel profoundly enlightened. Michael I thank you for taking the time to summarize two press releases by stating the complete obvious, if not for you I might just have been forced to click those god-awful annoying hyper-links.

Since you've obviously missed the "concern" over this whole issue let me help you out in also stating the obvious. Creating a chipset that can run the futuremark settings profoundly instead of processing them like a benchmark is supposed to is a way of, get this, testing out the performance of a piece of hardware. Basically what futuremark has made abundantly clear here is that they are to be viewed not as a benchmark, but as an industry whore who was previously considered a graphics card benchmarking standard that is now seen as a useless tool as it doesn't do what it claims to do.

Benchmarks don't need "helpers" and "shortcuts" they need to test out all the parts of the testing subject to show what it is that subject is truly capable of. So futuremark is in bed with graphics card manufacturers, this is no real surprise, it's just they've sealed their fate as being a worthless benchmark and nothing more than eye candy from now on.

Perhaps you should use the "comment" link like the rest of us common folk and try to acknowledge that you are actually older than 4. Writing your name up on the front of the board for everyone to see really loses its nostalgia around age 6, I hope.

To quote President Clinton's lawyers... (1)

small_dick (127697) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107550)

"...the physical relationship with the President included oral sex, but not sexual intercourse."

wtf (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107558)

i [starterupsteve.com] hate [starterupsteve.com] this [starterupsteve.com] fricking [starterupsteve.com] website. [starterupsteve.com] soon, [starterupsteve.com] i [starterupsteve.com] am [starterupsteve.com] gonna [starterupsteve.com] part. [starterupsteve.com] by [starterupsteve.com] the [starterupsteve.com] wa y, [starterupsteve.com] i [starterupsteve.com] was [starterupsteve.com] running [starterupsteve.com] down [starterupsteve.com] the [starterupsteve.com] street [starterupsteve.com] the [starterupsteve.com] other [starterupsteve.com] day [starterupsteve.com] when [starterupsteve.com] this [starterupsteve.com] dog [starterupsteve.com] starteed [starterupsteve.com] chasing [starterupsteve.com] me. [starterupsteve.com] Oh, [starterupsteve.com] he [starterupsteve.com] w as [starterupsteve.com] a [starterupsteve.com] big [starterupsteve.com] german [starterupsteve.com] sheppard. [starterupsteve.com] His [starterupsteve.com] teeth [starterupsteve.com] were [starterupsteve.com] out [starterupsteve.com] and [starterupsteve.com] laughing [starterupsteve.com] at [starterupsteve.com] me. [starterupsteve.com] I [starterupsteve.com] dont [starterupsteve.com] know [starterupsteve.com] what [starterupsteve.com] I [starterupsteve.com] did [starterupsteve.com]

---------------

i [starterupsteve.com] hate [starterupsteve.com] this [starterupsteve.com] fricking [starterupsteve.com] website. [starterupsteve.com] soon, [starterupsteve.com] i [starterupsteve.com] am [starterupsteve.com] gonna [starterupsteve.com] part. [starterupsteve.com] by [starterupsteve.com] the [starterupsteve.com] wa y, [starterupsteve.com] i [starterupsteve.com] was [starterupsteve.com] running [starterupsteve.com] down [starterupsteve.com] the [starterupsteve.com] street [starterupsteve.com] the [starterupsteve.com] other [starterupsteve.com] day [starterupsteve.com] when [starterupsteve.com] this [starterupsteve.com] dog [starterupsteve.com] starteed [starterupsteve.com] chasing [starterupsteve.com] me. [starterupsteve.com] Oh, [starterupsteve.com] he [starterupsteve.com] w as [starterupsteve.com] a [starterupsteve.com] big [starterupsteve.com] german [starterupsteve.com] sheppard. [starterupsteve.com] His [starterupsteve.com] teeth [starterupsteve.com] were [starterupsteve.com] out [starterupsteve.com] and [starterupsteve.com] laughing [starterupsteve.com] at [starterupsteve.com] me. [starterupsteve.com] I [starterupsteve.com] dont [starterupsteve.com] know [starterupsteve.com] what [starterupsteve.com] I [starterupsteve.com] did [starterupsteve.com]

i [starterupsteve.com] hate [starterupsteve.com] this [starterupsteve.com] fricking [starterupsteve.com] website. [starterupsteve.com] soon, [starterupsteve.com] i [starterupsteve.com] am [starterupsteve.com] gonna [starterupsteve.com] part. [starterupsteve.com] by [starterupsteve.com] the [starterupsteve.com] wa y, [starterupsteve.com] i [starterupsteve.com] was [starterupsteve.com] running [starterupsteve.com] down [starterupsteve.com] the [starterupsteve.com] street [starterupsteve.com] the [starterupsteve.com] other [starterupsteve.com] day [starterupsteve.com] when [starterupsteve.com] this [starterupsteve.com] dog [starterupsteve.com] starteed [starterupsteve.com] chasing [starterupsteve.com] me. [starterupsteve.com] Oh, [starterupsteve.com] he [starterupsteve.com] w as [starterupsteve.com] a [starterupsteve.com] big [starterupsteve.com] german [starterupsteve.com] sheppard. [starterupsteve.com] His [starterupsteve.com] teeth [starterupsteve.com] were [starterupsteve.com] out [starterupsteve.com] and [starterupsteve.com] laughing [starterupsteve.com] at [starterupsteve.com] me. [starterupsteve.com] I [starterupsteve.com] dont [starterupsteve.com] know [starterupsteve.com] what [starterupsteve.com] I [starterupsteve.com] did [starterupsteve.com]

Hi Mom!

dick

It's not a cheat (1)

TheGreenLantern (537864) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107563)

It's just an unfortunate choice on nVidia's part.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my nVidia card optimized for, say, Quake3 or Battlefield 1942. Someone call ATI and tell them they've got their new marketing campaign.

What this REALLY boils down to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107589)

ES-SEE-OH VERSUS EYE-BE-EM

Futuremark business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107597)

1. Get money from ATI
2. Accuse NVIDIA of cheating
3. Get money from NVIDIA
4. make peace with NVIDIA
5. Goto 1

NVidias meeting with futuremark (4, Funny)

CaffeineAddict2001 (518485) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107601)

"Cheating? Our developers, The Franklin Family, would disagree. I think a meeting can be arranged with them, if you wish. Isn't that right Mr. Franklin?"

*shakes hundred dollar bill side to side, speaks in high tone out of side of mouth*

"Sure is, Boss!"

interesting... (1)

Kr3m3Puff (413047) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107608)

When I read the statement it seemed to indicate that Futuremark was unsure how to write comparitve benchmark now that you can "cheat" at the benchmarks.

I can understand that if there are thing in a GPU that can be optimized for an application then you should go ahead and do it, but of course that means how do you truly, evenly compare the performance of one piece of hardware (now with tons of customizable software) versus another one?

Futuremark has a tough time ahead now getting people to believe they add imperical comparive value.

goons...hired goons (2, Interesting)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107613)

Futuremark: "NVidia is cheating! Not as much as ATI, but they're cheating!"

Nvidia: Knock knock

Futuremark: "Who's there?"

Nvidia: "Goons...hired goons."

Futuremark: "Oh...haha...um...Nvidia is actually in the business of application optimisation! Our mistake. Won't happen again."

Seriously folks, this is Nvidia using big bad lawyers to scare Futuremark into capitulating. They might have held their ground, until ATI was proven to be doing the same thing, albeit to a much lesser degree.

Unfortunately, the only person who loses in this scenario is the consumer.

As I read the futuremark statementÖ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6107615)

...I'm picturing principal skinner with a laser target aimed at his forehead.

Should benchmarks allow optimizations? (2, Insightful)

fazzumar (574187) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107620)

This has been discussed before. Other companies have tried to modify their drivers to produce better results for certain benchmarks. They've always been thrown out as invalid before. I wonder why Futuremark seems to be considering allowing NVidia's enhancement to stand.
There's a line from the story:
"...However, recent developments in the graphics industry and game development suggest that a different approach for game performance benchmarking might be needed, where manufacturer-specific code path optimization is directly in the code source. Futuremark will consider whether this approach is needed in its future benchmarks."
I'm concerned because I feel that allowing video card manufacturers to put code specifically about certain benchmarks in to their product (making their product look better in that benchmark) may not be reflective of real world performance.
However, the benchmark is useless if it doesn't measure real world performance, so I do believe that NVidia could put stuff in their product to make the benchmark run faster that would be beneficial to real applications, so I'm torn.
Some game manufacturers make optimized versions of their code to work with certain video cards, but the normal use is an operating system driver (DirectX...) and I believe using the generic driver is more representative of what you'll get when you use the video card.
It seems that NVidia is arguing that they should be allowed to put optimizations in to their code specifically for the benchmark because they do the same thing with some other populate applications.

how much did that cose them? (1)

asscroft (610290) | more than 10 years ago | (#6107626)

how much did that cose them? (....waiting 20 seconds.........waiting..........)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...