Yes it does, since it's what would be done in actual games. Developers wouldn't use 2.0 just for the sake of using 2.0, they would use what's best suited for the job. And if 1.4 is enough, they would use 1.4.
I got my figure from sources close to FutureMark. Of course, there could be different levels of participation (and costs). Besides, even 100000 dollars is peanuts to likes of NVIDIA.
He's right on the money. PS 2.0 is not always needed, sometimes 1.4 is enough, so there's no point in using 2.0. And in other cases 2.0 is needed because 1.4 just doesn't cut it. 3DMark03 uses 1.4 where it's the smart thing to do, and 2.0 when it's smart thing to do. All DX9 vid-cards support 1.4, since one of the requirements of Direct3D-compatibility is backward-compatibility.
It has not yet been established that Ati is cheating. The change in the overall-score fits within the margin of error. It has been proven that NV cheats, it has not been proven that Ati cheat. Ati and their drivers are still under investigation
Allow me to correct you. Ati scores degraded on one benchmark. It's overall score dropped by 1.8% while NV's score fell by 18.2%. Ati's drop was caused by 7.3% drop in Game Test 4, where their performance dropped by 7.3%. On that same test, NV's performance dropped by 49.2%.
Ati's only reduction of performance was on the game-test 4. For NV, their performance fell like this (Ati's results in ()):
Overall score: -18.2% (-1.8%) Game Test 2: -13.2% (0%) Game Test 3: -5.6% (0%) Game Test 4: -49.2% (-7.3%) Vertex Shader: -37% (0%) Pixel Shader: -56% (0%
Source: http://www.hardware.fr/html/news/#5797
As you can see, NV cheated _ALOT_ more than Ati did!
Ummm, yes it is. Right now evidence says that Ati-results are withing margin of error. Everything else is just speculation. And there is no concrete proof that Ati has been cheating, but FM is looking in to the matter.
All day? Changing the icons takes about 2 minutes (if that). If it takes you "all day", it means you are either too stupid to figure it out, or just generally a bit slow (or both).
Since you are only tweaking few files during the install, why would you need vi? Nano does the job just fine. Of course you can always install Vi on the machine, but I fail to see why it would be required to have Vi on the install-CD.
With the mickey mouse icons and an interface that looks like it belongs on sesame street, that's some nice polish and real professionalism.
Yeah! Damn you KDE for making the icons and look of the interface hardcoded! Damn you for denying me the right to change the icons and the interface! Damn you to hell!
Seriously, this is something every guy wants and needs! Besides, I have promised my better half that when we are living together, I will take care of the vacuuming;).
3Dmark03 may be inflated but what counts is real world game benching. And FX 5900 wins over ATI in all but Comanche 4.
Well, in all honesty, this cheat could be used in ALL popular benchmarks. I mean, how do those real-life game-benchmark work? They run a pre-recorded demo and calculate the FPS. Just like 3DMark does. Only difference is that in 3DMark, you can stop the demo and move the camera around, which exposes this type of cheating. You can't do that in the real-life game-demos.
Slashdot Mirror
Phew, at least Europe is safe!
Yes it does, since it's what would be done in actual games. Developers wouldn't use 2.0 just for the sake of using 2.0, they would use what's best suited for the job. And if 1.4 is enough, they would use 1.4.
I got my figure from sources close to FutureMark. Of course, there could be different levels of participation (and costs). Besides, even 100000 dollars is peanuts to likes of NVIDIA.
Membership in the beta-program costs about 5000 dollars. That's peanuts for companies like Ati and NVIDIA.
He's right on the money. PS 2.0 is not always needed, sometimes 1.4 is enough, so there's no point in using 2.0. And in other cases 2.0 is needed because 1.4 just doesn't cut it. 3DMark03 uses 1.4 where it's the smart thing to do, and 2.0 when it's smart thing to do. All DX9 vid-cards support 1.4, since one of the requirements of Direct3D-compatibility is backward-compatibility.
maybe
It has not yet been established that Ati is cheating. The change in the overall-score fits within the margin of error. It has been proven that NV cheats, it has not been proven that Ati cheat. Ati and their drivers are still under investigation
Allow me to correct you. Ati scores degraded on one benchmark. It's overall score dropped by 1.8% while NV's score fell by 18.2%. Ati's drop was caused by 7.3% drop in Game Test 4, where their performance dropped by 7.3%. On that same test, NV's performance dropped by 49.2%.
Ati's only reduction of performance was on the game-test 4. For NV, their performance fell like this (Ati's results in ()):
Overall score: -18.2% (-1.8%)
Game Test 2: -13.2% (0%)
Game Test 3: -5.6% (0%)
Game Test 4: -49.2% (-7.3%)
Vertex Shader: -37% (0%)
Pixel Shader: -56% (0%
Source: http://www.hardware.fr/html/news/#5797
As you can see, NV cheated _ALOT_ more than Ati did!
Ummm, yes it is. Right now evidence says that Ati-results are withing margin of error. Everything else is just speculation. And there is no concrete proof that Ati has been cheating, but FM is looking in to the matter.
One player "cheated" by whopping 1.9% (withing the margin of error actually). Other cheated by 24%.
These cheats could be used in game-benchmarks as well. At least in case of 3DMark, we have proper methods of detecthing those cheats.
I would say yes
So, is that like poor mans tneonion.com?
Didn't the hacking take place in "today", not hundreds of years in to the future?
What makes you say that? FYI: These PDA's are about the same size as Ipaq is for example. Only difference is the form-factor.
Too bad it's not available here (Finland). At least the earlier Zauruses weren't
All day? Changing the icons takes about 2 minutes (if that). If it takes you "all day", it means you are either too stupid to figure it out, or just generally a bit slow (or both).
Since you are only tweaking few files during the install, why would you need vi? Nano does the job just fine. Of course you can always install Vi on the machine, but I fail to see why it would be required to have Vi on the install-CD.
Yeah! Damn you KDE for making the icons and look of the interface hardcoded! Damn you for denying me the right to change the icons and the interface! Damn you to hell!
In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic
It's formed around Gentoo Linux, that's the reason
Seriously, this is something every guy wants and needs! Besides, I have promised my better half that when we are living together, I will take care of the vacuuming ;).
D'oH!
X is good. XFree could be alot better though.
Well, in all honesty, this cheat could be used in ALL popular benchmarks. I mean, how do those real-life game-benchmark work? They run a pre-recorded demo and calculate the FPS. Just like 3DMark does. Only difference is that in 3DMark, you can stop the demo and move the camera around, which exposes this type of cheating. You can't do that in the real-life game-demos.
Isn't this illegal? Here we have a convicted monopoly selling it's products at a loss to shut out a smaller competitor. Isn't that illegal?