3D Mark 2003 Sparks Controversy

cribb writes "3DMark 2003 is out, sparking an intense debate on how trustworthy its assessment of current graphics cards is, after some harsh words by nVidia and the reply from Futuremark. THG has an analysis of the current situation definately worth reading. The article exposes some problems with the new GeforceFX previously mentioned in a slashdot article on Doom3 and John Carmack. Alas, here seems to be no end to the troubles with the new nVidia flagship." If you've run the benchmark, post your scores here, and we'll all compare.

Comments

Is there such a thing as a dependable benchmark?

[Shayde]

With the level of complexity in current hardware, I can't imagine anyone will come up with a benchmark that -can't- be labelled as skewed, inaccurate, or 'not giving justice'.

If I spend a million dollars developing a cool board that does zillions of sprigmorphs a second (a made up metric), and someone does a benchmark that doesn't test sprigmorph rendering, does that mean my board sucks? No, it just means the benchmark doesn't check it.

However, if Competitor B makes a board that doens't have sprigmorph rendering, but scores higher on this benchmark, which is the 'better card'?

The days of simple benchmarks, alas, are past. It used to be "how many clock cycles a second". Nowadays, whether one piece of hardware is better than another simply comes down to "Can it do what I'm doig right now any faster or cheaper than another unit?"

the point

[cribb]

what bothers me is that the geforceFX, being very slow with unoptimized code, needs code specially rewritten so it works fast. directx was created with the idea that it will be the standard 3D engine, eliminating the need of a each game developing its own.

now nvidia are introducing a new factor in the equation: now you have to write different code for each videocard. just as there used to be 3dfx-only games.

isn't this against the idea of directx? seems very counterproductive to me, and an attempt by nvidia to monopolize the gaming industry.

See if they *learn* from 3dfx

[siskbc]

If nVidia put out the FX ASAP, drop the price on it, take as much of a bath as they have to financially, they might be OK. The longer it takes to get it in the market, the less time until ATI's next one (at which point FX sells for $75). They need to reload for the next one (as you say). Problem is, they can't rush the next one (or delay the FX to slap a new capability on it). That's what 3dfx did, and it kept them behind the curve set by nVidia, and ensured their doom.

nVidia needs to learn that you can stay alive as a company with the #2 video card, as long as you can price it competitively - hell, that's what ATI did for years. But they do need to make sure they eventually get a winner. Since FX obviously ain't it, maybe they can win one next year. And making better decisions is part of it - don't skimp on pixel shaders like 1.4 when the competition will be able to kill you with it.

They definitely need to catch back up to ATI - competition on this front is good for all of us.