NVIDIA discredit the validity of 3DMark2003 as a gamer's ben

Useri şterşi · Post by **Useri şterşi** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 9:20 am

By now, many of you are probably scrambling to download a copy of Futuremark's (formerly MadOnion) newly released 3DMark2003 DirectX benchmark. For about two years now, 3DMark2001 has been a tool almost universally used to gauge the DirectX video performance of system. This latest release seems to have caused a bit of a stir over at NVIDIA. We got our hands on a document published by the folks at NVIDIA, that aims to discredit the validity of 3DMark2003 as a "gamer's benchmark"...

NVIDIA:
"3DMark03 combines custom artwork with a custom rendering engine that creates a set of demo scenes that, while pretty, have very little to do with actual games. It is much better termed a demo than a benchmark. The examples included in this report illustrate that 3DMark03 does not represent games, can never be used as a stand-in for games, and should not be used as a gamers benchmark."

The statement above is a direct quote taken from NVIDIA's report on 3DMark2003. This is not a "new" argument, however. We here at HotHardware get statements similar to this one sent to us after virtually every video card review we write. There were, are and always will be a group of people that put very little stock in synthetic benchmarks. Throughout the report, NVIDIA makes a case against all the "game" modules that comprise 3DMark2003...

NVIDIA:
"Unfortunately, Futuremark chose a flight simulation scene for this test (game 1). This genre of games is not only a small fraction of the game market (approximately 1%), but utilizes a simplistic rendering style common to this genre. Further, the specific scene chosen is a high altitude flight simulation, which is indicative of only a small fraction of that 1%."

"For all intents and purposes game tests 2 and 3 are the same test. They use the same rendering paths and the same feature set. The sole difference in these tests appears to be the artwork. This fact alone raises some questions about breadth of game genres addressed by 3DMark03. --- These two tests attempt to duplicate the Z-first rendering style used in the upcoming first-person shooter game, Doom 3. They have a Doom-like look, but use a bizarre rendering method that is far from Doom 3 or any other known game application."

"Finally, the choice of pixel shaders in game tests 2 and 3 is also odd. These tests use ps1.4 for all the pixel shaders in the scenes. Fallback versions of the pixel shaders are provided in ps1.1 for hardware that doesnt support ps1.4. Conspicuously absent from these scenes, however, is any ps1.3 pixel shaders. Current DirectX 8.0 (DX8) games, such as Tiger Woods and Unreal Tournament 2003, all use ps1.1 and ps1.3 pixel shaders. Few, if any, are using ps1.4."

"This years 3DMark has a new nature scene (game 4). It is intended to represent the new DirectX 9.0 (DX9) applications targeted for release this year. The key issue with this game scene is that it is barely DX9."

As you can see, NVIDIA takes issue with almost every aspect of Futuremark's latest benchmark. Why would they do this? I'm sure time will tell. Unfortunately for us, we haven't spent enough time with 3DMark2003 to have a truly educated opinion. My hypothesis would be that NVIDIA's legacy hardware lacks true support for ps1.4, which means performance will suffer in this benchmark as ps1.1 will be used as a fallback version rather than ps1.3...the version most NVIDIA hardware supports. The GeForceFX seems to perform well in 3DMark2003, but until we have a card of our own to test we can't really say for sure. It's the GeForce 4 an older product lines that 3DMark2003 may shine a negatice light on. After reading this report, we asked the folks at ATi what they thought of 3DMark2003, and they seemed pleased overall with Futuremark's latest.

NVIDIA:
"So, where do you find a true gamers benchmark? How about running actual games? Most popular games include a benchmark mode for just this purpose. Doom3, Unreal Tournament 2003, and Serious Sam Second Encounter are all far better indicators of current and upcoming game performance."

Pretty strong words, huh? It seems to us that this is a bit of damage control on NVIDIA's part, but we're sure there are going to be some that will totally agree with NVIDIA's stance on this situation. Why wouldn't 3DMark2003 fallback to ps1.3, if support for ps1.4 wasn't present? Interesting question.

We'll wait until we've had a chance to run 3DMark2003 through its paces before we pass judgment, but something tells me you'll be seeing 3DMark2003 scores in some way, shape or form used in our future video card reviews. If you're interested in reading more about 3DMark2003, there have been a few articles posted on the web today. There is some useful information over at Beyond3D, and TeamHardware. You can obviously find more information at Futuremark's page, but their servers seem to be getting hammered at the moment. Lastly, here is a list of mirrors hosting the 171MB download. See you all soon, Happy Benchmarking!

sau la http://www.hothardware.com

razvanescu · Post by **razvanescu** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 10:56 am

Da si se pare ca nu numai nVidia - http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7734 si la hardocp a aparut un comentariu pe aceasta tema http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDI4 cum ca 3DMark 2003 este un test prea "sintetic". Iar nVidia ar avea motive sa fie suparata deoarece majoritatea produselor sale de pe piata nu suporta Pixel Shader 1.4

happyliviu · Post by **happyliviu** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:57 pm

am rulat testul pe un radeon9700 si a mers destul de greoi.
Plus ca primul test (cel cu avioane) e cam uratzel...
CONCLUZIE: 3DMark2003 nu m-a convins :-?

Post by **Bossman** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 6:27 pm

Nici pe mine ... iar decizia celor de la HardOCP de a nu folosi 3dmark 2003-ul ptr testele lor mi se pare una cat se poate de profesionala ...

ricardo · Post by **ricardo** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 2:11 am

Un articol detaliat despre indignarea nVidia gasiti la: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=1045073804

O prezentare tehnica a noului benchmark se afla la: http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dmark03/.

Sir Ice · Post by **Sir Ice** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:22 am

Sac, sac Nvidia, ca Radeon-ul meu 9000 Pro are pixel shader 1.4.

razvanescu · Post by **razvanescu** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:46 am

Pixel Shader, Vertex shader bla bla :-? - functii ale unui API dezvoltat de Microsoft special pentru sistemele sale de operare Direct 3D si toti producatorii de placi video s-au angrenat in lant sa sustina acest API greoi si mancator de resurse precum sistemele de operare din care face parte. De exemplu asa ceva nu se va aplica niciodata pe Linux. OpenGL ramane baza si puteti vedea ca toate jocurile care suporta acest api ruleaza la mai multe fps-uri si muuult mai stabil cu o calitate vizuala foarte buna. Plus ca functiile OpenGL ale placilor video pot fi apelate fara emulatoare si pe alte sisteme de operare. Pixel Shader??? In cate jocuri este este folosit in prezent? Din cate imi amintesc cel mai renumit joc care foloseste Pixel Shader este Morrowind. Nici macar UT 2003 nu foloseste Pixel Shader, sau Unreal 2, care sunt jocuri de ultima ora.
Si deja s-a ajuns cu el la versiunea 1.4. De ce? Doar ca sa stiu ca am o placa care detine in plus niste functii3D si doar atat?
Marketing si iar marketing. DirectX-ul este parghia cu care se forteaza mana utilizatorilor sa dea niste bani in plus mai dvreme decat o cere evolutia jocurilor. Si la urma vine o firma ca ID Software cu un joc precum DoomIII pe OpenGL care ii lasa cu gura cascata pe majoritatea realizatorilor de jocuri bazate pe Direct3D.

Useri şterşi · Post by **Useri şterşi** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 12:08 pm

Foarte bine zis. OpenGL ar trebui sa fie mult mai utilizat decit este in prezent.

helios · Post by **helios** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:54 pm

Sincer mie imi este dor de 3dfx Glide.

Post by **Hubert** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 4:39 pm

razvan radulescu wrote:Pixel Shader, Vertex shader bla bla :-? - Si la urma vine o firma ca ID Software cu un joc precum DoomIII pe OpenGL care ii lasa cu gura cascata pe majoritatea realizatorilor de jocuri bazate pe Direct3D.

Tu vrei sa zici ca in Doom3 nu vor fi folositi Vertex si Pixel shaderi deloc?

razvanescu · Post by **razvanescu** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:32 pm

Hubert wrote:
razvan radulescu wrote:Pixel Shader, Vertex shader bla bla :-? - Si la urma vine o firma ca ID Software cu un joc precum DoomIII pe OpenGL care ii lasa cu gura cascata pe majoritatea realizatorilor de jocuri bazate pe Direct3D.
Tu vrei sa zici ca in Doom3 nu vor fi folositi Vertex si Pixel shaderi deloc?

Normal ca nu deoarece DoomIII foloseste un motor de randare OpenGL. Pixel si vertex shader sunt functii MS. DirectX. Exista si in OpenGL alt tip de shaderi. Detalii despre OpenGL gasesti aici: http://www.opengl.org/developers/docume ... nGL14.html

Post by **Hubert** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 9:22 am

Mersi pt. link !
Intretimp m-am interesat si eu, (ca nu ma pricep)
Cica Open GL2.0 si DX 9.0 deja sunt aproape identice in functii iar Direct 3D nu mai este chiar atat de prost cum zici tu. Ar fi mai bine sa existe un singur API, e drept, si asta cred si eu ca ar trebui sa fie OpenGL-ul ... insa de la Microsoft nu poti sa te astepti sa cedeze, nu-i asa ?

In legatura ca shadereala ... OpenGL foloseste vertex programs si fragment shaderi, care practic fac cea ce fac vertex si pixel shaderii in Direct 3D.

ricardo · Post by **ricardo** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:02 pm

Futuremarks & ATI's Responses to 3DMarkŽ03 Discussion - Hardware Extreme

PS Ca o mica observatie din articolul de la linkul de mai sus: in primele 72 de ore de la lansare, au fost downloadate 1,5 milioane de copii 3D Mark 2003!

Virtuosity · Post by **Virtuosity** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:14 am

razvan radulescu wrote:
Hubert wrote: Tu vrei sa zici ca in Doom3 nu vor fi folositi Vertex si Pixel shaderi deloc?
Normal ca nu deoarece DoomIII foloseste un motor de randare OpenGL. Pixel si vertex shader sunt functii MS. DirectX. Exista si in OpenGL alt tip de shaderi. Detalii despre OpenGL gasesti aici: http://www.opengl.org/developers/docume ... nGL14.html

Mai baieti, ce tot va omorati atat cu discutiile astea despre shaderi ?! Uitati un lucru esential. Important este ca placa (chip-ul) sa aiba suport in hardware pentru asa ceva (shaderi) ca si pentru orice altceva (orice functie ...).
Este treaba driver-ului (OpenGL) sa traduca din "CE VREA APLICATIA 3D" in "CE STIE PLACA VIDEO" !! Important este sa existe un echivalent in hardware al functiei dorite !
In mod cert o aplicatie 3D OpenGL daca vrea sa faca shading pe o placa cu Pixel & Vertex Shader o va putea face cu conditia bineinteles ca driver-ul (OpenGL) sa stie sa "traduca"

.

chrisTopher · Post by **chrisTopher** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:51 pm

si parerea madonion = futuremark despre cei care ii critica testul zice cam tot: peste 1,5 milioane downloaduri in 72 ore.
plus vedeti si : http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/R ... ussion.pdf