<%BANNER[top_768x90]%>
<%BANNER[banner_468x60_h]%>
<%BANNER[article]%>

News

<%BANNER[fp_160x600_r_1]%>

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.

<%BANNER[banner_468x60_f]%>

Related news

Discussion

<%BANNER[fp_160x600_r_2]%>
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=&threadi =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



Latest News

Saturday, October 11, 2008

5:34 pm | Microsoft Denies Plans for Add-On Blu-Ray Drive for Xbox 360. Microsoft Denies Plans to Release External BD Drive for X360, But Does It Need To?

Friday, October 10, 2008

11:56 pm | Disney Expects Blu-Ray Sales to Surpass DVD in Two Years. Disney Predicts Blu-Ray Domination Shortly

11:40 am | Apple Warns End-Users of Faulty Nvidia Graphics Processing Units. Apple Claims Nvidia Misinformed Company of Lack of Problems with GPUs

Thursday, October 9, 2008

4:50 pm | Consumer Electronics Devices Set to Get Wi-Fi Support – Analysts. Shipments of Consumer Electronics Devices with Wi-Fi to Reach 1 Billion by 2012, Says In-Stat

3:04 pm | Asustek Reveals Eee PC Aimed at Demanding End-Users. Asus Eee PC S101 Debuts, Show Style and Higher Price

11:56 am | Micron Plans Layoffs Amid Rumoured Plans to Acquire Qimonda. Micron Technology to Restructure Memory Operations