Futuremark To Disallow Physx Results in Hall of Fame

[perkam]

Check it out:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=195223

Perkam

[WaxCactus]

heh, so no more crazy phycis scores in hall of fame vantage?
do you think futurmark will eventually disallow nvidia physics on every 3dmark?

[X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE]

Then they should remove the test if they are going to have double standards.

[bowman]

Make it a feature test, as it ought to have been to begin with.

[Jamesrt2004]

heh, so no more crazy phycis scores in hall of fame vantage?
do you think futurmark will eventually disallow nvidia physics on every 3dmark?

doubt it wasn't vantage the first one to actually use physx ?

[Blacky]

FM sucks

[deathman20]

Glad to hear that they stuck to there original terms they put behind Vantage, that no GPU could process physics.

[perkam]

Actually, I don't like this either. Intel would have introduced onboard Havok physics on Larrabee and AMD was on that bandwagon, so I don't know if this is really an improvement.

It's news so I posted it.

Perkam

[Jamesrt2004]

I think they should change it to detect if its uning or not n separate the scores or w/e

[XS Janus]

I hate 3dmark.
Parasitic product made popular by peoples obsession with scores.
...sad...

All benchmark products must be free and independent.

[Luka_Aveiro]

All benchmark products must be free and independent.

qft.

from the moment money is involved, corruption shows.

[JohnZS]

Well you have to pay the developers somehow so charging for benchmarks is ok in my book but if we are talking sponsorship then that is a no no as you said Luka far to easy to bribe and corrupt, even subtly like provide the Devs and testers with Brand X Hardware...therefore it will run better on Brand X Hardware due to them having lots of it to test on!
John

[RaZz!]

Make it a feature test, as it ought to have been to begin with.

idd.

the best way would be to seperate cpu - ppu - gpu physics. the cpu tests should be cpu-only, without ppu and gpu, but they should add further tests to include ppu- and gpu-physics tests.

still, i think futuremark's decision is the right one. fm's orb was really flawed due to this cpu test scores with nvidia's gpu physx.

[Anemone]

So you take away the pressure on anyone else to step and match the ability. So therefore you stop moving the industry forward. And now no longer are software abilities limited to exact codepaths dicated, but now you can only use the hardware they indicate for a given test.

So why bother allowing SLI and CF? To contrast them? Or to make it so the vast majority of other folks on the planet never place? Why allow built in memory controllers? Heck why allow GPU's at all that are newer than 6 months, because that could be an "unfair advantage" the the testing while some competitor readies their latest and greatest?

It's within their rights to limit this. That's true. It's just pathetic "you can't improve our toy" 10th century mentality. Every year FM manages to marginalize themselves into something less and less relevant to anything. And I wouldn't care if it was Intel and Havok stuff that did it first. Hardware improvements are hardware improvements. Stifle those and what exactly is FM around for anyway.

[BababooeyHTJ]

There is no reason that a driver for my gpu should increase my cpu score by 3x. That is insane. I can think of one game that uses phisix.

[insurgent]

So you take away the pressure on anyone else to step and match the ability. So therefore you stop moving the industry forward.

How do they stop moving the industry forward exactly? It's their benchmark suite, not unlike a game that decides not to use PhysX. My point, this doesn't stifles progress, NVidia already has physics in gpu, what's to stop if it's already there and you can use it in games where it actually matters for most of gamers. 3dmark is a niche application and I can't imagine hardware physics will stop developing because a benchmarking program stopped including it in competitive tests. Am I wrong, or is the industry revolving around 3dmark now?

[Anemone]

There is no reason that a driver for my gpu should increase my cpu score by 3x. That is insane. I can think of one game that uses phisix.

There's thinking outside the box... *sarcasm* Just because a thing isn't something you'd expect means it shouldn't be done? Why supercool a cpu? Isn't that somewhat abnormal? Not exactly a normal thing you'd see in a pc everyday, right? But it's getting the most out of the hardware that's present. Which is faster, Raid 0 done in software by the CPU or a dedicated controller? Same with graphics. Same with physics. There "will" be future games coming in the next year that will use this stuff. The abilities are not irrelevant.

How do they stop moving the industry forward exactly

stopped including it in competitive tests

You answered your own question.

[insurgent]

You answered your own question.

Did you miss this?

Am I wrong, or is the industry revolving around 3dmark now?

[zanzabar]

So you take away the pressure on anyone else to step and match the ability. So therefore you stop moving the industry forward. And now no longer are software abilities limited to exact codepaths dicated, but now you can only use the hardware they indicate for a given test.

So why bother allowing SLI and CF? To contrast them? Or to make it so the vast majority of other folks on the planet never place? Why allow built in memory controllers? Heck why allow GPU's at all that are newer than 6 months, because that could be an "unfair advantage" the the testing while some competitor readies their latest and greatest?

It's within their rights to limit this. That's true. It's just pathetic "you can't improve our toy" 10th century mentality. Every year FM manages to marginalize themselves into something less and less relevant to anything. And I wouldn't care if it was Intel and Havok stuff that did it first. Hardware improvements are hardware improvements. Stifle those and what exactly is FM around for anyway.

they are taking it out of hall of fame, its not out of the benchmark

and if u look in game the physX wont use an entire card for GPGPU since its not a dedicated card then it wont show accurate gaming comparisons if in a game its capped to 10% but in the benchmark its 99% of the gpu

[Anemone]

As I said, it's within their right to take it out of the hall of fame.

And no I didn't miss it, but the part you are quoting also answered by the phrase that it's competitive. The very fact that you said it's competitive means you know it is relevant, and that asking the question "is it relevant" by saying "does the whole world revolve around 3dmark, is a question you've already defeated earlier in your statement.

[insurgent]

As I said, it's within their right to take it out of the hall of fame.

And no I didn't miss it, but the part you are quoting also answered by the phrase that it's competitive. The very fact that you said it's competitive means you know it is relevant, and that asking the question "is it relevant" by saying "does the whole world revolve around 3dmark, is a question you've already defeated earlier in your statement.

It's relevant to what? Just because it's a competition doesn't mean it's relevant to everything. Have you even considered that the test might be flawed? It has little relevance to real world applications. That is a real question btw, does the industry (not the "whole world" ) revolve around 3dmark? If it is, whose fault is it for putting too much weight in it?

[Asgard_thor]

so you can't use physx, but you can use a physx independent card, like the ones BFG and some other company makes?

[Anemone]

You're right. It's a pointless benchmark. Of course the fact that words like "world record" are used in describing it are meaningless.

You wouldn't have described it as "competitive" if it didn't have a "prize". That's inherent in the definition of the term. Since you said that, not I, then you know that there is a level at which it is taken seriously. So you know there is a "point" that there is a "competition" and that the results are serious. They may be nearly meritless, and if you wish to stand on that, I'll be ok with that. But if you make the statement that it is a competition, without qualifying that it is meaningless, and then ask me "what meaning does it have", I'm going to say you have given it a value by your own admission.

[grimREEFER]

well, the test was flawed from the beginning.
its their fault for setting it up that way so any potentially really fast physics card could score super high.
what if nvidia released a physx card under the ageia brand that was just an 8800gt with a custom bios? that would basically score about the same, just the fact that it was classified as a ppu would make it alright? is this all about semantics?

[insurgent]

You're right. It's a pointless benchmark. Of course the fact that words like "world record" are used in describing it are meaningless.

You wouldn't have described it as "competitive" if it didn't have a "prize". That's inherent in the definition of the term. Since you said that, not I, then you know that there is a level at which it is taken seriously. So you know there is a "point" that there is a "competition" and that the results are serious. They may be nearly meritless, and if you wish to stand on that, I'll be ok with that. But if you make the statement that it is a competition, without qualifying that it is meaningless, and then ask me "what meaning does it have", I'm going to say you have given it a value by your own admission.

Where did I even imply it's useless or pointless, even though you yourself said they were making themselves less and less relevant? The point I was asking was why do you think removing the results from the hall of fame of this test "stifle progress", and you end up speaking for me on what I judge it to be. Is PhysX development severely crippled because *gasp* they removed it from the "Hall of Fame", which is not exactly an industry standard?