Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [INQ] Nvidia cheats on 3DMark with 177.39 drivers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[INQ] Nvidia cheats on 3DMark with 177.39 drivers - Page 6

post #51 of 103
Quote:
dejanh;4074026]^ Lol, of course it does. If you are going to use this for comparative benchmarks, how you set up your test matters entirely.
Futuremark is setting up the test not Nvidia.
My System
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
1090t ASUS Sabertooth 990fx PNY GTX470 2x4g GSkill 1333 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x 500gig WD DVD ±RW Black TRUE Vista Ultimate SP2 
MonitorPowerCase
Gateway FPD2275 Corsair HX1000 Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
1090t ASUS Sabertooth 990fx PNY GTX470 2x4g GSkill 1333 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x 500gig WD DVD ±RW Black TRUE Vista Ultimate SP2 
MonitorPowerCase
Gateway FPD2275 Corsair HX1000 Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #52 of 103
I see many people asking or people that don't know what games are supported by PhsyX so here it is:
Current list of PhsyX Games: http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html
My rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II 720 BE GA-MA790XT-UD4P EVGA 8800GT 512mb 4GB G.SKILL DDR3 1333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Western Digital 640 GB AALS Windows7 64Bit Acer H213H 21.5" (1920x1080) Antec True Power Trio 550W 
Case
Antec P180 
  hide details  
Reply
My rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II 720 BE GA-MA790XT-UD4P EVGA 8800GT 512mb 4GB G.SKILL DDR3 1333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Western Digital 640 GB AALS Windows7 64Bit Acer H213H 21.5" (1920x1080) Antec True Power Trio 550W 
Case
Antec P180 
  hide details  
Reply
post #53 of 103
Actually. I wouldn't call that cheating.
Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P Sapphire 5870 Cypress XT EF6 2GB 4GB (2x2GB) G.SKILL 1066 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
32GB Corsair SSD + 2x 320 + 1x 250 Lightscribe drive Windows 7 Ultimate Hanns-G HG-216DPO 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard OCZ GameXStream 850W HAF 932 Logitech G5 Laser Gaming Mouse 
Mouse Pad
Allsop 
  hide details  
Reply
Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P Sapphire 5870 Cypress XT EF6 2GB 4GB (2x2GB) G.SKILL 1066 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
32GB Corsair SSD + 2x 320 + 1x 250 Lightscribe drive Windows 7 Ultimate Hanns-G HG-216DPO 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard OCZ GameXStream 850W HAF 932 Logitech G5 Laser Gaming Mouse 
Mouse Pad
Allsop 
  hide details  
Reply
post #54 of 103
I haven't read the whole thing so I won't make any specific replies but the general idea seems to be that some people believe this is just technological advancement. This idea is a farce. Why? Because 3DMark was to be a benchmark that simulated real world performance. If you will remember 3DMark2001, there was a disclaimer that stated if you could run it, you could run most modern games. This notion has been lost.

Because these days so many people are referring to their 3DMark score, it has become less of a battle for gaming performance and quality, and more of a race to the biggest score. This is ultimately detrimental to the industry.

What Futuremark has done is horrible because not only have they not included ATi's frontier technology (DX10.1) they (and Nvidia) have included a technology in the 3DMark score that does not reflect real game performance owing to the fact that hardly any games use it anyway. If they have the technology they should be allowed to use it right? Wrong.

Nvidia has not only come out of this looking like a cheater, it has made the Vantage benchmark all but redundant. How can we use it for its original purpose any further?
Edited by NrGx - 6/23/08 at 5:50pm
post #55 of 103
ok all you people saying the gpu would be too busy doing the graphics to help with physics, how is there such an increase in the GRAPHICS tests?
post #56 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by NrGx View Post
I haven't read the whole thing so I won't make any specific replies but the general idea seems to be that some people believe this is just technological advancement. This idea is a farce. Why? Because 3DMark was to be a benchmark that simulated real world performance. If you will remember 3DMark2001, there was a disclaimer that stated if you could run it, you could run most modern games. This notion has been lost.

Because these days so many people are referring to their 3DMark score, it has become less of a battle for gaming performance and quality, and more of a race to the biggest score. This is ultimately detrimental to the industry.

What Nvidia has done is horrible because not only have they not included ATi's frontier technology (DX10.1) they have included a technology in the 3DMark score that does not reflect real game performance owing to the fact that hardly any games use it anyway. If they have the technology they should be allowed to use it right? Wrong.

Nvidia has not only come out of this looking like a cheater, it has made the Vantage benchmark all but redundant. How can we use it for its original purpose any further?
Maybe its just me but I don't see Nvidia logos anywhere in 3dmark vantage. Futuremark made the thing and you are complaining that Nvidia has it rigged. I mean there is nothing for me to even argue with you about because you are flat out blaming the wrong company.
24/7
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600K @ 4.5 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro Sli gtx470 825/1650/1800 OCZ 2 x 2gig 1866 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2 600gb raid 0 / 120ssd / 2tb 7 Ultimate LG 23 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair HX1000 Cooler Master HAF-X Razer Mamba Razer Vespula 
  hide details  
Reply
24/7
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600K @ 4.5 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro Sli gtx470 825/1650/1800 OCZ 2 x 2gig 1866 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2 600gb raid 0 / 120ssd / 2tb 7 Ultimate LG 23 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair HX1000 Cooler Master HAF-X Razer Mamba Razer Vespula 
  hide details  
Reply
post #57 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azazel View Post
Maybe its just me but I don't see Nvidia logos anywhere in 3dmark vantage. Futuremark made the thing and you are complaining that Nvidia has it rigged. I mean there is nothing for me to even argue with you about because you are flat out blaming the wrong company.
The fact that futuremark included PhysX which is a solely Nvidia venture says something about where their loyalties lie.
post #58 of 103
Its still on futuremark not nvidia. Some games in development will have PhysX anyways so how is it not a legit benchmark? I haven't heard of any games under development for dx10.1. So why don't you explain how the bench is not valid and how its nvidia's fault again.
24/7
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600K @ 4.5 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro Sli gtx470 825/1650/1800 OCZ 2 x 2gig 1866 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2 600gb raid 0 / 120ssd / 2tb 7 Ultimate LG 23 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair HX1000 Cooler Master HAF-X Razer Mamba Razer Vespula 
  hide details  
Reply
24/7
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600K @ 4.5 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro Sli gtx470 825/1650/1800 OCZ 2 x 2gig 1866 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2 600gb raid 0 / 120ssd / 2tb 7 Ultimate LG 23 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair HX1000 Cooler Master HAF-X Razer Mamba Razer Vespula 
  hide details  
Reply
post #59 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azazel View Post
Its still on futuremark not nvidia. Some games in development will have PhysX anyways so how is it not a legit benchmark? I haven't heard of any games under development for dx10.1. So why don't you explain how the bench is not valid and how its nvidia's fault again.
Some games in development do use PhysX, but a few more popular games use DX10.1 (Assassin's Creed). I blame Nvidia because I doubt Futuremark would have included a PhysX score without them asking for it to be there.
post #60 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by NrGx View Post
Some games in development do use PhysX, but a few more popular games use DX10.1 (Assassin's Creed). I blame Nvidia because I doubt Futuremark would have included a PhysX score without them asking for it to be there.
Lol. You mean ONE game USED 10.1 while nothing else does. Then you try to blame Futuremark selling out(if it even happened) on Nvidia. Try blaming the ones that made the program lol.

Btw: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...any-ageia.html
NVIDIA snaps up physics processing company Ageia

By Joel Hruska | Published: February 04, 2008 - 10:00PM CT

Notice the date. I'm pretty sure the drivers for Nvidia's cards to use physx weren't even around when they were programming 3dmark vantage.

Sorry that Nvidia can step up to the plate and do the physx+ video transcoding on their gpu's while ATI just sat on their asses for 2 years making a card that only stands up to the Nvidia 2 year old tech. Its not my problem though. lol
24/7
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600K @ 4.5 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro Sli gtx470 825/1650/1800 OCZ 2 x 2gig 1866 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2 600gb raid 0 / 120ssd / 2tb 7 Ultimate LG 23 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair HX1000 Cooler Master HAF-X Razer Mamba Razer Vespula 
  hide details  
Reply
24/7
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600K @ 4.5 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro Sli gtx470 825/1650/1800 OCZ 2 x 2gig 1866 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2 600gb raid 0 / 120ssd / 2tb 7 Ultimate LG 23 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair HX1000 Cooler Master HAF-X Razer Mamba Razer Vespula 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Software News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [INQ] Nvidia cheats on 3DMark with 177.39 drivers