|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
A Look at FutureMark and nVidia's Differences
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: TotalRecall
The Tech Report has written an article entitled "Dissecting the 3DMark03 controversy." Here's a snip:
NVIDIA's problems with 3DMark03 seem to encompass nearly everything about the benchmark. That is, the company sees very little good in the test as it exists now. However, NVIDIA's complaints generally fall into two categories: general, overarching criticisms and specific, technical critiques. NVIDIA's big-picture complaints can be summed up in two points:
-3DMark03 is a bad benchmark — This is a big point with lots of little sub-points, but the complaints all fall easily under this banner. NVIDIA's key contention is that 3DMark03 isn't representative of actual games. Near as I can tell, that means not now, nor ever in the future, although there is some ambiguity on this point. NVIDIA's specific technical criticisms seem to bounce around from talking about now and talking about the future without much discernible pattern. NVIDIA suggests synthetic benchmarks are not a useful component of a graphics performance test suite, and recommends testing only with "actual games."
-Wasted resources — Optimizing for 3DMark03, says NVIDIA, pulls critical software engineering resources away from other tasks. Because 3DMark03 isn't representative of actual games, optimizations for 3DMark are in no way beneficial for actual games. What's more, online reviewers and editors who choose to use 3DMark in their performance evaluations create an irresistible need for NVIDIA to keep wasting resources optimizing code paths never used by real applications.
The full article is here.
|
|
|
|
|
