New DX10 Benchmarks Do More Bad than Good

NIMBY writes "An interesting editorial over at PC Perspective looks at the changing status between modern game developers and companies like AMD and NVIDIA that depend on their work to show off their products. Recently, both AMD and NVIDIA separately helped in releasing DX10 benchmarks based on upcoming games that show the other hardware vendor in a negative light. But what went on behind the scenes? Can any collaboration these companies use actually be trusted by reviewers and the public to base a purchasing decision on? The author thinks the one source of resolution to this is have honest game developers take a stance for the gamer."

Comments

John Carmack

[dsanfte]

John Carmack used to be pretty good at cutting through the marketing crap and telling it like it was. Let's ask him.

Re:John Carmack

[Applekid]

He seems to be less anti-DirectX these days:

"JC: DX9 has its act together well. I like the version of DirectX on the 360. Microsoft is doing well with DX10 on tightening the specs and the exactness."

Of course, he's still calls it like it is:

"The new features are not exactly well-thought-out. Most developers are pretty happy with DX9. The changes with DX10 aren't as radical. It's not like getting pixel shaders for the first time. Single-pass shaders are nice with DX10, but it's a smaller change. "

Re:quit already with 'optimized' drivers

[ChronosWS]

This is only a problem if in the course of 'optimizing' for a particular use case they degrade performance in all of the other cases. There may be times, if the case is particularly widely used, that it might even be worth a small perf hit in one area to gain a large benefit in another.

You've got to remember, these guys live and die by sales. They *have* to look good in the numbers because that's what sells their cards at the top end. At the low end, no consumer cares either way as price dominates, but like automobiles, people assume that the tech from the top end trickles down to their lowly mass-market video hardware in some fashion, so it ends up still being relevant, if less directly so.

Also, if you have looked at most of these benchmarks, the difference between best and 2nd best is usually quite small, on the order of a couple percent. The bragging rights of being able to claim you can run your game at 150fps while other plebeans can only run at 140fps is just that - bragging rights. There is no practical effect on game play until framerates drop below 30fps. And the top end graphics hardware these days is not the bottleneck at resolutions of 1280x1024 and below, so really, these guys are chasing numbers in the rarified air of super high resolution monitors and games which use every trick in the book, which is an extremly small set of games actually played.

But that is what sells. And in any case, the competition between ATI and nVidia is good even if those of us who 'know' see their number-chasing as pointless. Let them do their thing, and reward or punish them at the counter as you see fit.