TS | Thomas
Posts: 1,318 +2
Thanks to CorwinB over at beyond3d forums for this.
Futuremark Statement
For the first time in 6 months, FutureMark and NVIDIA have had detailed discussions on how to make the NV3x line of GPUs perform better than it should.
After being bullied and strong-armed, Futuremark now has a deeper understanding of its interest, which is to let NVIDIA get away with cheating. In the light of this, Futuremark redefines "cheat" to "application specific optimization", but only as far as NVIDIA's drivers are concerned.
Futuremark's perception of the world of 3D Graphics have changed dramatically with the latest cash incentive from NVIDIA. Just like for CPUs, each GPU maker has a different amount of cash available to buy independant benchmark makers. For example, if AMD gave us tons of cash, we would modify Futuremark's PCMark2002 to have Athlons run faster on it.
3DMark03 was designed as as un-optimized DirectX test because we thought that was the only way to provide meaningful performance comparisons. Because NVIDIA couldn't produce quality hardware to save their life and cheated in our product instead, we felt obliged to update it instead of welcoming the cheating. Silly us !
However, after threatening us with a lawsuit and offering us tons of cash to bend over and screw our end-users, NVIDIA suggested us that a different approach to game performance benchmarking might be needed, where NVIDIA-specific code path optimizations and clip-planes could be included directly in the code source, as opposed to having to be put in the Cheatonator drivers.
NVIDIA Statement
NVIDIA pays many developers to optimize games for GeForceFX, because its architecture can't compete without low-quality shaders and crap IQ. These optimizations (including lowering shader quality, arbitrary clipping plane and no Z-clearing) are the result of bribery and outright cheating and deception. This is the approach NVIDIA would have preferred also for 3DMark03.
Joint NVIDIA-Futuremark Statement
Both NVIDIA and Futuremark want to define 2 set of clear rules about benchmarks : one for NVIDIA, and one for the rest of the industry. We believe that those rules will prevent the kind of unfortunate situations where an NVIDIA crappy product is accurately described as such and will allow NVIDIA to further lie its way to the top.
Futuremark Statement
For the first time in 6 months, FutureMark and NVIDIA have had detailed discussions on how to make the NV3x line of GPUs perform better than it should.
After being bullied and strong-armed, Futuremark now has a deeper understanding of its interest, which is to let NVIDIA get away with cheating. In the light of this, Futuremark redefines "cheat" to "application specific optimization", but only as far as NVIDIA's drivers are concerned.
Futuremark's perception of the world of 3D Graphics have changed dramatically with the latest cash incentive from NVIDIA. Just like for CPUs, each GPU maker has a different amount of cash available to buy independant benchmark makers. For example, if AMD gave us tons of cash, we would modify Futuremark's PCMark2002 to have Athlons run faster on it.
3DMark03 was designed as as un-optimized DirectX test because we thought that was the only way to provide meaningful performance comparisons. Because NVIDIA couldn't produce quality hardware to save their life and cheated in our product instead, we felt obliged to update it instead of welcoming the cheating. Silly us !
However, after threatening us with a lawsuit and offering us tons of cash to bend over and screw our end-users, NVIDIA suggested us that a different approach to game performance benchmarking might be needed, where NVIDIA-specific code path optimizations and clip-planes could be included directly in the code source, as opposed to having to be put in the Cheatonator drivers.
NVIDIA Statement
NVIDIA pays many developers to optimize games for GeForceFX, because its architecture can't compete without low-quality shaders and crap IQ. These optimizations (including lowering shader quality, arbitrary clipping plane and no Z-clearing) are the result of bribery and outright cheating and deception. This is the approach NVIDIA would have preferred also for 3DMark03.
Joint NVIDIA-Futuremark Statement
Both NVIDIA and Futuremark want to define 2 set of clear rules about benchmarks : one for NVIDIA, and one for the rest of the industry. We believe that those rules will prevent the kind of unfortunate situations where an NVIDIA crappy product is accurately described as such and will allow NVIDIA to further lie its way to the top.
