-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
ati cheated too
- Thread starter fiji
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
The thing is that Ati and Nvidia have always optimized for 3dmark. The catalyst drivers rendered the scene exactly as intended. Nvidia altered the rendered image.
The way I look at it is like a math problem. Ati chose a faster algorithm than Futuremark but still got the same result. Nvidia found the limit of the result as the image approaces futuremark's image
.
The way I look at it is like a math problem. Ati chose a faster algorithm than Futuremark but still got the same result. Nvidia found the limit of the result as the image approaces futuremark's image
.
Point is, people are going to see what they want to:
Fanboys of each camp will find reasons to defend their own camp and bash the other. Basically, a sign of low confidence in their own product.
If you believe in a product, believe in it. But, is it really that important that everyone else believe exactly the same way you do?
Take care
Fanboys of each camp will find reasons to defend their own camp and bash the other. Basically, a sign of low confidence in their own product.
If you believe in a product, believe in it. But, is it really that important that everyone else believe exactly the same way you do?
Take care
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2002
Is anybody else getting tired of the fighting???????
If you want to buy an ATi, buy it, same with nVidia.......
Don't try to cram it down everybodys throught.......
I come here to read about tweaking and overclocking, not a bunch of people whining about nVidia cheating or ATi cheating, or "My CPU is better then yours........."
This is really getting old.........
If you want to buy an ATi, buy it, same with nVidia.......
Don't try to cram it down everybodys throught.......
I come here to read about tweaking and overclocking, not a bunch of people whining about nVidia cheating or ATi cheating, or "My CPU is better then yours........."
This is really getting old.........
Beast Of Blight
Disabled
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2002
- Location
- Orange County
NewBldr said:Point is, people are going to see what they want to:
Fanboys of each camp will find reasons to defend their own camp and bash the other. Basically, a sign of low confidence in their own product.
If you believe in a product, believe in it. But, is it really that important that everyone else believe exactly the same way you do?
Take care
Which is, altho I dislike nvidia and much rather would have a Radeon, Why I still defend my GF4MX440 because it has proven to be an impressive little card to me.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
lol ya'll just found out about this>???
Everyone cheats, Intel cheats by forcing developers to optimize software for Pentium4, most of the marketing today is lie and bs.
The fact is ATi payed up future mark to be in beta so they could optimize r300 as much as possible for 3DMark03 and Nvidia refused to pay them nad proved that 3DMark03 is as easy to artificialy improve scores as any other game.
Everyone cheats, Intel cheats by forcing developers to optimize software for Pentium4, most of the marketing today is lie and bs.
The fact is ATi payed up future mark to be in beta so they could optimize r300 as much as possible for 3DMark03 and Nvidia refused to pay them nad proved that 3DMark03 is as easy to artificialy improve scores as any other game.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
ReDeeMeR said:
Actually Nvidia was a beta partner for 2k3 until a month or something before it came out, thus they had already paid the money and then decided to walk away. Doesn't make sence to say it's too expensive when they had already paid for it.
My guess is that they saw their scores in 2k3 and complained to futuremark but FM didn't want to change their benchmark to make the nvidia cards look better so that is when Nvidia walked away. But that is just a guess.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2002
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ USA
ReDeeMeR said:
Actually, NVidia was paying until they didn't like the results of the tests. Then all of a sudden they did a 180 and 3dmark is for the devil. Funny how 2k1 was fine and they paid for it.
Anyway, the only thing that really matters is that we get to the truth of what performs best, as we are overclockers and we do what we do for performance (most of the time).
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
i personally think its kind of funny how many nvidia fan boys claim ati had access to futuremark that nvidia didn't. its just a very sad lie. One would have thought they would at least make somthing up that would take longer than 5min on google to disprove.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2003
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
zabomb4163 said:
Not even that you have to disprove it. How can you cheat the way they did without access to it? "oh we accidently wrote a driver which conveniently doesn't render everything it's supposed to specifically in one program which we have no access to."
The driver people at nvidia should really keep up better communication with the PR people
funnyperson1 said:The thing is that Ati and Nvidia have always optimized for 3dmark. The catalyst drivers rendered the scene exactly as intended. Nvidia altered the rendered image.
The way I look at it is like a math problem. Ati chose a faster algorithm than Futuremark but still got the same result. Nvidia found the limit of the result as the image approaces futuremark's image
Agreed, I don't think most people are actually reading the articles. ATI rendered the scenes CORRECTLY, they only optimized the driver code for the scene. I don't have a problem with that and Futuremark shouldn't either. Nvidia on the other had, changed the rendering which is blatantly cheating. I do have a problem with that and so should Futuremark.
Only one company is cheating here and its Nvidia, and I think they know why they are doing it. I personally think that its for a number of reasons, at this point I think that even with the bad publicity that they are actually trying to ruin Futuremark's credibility by showing everyone that this benchmark is not reliable. I think Nvidia is hoping that no one will use 3DMARK because of this, and I'm sure some people aren't. I think this is why Futuremark is so adament about making the playing field level so they can maintain their position in the benchmark community. I think its a clear case of bad blood between the two companies and both are hoping to tarnish the other's reputation. I think Nividia is taking the worst beating here though, they really need to back off and just comply with Futuremark.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Location
- Ft. Myers, Fl.
No more Nvidia vs ATI treads...
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
Actually we are allowed to debate ATi Vs Nvidia now, as long as it stays reasonable and there is no name calling etc. The debates section was closed so now if you want to debate about the merits of certain hardware you can do it in the proper section (ie ATi Vs Nvidia in video and sound cards, Maxtor Vs Seagate in storage devices...).
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
personaly I could care less about 3dmark scores cause from my experience they mean very little in how the card performs when actualy gaming, my video card gets decent numbers in 3dmarks and runs those nice details scenes in it nice and smooth with 100~ FPS, however when I log into planetside playing at 1280x1024, no FFAA or AT filter and all details set to low and my FPS drop really low, like 15 FPS sometimes.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2001
honestly, guys who cares? i own ati, ive owned nvidia in the past. right now i own an amd system, and my new one is going to be a p4, why do you guys put so much effort in defending something you have absolutely no control over? why would you NOT buy something that is CLEARLY better(radeons). Im sure the nv35 is going to be great, but 9800 is better, thats all there is to it. nvidia played on the top for a long time, now its ATIs turn. Im sure nvidia will get it back, this seems VERY much like the amd intel thing back when 1ghz was top of the line.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2001
- Location
- Dark side of hell
3dmark is bunk. it is a synthetic benchmark which has no relevance as to true performance in games. Optimizing for it is what it is and that is cheating however you look at it. But there is no way to stop companies from optimizing for it which is why I think it is bunk. whether the scene is rendered correctly or not it is still messing with the results. I wonder since ATI is still a member of there Beta team do they have access to stuff that enabled them to optimize better? just a thought that runs thru my head. There is no way to tell what goes on in the backrooms at futuremark. So we will never know. My advice is to take 3dmark results with a grain of salt and do not use 3dmark as your sole reason for buying a video card.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2001
- Location
- Las Vegas, NV
ati teh sux
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
I still don't get why everyone says that. You can optimise or cheat in games and game benchmarks just as easily, minus the static culling.
Why don't we just say that all measures of performance are bunk and there is no way to compare performance... We need a way to compare performance and 3dmark is one of those ways, if they cheat in 3dmark it is unfair to us - same with games.
Why don't we just say that all measures of performance are bunk and there is no way to compare performance... We need a way to compare performance and 3dmark is one of those ways, if they cheat in 3dmark it is unfair to us - same with games.
Similar threads
