Originally posted by LeeJend
It certainly explains why my new 9500 PRO looked better than my old NV30 based card even thought the FPS were comparable. I could never pick out a specific detail but everything looked "richer" on the 9500 PRO. Less interpolation of the graphic details.
Now Madonion/Futuremark having the tizzy fit over the "cheating" makes sense. When the chipmaker degrades graphics to boost his FPS the benchmark that people use to make buying decisions is not telling the full story.
If I went on staright benchmark score the GE4-4200 looks good enough and cheaper than the 9500 PRO. When I look at the picture quality too I have a more enjoyable gaming experience. Going back to NV30 now would be like going back from an GE2 to the Voodoo family.
Now the question is why did Madonion/Futuremark roll over so quickly and drop it's protests? Because Nvida and ATI pay madonion/futuremark salaries through the partnership fees? Then they aren't an independent benchmarking company, they're just another set of hired hands in the PR departments.
Seems like the partnership program needs to go or the card buyers (OEM or personal) need to start ignoring madonion results. So we're left with the only way to compare cards is to buy them and try them. Man that would drive card manufacturers return rates way up for the second rate card maker. Maybe it would just be cheaper for the card makers to quit cheating...
basically futuremark is a company that makes a product to benchmark various things to give approximate indications of performance levels
concerning 3dmark03.. FM has probably had to back off of the term 'cheat' because of possible legal implications..
this is a business where the image of an IHV to its shareholders is VERY important

and to an extent... its consumer base...
nvidia is no longer a beta member and therefore is no longer paying fees to FM... keep that in mind...
ATi IS a beta member and IS paying fees... it is a tier I member meaning that they pay a nice chunk of money for being a member... but they are not there alone... other major IHV's are present and various websites are also present... OEM;s have input... it is not as bad a setup as nvidia makes it out to appear...
perhaps if nvidia's hardware were actually fast enough.. this particular IHV would sing the same praises of FM or madonion as they did when 3dmark2001 first came out and they were the only ones with a dx8 card... and hence had the TOP card on the market for a while
oh the irony...
the basic concept of 3dmark03 is quite good and it IS indicative.. once the CHEATS and OPTIMIZATIONS are removed...
basically... the gf Fx core has problems rendering @ speed... it is an excellent dx8 gen card.. but it does appear to be a tad slow when it comes to true dx9 (ps/vs 2.0) rendering... which is WHY the whole issue of lowered precision comes into place...
personally I have reservations with application detecting... but in some instances (and depending on the optimizations used) I am all for it

since it would make my gaming experience better...
if there is an 'optimization' that does not have ANY real world application (such as fixed POV image culling a la det 44.03 and a couple of others in 3dmark03) then there is an issue... there is no possible way this 'optimization' can be implemented in a game where the camera is NOT fixed...
