- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Originally posted by: ElFenix
sounds like nvidia paid them off because inserting clipping planes isn't just using a more efficient path
Originally posted by: Rand
My guess is FutureMark was more or less legally forced to make some type of reparative statement.
Doubtlessly nVidia would have been quick to involve their lawyers in the dispute.
At the very least inserting clipping planes between frames has been pretty much clearly proven at that definitely isnt applicable to a typical gaming environment.
In any case I'm not sure it matters whether it was a cheat or an optimization.... FutureMark prohibits application specific optimizations, so even doing such would be cheating.
Anyone want to bet that despite this press statement FutureMark will NOT call back the 3.30 patch, and nVidia will NOT input the same cheats/optimizations again.
I'd be willing to bet such was part of whatever agreement nVidia/FutureMark came to.
Originally posted by: NFS4
FutureMark has absolutely NO credibility now in my books. They can't even stand up for themselves.
Originally posted by: NFS4
FutureMark has absolutely NO credibility now in my books. They can't even stand up for themselves.
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: NFS4
FutureMark has absolutely NO credibility now in my books. They can't even stand up for themselves.
More importantly, I won't be trusting ANY benchmarks that are produced with Nvidia's "application optimized" drivers. Nvidia's credibility is even more screwed than FutureMark's is at the moment.
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Great. A whole new generation of mudslinging.
/bookmarks this thread for the many many times he's going to have to yell REPOST in the Video forum
- M4H
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
nVidia originally withdrew their membership and support for BRIBEmark, whoops, thats not the name..., err, QUAKmark, no thats not it either - close though..., 3DMARK 2003, when futuremark refused to consider benchmark optimizations nVidia put forward in the development stages.
nVidia then publically stated that 3DMARK 2003 was a flawed benchmark that could easily be optimized and they proved it.
It would seem Futuremark finally agrees with them.
I wonder if ATi's "membership subscriptions" have made up in any way for the damage Futuremark have inflicted upon themselves?
This is such an obvious and shameless lie that it's amazing they can bear to speak it. Sadly, the general public doesn't know enough about software development to see it for the bought-and-paid-for lie it is.Futuremark now has a deeper understanding of the situation and NVIDIA's optimization strategy. In the light of this, Futuremark now states that NVIDIA's driver design is an application specific optimization and not a cheat.. .
They might, but if so some of the cheats would be tied to specific timedemos / fixed runs of the game, and would not speed up the game when really playing it.Originally posted by: Harabecw
Do the GF-FX's do this kind of optimization in games or just 3dmark?