|  | | Nvidia Responds To GPU PhysX Cheating Allegation | 
There's no shortage of drama in the Desktop Graphics industry, with bitter rivals NVIDIA and AMD-ATI taking shots at each other at any opportunity. Though HotHardware Management heritage is of Italian descent and thus not shy of taking on a passionate debate, we generally like to stick to the facts, rather than dabble in rumor hear-say or mudslinging.
There just aren't enough hours in the day to go down the proverbial rat-hole all that often. However, when the occasion presented itself to dig into the latest allegations of NVIDIA leveraging optimization cheats in their drivers for their recently announced GPU-PhysX port and 3DMark Vantage, we couldn't resist learning all we could about the rest of the story and sharing it with you.
As such we jumped on the phone with not only Roy Taylor, Director of Developer Relations and Brian Burke, Senior PR Manager of NVIDIA but also spent some time talking to and trading emails with Oliver Baltuch, President of Futuremark, as well as Mark Rein, Vice President of Epic Games. The following is a quick-take transcript of our discussions with the various parties involved, as well as relevant commentary from a third party (Rein of Epic) that speak to the core of the allegations and exactly what NVIDIA is or is not doing with their latest driver release.
You can read the entire article at HotHardware. | | 9 Comments | | | The real story here is how biased the press is. Website #1 is biased against Nvidia and Website #2 is biased for Nvidia. Okay, this is sad, really sad. | | | | I see it this way. Who cares what processor does the work, if it gives me added enjoyment and a longer shelf life to a game because of the added "WoW" factor then go nuts guys. If it means I don't have to buy an additional card to do that work, then even better. If the performance scales as multiple gpu's are added to the picture then it only means the end users will get a slightly better value return on each dollar they spend |
Last edited by Chaos; June 25th, 2008 at 11:02 PM..
| Quote | | | | | I dont care about all the noise around it , same as the ATI thing with DX 10.1 or what ever the number is , As long as it will work in games .
Actualy i hope both will work , and give users some more fun with the hardware , and also will probable tighten the competition , and that best for us .
Lets hope this will not turn another fairy taile. | | | | The problem is that nVidia can say their cards are better because they get higher benchmarks, when the benchmark software is very blatantly biased towards their hardware. Futuremark might as well be an nVidia subsidiary. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered  The problem is that nVidia can say their cards are better because they get higher benchmarks, when the benchmark software is very blatantly biased towards their hardware. Futuremark might as well be an nVidia subsidiary. | Fortunately it won't fool the people who know synthetic benchmarks = synthetic results. Unfortunately there's a lot of people who don't know that. | | | | IMO the problem as I see it, it is supposed to be a CPU test. I wouldnt care if it added to the GPU score. But in all honesty, it should be a seperate score all together. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered Futuremark might as well be an nVidia subsidiary. | Read the Hothardware site's FM quote and you might think that even more; "Other drivers which have not been submitted will not be commented on. Otherwise, we would have to inspect every Beta and press driver that is released. Outside of this matter, we have been introduced to this technology from NVIDIA and it is truly innovative for future games and game development. As you know, we have an actual game coming as well and it could also make use of PhysX on the GPU.” | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered IMO the problem as I see it, it is supposed to be a CPU test. I wouldnt care if it added to the GPU score. But in all honesty, it should be a seperate score all together. | It is NOT SUPPOSED to be CPU test. It is supposed to be PhysX test and PhysX test it is! Nowhere is claimed that it has to run on the CPU! Even Futuremark stated it that it is ok, because it is not strict rule to be run on CPU, it is to be run on PhysX chip, no matter if it is on CPU or GPU or extra PhysX card. So if you have extra PhysX card it would be cheating to get better results because of it? It is called PhysX test ffs, READ first! So then people who run the test with both Nvidia PhysX enabled cards and extra PhysX card and get more higher results are bigger cheaters then ... wake up and reading goes before writing ...
Nvidia just found a way to make things better. They do not claim better CPU Test score, they just get better PhysX score because of the PhysX enabled graphiccards. And if you buy such graphiccard you want to use its potential, otherwise why the hell should have the PhysX on it? And as result that way works better. AMD/ATI does not complain, Futuremark says it is ok since it is PhysX test (no matter if on CPU or GPU, it does the test it should do) so why are people still complaining about? ATI gets PhysX enabled soon too as you can read, so soon their score on PhysX test in 3DMark will be similar, then what will we whine about?
On the end the performance matters, if users benefit from this, what's your problem? (I mean you all who complain, not the quoted user only) The only one who could have problem is Futuremark and they admit it is ok. All the others just are just looking for something to whine about ... | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Arklon Fortunately it won't fool the people who know synthetic benchmarks = synthetic results. Unfortunately there's a lot of people who don't know that. | Takes the words right out of my mouth...  | |
|
