Printable View
I don't play any games at all, do I complain that millions are spent each year on developing some useless stuff that could better be invested into, say, cancer research? No, I don't because to some people it's fun and it's a business decision of every company to cater for their niche.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
It's Futuremark's business to develop benchmarks, so why do you blame them for it?!
wow so we are allowed to watch tv, but we cannot ask the producers to give us better shows, is that what your saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
heres a tip, if you think you can do something thats just as good as 3dmark and cost next to nothing DO IT. you dont even have to sell it, just throw it onto a webpage and it will get enough hits that you can sell advertisement space and earn some money. or its a total flop because you have no idea what it takes to build something of quality like 3dmark.
Some games run faster in DX10 mode then in DX9 mode, with extra graphical features adn goodies. Doesn't that say enough that proper coding is all we need ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
The PC games market hurts itself , not caused by spending money on synthetic benchmarks... it's not like it is EA or EIDOS paying for FM, it's AMD and Nvidia that want their cards to shine...
I really want to know what's the foundation of your hatred (I wouldn't call it anger anymore ) Didn't you get a free version ? where your scores banned ? Tell us what's the root of all this evilness...
Maybe you are right, if FM stops to exist, Pc Games will be saved : hoooraaaaaaaaaaaaay !! NOT !!
That you don't complain that efforts spent into the PC games industry are not invested into cancer reasearch is because this just doesn't tangent your interests. You would naturally complain like everyone else if it actually did, or you else you are just a dead mass of tissue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don_Dan
Let's put it this way: You know that billions are being spent on AIDS symptom treatment research funds because it is more profitable for the pharma industry compared to a much more promising and sucessful containment of HIV with traditional methods via human development. You do not complain about that for example?
I also complain because millions of Euro and huge amount of game development resources are wasted into games while PEOPLE are fighting for their existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
How meaningless.
That's even worse. You're assuming that the data provided by Computerbase is in fact correct data. So, in essence, you jump to a conclusion based on a 7-year old quote, the assumption that all cooperation with financial contribution is evil and data of which you're not even certain about the methodology by which it was obtained.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
Well, I think you definitly are the world's brightest scientist. What's your stance on the universe? Here's my evidence: "1 != A".
And you figured out this "illusion is not meaningful" while writing postson this online discussion forum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
Let's not make this a philosophical debate on the sense and non-sense of entertainment. If anyone, you should be the person making sure this discussion remains to-the-point as you're the one who wants to see Futuremark go out of business.
Outrageous!
He is accurately using the scientific method by eliminating any factor that could affect DX10 results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
You are claiming that the difference is such a small amount it doesn't matter. While technically it is possible you might be correct, your premise is not scientifically accurate.
The onus is not upon him to prove the scientific method, but upon you to prove that breaking the scientific method doesn't change the final outcome.
What we are talking about is that the relative performance of GPUx and GPUy is not different between D3D9 and D3D10 games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
That developers/publisher think that they can make more profit on the console platform is based on the reality of customer distribution and piracy.Quote:
The PC games market hurts itself , not caused by spending money on synthetic benchmarks... it's not like it is EA or EIDOS paying for FM, it's AMD and Nvidia that want their cards to shine...
That IHVs are forced to spend so many resources into 3DMark instead of games is because people like YOU support Futuremark.
Why exactly is that a reason not to critisize 3DMark?
Yeah, I am obviously the Beelzebub who is trying to eat you. :rolleyes:Quote:
I really want to know what's the foundation of your hatred (I wouldn't call it anger anymore ) Didn't you get a free version ? where your scores banned ? Tell us what's the root of all this evilness...
/thread
@ Katzenschleuder ; If you don't like 3Dmark don't use it lol, you will not cover 15 pages with that no ?
Yeah, this is exactly what I said OF COURSE! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Emm not that I want to discriminate you, but are you out of primary school yet? Because what I said is quite easy to understand I think.
I didn't say that all the bling bling can be made in half an hour. They definitely put much effort into that.Quote:
heres a tip, if you think you can do something thats just as good as 3dmark and cost next to nothing DO IT. you dont even have to sell it, just throw it onto a webpage and it will get enough hits that you can sell advertisement space and earn some money. or its a total flop because you have no idea what it takes to build something of quality like 3dmark.
You don't know me, I complain about millions of things.. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
What you posted is something I don't understand, cause I don't see everyone complaining like you're saying, you're actually the only one who is blaming FM for the downfall of PC gaming.
I have a feeling you spent too much time on CB, which is never a good thing. :)
PS: I agree with Splave ( must be the first time ever! :p: :D )
Uhu... fascinating! Will I be morally superior to you if I intone a song on world-peace now?Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
Oh I forgot that ComputerBase has been indoctrinated by North Koreans, so scratch everything I said.Quote:
That's even worse. You're assuming that the data provided by Computerbase is in fact correct data. So, in essence, you jump to a conclusion based on a 7-year old quote, the assumption that all cooperation with financial contribution is evil and data of which you're not even certain about the methodology by which it was obtained.
Well, I think you definitly are the world's brightest scientist. What's your stance on the universe? Here's my evidence: "1 != A".
The differentiation between "illusion is not meaningful" and "illusion to do something meaningful" is apparently going above the heads of a good portion of the people here.Quote:
And you figured out this "illusion is not meaningful" while writing postson this online discussion forum?
Never tried to do that...Quote:
Let's not make this a philosophical debate on the sense and non-sense of entertainment.
... and that neither.Quote:
If anyone, you should be the person making sure this discussion remains to-the-point as you're the one who wants to see Futuremark go out of business.
:rofl: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don_Dan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
We have reached the stage in an online discussion where one person now has to provide evidence on what the other person has said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
I sense this is the end.
Unless someone has some flaming to share. Then that would be the end.
So if I make a quick equation :Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
I support FM, so I encourage or indirectly force IHVs and co to spend zillions of dollars into FM. Yet they can make more profit on consoles... but I persuaded them anyway... coz I'm that important to them...:up:
So Beelzebub, in fact it's all my fault then , maybe I'm mista pirate and copy... :clap:
Jeez get a life dude. Big tip : Don't buy any more newspapers, smash ya radio and TV, coz you can't handle the real world... everywhere there's money involved that might be spend on better causes... crawl back under ya rock and stay put, coz the FM godzilla is gonna smash ya :p
Nice derailing of a perfectly normal thread dude... awesome... I' realyl must aplaud your stubborness and to keep on giving silly remark after remark... makes you really shine
Yet you didn't seem to convince anyone in this thread, maybe you failed ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
Let's hope a mod can clean up this mess...
Damn, I wish I would wear a labcoat and glasses like he does!Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Sorry, I just got lost in all those heaps of scientific methodism presented by him. :rofl:Quote:
The onus is not upon him to prove the scientific method, but upon you to prove that breaking the scientific method doesn't change the final outcome.
Look the thing is that I have linked several benchmarks which show exactly that. And I really got tired being the only one here who delivers data and links to back up my arguments. So feel free to take a look for yourself.
actually im going to blame FM for that one. if the benchmark was out as of yesterday, then everyone in here defending it would be off using it, and someone would be arguing with an empty classroom. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
I didn't blame a downfall of something to someone. I stated/complained that people supporting 3DMark are hurting the interests of PC gamer. (and yep - I explained why)Quote:
Originally Posted by Don_Dan
It might just be that your English is even worse than mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
But have you really tried to THINK if those things are the same statement:
- "Don't support Futuremark by using or even buying their benchmarks"
- "I want to see Futuremark go out of business!"
?! :rolleyes:
There are too many elegantly constructed sentences in your post (again), so I have to relinquish from an answer to your wisdom. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
May the ellipsis of doom strike down on you.
My point was that 3DMark gives a fairly accurate performance indication in terms of market segments. The data you provided supported that statement, so I did not need to provide 'more' data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
For that matter, 'any' data is not better than no data. I pointed out that the validity of the different charts you bring forward as evidence is debatable. Given the bold statement you made about Futuremark's business model and how that stands against the quality of their benchmark, you need very solid data to back it up. The data you provided did not meet those quality requirements (eg: different resolution, mix of different DirectX versions, using only 2 benchmarks), which means you need to be cautious when making conclusions based on that data.
If you'd said that testing multiple real games is a better tool to get the best possible performance indication, then I would have cordially agreed.
Hm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
"No one uses software" + "no one buys software" = Futuremark remains in business.
Solid economics.
Maybe you can't answer any of my nonsense as I lowered myself to your current state of arguments...
Let's conclude that you are smarter then me... end of topic... you are the only one that's got a big negative charge regarding FM... keep it up !!
This seems to be a failure to understand that correlation != causation.
Yes, I understand that the comparison of 20 games vs. 3DMark isn't enough for your neat standards. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
And the "bold statement" "made about Futuremark's business model" is also suspicious because someone could just have hacked their website and placed this advertisement for that program there.
Holy crap in hell! Is it just fantasy reading this?Quote:
If you'd said that testing multiple real games is a better tool to get the best possible performance indication, then I would have cordially agreed.
I know that this is beyond the horizon of many people here, but I think that I heard somewhere that there is also software besides benchmarks.Quote:
"No one uses software" + "no one buys software" = Futuremark remains in business.
Solid economics.
Standards are merely an illusion of normality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
No, it has been my point all along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
- For initial performance indications, 3DMark gives quite good accuracy
- For detailed performance indications, you need to test real games.
Which is also what Futuremark said in an interview: http://hwbot.org/article/newsflash/9...mark_president.
The point of dispute is NOT(!) that testing 20 games is more useful. In fact, I would say the data based on multiple test scenarios provide more meaningful results. The point of dispute is that you are trying to prove 3DMark is inherently biased/incorrect/producing false results, whereas truth is that it's quite capable of identifying the performance of a certain product.
I think you've learned a valuable lesson about using big statements in 'public'. Perhaps in the future you'll be able to provide your opinion in a more balanced manner, which ultimately will make you lean closer to the true nature of things.