Check it out:
Check it out:
heh, so no more crazy phycis scores in hall of fame vantage?
do you think futurmark will eventually disallow nvidia physics on every 3dmark?
Then they should remove the test if they are going to have double standards.
Make it a feature test, as it ought to have been to begin with.
Glad to hear that they stuck to there original terms they put behind Vantage, that no GPU could process physics.
MSI Z68A-GD65 (G3) | i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz | 1.3875V | 28C Idle / 65C Load (LinX)
8Gig G.Skill Ripjaw PC3-12800 9-9-9-24 @ 1600Mhz w/ 1.5V | TR Ultra eXtreme 120 w/ 2 Fans
Sapphire 7950 VaporX 1150/1500 w/ 1.2V/1.5V | 32C Idle / 64C Load | 2x 128Gig Crucial M4 SSD's
BitFenix Shinobi Window Case | SilverStone DA750 | Dell 2405FPW 24" Screen
Synology DS1511+ | Dual Core 1.8Ghz CPU | 30C Idle / 38C Load
3 Gig PC2-6400 | 3x Samsung F4 2TB Raid5 | 2x Samsung F4 2TB
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.
I think they should change it to detect if its uning or not n separate the scores or w/e
"Cast off your fear. Look forward. Never stand still, retreat and you will age. Hesitate and you will die. SHOUT! My name is…"
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!
Stop looking at the walls, look out the window
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.
1. Asus P5Q-E / Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @~3612 MHz (8,5x425) / 2x2GB OCZ Platinum XTC (PC2-8000U, CL5) / EVGA GeForce GTX 570 / Crucial M4 128GB, WD Caviar Blue 640GB, WD Caviar SE16 320GB, WD Caviar SE 160GB / be quiet! Dark Power Pro P7 550W / Thermaltake Tsunami VA3000BWA / LG L227WT / Teufel Concept E Magnum 5.1 // SysProfile
2. Asus A8N-SLI / AMD Athlon 64 4000+ @~2640 MHz (12x220) / 1024 MB Corsair CMX TwinX 3200C2, 2.5-3-3-6 1T / Club3D GeForce 7800GT @463/1120 MHz / Crucial M4 64GB, Hitachi Deskstar 40GB / be quiet! Blackline P5 470W
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.
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.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.
How do they stop moving the industry forward exactlyYou answered your own question.stopped including it in competitive tests
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
Last edited by zanzabar; 07-20-2008 at 04:10 PM.
3770k, M5E, kingston 2x4GB cfr
samsung 2TB F4EG, samsung 840 250GB , CM690II, corsair 750tx
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.
so you can't use physx, but you can use a physx independent card, like the ones BFG and some other company makes?
FREEDOM ISN'T FREE
E6750@ 3.0ghz- evga 750i FTW- 320gb- Swiftech MCR220 compact- 8800gts 512mb KO- 620hx - 4gb Crucial 1066- CM 690- 6 yate loons
E6600- Asus striker Extreme-2 x 750gb- Igloo 5710- 8800gt- antec 850w Quatro- 4gb DDR2 800- Antec 1200- 24/7 cruncher
**Wishes for a dual- quad core cruncher **
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.
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?
Last edited by grimREEFER; 07-20-2008 at 10:06 PM.
DFI P965-S/core 2 quad email@example.com/4gb gskill ddr2 @ 800mhz cas 4/xfx gtx 260/ silverstone op650/thermaltake xaser 3 case/razer lachesis
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?