It's indeed possible. But as long as there is no other evidence, we can't really tell anything about it. And bashing nV without evidence of a significative worse quality seems a little wrong to me...;)
Now, couldn't someone with the latest buildof 3DMark2003 post some more interesting and to the point image comparisons ? (I would, but, 1st, I don't have 3DM'03, and 2nd, I don't have a GF FX;)).
So, to make you happy, I will build a videocard that, when it detects a certain filename, instead of rendering the picture, it will play a video of a high quality rendering of the picture... That way, it looks great, seems fast, and doesn't need to bother with doing the actual WORK.
No, it ain't the same thing. If a find a way to render the same scene at a faster rate, with minimal quality difference, it's not the same thing as if I would be to embed a mpg of the scene in the drivers.
I guess the picture just isn't the best example.
Here, I have to agree;).
I'm sure someone could make a much better example picture, where fine details from a face or something similar will look bad when optimized.
Here, I can't agree;).
How can you be so sure that there indeed is some part of the benchmark were the quality is indeed so much worse ? Should there be, I think Tech-Report would have used it, instead of the dark and not-so-good-example image they used.
Duh, oops. I'm dumb, I have to apologize to Tech-Report.
Dunno why, but I thought it was T-R that first reported about NV's cheat with 3DMark2003 (the first one).
Anyway, I still don't understand all this fuss about this latest optimization. The difference in quality between the two "versions" are negligible, I reiterate. And, btw, I have to say that I kinda prefer the "optimized" one, just look at the carpet border, it's much better than in the "non-optimized" version;) And, overall, lemme stress it, the differences are so minimal that T-R had to diff the two images and enhance the resulting image to let everyone see that some pixels were different (btw, if someone from T-R is reading this, could you plz provide an histogram of the diff image, maybe with a number_of_changed_pixels/total_pixel_count figure ?).
This alone should speak of optimization, and not cheating. In the end, if the final result is qualitatively (and not quantitatively) equal, the way they attain it shouldn't matter (as long as it isn't a jpg or mpg embedded in the drivers, obviously;)).
First of all, the differences in image quality are, as the parent already pointed out, negligible.
Thus, there are two questions that I want to ask:
First, sure, NVidia included some optimizations specifically targeted for 3DMark2003. But, the real question is, if the (perceived) image quality doesn't suffer (and it doesn't, as you all can see by looking at the two screenshots tech-report posted), is it really so terrible ? All gfx cards manufacturers did and do these kind of things. I can't see what's the problem (in this specific case) is.
Then, we have the second, and more important question. Why the hell Tech-report is so fast at pointing out these optimizations in NVidia drivers, while it hasn't (as long as I can tell) investigated so thoroughly ATI's drivers ? Note, I'm saying that ATI's cheating or whatever. I'm only pointing out the fact that afaik, ATI's drivers could change behaviour if you rename the 3DMark executable, or that they could have some specific optimizations (shader code reordening apart) for 3DMark that impact the quality as much as these NV optimizations (that is, in a negligible way).
Dunno, sounds a little strange. In particular by taking into account the FX5900 reviews at Tom's and Anand's sites. These reviews point out how the FX5900 is indeed faster than anything on the block in almost any game. And image quality isn't impacted. So.... Hrm... Dunno...
Well, I suppose that if I'd call you nigger you'd get really angry, ain't it ? Alright, let's go back to the point, this isn't a thread talking of racism, we're talkin' 'bout hacking/cracking. Let's say that from today everyone starts using afro-american to say "a person that genetically must do harms to other people, stay in gangs, and do every sort of nasty and illegal things". You'd be upset, right ? Ok, this is the exactly same scenario. What should we do ? Stay calm and relaxed sipping our Coke (tm) and say "alright, everyone's using hacker {afro-american} in a bad way, but what should I do ? It's only the language a-changing..." ? No way, as long as I can I'll fight the misuse of the term hacker in every manner. PS : you're acting in a way that tends to make people racist. If you're not able to recognize a joke it's a problem of yours. What should every UK citizen do if a should say "what's the best way to make a british smile when he's 80 ? Tell him a joke when he's 15 ! " ? They should all kill me ! Stay calm and have a goodday ! Bye, Lightman
Slashdot Mirror
I remember a couple of really *great* DTP programs on the Amiga, they were killer apps, but they didn't survive.
Being a killer app doesn't mean you won't be crushed and killed...
Anyway, nice to see some free good app in the DTP arena under linux.
It's indeed possible. But as long as there is no other evidence, we can't really tell anything about it. And bashing nV without evidence of a significative worse quality seems a little wrong to me... ;)
;)).
Now, couldn't someone with the latest buildof 3DMark2003 post some more interesting and to the point image comparisons ? (I would, but, 1st, I don't have 3DM'03, and 2nd, I don't have a GF FX
No, it ain't the same thing. If a find a way to render the same scene at a faster rate, with minimal quality difference, it's not the same thing as if I would be to embed a mpg of the scene in the drivers.
Here, I have to agree
Here, I can't agree
How can you be so sure that there indeed is some part of the benchmark were the quality is indeed so much worse ? Should there be, I think Tech-Report would have used it, instead of the dark and not-so-good-example image they used.
Duh, oops. I'm dumb, I have to apologize to Tech-Report.
;) And, overall, lemme stress it, the differences are so minimal that T-R had to diff the two images and enhance the resulting image to let everyone see that some pixels were different (btw, if someone from T-R is reading this, could you plz provide an histogram of the diff image, maybe with a number_of_changed_pixels/total_pixel_count figure ?).
;)).
:)
Dunno why, but I thought it was T-R that first reported about NV's cheat with 3DMark2003 (the first one).
Anyway, I still don't understand all this fuss about this latest optimization. The difference in quality between the two "versions" are negligible, I reiterate. And, btw, I have to say that I kinda prefer the "optimized" one, just look at the carpet border, it's much better than in the "non-optimized" version
This alone should speak of optimization, and not cheating. In the end, if the final result is qualitatively (and not quantitatively) equal, the way they attain it shouldn't matter (as long as it isn't a jpg or mpg embedded in the drivers, obviously
Again, lemme apologize to the Tech-Report staff
First of all, the differences in image quality are, as the parent already pointed out, negligible.
Thus, there are two questions that I want to ask:
First, sure, NVidia included some optimizations specifically targeted for 3DMark2003. But, the real question is, if the (perceived) image quality doesn't suffer (and it doesn't, as you all can see by looking at the two screenshots tech-report posted), is it really so terrible ? All gfx cards manufacturers did and do these kind of things. I can't see what's the problem (in this specific case) is.
Then, we have the second, and more important question. Why the hell Tech-report is so fast at pointing out these optimizations in NVidia drivers, while it hasn't (as long as I can tell) investigated so thoroughly ATI's drivers ? Note, I'm saying that ATI's cheating or whatever. I'm only pointing out the fact that afaik, ATI's drivers could change behaviour if you rename the 3DMark executable, or that they could have some specific optimizations (shader code reordening apart) for 3DMark that impact the quality as much as these NV optimizations (that is, in a negligible way).
Dunno, sounds a little strange. In particular by taking into account the FX5900 reviews at Tom's and Anand's sites. These reviews point out how the FX5900 is indeed faster than anything on the block in almost any game. And image quality isn't impacted. So.... Hrm... Dunno...
Please read these :
Tom's Review of GF FX5900
Anand's Review of the same card
As you can see from the games figures, the FX5900 is faster than ATI's...
And, in the end, is the performance with applications that matters, not some stupid benchmark.
Well, I suppose that if I'd call you nigger you'd get really angry, ain't it ? Alright, let's go back to the point, this isn't a thread talking of racism, we're talkin' 'bout hacking/cracking. Let's say that from today everyone starts using afro-american to say "a person that genetically must do harms to other people, stay in gangs, and do every sort of nasty and illegal things". You'd be upset, right ? Ok, this is the exactly same scenario. What should we do ? Stay calm and relaxed sipping our Coke (tm) and say "alright, everyone's using hacker {afro-american} in a bad way, but what should I do ? It's only the language a-changing ..." ? No way, as long as I can I'll fight the misuse of the term hacker in every manner. PS : you're acting in a way that tends to make people racist. If you're not able to recognize a joke it's a problem of yours. What should every UK citizen do if a should say "what's the best way to make a british smile when he's 80 ? Tell him a joke when he's 15 ! " ? They should all kill me ! Stay calm and have a goodday ! Bye, Lightman