The Latest On S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Sat May 24, 2003 10:15 pm

Get a job.

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Sat May 24, 2003 10:16 pm

Killzig wrote:Get a job.

Ouch! Harsh words.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat May 24, 2003 10:28 pm

No, sound advice.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sat May 24, 2003 11:19 pm

Killzig wrote:Get a job.

I thought you'd appreciate it if I stopped calling you during dinner to ask you to take a 45 min credit card poll and this is the thanks I get?

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Sat May 24, 2003 11:22 pm

http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3 ... report.pdf

Bah... nvidia were cheating afterall...
It seems that the efficiency is about 20% or more...

Virus · Post by **Virus** » Sun May 25, 2003 9:52 pm

Does it really matter if they cheated in a synthetic benchmark that is less accurate than a sawed off shotgun?

I personally have seen a variation of over 30% in 3dmark03, simply running hte program several times. Also, turning on V-Sync can easily cut your 3dmark scores in half. It also doesn't account for image quality settings made outside of 3dmark... IE if you have Mipmap quality set to High under your video card properties, your score will be substantially lower than someone who set theres extra low. That makes it very hard to get a perfectly objective benchmark (as 3dMark self-proclaims to have), considering that ATI and nVidia have VERY differant image qualities at different settings (previously ATI cards looked much better on the same settings, but with the latest nVidia drivers they're about on par).

Most of all though, the ONLY reason 3dMark is going after nVidia is because they refused to pay to be in their testing program. Yes, FutureMark makes companies *PAY* to TEST their software! Several hundreds of thousands of dollars in fact. Do you know why companies pay that money? So they can get the software early and start optimizing their drivers for it! Everyone does it! Not to mention that ATI used to actually pull these little tricks IN GAMES!

http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2001q4/r ... dex.x?pg=1

It's even more suspicious of future mark when you consider that in most REAL WORLD game performance tests, the 5900 beats the 9800 by a fair margin. Yet in 3dMark it's much much slower? Maybe their software is the most objective thing ever, but I don't buy video cards to get high scores in benchmarks, I buy them to play games.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20 ... index.html

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sun May 25, 2003 9:58 pm

Yes, I know about Quack III. That was pretty bad.

And the GeForce only wins in the tests where AA and aniso are off. As soon as you apply either of those features--and any owner of a high-end video card should use AA and aniso and expect it to run well--the Radeons pull ahead. the FX line only wins in the 0x AA and aniso tests.

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Sun May 25, 2003 9:58 pm

1. Check the discussion on General Discussion

2. Anything anandtech says about Nvidia and ATI is to be ignored, they're nvidia fanboys, and have always been.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sun May 25, 2003 10:18 pm

Smiley wrote:2. Anything anandtech says about Nvidia and ATI is to be ignored, they're nvidia fanboys, and have always been.

So? You're an ATI fanboy, how about we just ignore everything you say to?

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Sun May 25, 2003 11:10 pm

You're right, I said that in a wrong manner, he's an NVidia extremists!

They always overrate NVidia, and go out of their way to make ATI look bad, or rather, worse.

But the difference between me, and anandtech, is that he's supposed to have a neutral opinion, since he rates and reviews hardware.

That's the major malfunction.

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Sun May 25, 2003 11:58 pm

OK, you guys can continue this discussion over here http://www.duckandcover.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5273