A little bit of info about 3Dmark'Next'

Just making up an MS-style name, but a little info on the next version of 3Dmark.

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20040421140936.html" target="_new">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20040421140936.html</A>

Should be an interesting implementation. Would love more info, but still haven't had the chance to catch up on 'old' news.

Hopefully more tests equals more info (more focused for wider variety of features). No mention of PS3.0, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't something. I'd also expect something to address VS3.0. Oh well I'm sure another controversy in the making.

Also expect more/better documentation according to B3D;
<A HREF="http://www.beyond3d.com/#news11770" target="_new">http://www.beyond3d.com/#news11770</A>


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil:
 

scottchen

Splendid
Jun 3, 2003
5,791
0
25,780
Man, Futuremark really got something against Nvidia, look at the titles of related news. PS3 that's interesting, since ATI cards doesn't support that, then possibly much lower marks for ATI cards. If that's not enabled, then Nvidia'll be royally pissed.

<A HREF="http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/myrig.php?do=view&id=17301" target="_new">My PC</A>
 

Vimp

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2003
358
0
18,780
Futuremark and Nvidia have reconciled their issues for quite some time now.

(06/03/2003)
Futuremark now has a deeper understanding of the situation and NVIDIA's optimization strategy. In the light of this, Futuremark now states that NVIDIA's driver design is an application specific optimization and not a cheat.
<font color=blue>_______________________________</font color=blue>
Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 1gb DDR400, MSI GeforceFX5900 XT.
Aquamark=<b>36077</b> 3DMark03=<b>5322</b>
 

darko21

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2003
1,098
0
19,280
as I remember it. when futuremark made that no cheat statment nVidia had a bunch of lawyers pounding on futuremarks door. I would not really be suprized if futuremark is holding some kind of grudge.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
 
I doubt there's a grudge, but I'm pretty sure they're going to have it cast in stone, AKA Whitepaper, what people may do with, and optimize for the newer version of the benchmark. The problem with the whole cheating issue was no solid preceeding statement of what constitutes cheating and what if valid. Also there were no penalties or remedies laid out.

If FM is smart they will outline in very great detail what can and cannot be done. If they are smart they will also allow the benchie to run with and without optimizations, but there are strict rules was is considered a valid result for both.

I think that's their biggest challenge, especially if they are looking for the validity among reviewers that helps fuel their wallets and future products.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: