Off topic: nVidia fooling nVidiots...

[mariner]

Mmm, someone has found that
nVidia may have optimized their GF3 and GF4 drivers for 3D Mark...

http://www.nvnews.net/forum/showthre...threadid=15459

Why am I not surprised..

[Jazzz]

they also do it for other benchmarking software, so do ATI and imo so should Matrox, Everyone has known for ages but nvidia but some people don't like to admit it, hey if they do it and you average Joe is gonna go by these benchmarks i don't see what the big deal is with Matrox doing it

[TdB]

well, the big deal with cheating in benchmarks, is that some games are used as benchmarks too, and I would those games to run proberly and without graphical glitches.
I don´t want issues with those games just to reach high peaks in fps, for some reason that doesn´t concern me.
cheating in benchmarks, is cheating the costumer IMO.

it would be better for matrox if they focused on bug fixing, instead of benchmark cheating, because thats what a user needs.

how would you feel if a driver-update contained the same bugs as the previous driver, but got a huge increase in benchmark x? I would feel cheated. and i think matrox knows that.

[{PainCresT}DAn]

Now that explains why I get decsent scores in 3DMark but in games I'll get huge slow downs, down to like 20 FPS in Halflife CS when a smoke bomb is thrown out or in any game for that matter when smoke appears.

Damn stupid marketeering bullcrap

[KeiFront]

Give me one good reason why Matrox should cheat with their drivers to get a better 3dmark score (or another benchmark software). (And don't call it optimizations because it’s plain simple cheating, what they mostly do)

Optimizing is when you use techniques to deliver the same quality at a higher framerate, or the same framerate at higher quality.

But delivering higher framerates by degrading quality is just plain simple 'cheating', or it could be a driver bug , but it isn’t an optimization.

[Jazzz]

It doesn't bother me whether matrox do or do not cheat in benchmarks, the reason why i think they should is that loads of people will judge your gfx card by benchmarks so i don't want the card to be looked at being not good because it doesn't get as high as other goods, that is why they should, but i agree TDB they should be more bothered about fixing bugs but matrox.

Obviously i don't like the idea of cheating but i don't want the card to look weak when compared to other cards coz the parhelia is not weak card it is a very good card.

[TdB]

I don´t think matrox target group cares much about framerates.
matrox has always prioritzed quality more than speed, that is why they have managed to keep alive without having fast 3d.
Matrox have the luxury, of not having framerate maniacs as their main taget group.
that is were 3dfx failed, their target group expected fast 3d, instead of quality, and they were judge by their framerates, and not quality, by their target group.

parhelia will only look weak compared to the competition, in the eyes of framerate maniacs, and not by their target group.

I am convinced that parhelia will do well, even without being the fastest GPU.

Another big thing for matrox is the high driver standard and stabillity, they didn´t get that reputation by winning benchmarks, but by writing good stable drivers, that did what they were supposed to do. (the need for opengl in consumer cards appearently surprized them abit in the old days. but apart from that, their drivers really was THAT good, IMO).

[Pace]

Why not just make a mockery of it then?

Have Poo-Desk option for Anand's benchmarking, then Powerdesk for those who want real results

No offence intended Lal Shimpi

Anyway, the main problems I've had with benchmarks are 2 with ATi, and 1 with Matrox.

ATi: The Rage Fury MAXX and it's AFR. This doubled benchmark scores with no real gain to the end user. The 2nd chip was solely there to increase fill rate and scores, not the end experience.

ATi again: Quack/Quake3.exe cheating.

Matrox: You do remember when everyone complained about the G400? Then later complained about TGL?

I'd love it if Matrox could bring out an optimised driver for each game I play. Quake3, Unreal Tournament and Theme Hospital

Obviously NVIDIA have been tuning their drivers towards Q2/3 in the past, and probably towards 3DMark (or is MadOnion doing the reverse? ). This is why NVIDIA are the choice among Q3/fps junkies. And do the junkies care? Nope, Ti4600's offer the best Q3 scores around. Do they play Mech Commander? Maybe

While I wouldn't want a ATi/quack or any other cheating, having a Q3 optimised driver in addition to the standard ICD would be nice. But Matrox probably have a great ICD anyway, that dedicating teams to game-specific optimisations might not be as productive as sorting out the main ICD.

P.

Edit: TDB, would you not rather some NVIDIOTs bought the Parhelia to bring the price down for us?

[TdB]

the problem i have with specific game optizations, is that I rather want a good allround driver, because I MIGHT want to play games, that might not get direct attention from the driver writers.

And besides lets just say matrox optimizes for quake3, and quake3 runs really good. Now what would happen if i buy a new game based on the quake3 engine? answer: i have to wait for the next driver opdate, before the new game runs really good.
why not not just have the matrox driver team to focus on a good allround driver, not doing that would be unfair to all those that doesn´t play qauke3-engine based games, why should they have less driver support than the rest?

yes, i do renember the turbogl, and i didn´t like the idea back then either, if it wasn´t for the turbogl, then glquake might been working now with the real icd.

and Im not sure if a huge number of nvidiot can drive the prices down, I have yet to find a logic explanation for the current g400max prices(they are identical to the prices 3 years ago).

[SpiralDragon]

to hell with Nvidia and ATI..... i hope matrox dosnt become a cheater like them

[Pace]

Yeah TDB, I mentioned that they might well be better off optimising the general ICD.

As for the G400 MAX prices, I haven't actually saw one recently, but Scan.co.uk are selling G200s for £10 roughly in the UK I'd buy some, but want PCI cards

P.

[TdB]

last time i checked, the g400max went for about 2500kr. (in Denmark), i can get a gf4ti4400 for that price!

[Cobos]

Working in computer retail, I can understand why the G400 MAX costs as much. The shop that sells it for that price probably bought more than they could sell when those cards still were pretty hot. Now they got a small stock, that they don't want to loose money on (or has forgotten to slash prices on) and as such are waiting for a desperate person that MUST have that card whatever the cost...

Cobos