1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Futuremark Press Release

Discussion in 'Nvidia' started by John Russell, Sep 24, 2003.

  1. John Russell

    John Russell Guest

    http://www.futuremark.com/pressroom/pressreleases/?092303

    I'm all in favour in generic optimisation, but please who died and put these
    guys in charge. I don't recall them being an arm of any goverment so they
    are in no position to use the word "prohibit". I guess this shows the ego of
    a company who arn't doing anything to help technology play my games any
    better.

    P.S.
    Jusy come across the benchmark at this site
    http://www.more3d.com/
    I'd show like this to become the defacto standard for testing graphic cards
    by using unmodified game code.
     
    John Russell, Sep 24, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Russell

    not me Guest

    They probably just put out the press release because more people are messing
    around with Aquamark right now instead of 3DMark.
     
    not me, Sep 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Lol.. wtf are they thinking. Why would any gfx company want to work "with"
    them? There is only one company at a time which can "win" the 3dmark
    "contest" anyway.

    /M
     
    Martin Eriksson, Sep 24, 2003
    #3
  4. John Russell

    Daniel Yates Guest

    They are in the best position to use the word prohibit when it comes to 3D
    Mark, because it is their software - just as Microsoft do not allow you to
    manipulate the actual machione code of the OS without permission, sop the
    same applies to any software unless it is declared open source. Futuremark
    have never declared their products open source so to modify the software in
    accordance with drivers etc is illegal.

    Whether this is right or not is open to debate but nevertheless, they have
    every legal right to say what they have said.

    Daniel
     
    Daniel Yates, Sep 24, 2003
    #4
  5. John Russell

    John Russell Guest

    "Modify by drivers"!!!!!
    Even microsoft can't prohibit you from chosing the drivers you want.
    Prohibit is a totally inappropriate word when it comes to the software
    surrounding an unmodifed product. They can "recommend", "suggest" but there
    is no way I can end up in court for running any software I care to along
    side their "unmodifed" software!
     
    John Russell, Sep 24, 2003
    #5
  6. John Russell

    Daniel Yates Guest

    I think you have misunderstood the article. It is aimed specifically at
    driver developers who are making their drivers manipulate the benchmarking
    software so as to provide inaccurate, biased benchmarks that have no bearing
    on a systems performance in real games.

    To quote the article

    "In contrast to generic optimizations, application specific driver
    optimizations enhance performance in one specific program only. The
    performance enhancement may be done by discarding or replacing instructions,
    data or calculations. While this practice may be acceptable for games, it
    does not result in any benefit for a benchmark like 3DMark, but rather
    manipulates benchmark tests. Futuremark deems thus all 3DMark specific
    driver optimizations unacceptable"

    Now it does mention that they feel it is fine for a developer to modify a
    driver to allow performance increases in specific games ( as nVidia have
    done with the 45 series detonators in relation to Unreal Tournament 2003 ),
    and I agree with Futuremark in this instance. I also agree with them that to
    fiddle a driver to provide fake results on a "benchmark" are generically
    pointless, as the benchmark then is no true reflection of your system
    capabilities

    Futuremark are not stopping you install ANY driver, because as you have said
    you simply cannot do that. What they are doing is simply saying to
    developers such as nVidia and ATI " stop fiddling our software to make your
    card look better than it is"

    Now as far as I am concerned this is only a good thing - as I want a
    benchmark to reflect the true capabilities of my card/system and not show
    some biased worthless benchmark which is the result of a developers
    modification of the benchmarking software.

    I wouldn;t worry about what Futuremark have said. If they enforce this
    policy it will only mean that your benchmarking will better reflect what
    your card can do, which can be nothing but a good thing.

    Peace

    Daniel
     
    Daniel Yates, Sep 24, 2003
    #6
  7. John Russell

    tq96 Guest

    Tournament 2003 ), and I agree with Futuremark in this instance. I
    It depends what type of capabilities you are trying to measure. Perhaps
    NVidia wishes the user to see capabilities in reference to how the card
    will performe while playing the games that the driver is optimized for (or
    perhaps that's how they rationalize it).

    I don't like the idea of optimizing for a game and then forcing that on
    users. Users may find that the cut corners are unacceptable while the
    driver writers don't (or don't care). If NVidia provides a way to disable
    (or select the level of optimization) then it would be okay (I'm talking
    more than a vague quality vs performance slider here, though), but a one
    size fits all approach is not appreciated.
     
    tq96, Sep 25, 2003
    #7
  8. John Russell

    Nada Guest

    I doubt it has anything to do with their inner business-Hitlers
    rising, but more of a guideline for hardware companies and media using
    their generic benchmark comparing graphics card products. No worries,
    the end user is allowed to do whatever the **** they want to. This is
    not a Napster issue set out to threaten people with lawsuits.
     
    Nada, Sep 25, 2003
    #8
  9. John Russell

    John Russell Guest

    I'm going to generous and assume it lost something in the translation from
    Finnish!
     
    John Russell, Sep 25, 2003
    #9
  10. John Russell

    John Russell Guest

    No I did not misunderstand! They obviusly misundesrtand when the word
    "prohibit" is approapriate. I never objected to their arguements, only the
    tone created by using such a word. To me it just summed up the arrogence of
    a company which havn't done a single thing to improve graphic card
    technology and yet are being lorded by so many in the technology media.
     
    John Russell, Sep 25, 2003
    #10
  11. John Russell

    Daniel Yates Guest

    It boils down to the fact that it is their software, and they can prohibit
    it's modification as they see fit, and so they should. If I designed and
    created something I would not want people developing other software that get
    my design to lie to someone about what their graphics card can and canot do.

    In what way are they oblige to improve the technology? They are not a
    chipset developer or card manufacturer - they do not design heatsinks,
    ramchips, GPU's or anything even remotely close to that - they benchmark.
    They provide software that runs a demonstration which uses various aspects
    of a GPU's capabilities and compares it with industry standards and other
    peoples results to give you an idea of 1. Whether or not your card is
    performing as well as it should and 2. Whether or not at this current time
    an upgrade is necassary.

    You should feel more obliged to help further the industry than they do
    simply because you are a gamer in need of performance parts, you have a
    reason to want better technology whereas Futuremark only want to benchmark.
    Don't expect a company to do something they have no experience in - next you
    will be telling us Microsoft should be developing graphics cards to better
    utilise the windows platform - it isn;tgoing to happen, and more to the
    point it never should, as I feel is the case with Futuremark.

    Daniel
     
    Daniel Yates, Sep 25, 2003
    #11
  12. John Russell

    John Russell Guest

    No one has ever been accused of modifying their software. You might as well
    say running with a virus checker running is "modifying" their software
    becuase it will sure as hell alter the results. Or are they going to
    "prohibit" that as well?

    I do not know of any legal protection that software manufacturers have for
    preventing how the performance of their software may be effected by external
    factors. All they can do is "recommend" that this that or the other is not
    running at the same time as theirs.
     
    John Russell, Sep 25, 2003
    #12
  13. John Russell

    Daniel Yates Guest

    No one has ever been accused of modifying their software??? I take it you
    found the enws article on Futuremark by accident then. If you follwoed their
    news page you would be aware that there was quite a stir caused by the
    discovery of Detonator FX modifying 3dMark03 to fiddle the results. A
    statement has since been released saying that they have basically
    misunderstood the growing trend inthe industry and will change 3dMark03 in
    accordance with growing trends in benchmarking making it more specific
    towards individual manufacturers.

    This latest press release is basically a follow up making it public that
    they will not accept device drivers faking a result. This is also where I
    feel you are confused. Of course youor anti-virus will affect your RESULT
    due to it taking up system resources, but it isnlt accessing the code within
    the benchmarking software and telling it to display a result that has not
    been attained by the actual test -THIS is what they are on about. They are
    not talking about performance of their software - they are talking about the
    softwares benchmarking integrity.

    Daniel
     
    Daniel Yates, Sep 25, 2003
    #13
  14. John Russell

    Nada Guest

    Yup, this is very likely the case - I just don't see that this would
    be a Napster issue. If it is, I'll let you guys know when me and my
    faithful bedwarmer, GeForce 4200, get a lawsuit delivered under the
    door.
     
    Nada, Sep 26, 2003
    #14
  15. John Russell

    John Russell Guest

    No, you misunderstand what's been happening. Not a single module of
    futuemarks software has been modified in the legal sense. All directx apps
    require the use of microsofts directx and a graphics card driver, if either
    of these fail to function as futuremark expect it dosn't mean futuremarks
    software has been modified. If you could capture the stream of commands
    leaving their software you would find none of it has been modified.

    Evidently your as happy to incorrectly use the expression "modify" as
    futruemark are happy to incorrectly use the word "prohibit".
     
    John Russell, Sep 26, 2003
    #15
  16. John Russell

    Daniel Yates Guest

    Oh for mercy's sake, do you actually have any idea what you are talking
    about?

    I suggest you do a great deal of trawling through the net and do some actual
    research before spouting on a newsgroup like you are the worlds only honest
    developer with a grudge against big brother. Are you aware at all of the
    story between Futuremark and nVidia, ye Gods even with bloody Trident - now
    there is a classic case

    http://www.spodesabode.com/content/article/trident

    "If you could capture the stream of commands leaving their software you
    would find none of it has been modified" Where are you getting this from??
    Are you enjoying making things up that sound good or something. Are you
    aware at all on how software actually works, because to be honest it is not
    looking that way. Please, demonstrate what you mean by this stream of
    commands leaving the software, and how it is relevant to a drivers biased
    optimisation of a benchmarking tool?!!

    Now of course if you want to waste yours and my time getting pedantic about
    the meaning of a word then forget it, I have better things to do. If you
    want to actually discuss what is happening with benchmarking and driver
    development then I am more than willing to continue.

    Daniel
     
    Daniel Yates, Sep 26, 2003
    #16
  17. John Russell

    John Russell Guest

    Yes, and I keep point out your use of the word "modify" clearly shows you do
    not!
    Because that's the point at which futuremark's software END's. It is not
    resposible for how those commands are processed. Nvidia have never done
    anything to alter how 3dmark generates those instructions.
    It may have produced drivers which fail to process those instructions as
    intended, but they have done anything to futuremark software itself. This
    may be pedentic to you but if Futuremark had described what is happening as
    you have, as "software modification", they would have been in court for
    deformation.
    Heck I started this thread becuase I was being pedantic about the use of the
    word "prohibit". If you don't like that kind of thing you shouldn't have
    responded!
     
    John Russell, Sep 26, 2003
    #17
  18. John Russell

    Daniel Yates Guest

    You can interpret modify any way you see fit. In this instance I am seeing
    the use of the word modify relevant in relation to nVidia and other
    developers modifying the way futuremark generate benchmarking results via
    the use of biased tweaks and changes within their core driver software.
    In a way they have. 3dMark 03 produces it'sresults based on the tests it
    performs within each "major test" or "run". Using 3dMark 01 as an example -
    whilst the car chase demo is running the benchmark is doing mroe than
    calculate FPS, it is performing a number of test on the various capabilities
    of the hardware. What nVidia did was design a driver that tells 3dMark 03 to
    run the test seemingly as normal, yet not perform some of the "background"
    tests you don't see, so as not to bring the score down. On that basis,when
    the results are provided toy ou at the end with no notification that
    something has been missed out, you are sat there thinking all is fine and
    dandy with a 2000 point increase which shouldnt be there. So you think that
    is not modification of the software - they are telling the software to miss
    out some of the tests yet provide results as normal - that is plain and
    simple software modding and consumer deception - hence why futuremark
    released that pstatement. There is also a very good reason why they have
    played down the situation and said that they will work closely with nVidia
    and other companies to address the changing trends in benchmarking - because
    if they sack off nVidia and the like they will be bankrupt within a
    financial year! Corporate suicide is not their forte I think
    Oh really, so how is it that after the claims where made via users over the
    internet - futuremark looked into it and nVidia changed the culprit
    detonator within 1 week!!! of it all starting, coincidence??? ONly if
    naievety is your middle name..

    And you are the one piping on about prohibition!!!! LOL - if I want to post
    on this thread I will. Is the fact that I am modifying the intial meaning of
    the thread an infringement upon you? Yes it is, hmm, but seeing as your
    thread is not copyrighted there isn;t much that can be done, but if it was,
    like benchmarking software, then that is a different ball game ;-)

    Daniel
     
    Daniel Yates, Sep 27, 2003
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.