Bookmark and Share

Tags

32nm 40nm 45nm AMD Apple ASUS ATI ATIC Atom Business Cypress E-Book Evergreen Fermi Flash Geforce Globalfoundries GT300 Intel Microsoft Nintendo Nokia Nvidia Radeon Semiconductor Sony SSD TSMC USB Windows

News

Following yesterday’s exposure of NVIDIA and ATI cheating in Futuremark’s 3DMark03, News.com quoted an unnamed NVIDIA official who claims that Futuremark intentionally developed a benchmark that presented certain products of the Santa Clara California-based GPU and logic design firm in a bad light.

According to the representative, since NVIDIA was not part of the Futuremark Beta Program (a program which costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in), NVIDIA did not get a chance to work with Futuremark on writing the shaders like they would with a real applications developer. NVIDIA did not know what Futuremark had done, but they think the benchmark developer had intentionally tried to create a scenario that makes NVIDIA’s products look bad.

The incognito official from NVIDIA did not say anything on NVIDIA’s cheats in Detonator FX drivers in order to achieve higher results in the benchmark. I also have not found anything from ATI Technologies about their cheats in CATALYST drivers that influenced 3DMark03 scores.

Now NVIDIA has to bring proofs of its allegations and if they do, Futuremark will have to explain the reasons of implementing such scenario.

(Un)Named officials from NVIDIA Corporation, ATI Technologies, Silicon Integrated Systems, Matrox Graphics, 3Dlabs, Trident and Futuremark may email their comments to me.

Discussion

Comments currently: 2
Discussion started: 05/24/03 07:23:59 AM
Latest comment: 05/26/03 02:54:34 AM

[1-2]

1. 
ATI's response quoted on Rage3D Forums:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid =33687789
[Posted by: The Jedi  | Date: 05/24/03 07:23:59 AM]

2. 
Well i think that thay should "cheat"!!! See why
The software must be optimized for the hardware,
as well as the drivers for the software.

Kyro cards do that for compatibility and
perfomance optimization on drivers (windows reg),
so why should nvidia and ati and others not do that?

If Ati have a driver optimization on a specific game that
could give 150fps on Doom3 (for example) without having
worst graphics quality why should they not do "that" optimization?

In fact "game by game" optimizations are the best way
to achive better performance/quality.

And the user should be able to control that game by game.
Like Kiro cards.

For example No one lives for Ever 1, FSAA and Anisotrofic mode
doesnt work with 9500 128MB. So i have to disable it
each time i go to the game. (Blair Witch 1,2 does the same!!!!)
[Posted by: Nuno  | Date: 05/26/03 02:54:34 AM]

[1-2]

You must log in to add comments.

Forgot password? Registration

remember me



Related news

Latest News

Saturday, November 21, 2009

7:53 am | Cell Network Operators Set to Become Largest Mobile Internet Devices Sellers – Analysts. Mobile Network Operators to Gain Strength in Devices

Friday, November 20, 2009

10:11 pm | ATI Seeks Its Best to Ensure More Radeon HD 5-Series Supplies – Company. Additional Number of DirectX 11 Graphics Boards is Incoming

11:56 am | Fusion-io’s SSD Setup Reaches 1TB/s Aggregate Bandwidth. Fusion-io Gets Contracts from Government, Creates World’s Fastest SSD Setup

10:06 am | Notebook – the Most Desired Christmas Gift, Says CEA. Notebooks, Players and HDTVs Top Christmas Presents Wish List

9:11 am | Ebay Completes Skype Sell Off. Skype No Longer Belongs to Ebay