On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:56:32 +0100, "John Russell"
<john_e_russell.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> This is not an NVidia bash. This is a FutureMark bash. FutureMark has
>> succumbed to money and temptation and in the process sacrificed their own
>> product and brand integrity. Did they really think we wouldn't find out??
>
>When 3dmark first appeared no one I read ever realised the problem it would
>create. Instead of card makers getting their drivers to work better with
>real games they have been forced to "tweak" them to get better 3dmark
>results. Why? Becuase reviewers and the plebs that read them make such a big
>thing of the 3dmark results.
>
Right on......
Isn't it more important that video drivers work properly and be both
forward AND backward- compatible with games and pro-software
than have to satisfy stupid benchmarks-for-nerds.......whose only
thrills seem to be posting benchmark results and complaining
about benchmark compatibility ?? I am far more interested in
seeing shadows properly rendered in Thief 3 ( for example ).
Have Ati got their WHQL drivers right yet on the Thief3 shadows?
They were on their 4th driver since Thief3 released and still
had not got it right when I last bothered to check... Anyway,
Ati cannot possibly do proper regression QC with a 3-4 week
cycle of driver-releases.
Atii (and Nvidia) QC group should post the following definition of
regression-testing in their work-area and insist that all read,
memorize and endeavor to implement it to the best of their
abilities:--
Regression Testing Definition:-
"The selective retesting of a software system that has been modified
to ensure that any bugs have been fixed and <<that no other previously
working functions have failed as a result of the reparations>> and
that newly added features have not created problems with previous
versions of the software. Also referred to as verification testing,
regression testing is initiated after a programmer has attempted to
fix a recognized problem or has added source code to a program that
may have inadvertently introduced errors. It is a quality control
measure to ensure that the newly modified code still complies with its
specified requirements and that unmodified code has not been affected
by the maintenance activity"
( The << and >> have been added by me )
At least nVidia seem to have their official-release driver priorities
straight. I have an extensive set of current and legacy game titles
and pro-video software. nVidia's driver compatibility has been
excellent overall, except for a dark patch early this year when they
were optimizing the run-time compiler for the FX series.( Ignore
anything between 53.03/53.04 and 56.72 )
And WHQL means nothing. My pro-video software crashed on
nV 56.64WHQL -- had to go back to 53.04. Fine on 56.72(WHQL too) --
issued 2 weeks later; somebody in nVidia QC was obviously on-the-ball
with regard to rushing a fixed release out.
John Lewis
><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: FutureMark and NVidia in bed 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
