Printable View
Why we get a better score with the magical 42.86 'optimised' 3Dmark 2003 , because they cut explosions in the demo and the fire from machineguns .
This could be or a cheat or a driver issue , look like they optimised a bit to much :).
got this from here : Linky
http://www.rosone.max.pl/shot0000.jpg
/////////////////////////
This is how it sould look :
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dr3amz/wings.jpg
Most interesting.
It could be a driver-issue of course, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it wasn't...
I don't think explosions just magically disappear :-P and there is no way that they didn't try out 3dmark2003 before releasing these.
If this is true. I now have less respect for Nvidia than ever before. Ati cheated with "quack" a year back. Nvidia is doing the same, while simeltaneously claiming that the benchmarks are unimportant?
Is it possible that the fire/explosions use DX9 effects which the GF4's can't create? Do older driver revisions show these effects? Also, does anyone have the same scene so we can evaluate apples vs. apples? Even better, does anyone have an 8500 vs. GF3/4 shot of the same scene?
It will be very interesting to see if Nvidia pulled a quack.
Looks like we are jumping the gun:
The linked thread clearly states that the bugs occur in the first game test, the second CPU test, and the sound test. If you look at the [H]'s comparison between the old and new drivers, you will clearly see that the first game FPS is nearly unchanged (101.2 => 103.3) and the second CPU fps is unchanged (12.5), not that that (or the sound test) affects the final score. The massive increases occur in the second, third, and fourth game tests.
Save your conspiracy theories for Deus Ex 2. They'll feel right at home there.
This is only with those 'optimised' 3Dmark driver , the explosions work well with 41.09 and onlder driver even with a GF2 ultra , if you read in 3Dmark forum you can see this by yourself .Quote:
Originally posted by s1203372
Is it possible that the fire/explosions use DX9 effects which the GF4's can't create? Do older driver revisions show these effects? Also, does anyone have the same scene so we can evaluate apples vs. apples? Even better, does anyone have an 8500 vs. GF3/4 shot of the same scene?
It will be very interesting to see if Nvidia pulled a quack.
Yep, tis true. However, from reading the thread you linked, it quickly becomes obvious that the missing explosions, etc, are not in the games that saw large score increases.Quote:
Originally posted by TimisoaraKill
This is only with those 'optimised' 3Dmark driver , the explosions work well with 41.09 and onlder driver even with a GF2 ultra , if you read in 3Dmark forum you can see this by yourself .
So, while the drivers DO have some issues with rendering, it's not a quake/quack scenario.Quote:
The linked thread clearly states that the bugs occur in the first game test, the second CPU test, and the sound test. If you look at the [H]'s comparison between the old and new drivers, you will clearly see that the first game FPS is nearly unchanged (101.2 => 103.3) and the second CPU fps is unchanged (12.5), not that that (or the sound test) affects the final score. The massive increases occur in the second, third, and fourth game tests.
Quote:
Originally posted by s1203372
So, while the drivers DO have some issues with rendering, it's not a quake/quack scenario.
This is what they discovered now, we might see other missing stuff , the bench is big , 2-3 fps from here , 2-3 from another place and this is how you increase a score ;)
This explosions stuff is big and everybody run 3Dmark and nobody see the thing until this guy discovered today , could be how ever a driver issue .
I think that none of the drivers compeared by {H , old and new} and posted here show the explosions (42.63 /42.67 ) so that FPS coment is kinda useless.
The only driver who show all the stuff is 41.09 .
I had this too. In GT1 there was no fire, gunfire or anything, but in the CPU test 1, there was. I think they took the screenies from 2 different tests.
Maybe if yous stop carrying about 3dmarks there wouldent be things like this.
Pls save your conspirecy therious theories the card is not in stores the drivers are not mature
This is not another ati q3 thing.
Quote:
Originally posted by Weedkiller420
Maybe if yous stop carrying about 3dmarks there wouldent be things like this.
Pls save your conspirecy therious theories the card is not in stores the drivers are not mature
This is not another ati q3 thing.
the GF4 not available?
in case you haven't noticed yet, this is an issue with drivers for all NV cards, one could even argue that this is even worse than quack, because it's not just an application specific LOD bias (a cheat, sure, but everything is still there, although blurred), but details missing entirely.
any way, the scores obtained with faulty drivers (on purpose or not) cannot be compared to any other scores.
Wow, you should really take the time to read through a thread b4 you chime in.Quote:
Originally posted by Weedkiller420
Maybe if yous stop carrying about 3dmarks there wouldent be things like this.
Pls save your conspirecy therious theories the card is not in stores the drivers are not mature
This is not another ati q3 thing.
Doesn't look like a quack issue, but I wonder how much of a difference those few FPS would make? I also wonder if maybe there ARE differences in the other tests and no one has noticed them yet.
I dont believe it, I had tested 3DMarks03 with 41.09 and 42.86 and I saw explosions all the time with fire.
Also look at the frame, they are totally different.
Well, perhaps someone with a better reputation than colossus can test this... or perhaps colossus would like to regain some respect by posting screenies using both sets of drivers.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
I dont believe it, I had tested 3DMarks03 with 41.09 and 42.86 and I saw explosions all the time with fire.
Also look at the frame, they are totally different.
I dont care what you think about me. And I do have a reputation here. so get off.
The drivers that are not showng the full quality are beta and whql.
And Colossus has plenty of credit here Oh and i am wrong about the fx part sorry.
Edit also could it be that they dont have dx9 drivers installed in there machine so that why they aint getting the full effect. but since 41.09 are so it renders the those explosion in dx8.1?
You have quite a distorted sense of reality. Weedkiller... coming from someone who doesn't read threads enough to understand the topic before replying, your endorsement of colossus's reputation here means next to nothing. I think every unbiased person here would have trouble trusting anything colossus tries to present as empirical evidence.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
I dont care what you think about me. And I do have a reputation here. so get off.
So how old are we today Paladyr, since you act so childish?
So since your opinion doesn’t coincide with mine, then I am in the wrong? Please wake up dude! You are sounding like Germany back in the 1940's. Do you want to execute some people for being different?
Just because I feel that the GFFX is a better card then the ATI 9700Pro you get all huffy? Can we say fanboy? In all respect, the GFFX is a better card but not the better buy. I had admitted that over and over.
When you have worked with 1% of all the computers I had built then we can talk. But since I have been in the computer industry for over 10 years now. I would say I am more experienced then you. I had personally built over 1000 computers and supported thousands more. I would say I have some inclination as to what I am doing.
Also regarding the benchmarking and having the 9700Pro set on Performance but the GFFX set at its highest or close to it. So that is fair? Grow up man.
I don’t need to sit here and explain myself, but since I am in the middle of a support phone call, I can multitask while supporting this lady.
And why is that? And who made you king of this forum?Quote:
Originally posted by Paladyr
You have quite a distorted sense of reality. Weedkiller... coming from someone who doesn't read threads enough to understand the topic before replying, your endorsement of colossus's reputation here means next to nothing. I think every unbiased person here would have trouble trusting anything colossus tries to present as empirical evidence.
Also for kid who doesent even know how to run bf omg my bf1942 keeps deleting resolutions what do i do waa waaa omg and u still think your king here.
And your right i dident read this thread and this why 1st 3dmarks is worthless for benchmarking and 2nd I read the the 3dmarks forum were they said that only beta ones dont work 42+ now if Colossus says its not like that on his comp who are you to say otherwise?
Edit i hope those 2750 post werent as worthless as these ones.
Childish?? Please elaborate where exactly I demonstrated anything that resembles being childish. You are also making misrepresented generalizations about everything that I have said. It is not worth my time to make any lengthy reply.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
So how old are we today Paladyr, since you act so childish?
So since your opinion doesn’t coincide with mine, then I am in the wrong? Please wake up dude! You are sounding like Germany back in the 1940's. Do you want to execute some people for being different?
Just because I feel that the GFFX is a better card then the ATI 9700Pro you get all huffy? Can we say fanboy? In all respect, the GFFX is a better card but not the better buy. I had admitted that over and over.
When you have worked with 1% of all the computers I had built then we can talk. But since I have been in the computer industry for over 10 years now. I would say I am more experienced then you. I had personally built over 1000 computers and supported thousands more. I would say I have some inclination as to what I am doing.
Also regarding the benchmarking and having the 9700Pro set on Performance but the GFFX set at its highest or close to it. So that is fair? Grow up man.
I don’t need to sit here and explain myself, but since I am in the middle of a support phone call, I can multitask while supporting this lady.
Just FYI, I am a Programmer/Data Architect so I'm no fool. I also prefer buying games that are not buggy (like BF1942).
This is also amazing since everyone else is having a different experience.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
I dont believe it, I had tested 3DMarks03 with 41.09 and 42.86 and
Do u want a cookie? So why does someone of your status needs adive on how to run a game?Quote:
Originally posted by Paladyr
Childish?? Please elaborate where exactly I demonstrated anything that resembles being childish. You are also making misrepresented generalizations about everything that I have said. It is not worth my time to make any lengthy reply.
Just FYI, I am a Programmer/Data Architect so I'm no fool. I also prefer buying games that are not buggy (like BF1942).
And you still dident answer as to why he doesent have credit here and you do?
Ah lets not forget not all setups are the same omg shouldent someone of your Stature know this?Quote:
This is also amazing since everyone else is having a different experience
So since 1% of 1000 is 10, and I have built more computers than that, let's talk!Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
When you have worked with 1% of all the computers I had built then we can talk. But since I have been in the computer industry for over 10 years now. I would say I am more experienced then you. I had personally built over 1000 computers and supported thousands more. I would say I have some inclination as to what I am doing.
Quantity of computers built != intelligence
Personally, I think you all look like children. Bickering over a stupid little benchmark like women over shoes. Lets see who the bigger fanboy is, carry on.