Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by glimmerman, Jun 24, 2008.
I suppose ATI does the same sometimes as well, but I don't think it's been on this kinda scale.
Storm in a tea cup.
Nvidia have Physx support on high end GPU's which gives a much higher score in the Physx type test in 3dmark vantage.
The writer in the article seems think that nvidia needs to jump through Futuremark hoops to release drivers.
It seems to me 3dmark vantage testing methodogies and implemtation sux.
OK before i begin i could'nt give a toss about nvidia or ati either way
Now, it's not the first time Nvidia have errrm cheated with drivers they have been pwn'd before over it.
As far as FutureMark is concerned, say if your benching your system using said driver and then you go to "register" your benchmark results would'nt it get rejected if your using unapproved drivers?
no it will let you register it
i use beta all the time and no issue
and yes 3dtoss who cares....average joe/joeline punter cares
they are where the money is coming from
they look at the marketing hype
3dtoss 3 billion times faster....and they buy it.
As said before it is unethical.
all people need to knwo is how it performs in games.
especially heavy physics game slike ut3 and graw and cellfactor etc etc.
does it give that big ooomph or not.
... and people wonder why i don't give a flying fuck about 3dtoss/futurewank/etc benchmark results and always wait for actual in-game figures.
i see the big issue as being that the test no longer reflect reality for single card setups. because you have 100% gpu resouces dedicated to the phyX calcs in cpu test 2 it scores very high but its not doing any graphics work.
What will be interesting is to compare phyx vs GF in vantage and then in phyx games.
No, it's not simply 3dmark, it's sales and that is money. And probably significant amounts if you can tear the opposition a new one.
nVidia being unethical? No never
Thats all I had to read to dismiss the article.
That dude is an ATI/AMD fanboi...
Do people still pay attention to 3dmark results though? I would have guessed that the sort of person who took them seriously wouldn't be the sort of person who bought and installed their own cards, or even read reviews in the first place. Why wouldn't you skip to the real-world performance sections?
Anyway, I seem to remember that many moons ago ATI were caught out doing something similar with the Radeon 7500 I think it was...I think that was the first time and they've been taking turns ever since
I don't see this as cheating. If a card/drivers do something that provides an advantage in overall system performance without compromising image quality then it should be reflected in the results.
With nvidia running PhysxX on the GPU the situation has changed. 3dmark needs to change to keep up if they want to have any relevance, not the other way around.
I don't really see how better drivers is cheating and how nvidia wanting to implement physics processing on their gfx cards is cheating either.. How is it cheating to include such features? If we say nvidia is cheating to optimize their drivers for 3Dmark, we might as well say that they are cheating in every game or 3D app by optimizing their drivers... Rather pointless argument as we all enjoy newer drivers that bring fixes + performance boosts .
What really defines cheating in the 3dmark context anyways? Surely if there is a problem with the software then futuremark need to address it.
Sounds like an ATI fanboi article I bet Charles wouldn't post if ATI were cheating. Its a cut throat market all business cheat against each other just alot you never hear about.
it's very simple really. you have a fix amount of resources on the gpu, now you do test 1 where it uses 100% of the shaders to do graphics and produces score X, then you do test 2 where it uses 100% of the shaders to do math and produces score Y. Using these two score to determine your final score isn't a fair comparison because your GPU doesn't have 200% resources.
the only way i see it as being legit is to have a gpu just for phyX ( not in sli etc)
yer, fanboi alarms went off, were told this guy has it in for Nvidia
Ditto, its not something sneaky, Futuremark will just need to change how their scores are tally up.
Like Nvidia needs FutureMark's approval for anything.
i'm really impressed with what nvidia are doing with their drivers atm - awesome stuff.
oh and OP it's allegedly not apparently.
The GPU itself though is 100% resources... There's no argument to say that the test can't be designed to do both physics + 3D work at that exact same time... Intel must be cheating by buying out havok if that's the case . Gee, all this so called "cheating", simply because people do not appreciate the fact that the company is adding new features to their products and adding more to already existing products. People who would otherise call this cheating are kidding themselves because they have an issues that the competing product was not considered or does not have such features :thumbdown:. I also might add that AMD must be cheating by having DX10.1, something that nvidia doesn't LOL![/sarcastic]
I still fail to see why it's cheating for nvidia to implement physics acceleration even despite the fact that it was still in development to run via CUDA by the time 3Dwanker Vantage came out. It's just like having the argument "ATI has DX10.1 but nvidia has physics acceleration" and in AMD's case, DX10.1 worked in their favor before AC got patched.
What Itsmydamnation said. The only way to get a realistic score for this would be to run the PhysX test with a graphics load on the GPU as well.
Fair enough that nVidia have set the drivers to run the physics calcs on the GPU, as they own it all now, but the results from the way Vantage work fall to their advantage because of 3dMardks 1 subsystem at a time approach. It needs a whole system test to be more applicable to actual usage.
hummmmm, your so far off the mark its not funny. the simple fact is the test is scored in a way that gives a massive advantage to a phyx gpu based system when in reality it isn't there because it doesn't have the resouces to give to it.
please note i never said nvidia cheated, but up until now vantage has aligned very well with peformace in games. now it doesn't. If DX 10.1 was giving the same results because it had tests just for it then it would be in the exact same boat.