rename it to the fairy.exe to quake3.exe its abit better
Anonymous at 8:56 18/3/2004
http://www.rage3d.com/content/articles/atidawning/ <--- files needed to run dawn with (new) radeon drivers. All you need is opendl.32.dll and atioglxx.dll in dawn/bin directory. Rename fairy.exe to quake3.exe to get nude.
Thorn at 5:22 14/2/2004
still won't work, unsupported NV Point Sprite.... anyone know how to fix it?
Thorn at 5:16 14/2/2004
I just bought a 9800 XT and I get that point sprite thingy too with this demo, where do you get that atioglxx.dll file from?
Anonymous at 3:26 31/12/2003
Hello ! I have found what we need to solve the problem with NV-POINT-SPRITE. It's necessary 2 files : opengl32.dll and atioglxx.dll. With this files, my Dawn demo work well now with my Radeon 9700.
Anonymous at 9:8 11/12/2003
Xcuse me if I was repeating myself, it's a problem of my Internet Explorer !
Anonymous at 11:22 5/12/2003
Me, the anonymous of 1/12/2003, I have this problem with my Radeon 9700 ! Apparently, nobody has this problem instead us. Please help us because we would like to see it fast !
Anonymous at 11:14 5/12/2003
Me, the anonymous of 1/12/2003, I have this problem with my Radeon 9700 ! Apparently, nobody has this problem instead us.
Anonymous at 11:13 5/12/2003
Me, the anonymous of 1/12/2003, I have this problem with my Radeon 9700 ! Apparently, nobody has this problem.
zoglog at 17:52 3/12/2003
same problem here? I have a radeon 9600 non pro. Anyone know how to fix this?
Anonymous at 14:26 1/12/2003
I've got the same problem : unsupported NV-POINT-SPRITE. Thanks to help me.
Anonymous, you need to get a f**king life. You keep posting the same shit all the time like everyone keeps saying. You need to get a life. And stop posting that same shit. You moron d**k head
Anonymous at 12:9 4/6/2003
Seriously, everyone here get a life...
reggie at 15:11 3/6/2003
oh, that's all dawn is??!?!?!??!? you guys were making lik,e they found a f**king cure for cancer! you guys are dumb for nerds man. dont u realize u r sucking on corparte americas tit regardless? you will go gaga for some pixelized vixen showing some skin. oh my god you people are amused by anything they throw at you that is naked. stand up to corparte america and say: i refuse to be amused!
FREE YOUR MINDS
reggie at 14:57 3/6/2003
what the f**k does dawn do? is it a game? a movie? wtf is it?
Dang, Inimbrium, You must have a nice monitor to be able to try 2048*1536. I can't wait for my new one. It does a little under that, but is better than my current one that only does 1280*1024 @ 60Hz
Inimbrium at 18:34 31/5/2003
It's alright, I've sorted it out now. It will work on my PC after all(rather well actually). I needed to get the Athlon Thunderbird patch for Dawn from the website, so if your Dawn isn't working, try getting the patch and it might work afterwards. It seems to corrupt sometimes at 6xAA at 1024x768 (max everything else), but it still runs smoothly. I can't run AA at all at 1600x1200. It could be the RAM. I only got 384MB, below the required min. 512MB, but it runs at 1600x1200 with everything else on max (AS, textures, Trueform, etc) again smoothly, and I didn't even overclock the 9700 PRO. :-D I wish it had an FPS meter. It does not run at 2048x1536 at all under any settings.
Inimbrium at 17:2 31/5/2003
Hi again.
I'm just curious, can anyone with a RADEON 9700 PRO and less than 512MB RAM run this demo? I get an error. It says: Dawn has encountered an error and needs to close. Send Error report or not. I got Hercules RADEON 9700 PRO, 1.3GHz Athlon and 384 MB SDRAM. It says on the official website that it requires 512MB RAM. Is this so?
As long as it's a productive debate, rather than a bunch of idiots screaming and saying "you f**king dumbass mother f**ker. My favorite card rocks and I have no reason to say that other than I'm a blind follower with no real mind of my own and can't speak or write english very well except to say say f**k d**k asshole shit faggot pussy" there's nothing wrong with knowing a little something about hardware and software. In fact it may lead to a very good job in the information/ technology field, leading to big paychecks, which makes it a lot easier to take your girlfriend out and have a fun life. Besides, I gots me a girlfriend. She lives with me. :) Normal life & computer knowledge. It's not as hard as it sounds.
Inimbrium at 8:16 30/5/2003
Some of you people are extremly childish and unstable. I know that some of you are adult and that worries me. Get a life people. I like computers and star trek just like the next geek, but that doesn't mean I don't have a life. Some of you really don't. Seriously, think about your situation and if you are lucky, you will see the light, if not, then carry on thinking of even more stupid comments to write on the next ATI product. If you try hard, you may be able to get your own REAL Dawn. You know, girlfriend, sex, normal life. Until next time peeps. Think about what I said.
SSCREW:> "Nvidia may be doing it differently to ATi, but its getting the exact same results done faster. The reason they do it different, is because there hardware is different."
Not the exact same results. And did you say their hardware is "different"? I think the word you're looking for is "inferior" ;)
SSCREW:> "In ANY game that allows the NV30 path, Nvidia will do just as good, or better than the 9800pro."
No games should allow the NV30 path. It's not true DX9.
ATIFXGUY at 5:45 29/5/2003
I am assuming everyone knows that pixel shader 2.0 is a dx9 feature? ;) And at this point the 9800 and the 9700pro runs pixel and vertex shaders faster then the 5800 and the 5900. Stronger shader engine can do that. Dr.death is correct in saying this worried Nvidia in regards to this. Future games will use this extensively. And by all accounts, Nvidia's chips run them slower.
Duke3d at 5:29 29/5/2003
And here's the thing with DOOM3. Something we gamers will only find out when it's fully released. Since both cards run on different paths. Which path offers better IQ? Because you know that DOOM3 runs heavy pixel and vertex shaders and in order for the NV30 or NV35 to run it faster or as fast as the 9700pro or 9800pro, it won't be running it FP32, FPR24 or ARB2. When the final version is released, we will see the quality difference. I will put my money on FP32 or 24 as opposed to 12 or 16.
DRDEATH at 4:52 29/5/2003
Last point. Nvidia wanted the NV35, NV30 cards to look better in that test only because of it's weakness in that area. All other benchtest were not effected. It was a targeted cheat. Any future games that use heavy vertex or pixel shaders, the 9800pro will run faster. Period. This is why they never wanted this test to be done by vendors for their cards. ANOTHER CONTROVERSY THAT IS TOLD AT BEYOND3D. Shader marks and games that use them extensively like pixel shader 2.0 don't fare as well on the fx line. Look at the game tests that use shaders, let alone 2.0 This is the one area the 9800pro wins. And considering these feature will be incorporated in many future games had Nvidia worried. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9731 Read this SSCREW. And then read the report at TechReport.com and Beyond3d. Nvidia needs to come clean. They did cheat to cover up the cards weakness in shader ops.....
DRDEATH at 4:44 29/5/2003
"How is that a more even benchmark? It is still designed to use the ARB2 path, which ATi primarily use, and are faster in."
SSCREW, you just answered your own question. In all paths taken. If nvidia cards take the same path as ATI cards, ATI cards run faster. Period. More effiecient, powerful shader engine. This is why Nvidia DROP that to FP12 or FP16. And if you go to Beyon3d. TechReport THEY show you screen shots that depict that doing so DOES NOT RETAIN IMAGE QUALITY as running it in FP24 or FP32. Considering the minimum standard is FP24, Nvidia knew this, and dropped it down anyways. YOU CAN'T RUN APLLICATIONS IN ANYTHING LESS THEN FP24 AND CONSIDER IT DX9 COMPLIANT. PERIOD. TO DO SO IS CHEATING. WETHER IT BE IN GAMES OR BENCH TESTS. IQ is effected by this! This has been proven. The so-called unfair playing field is ONLY in the SHADER TESTS. Why? BECAUSE THE SHADER ENGINE IS SLOWER THEN THE R350, R300 CORE OF CHIPS. PROVEN. Read the article at The Inquirer. You need to read that. And Nvidia dropped out of the program when they found out the FX line of cards would run poorly. That is what i call cry babies. And the Whole software and Hardware community is seeing this now as the REAL truth is coming out. Not PR crap from Nvidia. Nvidia needs to fess up and move on and improve their shader engines in their fx line of chips instead of trying to defend its weakness.
"In ANY game that allows the NV30 path, Nvidia will do just as good, or better than the 9800pro. No matter the pixel shaders etc."
Not quite. ANY game that uses extensive pixel and vertex shaders this is where the 9800pro managed to win the bench tests. Even with it's slower clock speed. Splinter Cell. Commanche4. Unreal 2003 in tests that used heavy shaders. That has been proven. And the test NVIDIA developed called SHADERMARKS. ATI cards beat the 5900 in that also. This all proves one thing. The shader engine for the NV35, NV30 is lsower then the on incorporated in the 9700pro, and 9800pro.
SSCREW at 0:18 29/5/2003
>>>Ok, this is the way it happened. nVidia was a part of the beta development of 3dMark2003 through about 13 months of its development. When they realized their cards weren't going to perform the DX9 shader functions very well, they decided to drop out of the beta program. THEY MADE THAT CHOICE. It was late 2002 when they left and 3dMark 2003 was released in late Feb 2003. Coincidence? No. The GeForce line of cards does not and will not handle newer shaders very well. Period.
And they DID release a more even 3dMark2003. It's called patch 330.<<< How is that a more even benchmark? It is still designed to use the ARB2 path, which ATi primarily use, and are faster in. Nvidia have the NV30 path, which when used, can provide the same results, even faster. If a game such as Doom3 can provide both functions, shouldnt a graphic card benchmark? I mena, there designed to show how good a card should run games. If they arent showing how good the FX5900ultra can really run games, how is that more even? Its just more even in that neither company can cheat, its still in favor of the Radeon cards. Had Futuremark included this, i GUARANTEE that Nvidia wouldnt need any cheats, and would be getting score like this without cheating. Carmack stated that when both cards use the ARB2 path, ATi come out on top. BUt in Doom3, when the NV30 path is used, it come out ahead in most cases, but both do have there stronger points in areas. A benchmark, is not more even, until it supports ALL graphics cards ways of doing things. Nvidia may be doing it differently to ATi, but its getting the exact same results done faster. The reason they do it different, is because there hardware is different. I aint got nothing against ATI, i love them. I love Nvidia too. The company im against here, is Futuremark. They have made an unfair playing field against Nvidia. In ANY game that allows the NV30 path, Nvidia will do just as good, or better than the 9800pro. No matter the pixel shaders etc. Thats what
SSCREW:> "If Futuremark had written 3dMark2003 the way it should of been done (so it uses optimisations for both Nvidia and ATI) then it would be alot more even. Instead, they made the program optimised for ATis specific path, and that gives Nvidia a disadvantage. While cheating shouldnt be resorted to, to fix the matter, Nvidia decided they needed some way, to make the best of this situation. With any luck, they will release a mroe even 3dMark."
Ok, this is the way it happened. nVidia was a part of the beta development of 3dMark2003 through about 13 months of its development. When they realized their cards weren't going to perform the DX9 shader functions very well, they decided to drop out of the beta program. THEY MADE THAT CHOICE. It was late 2002 when they left and 3dMark 2003 was released in late Feb 2003. Coincidence? No. The GeForce line of cards does not and will not handle newer shaders very well. Period.
And they DID release a more even 3dMark2003. It's called patch 330.
scuba at 19:34 28/5/2003
Hey, i need your guys help on a project im doing for school. I need these specs on each of these ATI cards: Memory bandwidth, Fill Rate, Vertices per second, and maximum memory on these cards-9200pro, 9500pro,9700pro,9800pro
Keep it REAL at 15:5 28/5/2003
Next generation games from what i hear will use lots of shader operations and dx9 features. With the 5900 having a slower shader engine then the 9800pro as the bench tests and game tests prove, the 5900 might not be the best bet for future games then? As those future games will incorporate lots of vertex and pixel shaders. Something i have been reading about that the 5800, and 5900 run slower.
Ok so i'm not anonymous anymore, but I did put the wrapper in the bin file, and still to no avail. no dawn. My bro has XP on his sytem which is basically set up like mine, and to no avail.... no dawn. we both have the latest and greatest drivers too. DX9.0a blah blah blah.
DRDEATH at 10:46 28/5/2003
This is how I really feel about NVIDIA
I don't want you be no slave I don't want you work all day I don't want 'cause I'm sad and blue I just want to make love to you, baby Love to you, baby Love to you, baby Love to you
I don't want you cook my bread I don't want you make my bed I don't want your money too I just want to make love to you, baby Love to you, baby Love to you, baby Love to you
Well I can tell by the way that you twitch and walk See by the way that you baby talk Know by the way that you treat your man I can love you, baby, till the night train
I don't want you wash my clothes I don't want you leave the home I don't want 'cause I'm sad and blue I just want to make love to you, baby Love to you, baby Love to you, baby Love to you
Yeah
I don't want you wash my clothes I don't want you leave the home I don't want 'cause I'm sad and blue I just want to make love to you, baby Love to you, baby Love to you, baby Sweet love to you, baby Love to you, baby I just wanna make love to you, baby Love to you, baby Love to you, baby Love to you I just, I just want ot make love to you, baby I just want to make love
DRDEATH at 9:26 28/5/2003
The weak spot for the fx line of cards has been the shader ops. 1 less vertex shader and 4x2 pipeline amoung other things. And the fact that the ONLY area Nvidia cheated in 3dmarks2003 and the performance increased was in the test that, you guessed it, tested SHADER PERFORMANCE. (Nature Test) Which employs the most dx9 features and extensive use of pixel 2.0 which Nvidia's cards run slower then the R350 core. That's just too coinicendental to be a driver bug to effect ONLY the test inwhich Nvidia's fx line of chips have a disadvantage to ATI's chips and most other tests the 5900 wins. This test was targeted. Targeted to improve the performance of the 5800, 5900 in dx9 and pixel 2.0 shader tests. However, the process(cheat) produced major artifacts. That is not called "optimization."
DRDEATH at 7:27 28/5/2003
This was just released..... "As you know, 3DMark03's overall score is derived from its four game tests. You can see my results for Game 1, Game 2, Game 3, and Game 4. As you can see, ATI's optimizations—which they claim didn't change image output—barely affect the overall score. NVIDIA's, however, make a substantial difference. The most striking difference between builds 320 and 330 is in the Game 4 test, where performance drops dramatically once the cheats and optimizations are disabled. This test, the "Mother Nature" scene, makes the most extensive use of DirectX 9 and pixel shader 2.0.
Those are the numbers. I don't have time here to dig into all of the related issues, but Dave from Beyond3D sent me a note about a couple of things you should check out on his site. First, Dave has captured images from ATI and NVIDIA cards in 3DMark03 to show the image quality differences between builds 320 and 330. The NVIDIA drivers clearly have more impact on image quality. Next, to help you sort out what that fact means, have a look at Unreal guru Tim Sweeney's take on cheating versus optimization. The basic principle he outlines seems like a good guide in this case."
DRDEATH at 6:42 28/5/2003
SSREW. This is what i posted in another post about your comment on the cost of being a beta member for FM. And Nvidia's mention that it costs "Hundreds of Thousands" of dollars.
Futuremark Caught NVIDIA On Misleading Statement 3DMark03 Scandal Continues by Anton Shilov 05/27/2003 09:16 AM You may remember that NVIDIA did not comment on its cheats in drivers that allowed graphics cards based on certain GPUs from NVIDIA to score more in Futuremark’s 3DMark03, but accused the Finnish company in developing unfair benchmarks. The company also said that Futuremark asks for hundreds of thousands US Dollars to participate in its Beta Program. Well, Futuremark denied both allegations on Monday.
First of all, a Futuremark representative said that the company utilises the most-efficient shaders and rendering-patterns. Secondly, Aki Jarvilehto, Vice President Benchmark Products of Futuremark Corporation said over here that the minimum payment to join the Beta Program as a Beta Member is $5000 a year, not hundreds of thousands as NVIDIA Corporation claimed last week."
DRDEATH at 6:38 28/5/2003
.....JOB BUT FASTER. If it did, when the camera angles are moved slightly off the rendered path there should NOT be any artifacts at all. But in Nvidia's case....there are plenty. This is not called optimization. IQ is lost! Even John Carmack(who I regard as a questionable spokesperson for this issue as he has major ties with Nvidia) says this. But like I have mentioned before earlier, HE DOES NOT EVEN BRING UP Nvidia's custom clip planes and full absence of F-buffer clearing in his statement of support for Nvidia and this issue. Makes him look extremely biased. ATI'S method produces NO artifacts whatsoever when they implemented their process. Yet, ATI still is removing the "cheat" and coming clean on this issue. Nvidia is not. That tells consumers and harware sites plenty.
DRDEATH at 6:37 28/5/2003
SSCREW I agree with you 100% that this cheat does not take away from the amazing nv35 and it's rendering capabilites. The card is the fastest kid on the block by small margins. That's not the issue here however. And the only reason as many can see why the NV35 did so much better then the 9800pro in DOOM3 was that they focused their current drivers for it. ATI did not. And said so. Expect that to change real soon. As both cards are VERY similar in all other tests but that one. Time will tell when the game is finally released. (then it own't matter. The NV40 and the R400 will be the cards to battle it out then. lol) If you have read the reports about this closely and i speak something about it in the other post, the FX chipset works 12, 16, 24, 32 bit interger float shader ops. And defaults to 12 or 16 depending on the application. dx9 standard is 24. ATI's R300, R350 core always renders in 24 bit interger float regardless. So what you have is Nvidia reducing this to 12, 16 to run it faster in some apps. However, John Carmack himself says this should not effect IQ or functionality at all. Which has been raising eyebrows all over the place. It does not add up. Then again, Carmack has always been in Nvidia's camp and NEVER mentions custom clip planes or absence of full Z-buffer clearing and 'other' dubious methods Nvidia used during 3dmarks2003 test. "Don't piss off your biggest friend" they always say....Hmmmmmm. It seems the only websites and software experts that are telling the whole story are the ones that have no affliation with ATI or Nvidia and fear no repraisles. TechReport for one has been removed from Nvidia's list for their honesty and straight forward facts about this whole issue. And a few others. They NO LONGER GIVE THEM VIDEO CARDS FOR THEM TO REVIEW. lol.
And last point. FM is not ATI biased. If anything this whole fiasco proves this, as the methods Nvidia is using is plain wrong and dubvious at best. And it DOES NOT DO THE EXACT SAME JOB BUT FAST
SSCREW at 2:47 28/5/2003
DeQuosaek
Maybe it does have bad operation, but the only areas affected are this benchmark. Now its your opinion, but the fact that in games, its ahead in most cases, and when games arent biased (ie. Doom3) it will be right there with the 9800pro, or slightly ahead.
If Futuremark had written 3dMark2003 the way it should of been done (so it uses optimisations for both Nvidia and ATI) then it would be alot more even. Instead, they made the program optimised for ATis specific path, and that gives Nvidia a disadvantage. While cheating shouldnt be resorted to, to fix the matter, Nvidia decided they needed some way, to make the best of this situation. With any luck, they will release a mroe even 3dMark. One which wont need hacks in drivers, because it adds Nvidias methods of doing things, which do the exact same job, only its done so it works with their hardware. But IMO, i dont think FM will stand the test of time. Because its just testing cards under specific scenarios, which can be cheated, and arent the way games are. Doom3 will be the ultimate benchmark at release. It uses both cards coding, is DX9, and will doubt pressure both cards LOL. BTW, i know this changes nothing to you LOL, just trying to say the fact they cheated in this test, doesnt take anything away from the card itself. Its still jsut as powerful as the 9800pro, and at points faster/slower. Although im pretty sure most people are aware of this... it will be a while before a card takes a clear win, like 9700pro did over GFTi4*00
When all is said and done the 5900Ultra is a faster card. ... But I wouldn't buy one. The company has bad methods of operation. And a history of duping its customers. I don't care how "popular" they are. It's bad business.
DRDEATH: Thank you for finding a better quote to state what I was trying to say about the camera angles with the developer versions and the "optimizations" not meaning jack squat in real life.
DRDEATH at 16:10 27/5/2003
http://tech-report.com/onearticle.x/5183
That's the link. It's good reading.
DRDEATH at 16:8 27/5/2003
And here's the problem with this and many other issues of late. Many web-sites have alliances or FAN-BOY attitudes with major companies. Wether it be ATI, Nvidia, IBM, or AMD. It is becoming more evident in the extremely BIASED reporting. It's plain brutal. Even when evidence is plain as day, or a product is not what the company claims it shuld be, certain sites preach otherwise. Where do you go to find the true skinny? I can only think of a couple now. One right off the top of my head is TechReport.com And they write a little mention of this also.............
Since I got my Rad9700Pro I aint looked back. The GF4 Ti4200 I was using aint bad but it's just not as good.
I don't see how nVidia can have got it all so wrong? The launch of the FX was amazing, 10 millon polygon scenes rendering at never before seen speeds, 128 bit fp color etc. The FX looked great, then the benckmarks started rolling in...
nVidia claim that the unoptimised PS1.1 (3DM says it's testing PSv2 so what gives?) used in 3DMark2003 is what's crippling the FX, so why does it not cripple the R300?
nVidia have got something wrong somewhere, to me it's obviously in the backward compatibility of the FX rendering pipeline.
Also, I don't see that the issue should be all about speed anymore. The R300 and FX are virtually super computers (10 years ago these chips would have set you back about a million bucks). 'Cinematic' graphics should be about speed and image quality. As the guys at MIT said, the render quality of Dawn on the FX didn't look as good as it should so they built a wrapper and tried it on an Radeon and we all know the results...
nVidia, GET URE FOOKIN ACT TOGETHER!
I ran twin Voodoo2's for ages after 3DFX died and although only 16bit colour, the image looked 10 times better than 16bit on a GF2. Looking at some of the reports here it seems to me that nVidia only managed to get to the top because they've always compromised something in the rendering pipeline to gain extra speed. In RTCW on the GF4 the gold bars are almost invisible. On the Radeon they look like gold bars. This is not down to DX8 drivers and shite either, this is an OpenGL game!
nVidia have dropped the ball and it's going to take something really special from them to get it back.
BTW, there are some DX9'ish games out there guys - try Splinter Cell for PS1.1 effects!!
DRDEATH at 11:34 27/5/2003
...... some strange way. ExtremeTech sent a report about this problem to NVIDIA and the company answered that it has no access to developer version of 3DMark03, since it is no longer a member of 3DMark Beta Program. The respond of the company is at least a strange one and analysts now think that there are some aggressive performance optimisations in the new drivers, such as custom clip planes or absence of full Z-buffer clearing. In short, graphics cards based on NVIDIA’s GPUs show better results in 3DMark03 now. Obviously, such optimizations only work in 3DMark03,NOT IN REAL GAMES.
DRDEATH at 11:33 27/5/2003
"As you have probably heard, with the release of Futuremark’s 3DMark03 benchmark relations between its developer and NVIDIA Corporation were badly damaged. NVIDIA said that 3DMark03 game-benchmarks unfairly favoured graphics cards based on ATI RADEON 8xxx and 9xxx-series graphics processors while solutions powered by GPUs from NVIDIA showed too weak performance in the latest FutureMark’s benchmark. NVIDIA was so dissatisfied with this fact that it left FutureMark's beta program in late 2002. Starting from February this year some strange things with 3DMark03 and NVIDIA Detonator drivers have happened. There were famous Detonator 42.68 drivers with improved performance in 3DMark03. There was NVIDIA pressuring some online media in an attempt to avoid benchmarking the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra with 3DMark03 (see our news-story here). And now there are two more episodes involving NVIDIA Detonator drivers and FutureMark 3DMark03 benchmark.
French 3Dchips.fr web-site has found that during 3DMark2001 SE Dragothic scene with the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra and FSAA and anisotropic filtering turned on the dragon disappears, leaving the Amazon mysteriously flying without any hard surface under. You can read about this strange thing in French here (translated version here).
The latter case is quite serious and can even give some ground for rather unpleasant conclusion about NVIDIA’s driver optimisation policy. ExtremeTech observed NVIDIA GeForce FX cards using developer version of 3DMark03 and recently released 44.03 Detonator FX drivers. The developer version, which is available only to selected partners of FutureMark, and lets not only to watch the benchmark scenes, but also to pause them and move the camera freely through the whole scene. Using this ability of 3DMark03 ExtremeTech has found that if you move the camera anywhere outside the “normal” path, i.e. the path, it travels during ordinary benchmarking, the image on the screen gets seriously distorted in some strange
Strador at 7:54 27/5/2003
Right now i would have to say that ATI is ahead of the game since it is able to run a demo that was made for nvidia faster than the nvidia cards. I haven't yet lost hope in nvidia.
DRDEATH at 4:48 27/5/2003
This is from Beyond3d...
"Actually, I'm not sure -- was 3DMark03 released after FM knew NVIDIA wanted to pull out of FM's beta program, or did NVIDIA pull out while 3DMark03 was in development and while NVIDIA was a beta member? If NVIDIA was a beta member during 3DMark03's development (which, on a important related note, means that they more or less know how their NV3x would perform in 3DMark03), at what specific stage did they pull out?
Patric... Aki..? Is revealing this sort of info confidential?" _________________ Anthony Tan "Reverend" Beyond3D
"No it is not confidential (the reason for confidentiality is to make sure that we protect any information that is given to us during the Beta Co-operation) and I think it's already been mentioned elsewhere too. Nvidia left the Beta Program 1st of Decembers 2002. 3DMark03 development took 18 months all together and the product was released in Feb 03.
Cheers,"
AJ _________________ Aki Järvilehto VP, Benchmark Products Futuremark Corporation
By all accounts by this admission, Nvidia was involved in the Beta process up until Dec. 2002 They knew how there card would have operated. How could they not? The final product was released just 2 months later! And then balked about it and discontinued their membership. Not good PR for Nvidia. 3dmarks2003 might not be a "true" test of games, but the way Nvidia has handled this whole mess looks plain bad. They look like whining little babies. They should have at least admitted certain facts and issues. However, they have not as of yet. Nor did they release that "new" driver version to fix that "bug" All looks bad.
DRDEATH at 4:40 27/5/2003
No one will know how dx9 games will run on the new cards. Period. Until they come out. And guess what? The 9800pro. The 5900 Ultra will be bargin cards by this time. NO DX9 GAME WILL BE OUT UNTIL 2004 AT THE MIN. That's when you will see the NV40 and the R400. And when 3dmarks2003 was released, Nvidia was still involved and was a current member. One of the big issues they are looking at is, did Nvidia already know how the test was going to develop on the FX line of chips before finally release and then argued about it. (looks that way)
SSCREW at 1:58 27/5/2003
BTW, i came across that just looking for info on Det 44.10 and how good they are LOL. ANyone seen any info on them? Just that there ripped from Dell..... they may be crap on non-Dell systems LOL.
SSCREW at 1:57 27/5/2003
LOL, just read a 13 PAGE thread on the issue. Its over at http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?s=&threadid=172249
Its provides an interesting read, and its got so many people arguing so many points. The main point being ardued is Futuremarks legitimacy as a DX9 benchmark, when it doesnt really show how a DX9 game would be. Only thing though, you do have to become a member, its free though.
For those who dont agree that Futuremark favor ATi, here are some reasons for you:
" Because nVidia is not currently a member of FutureMark's beta program, it does not have access to the developer version of 3DMark2003 that we used to uncover these issues. " (ATi is, so they do have access)
Quote From John Carmack "The R200 path has a slight speed advantage over the ARB2 path on the R300, but only by a small margin, so it defaults to using the ARB2 path for the quality improvements. The NV30 runs the ARB2 path MUCH slower than the NV30 path. Half the speed at the moment. This is unfortunate, because when you do an exact, apples-to-apples comparison using exactly the same API, the R300 looks twice as fast, but when you use the vendor-specific paths, the NV30 wins." (Basically, this shows that when the option to run a game there way, teh Cards are capable of being faster. it gets the job done the same, but a different way.)
No matter what way you look at it, Futuremark is too blame. IF they didnt request Nvidia to pay for access to the development, they could write drivers the way ATi can for it. And if they didnt write it for the specific path of ATi hardware (like games dont) then Nvidia would be ahead in areas, with the NV30. Doom3 is a DX9 game, and it shows that both the NV30 and R300 have better areas than the other. SO clearly, when more DX9 games come out, and both cards are performing very similar (better in different areas) what good will a benchmark like this be? Its not accurate, since it only uses ATis specific programming, games like Doom3, will run it both ways.
milkman at 21:58 26/5/2003
www.ninjastyle.net/temp/mydawn.jpg
www.ninjastyle.net/temp/coochie.jpg
www.ninjastyle.net/temp/textures.zip
screenshots and my custom textures for all the pervs out there
fellatio bob at 21:4 26/5/2003
aww yeeah, digital porn! Ill be wanking off tonight! REPRESENT!
Anonymous: The p4g8x should do 8xagp... That's what the 8x part of the boards name means. It's an ASUS board, right? p4 = pentium 4 / g = chipset (g?) / 8x = 8x agp
Check your mobo drivers to make sure you've installed them all and check your bios to make sure you have 8x turned on.
I can't believe that renaming trick. I've seen a patch where it does all sorts of renaming files and moving textures, and it was as simple as changing the filename. Nice built in feature. :)
Sheesh, the people that made the "nude patch" wasted a lot of time.
Also, to Anonymous having problems (errors) you need to download the file opengl32.dll and place it in the c:\program files\nvidia corporation\nvidia demos\dawn\bin folder to run this demo on a 9700pro. That's the whole point of this article. You need the opengl wrapper. You can download it from this link:
One thing i find interesting is the fact that ALL dx9 ATI cards ran the Dawn demo perfectly and faster then the 5900, or the 5800 Ultra(9800pro) also in OpenGL wrapper. Which we all know degrades video presentation. So Nvidia's PR department that praised the FX Chip and the Cg graphics that the FX chips will employ(something that they said would give them impressive rendering power over ATI's chips.) turns out to be a major dud. ATI cards can render the same images and shaders with their harware and do it faster. And do it with OpenGL wrapper at that! Good PR campaign though at Nvidia for fooling everone that Cg graphics is the way of the future. We all now know that was just more PR crap from Nvidia. :-P
Anonymous at 15:9 26/5/2003
i have to set it to 4x.
Anonymous at 15:9 26/5/2003
thats it,, i give up. i got the 9800pro today, and love it. no more nvidia, untill they get there act together anyways. the only thing is i have to turn agp 8x off cause of my mobo. p4g8x. but i do get 15274 on benchmark 2001 se.
The Don Dork at 15:6 26/5/2003
Well so do ATidiots and AtiAssholes, you choose fool..
The Don at 10:19 26/5/2003
lmfao, nVidia suck and so do the nVidiots that own a geforce based card.
milkman at 9:19 26/5/2003
just noticed, you are running win98.. sorry dude, this will only work in xp, and in some cases 2k..
milkman at 9:19 26/5/2003
did you put in the opengl.dll file to run the demo on a radeon card? also try and run the demo at a lower quaility setting (lower your AA, and AF). Also the demo says that it requires 512 megs of ram... i dont know if it will or wont run with less.
Anonymous at 8:29 26/5/2003
This is the error I get. I have a P4 2.7Ghz / 256 RAMBUS / 9700Pro / Win98SE / DX 9.0a / 3.4 Catalyst drivers / Audigy sc
FAIRY caused an invalid page fault in module CG.DLL at 0197:006e9450. Registers: EAX=40c0c0c0 CS=0197 EIP=006e9450 EFLGS=00210246 EBX=00000000 SS=019f ESP=00a5e78c EBP=00000000 ECX=8d3b9000 DS=019f ESI=8d3b7000 FS=1237 EDX=9f1f1f1f ES=019f EDI=8d3b7000 GS=0000 Bytes at CS:EIP: 8b 01 ba ff fe fe 7e 03 d0 83 f0 ff 33 c2 83 c1 Stack dump: 006ec4c8 8d3b7000 00fd2de0 00666944 8d3b7000 00fa68e0 00000000 00664e24 8d3b7000 006653ee 00001804 00fd17a0 013ce3cc 006661ba 00000000 8d3b7000
Anonymous at 6:10 26/5/2003
"No matter what anyone says, ATI is still on schedule with the R400 now called R420 and we should see this card introduced by the end of this exciting year." Has not been cancelled.
DRDEATH at 3:8 26/5/2003
If there is one thing that I love more than ATI it's SUCKING d**k :-(0)
Anonymous at 3:1 26/5/2003
YES they do I Also got them to work on My ATI 9700PRO
rename fairy.exe to quake3.exe to see dawn without clothes. rename fairy.exe to 3dmark03.exe to see dawn without clothes and without wings !! You don't believe me ?? try it !! work with my ati 9700pro
f00k mi at 23:38 25/5/2003
all those stats on those cards can be found at review websites. just go to google, and type in "video card reviews" and you'll get what you need
Anonymous at 22:54 25/5/2003
ATI RULLZZ!!!! NVIDIA SUCKS d**k and licks Asshole
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj at 21:23 25/5/2003
kaufram de rock tour damn mare, dis acta lef, holewst mia tri gad,
understand?!
Anonymous at 20:21 25/5/2003
Hey, i need your guys help on a project im doing for school. I need these specs on each of these ATI cards: Memory bandwidth, Fill Rate, Vertices per second, and maximum memory on these cards-9200pro, 9500pro,9700pro,9800pro Thanks
Psilaxs at 20:17 25/5/2003
QUOTE
you know what, i was the first to see this post and i didnt post, cause i wanted to see if some micreant would do something like what the first post person did. i prove my theory to be very true. and i am sure that drdeath is going to post here soon. if i ever met you girls, well, i will leave it at that. i rest my case
nvidia rules""
AHHH, Mr. Internet Toughguy, your VERY intimidating
I love how everyone gets so worked up over something so trivial, and un important.
This all boils down to competition, and this leads to better products which cost less.
Gee, please dont threaten to beat me up for stating my opinion Mr. Internet Tough Guy.
Anonymous at 19:54 25/5/2003
oopz, i meant 1600x1200
frobird at 19:48 25/5/2003
hey this demo looks pretty nice on my 9500 128 meg. it's not even a f**king pro and it can run it smooth as hell at 1660x1200. amazing how much bull they put on top of Dawn just to make it seems awesome. nvidia has lost my respect. dunno why, but they just have.
nVidia have always had slower shaders. Either the way the hardware handles it, or with the hardware itself (as an Anonymous pointed out with some specifics - number of pipelines etc) That's why they didn't do well on 3dM2003 and why they won't do as well on games using DX9. I'm not just making it up.
They do well with DX8 and current games, no-one says they don't. But the big thing that's missing is EFFICIENT impementation of DX9 functions.
The benchmark is no good to judge from? Why? Because your favorite video card company isn't pulling it's weight? Maybe they should focus less on the PR and driver "optimizations" and focus more on more efficient video data processing.
milkman at 17:49 25/5/2003
what kind of errors what is your video card what is your cpu answer these and i can help
Anonymous at 17:32 25/5/2003
i keep getting errors when trying to run this. any ideas???
bUstEd! at 17:23 25/5/2003
This story has taken us on quite a ride so far. According to an nVidia official with whom we spoke after Futuremark's disclosure, the company continues to maintain that these "discoveries" are just driver bugs that nVidia will work to resolve. The nVidia official reiterated nVidia's preferred emphasis on real-world games, since that's why people buy 3D hardware in the first place. This official also complained about driver developers wasting time chasing down 3DMark03 bugs instead of making games run better. (Of course, it must have taken substantial time to optimize the driver for 3Dmark2003 as well, as it appears the company has done.)
bUstEd! at 17:18 25/5/2003
"Optimization techniques which change your function into a function that extensionally differs from what you specified are generally not considered valid optimizations. These sorts of optimizations have occasionally been exposed, for example, in C++ compilers as features that programmers can optionally enable when they want the extra performance and are willing to accept that the meaning of their function is being changed but hopefully to a reasonable numeric approximation. One example of this is Visual C++'s "improve float consistency" option. Such non-extensional optimizations, in all sane programming systems, default to off." Nvidia did cheat.
Dawn's big titties at 16:43 25/5/2003
....Nvidiots believe it though. You assholes will believe ANYTHING.
And I thought Nvidia had perfect drivers? So they should have NO problems whatsoever with any of their drivers regardless if it's for the Nforce chipset or video card. This is what Nvidia fanboys always say. You f**king losers believe anything from the mouths of Nvidia. Even when they are pissing on your shoes and telling you it's raining.
Dawn's big titties at 16:42 25/5/2003
Futremarks dispises Nvidia? Ok Mr. Conspiracy guy. Nvidia has always endorsed them up until now because the tests don't favour their slower shader engine. Babies Nvidia are. Plain suck face babies. All you Nvidiots need to read the first couple of articles about this whole ordeal when it first came to light. Before the second cheat by them. Do you Nvidiots ALWAYS believe what the PR department at Nvidia says? f**k they have you assholes by the f**king balls. f**king losers you are. If they tell you assholes the sky is falling. Will you run and hide. Retorical question. You will. f**king lemmings. "A fool is born every minute." Or "A Nvidiot is born every second" should be more like it. And what facts did he say to prove Futuremarks was in bed with ATI? I see nothing but "his" opinion. No facts. Show us "facts" Not fiction. Tell us how FutureMarks will bebefit from a alliance with ONLY ATI and NO other company? f**k you 12 year old assholes need to take a business course in supply and demand and market structure. Then again grade school does not teach thoe things. And I don't see 3-D Labs or Matrox bitching. As their scores fell within the margin of error. FutureMarks did not so-called screw them over. So your arguement is bullshit. And it has been proven on a dozen web-sites about the cheating. Nvidia. You got busted. ATI and FutureMarks in alliance...and you really believe that? lol. You probablly believed the 5800ltra, was going to be the 9700pro, "killer" Waited 10 months of delays and lies to be screwed by the PR department. With those "AMAZING CINEMA LIKE CG GRAPHICS" f**king fools you lemmings are. Nvidia has been saying cinema like graphics every since the very first gforce card was released. Still waiting for them to deliever on their bullshit promise to have graphics like "ToyStory" rendered in real-time. I remember those lies. Unf**king likely. As it seems. Even ATI does not overly bullshit about this. They know this can't be done yet. You f**king N
&&+ at 16:15 25/5/2003
Seems the same anonymous is also on this site, everyday, all day. You're a f**king loser too.
Anonymous at 15:57 25/5/2003
We know your on this site all day every day drdeath. That's why your a loser.
milkman at 14:23 25/5/2003
aww man, not even dawn in her pure naked form is enough to stop the fued here... that makes me sad
Anonymous at 14:17 25/5/2003
And please, please tell me your FACTS on why you think ATI is in bed with Futuremarks. As this allegation is plain retarded. Quite destructive for futuremarks if it were true ++++++++++++ He posted facts below. And one of them is clearly true. Futuremark despise Nvidia. Plain and simple, if nothing else, that right their is favoritism over any other video card company.
milkman at 14:15 25/5/2003
guys guys calm down... why dont we all take a break and do what we all came here to do, and that is to oggle dawn.. check out my latest screenshot
http://www.style11.com/images/test.jpg
Anonymous at 14:14 25/5/2003
>>>'NVIDIA Pulls Drivers: Many of you have been sending in your terrible experiences with the latest nForce drivers that were released by NVIDIA as WHQL drivers. We have certainly been passing that information directly to NVIDIA and while they never really took the time to respond about the issue, they did take the time to remove the drivers from their site and include instructions on how to remove the drivers from your system. Here is the complete page with everything except and apology for a job done poorly.' <<< Dude, those drivers are alot tougher then simple Video Card Drivers. There drivers for the chipset running the system, and there are alot more possiblities that can go wrong. The odds of someones machine having something conflicting with newer chipset drivers, is alot higher than just a new video card drivers.
DRDEATH at 12:2 25/5/2003
You know what, I am personally sick of the children that post here. I mean, ya, I am on this web site all day, every day, but I post mature and informative posts. All I am saying is that I love to suck p***s. There must be over 1000 polygons in a p***s. Not to mention the vertex shaders, and pixel shaders that make it look so real. I don't know how they do it. And then there is the outcome of an orgasm. The detail in the s***m is unpresidented. I love p***s
Anonymous at 10:46 25/5/2003
SSCREW, the 5900 won in most mordern day games except games like Splinter Cell and Commanche4. Games that use lots of pixel and vertex shaders.
Perfect my ass at 10:42 25/5/2003
This is for all the Nvidiots that say Nvidia drivers are GOD-LIKE and perfect.
'NVIDIA Pulls Drivers: Many of you have been sending in your terrible experiences with the latest nForce drivers that were released by NVIDIA as WHQL drivers. We have certainly been passing that information directly to NVIDIA and while they never really took the time to respond about the issue, they did take the time to remove the drivers from their site and include instructions on how to remove the drivers from your system. Here is the complete page with everything except and apology for a job done poorly.'
DRDEATH at 8:59 25/5/2003
The Dawn Demo was to showcase the FX chips power with Cg graphics. Something the 9700pro could "never" do. This is what the PR department said when the fx line of chips was released with Cg graphics it's main focus and feature. Now dx9 cards from ATI are running it. WELL. 9500PRO. 9600PRO. 9700PR. 9800PRO. And it seems to run it better as they say. But i will wait for confirmation on this. But i tried it. Damn it looks good. So Cg graphics is a over-bloown issue and feature as ATI can do it also in their harware. Good p.r. campaign though from Nvidia. ;)
Anonymous at 8:54 25/5/2003
SSCREW, futuremarks does not favour ATI cards. To say that is absurd. The tests where the 9700 and the 9800 beat out the 5900 and the 5800 are in most shader tests. The shader engine for the r300 and the r350 core of chips is more powerful in most rendering situations because they have one more vertex shader and 4 more pixel pipelines. And ATI was the only dx9 card out at the time. But remember this SSCREW. All dx9 cards have to comply with the specifications of Microsofts dx9 compnents. So all cards should fall in line. The nv30 only had 1 operation for shader 2.0 That's why it was slower. The NV35 has two. Still both cores only have 3 vertex shader units. The 9700, 9800 have 4. Makes a difference in the tests that test shader performance. As we can all see by the tests. This is why 3dmarks favours ATI cards. It has more vertex and pixel shaders. Read the fact file on this. It's not a JFK conspiricay. And please, please tell me your FACTS on why you think ATI is in bed with Futuremarks. As this allegation is plain retarded. Quite destructive for futuremarks if it were true. And the optimization changes Futuremarks made is for ALL the cards by ALL the vendors. Not just signaling out Nvidia based cards. You need to read the report file on this and stop making up conclusions and facts. It was cheating. 25% drop, while others only dropped by 2% at the most when the changes were made to ALL cards. That's cheating. Call it what you like. It has been proven.
Anonymous at 8:42 25/5/2003
"that the NV30/NV35 are easily updatable for newer things...'
What newer things? If you are going to make syatements. Back it up with facts. Update to newer things...Like what? Cg graphics? lol. With this issue of ATI cards running the dawn demo better. It proves one thing. Cg was all hype as the harware in the r300, r350 can do the same thing only better. The only thing the 5900 has over the 9800pro is clock speed and 1 extra tmu. That's it. This is why the cards are very close in performance. And the "FX" was supposesd to be a MAJOR advancement over the R300, R350. It is not. Still has a slower shader engine. Proven.
SSCREW at 5:21 25/5/2003
and wow i wrote alot LOL.
SSCREW at 5:21 25/5/2003
>>>Yes, almost any game EXCEPT games using pixel and vertex shader 2.0 and DirectX9 (since there aren't any) Since the next generation of games will use these features it's too bad for them that their products don't implement these features more efficiently.
Futuremark appear to favor ATi, because ATi's cards handle the newer technologies better. It's as simple as that.<<< This is all opinion based. The fact of the matter is, Nvidia outperform ATi in almost every game out today, and theres nothing to suggest that this will change, when DX9 games are mainstream.
And like someone stated below, the card being written on ATi hardware, would clearly, favor ATi hardware. It would HAVE to be necessary for Nvidia to make changes for there hardware to run it, else, there would be no difference between the cards whatsoever, other than clockspeeds.
Futuremark may see it as cheating, but in reality, it was just making there hardware do the best it can, in a situation, where although they dont like (they have stated many of times, this benchmark shouldnt be taken seriously) but they have to do something in the line of it, since there ARE people who do jsut care about benchmark scores. We will get to see how close to being a good benchmark this card is when a few DX9 games are out. But i guarantee, it will still perform aswell in all the areas it has done.... And as for Futuremark being in bed with ATi. Well thats my Opinion. I case it of the fact, the tests where created on there hardware. They seem to favor ATis techniques of doing things, but most importantly, that they now made patches so that optimisations couldnt be made. This clearly favors ATi since, its pretty much already optimised for them. But then like i said, its my opinion, and just based of facts i have come across, nothing more or less. They do though, seem to favor ATi, no one can deny that.... Nvidia and Futuremark havent gotten along for quite a while now. This may have been Futuremarks way of ge
Anonymous at 3:30 25/5/2003
The point of the matter is, Futuremark allow no optimising of their product. Its not cheating if the experience is still the same. Thats the entire point. Whether they use these optisations or not, the tests look identical, and the experience is the same. In a game, using a different way of rendering things, that doesnt change the experience, but improves the performance is a good thing...
And as stated before... ITS A f**kEN BENCHMARK. WHO GIVES A SHIT WHO WINS IT? IT IN NO WAY, MEANS THAT YOUR PC WILL RUN A GAME BETTER THAN CARDS YOU OUTPERFORM, JUST THOSE CERTAIN TESTS.
Wait fo rhte first generation of DirectX9 games, this will show everyone, the truth. Whether or not they cheat in a benchmark, doesnt matter. IF they are cheating DirectX9 programs, when there released, we will know about it. Till then, all we have is Futuremarks word, and it is clear as day, there in bed with ATi. The fact that there program was optimised for the Radeon 9700pro not DX9 is proof. Isnt it natural that when they worked on it, with a particular card, it would have advantages over other DX9 cards?
Anonymous at 3:25 25/5/2003
:-() at 2:6 25/5/2003 Yeh NVIDIA is king king of c**kSUCKING!
Mate, had you entered, you would of one the competition hands down....
Anonymous at 3:24 25/5/2003
DeQuosaek...
Firstly, there cheats in Futuremarks opinion. Ike stated earlier, any proper games, where done better on the NV35. Secondly, Nvidia arent concerned about it. THey in a few of their reviews had said, to dismiss the 3dMark2003 Benchmarks, as they dont represent real gaming experiences. And ATis cards dont handle future technolgies better, its a well know fact that the NV30/NV35 are easily updatable for newer things, and is why their so much more revolutionary. For ATi to redo cards, they need to start pretty much from scratch. >>>Yes, almost any game EXCEPT games using pixel and vertex shader 2.0 and DirectX9 (since there aren't any) Since the next generation of games will use these features it's too bad for them that their products don't implement these features more efficiently.<<< This is proof your rooting for ATi. You say it as if its a certainty, when there is no proof, suggesting either way. Like u say, there are no games, yet your still certain ATi will win... how do you know that Nvidia wont? This benchmark is no good to judge from.
>SSCREW said: "Firstly, whether or not Nvidias cheats are actual cheats, remains to be seen. IMO, Futuremark are just d**kheads, and over critical of how the program can be run."
The cheats have been proven to be cheats. It doesn't remain to be seen.
>SSCREW also said: "Secondly, even if it where true, who gives a shit? Nvidia long ago dismissed it as a benchmark. They said if you wanna see how the card performs in gmaes... use games."
Ok, well if nVidia dismissed it as a benchmark then why are they so concerned about doing well that they have to cheat on it?
>SCCREW said: "As i said before, the card can outperform ATi in almost any game, and those it cant, its on par with."
Yes, almost any game EXCEPT games using pixel and vertex shader 2.0 and DirectX9 (since there aren't any) Since the next generation of games will use these features it's too bad for them that their products don't implement these features more efficiently.
Futuremark appear to favor ATi, because ATi's cards handle the newer technologies better. It's as simple as that.
tar at 21:30 24/5/2003
are there wrappers for ne other nvidia demos, i am an ati person, but i must admit "nvidia has the better side of test demos"
:-) at 18:46 24/5/2003
Well all said and done NVIDIA is still king so haha..!ATIASSHOLES
Duke3d at 17:29 24/5/2003
Wow, new to this forum and just reading some of the things posted. I have to give my 2 cents in. What do futuremarks get out of cheating for ATI SSCREW? Please tell me? That i would love to know. What benefit would that give future marks to do this? If anything, you would figure futuremarks would do this for Nvidia. As they are the larger company with the larger narket share. Favouring them would make it more profitable as they have more cards in pc's then ATI for now. It seem to me you are making facts up SSCEW that conflict a number of viewpoints and articles about this. I don't honestly see how FutureMarks could benefit from a alliance with a video card company. That would destroy their reputation as a unbiased testing software. Has not Nvidia endorsed futuremarks in the past? Sour grapes here.
Anonymous at 17:16 24/5/2003
Handicapping the benchmarks for Nvidia????????? Wow you're a melon. FUTURE MARKS WANTS ALL VENDORS TO RENDER SCENES THE WAY THEY CALL FOR IT. AND NVIDIA IS NOT DOING THAT! READ THE ARTICLE. NOT NVIDIA'S PR DEPARTMENT. ATI cards have more vertex shaders and more pixel shaders also. Favouring ATI. You should work for the PR department at Nvidia. This is the same shit they have been spewing since they never liked the results of the tests. Funny to how the nv30 core had a slower pixel shader then ati's version. Only one operation. The nv35 has two. So it's faster. But by the test, it seems still slower in shader power. And you dumb f**k. They made the patch FOR EVERYONE. Not just for Nvidia you fool. Read the report. It prevents, ALL vendors from rendering a scene a certain way to get better scores. Not just Nvidia's line of cards. READ THE ARTICLE. Not the PR crap Nvidia is trying to spin.
Anonymous at 17:9 24/5/2003
SSCREW, are you smoking crack? Futuremarks in bed with ATI???? lol. Nvidia has ALWAYS endorsed future marks. Always except till now. Gee, i wonder why? lol. When 3dmarks2003 was released and FX chips posted less then "stellar" results. Nvidia bitched. And Nvidia does give a SHIT. If they did not, they would have not cheated....TWICE! That's right. Twice. For a benchmark they "don't" care about, they seem to take GREAT interest in it. Enough to cheat in it twice. The fist "Optimization" was a borderline "cheat" Remember that. After the first results, Nvidia bitched and said we don't want anything to do with FutureMarks. But guess what they did? They released NEW drivers that did NOT increase performance for REAL GAMES. Just 3dmarks2003. Don't believe? Go to EVERY website review and look up those drivers. There is a story about it detailing this. Those drivers they released were just to increase performance for 3dmarks2003. And then they said "this might be a bug in the drivers" Where the so called fix for those DRIVERS. And now this cheat. They got caught big time with this one. Futuremarks altered the test slightly and every single vendor card they tested dropped well within the margin of error. Oops. Minus the 24.1% drop by Nvidia. If that is not cheating. Then what would you call it SSCREW? For real. Use your head. EVERY CARD FELL WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR EXCEPT NVIDIA'S CARDS. Plain as day. They got caught. And they said they don't regard 3dmarks as a benching tool for video cards. Bullshit. They did when they were winning all the 3dmarks tests in the past. And even though they "disregard"3dmarks, they find it in their infinite wisdow to cheat in it twice. Yup. They don't care about it. lol. Tell that to ALL the OEM compnaies that use it as a guide.
SSCREW at 16:52 24/5/2003
And if what Futuremark had done was legit, then that would mean the 9800pro was the hands down winner in 3d Mark, since NVidia where far from 25% faster. And i dont think that the 9800pro is 15% faster or so, than the 5900ultra, in any test. Futuremark ARE handicapping the Benchmark for Nvidia. Because if Nvidia try and do something htere own way, other than what Futuremark want it done (Which its all been optimised for Radeon hardware) then they accuse them of cheating. ANd then they make patches, so Nvidia hardware cant run that way. Futuremark are the cheats. There cheating for another company. ATi. As i said before, the card can outperform ATi in almost any game, and those it cant, its on par with. If it where a decent benchmark, it would show similar results. But now, futuremark have it going all in hte favor of ATi.
SSCREW at 16:46 24/5/2003
FFS, there are too many stupid people here. Firstly, whether or not Nvidias cheats are actual cheats, remains to be seen. IMO, Futuremark are just d**kheads, and over critical of how the program can be run. Secondly, even if it where true, who gives a shit? Nvidia long ago dismissed it as a benchmark. They said if you wanna see how the card performs in gmaes... use games. WHen you pair this card against ATi in ANY game, the card comes out on top, or on par with the 9800pro. Im f**ken sick of Futuremark. THey have given Nvidia the bad name. Not one of their optimisations resulted in quality loss, and yet there still not happy.As if a card that can beat the 9800pro in almost any given game, will be beat in ONE benchmark. Futuremark are d**kheads, who favor ATi obviously. I bet ATi and them have some sort of close business relationship.
Anonymous at 10:52 24/5/2003
"Nvidia ROCKS and F U C K ATI why cause the 5900 kicks the 9800 ass royal..."
Ya right Nvidiot. Look at the bench scores. There too close. And the bench scores go back and forth. With IQ going to the 9800pro. Wow. All this on a card with less clock speed and 0.15 die size compared to 5900's 0.13 die size and 450mhz clock speed. The 5900 SHOULD KILL the 9800pro. But it clearly, clearly does not. Not even close.
None... at 7:25 24/5/2003
On 3DMark2003 that is...
None... at 7:24 24/5/2003
To the person who said that the new Nvidia Card scores 700 pts more than the 9800 pro... 700pts? is that really somthing to boast about? I have seen benchmakrs where someone overclocked there card and got more than 700 pts increase...
justanotherasshole at 6:7 24/5/2003
Oh my God what a bunch of whining little bitchs.....
I told you all before when I posted about ATI.....just wait and watch Nvidia fall to hell and burn in ther so called graphics inferno. More like disco inferno with one leg. To hell with Nvidia...I use to love that company..what a buntch of ass clowns they are becoming to be. Like I said before stick with ATI, they are more reliable and perform much better. I believe that this is the best thing to ever come out of Canada...and porn. I say everyone who has not jumped onto the ATI wagon, you better do it fast before games turn away from Nvidia...smells like voodoo cards all over again.
Cellfor at 4:5 24/5/2003
I'd say Futuremak can pull themselves out of this - after all, they did uncover the Nvidia hacks, and 'fix' them. Nvidia on the other hand is royally boned. sux really, less (real) competition means potentially higher prices and also a lack of support for my dreamy GF3 Ti200 (still kicking hard after well over a year :D )
Anonymous at 4:2 24/5/2003
i really couldn't give a toss. I think your all sad. Errr my ATI runs 10fps faster than ur FX. Care! As long as i can play any game at high res and high detail without it slowing down i'm happy. You all really need to go get some pussy.
FUTUREMARK IS GOING DOWN THE DRAIN and so is Nvidia.
But before it goes down, its gonna get a big fat lawsuit, corporate discredibility and unethical corporate practice.
Nvidia Stock has fallen 25% and continuing. Futuremark is next.
Synthetic Benchmark are for losers. The only real benchmarking is in-game test scores. Unless Futuremark can do some randomizing. I aint never gonna download its tools again, not even if I get it for free, which I do always. >_<
-----> Futuremark, creators of the 3DMark03 benchmark, has accused 3D graphics vendor nVidia of cheating on its 3DMark2003 benchmark. According to Futuremark, when it implemented a trivial change to the benchmark, nVidia's performance dropped by almost 25%, while other vendors' performance stayed within the margin of error. The company identified eight areas where nVidia's driver seems to detect benchmark behavior, and then falsely optimize performance.
Last week, we presented the results of our own testing, where we suspected nVidia of falsely optimizing benchmark scores with its new GeForceFX 5900 Ultra product. You can read more details on Futuremark's results in its press release, and the results of our testing in our detailed analysis.
We'll have more details on this developing story later today.
Anonymous at 22:29 23/5/2003
Nvidia ROCKS and F U C K ATI why cause the 5900 kicks the 9800 ass royal
Anonymous at 22:19 23/5/2003
WE WANT CHILLY WILLY
*******************FART***********************
Anonymous at 21:1 23/5/2003
Wow. DRDEATH is a huge loser. Look at that long useless post he put on there.
A virgin with too much time on his hands.
nude fairy at 19:43 23/5/2003
http://members.shaw.ca/tylerv2/dawn/
go here for all your nude fairy needs
DRDEATH at 19:38 23/5/2003
Running directx8.1 and 30.82 drivers. (damn i am behind the times huh? lol) The 40 series suck ass. I am going to try the new ones though. See if they are good. I don't use directx9 because for one, the damn card does not support the features. lol. So why use it. I have heard to in some cases some software and games won't run properly if you have downloaded dx9 and have a dx8 or 7 compliant only gpu. Hope you gts works...
Anonymous at 19:25 23/5/2003
Hey. Still waiting for Nvidia to release NEW drivers for that "bug" in the 5900 current drivers running 3dmarks.. Did they not say that? Still waiting? Where is it Nvidia. LMFAO.
Pramma at 19:24 23/5/2003
I've resorted to a complete reformat to get this friggin GTS to work.
Pramma at 19:23 23/5/2003
DRDEATH, which version of directx + DETs do you use with ur MSIti4200?
Caught in the Act at 19:12 23/5/2003
This just from Extremetech...
---Futuremark, creators of the 3DMark03 benchmark, has accused 3D graphics vendor nVidia of cheating on its 3DMark2003 benchmark. According to Futuremark, when it implemented a trivial change to the benchmark, nVidia's performance dropped by almost 25%, while other vendors' performance stayed within the margin of error. The company identified eight areas where nVidia's driver seems to detect benchmark behavior, and then falsely optimize performance. ----
They are busted. It seems all other cards did not have that % drop when they did the change to those cards also. The 5900 being the only one. Yikes. THEY GOT BUSTED BIG TIME....
DRDEATH at 19:1 23/5/2003
.....continued.... "just has a better architecture with faster shader speed. Then on the other side we do have the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra winning in some DX8 tests as well. One thing at least is certain, both cards offer awesome performance with AA/AF at high resolutions, and the 256MB of RAM does make a difference once you overcome CPU bottlenecks."
f**k it. This debate will never end. lol. Both cards are amazing and will cost us our first born to buy. They are real close. NV35 being faster in most cases, but not by much. Sweet cards from Nvidia and ATI. 'Nuff' said.....;)
DRDEATH at 18:57 23/5/2003
Of course they built it around ATI hardware. They were the only dx9 card on the market at the time. What other reference would they use??? And the ironic thing about this is Nvidia's NV30 supposedly has greater depth and programability in Directx9 hardware over the 9700pro. Remember Nvidia flaunting this in their PR campaign? 2.0+... The programmability of the pixel and vertex shaders clearly surpasses the requirements found in the DirectX 9 specification. This is why NVIDIA emphasizes this by adding a "+" to their denotation. So it SHOULD produce better results in the shader tests in 3dmarks2003. But it has not. Either for the 5800 OR the 5900.
Good article on new events about this future marks story. Good feedback from Nvidia and ATI.
And Futuremarks are handicapping the program for Nvidia???????? Are you serious SSCREW. Come on. You're too smart to say that. One reason this is happening is because the NV30 and NV35 vertex and pixel shader engine is not as powerful as ATI's? The R300 and R350 core has 4 vertex shaders, Nvidia has only 3. ATI has true 8x1 pixel Pipelines and Nvidia has only 4x2* 8 in multi-textures, but not ALL applications. Future marks DOES favour ATI's R300, R350 cards. Because of their shader engines. The nv35 did improve the shader operations from 1 to 2 and this is why they have posted better results in certain shader tests. But ATI's shader engine still seems to be faster. "It almost seems like in every benchmark the cards go back and forth, dancing around each other. One map will run one card faster, another map will run the other one. One resolution shows a card faster, another resolution shows the other fast. It makes deciding which is the fastest card a very hard decision. Here we have an 8 pipeline card clocked at 380MHz beating in some cases a 4 pipeline card clocked at 450MHz with a lot of bandwidth. It appears in those situations that the 9800 Pro 256MB card ju
DRDEATH at 18:57 23/5/2003
I'm a gigantic pe-nis which likes to jerl off over the sound of the modem's dial-up sound.
DRDEATH at 18:56 23/5/2003
>>>3dmarks2003 just released a patch that eliminates "artificially high scores" for people using NVIDIA Detonator FX drivers. According to the PDF on Futuremark's site, the patch causes a 24.1% drop in score for NVIDIA and a 1.9% drop in score for ATi meaning that Futuremark is claiming that NVIDIA isn't alone in this whole ordeal, other companies have "irregularities" as well. Only thing is, 1.9% is well within the margin of error. 24.1% is not.<<< Thats just more proof IMO that Futuremark want control over the way DirectX9 is. And also, there cheating BOTH ati, and Nvidia out of marks, by giving them no freedom in there drivers. Nvidia had come up with ways which added obviously lots of extra performance, and didnt lose quality. I guarantee, even with the fixes, the Benchmark will still look the same. Futuremark are the cheaters, there handicapping hte program for Nvidia cards. 1%? Probably just to make it look less obvious, but either way, Futuremark do not set no DirectX9 standards which is why there tests should not even be worried about... There just trying to own a scene which they dony, Nvidia had a way of doing something more efficiently, and they rule out the possibility... There a f**ken disgrace. Microsoft WHQL'ed there files, so clearly, they where decent drivers, they just dont match up to Futuremarks standards... which not one pair have, sinc eNvidia started getting decent results. Come on, can you honestly say, that Futuremark doesnt favor ATi? The tests where built on ATi hardware FFS.
DRDEATH at 18:54 23/5/2003
Actually top cards only make 1% of the video card sales of a given company. It's just the bragging ringhts associated with the fastest GPU that is the benefit.
DRDEATH at 13:29 23/5/2003 3dmarks2003 just released a patch that eliminates "artificially high scores" for people using NVIDIA Detonator FX drivers. According to the PDF on Futuremark's site, the patch causes a 24.1% drop in score for NVIDIA and a 1.9% drop in score for ATi meaning that Futuremark is claiming that NVIDIA isn't alone in this whole ordeal, other companies have "irregularities" as well. Only thing is, 1.9% is well within the margin of error. 24.1% is not.
MonteGreenGan at 13:21 23/5/2003 monster card, huge freqs BUT their idea probably was to make games which would use pure processing power and a lot of fast mem, but ATI f**ked them up and made shure that pixel and vertex shaders are used A LOT! ATI has excess power stored and
currently unused inside its pixel and vertex shaders (heck them two combined make 60% of the radeons size). This is, I presume, why I can run DAWN so fast! For $200 I got a superb card! NV35 will most probably win 9800 in DOOM3 - but hey, I will also play DOOM3 at max settings so I really dont give a shit which card
is on the top!!! please try to understand that with your feeble powers of understanding!!! TOP cards make up to 8% of sales! Nvidiots, come on guys, give me some ARGUMENTS, not just profanities. If you want profanities I got a lot more where these came from. Shut the f**k up and die!
MonteGanGreen at 13:17 23/5/2003 whatever turns out to be the best!!! ---noooo you just couldnt keep quiet although you knew that fanATIcs were sooo eager to rub your noses in nVidias failure!!! And that is just another
argument in favor of you being retarded. Youre so retarded, your momma and daddy shouldhave used contraceptives in order to avoid spawning such FREAKS as you turned out to
be, hey guys, think of your parents
SSCREW at 16:44 23/5/2003
>>>3dmarks2003 just released a patch that eliminates "artificially high scores" for people using NVIDIA Detonator FX drivers. According to the PDF on Futuremark's site, the patch causes a 24.1% drop in score for NVIDIA and a 1.9% drop in score for ATi meaning that Futuremark is claiming that NVIDIA isn't alone in this whole ordeal, other companies have "irregularities" as well. Only thing is, 1.9% is well within the margin of error. 24.1% is not.<<< Thats just more proof IMO that Futuremark want control over the way DirectX9 is. And also, there cheating BOTH ati, and Nvidia out of marks, by giving them no freedom in there drivers. Nvidia had come up with ways which added obviously lots of extra performance, and didnt lose quality. I guarantee, even with the fixes, the Benchmark will still look the same. Futuremark are the cheaters, there handicapping hte program for Nvidia cards. 1%? Probably just to make it look less obvious, but either way, Futuremark do not set no DirectX9 standards which is why there tests should not even be worried about... There just trying to own a scene which they dony, Nvidia had a way of doing something more efficiently, and they rule out the possibility... There a f**ken disgrace. Microsoft WHQL'ed there files, so clearly, they where decent drivers, they just dont match up to Futuremarks standards... which not one pair have, sinc eNvidia started getting decent results. Come on, can you honestly say, that Futuremark doesnt favor ATi? The tests where built on ATi hardware FFS.
Anonymous at 16:39 23/5/2003
MonteVerdi
YOu are the biggest faget alive. DO you know how much of that didnt even make any snese,, or have any truth behind what you said? You are the biggest f**kin fagget loser for writing so much bs and expecting it to do anything whatsooever... u f**king poofter
ignatius at 15:44 23/5/2003
hehehe And all of this debate started over a demo of a fairy with a nice pair of tits. Its kind of funny how many fights start up over girls with nice knockers. As for this debate, Im more concerned with the compatibility issues and stress levels that both cards can take since they are pushing so much into speed and power that they rush ahead too far which results in failures like a few we have seen in the past. Either way, Im wondering if the trend for price raises on ati and nvidia cards is gonna go up cause if so Im sure sales are gonna go way down for both of these two rivals. By the way, has anyone spoofed this yet with a nude version of this babe cause she sure is hot. :)
Anonymous at 15:29 23/5/2003
...moo
DRDEATH at 13:30 23/5/2003
Actually top cards only make 1% of the video card sales of a given company. It's just the bragging ringhts associated with the fastest GPU that is the benefit.
DRDEATH at 13:29 23/5/2003
3dmarks2003 just released a patch that eliminates "artificially high scores" for people using NVIDIA Detonator FX drivers. According to the PDF on Futuremark's site, the patch causes a 24.1% drop in score for NVIDIA and a 1.9% drop in score for ATi meaning that Futuremark is claiming that NVIDIA isn't alone in this whole ordeal, other companies have "irregularities" as well. Only thing is, 1.9% is well within the margin of error. 24.1% is not.
monster card, huge freqs BUT their idea probably was to make games which would use pure processing power and a lot of
fast mem, but ATI f**ked them up and made shure that pixel and vertex shaders are used A LOT! ATI has excess power stored and
currently unused inside its pixel and vertex shaders (heck them two combined make 60% of the radeons size). This is, I presume, why I can run DAWN so fast! For $200 I got a superb card! NV35 will most probably win 9800 in DOOM3 - but hey, I will also play DOOM3 at max settings so I really dont give a shit which card
is on the top!!! please try to understand that with your feeble powers of understanding!!! TOP cards make up to 8% of sales! Nvidiots, come on guys, give me some ARGUMENTS, not just profanities. If you want profanities I got a lot more where these came from. Shut the f**k up and die!
whatever turns out to be the best!!! ---noooo you just
couldnt keep quiet although you knew that fanATIcs were sooo eager to rub your noses in nVidias failure!!! And that is just another
argument in favor of you being retarded. Youre so retarded, your momma and daddy shouldhave used contraceptives in order to avoid spawning such FREAKS as you turned out to
be, hey guys, think of your parents - they actually HAVE TO love you (they have no choice), and you DO know how hard it is to love
such useless jerkoffs. Now, I am not saying that the ULTIMATE card is R9800, the ULTIMATE card NOW is R9500, you get the most for the least cash. Anyone smart will acknowledge this, I intend to have this vcard for a year and then switch to whatever happens to be the best choice
at that time, be it Radeon of GFX, I dont actually give a shit which company gets to release the best card, I buy CARDS, not company
crap and lies. I own an nforce nvidia motherboard, so I dont have ANYTHING against good nvidia products, what I really really detest
is retarded FREAKS like you - who dont get it! nVidia showed us what kind of company it really is! f**k IT. I dont trust them anymore, I will think 1000x over before buying nForce3!! They cant be trusted anymore, theyre so full of crap! Even nforce mbos have a lot od propaganda and fairy tales connected to them, they aint as fast or as stable as they were supposed to
be! Hypertransport makes NTFS errors!!! another nvidia foul up! No company should ever DARE to make war with their customers (you, f**kheads), lie to them and try to cheat them out of their cash!
(ok, they shouldnt get caught even if they try) - what you SHOULD do is not buy their products until they get their act straight!
NV35/40 has GREAT potential!!! ATI is pixel/vertex shader king! and ATI (in cooperation with microsoft DX9 AND using nVidias own CG+) made sure vertex and pixel
shaders get USED!!! Nvidia made a monster card, huge f
Anonymous at 13:11 23/5/2003
.....year the corporation knew it lacked the ability to compete on raw speed with the Radeon 9700, so it chose to focus on high-end features, support for its Cg programming language, and, of course, the wealth of visual splendour the new CineFX architecture would make possible. CineFX was, at least according to marketing, something special and unique, something that Nvidia implied that ATI cards couldn't do nearly as well or as completely.
Looks like that's not the case at all. Dawn appears to like ATI cards just fine, making us wonder if Nvidia will fire the little scamp and replace her with her evil sister Dusk, who put in quite an appearance at E3. Good help is evidently hard to find these days.
There's a number of ways Nvidia could respond to this and we wouldn't be surprised to see a little marketing muscle flexing and some published comments on how the FX still retains a subtle advantage over ATI when rendering Dawn and comments on the need for a wrapper, etc, etc but Nvidia's advantage has been largely lost. The 9700 Pro might not have the name "CineFX" anywhere in its design specs, but it's obviously capable of the same sort of technology. Since this was Nvidia's hugely-touted feature it leaves you wondering what exactly the GF FX architecture really brings to the table at all
Youre so retarded its really unbeleivable. nVidia made NV30 with memory controllers from older GF4 cards hence similar results, hence overheating - but have no pheer, they still wanted hard cash for it. Now they f**ked up AGAIN (dont know HOW, yet..) and made a card so expensive to produce in a friggin factory that they cant lower the price even if they wanted to, and they dont want to cause they have you retarded groupies who will buy anything. nVidia doesnt have anything to counter ATI now, I got my 9500 for 200$ - and I get 4600 marks 2003 at max overclock, also I run DAWN with NO stuttering whatsoever. So shut the f**k up youre spraying nvidia cum all over the place so PLEASE dont talk, and show me what nvidia piece of crap can you buy for $200 and get same results. Considering drivers - dont make me laugh f**king retardoS, youre drivers are a bunch of "optimizations" that lower the quality in order to get speed (and still end up behind ATI), and ATIs drivers simply WORK - even support DIVX hardware acceleration and filtering! so shut the f**k up, youre drivers suck hard c**k, and like both you and nvidia are simply GAY. nVidia f**ked up hard - and are now desperate do get out of the trouble, and they decided to do that by giving you false optimizations and some more predictions and lies - whats even worse , you STILL take their word for granted, whats your IQ anyways? lower than your shoe sizes? f**k nVidia and f**k you, f**king assholes. But hey, youre the ones getting a lot of s***m to swallow and lose a lot of cash getting inferior hardware so hey, please be nvidiots, I do have to have SOMEONE to laugh at! nVidia f**ked up early radeons by similar machinations, what is hapenning now is well deserved, you have all been so eager to spit at ATI, now that the tide has changed you simply havent got enuff IQ to just shut the f**k up, buy a cheap card and wait to see what happens next (expensive cards are currently definitely NOT a good buy) and buy what
Anonymous at 13:10 23/5/2003
Nvidia's Dawning trouble
Trouble at t'mill, not far from Cottingley nor Leprechaunia
By Jack Russell: Friday 23 May 2003, 20:29
FROM WHAT we've heard through the grapevine, Nvidia is none too happy about the patching of Dawn so that it'd run on any ATI card capable of rendering DX9 function calls. I happen to run a Radeon 9700 in my main rig and have been curious about the Dawn demo ever since Nvidia released it, so I promptly grabbed the patch and spent the next 40 minutes experimenting with what the little pixie could do. For those of who you've never seen the demo, it's an amazing program that demonstrates a level of visual precision and accuracy not seen before in computing. Dawn's facial expressions, movements, and skin tone all are orders of magnitude more advanced than the texture maps we've seen overlayed across a wire frame to form a face in games like Voyager: Elite Force, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, or even Jedi Knight II. It's incredibly impressive—and therein lies the problem.
I'd always personally wondered why Nvidia didn't release Dawn (even in a reduced-quality form) for other video cards. Granted, the demo might not have looked as good, but surely DX8-capable cards could've found workarounds. After all, it's still possible to play modern games that use DX8 using DX7 hardware. Keeping Dawn under wraps when she was supposed to represent the true potential of Nvidia's CineFX technology didn't make much sense. How, after all, are buyers supposed to buy a product based on future benefits they can't examine?
Now, however, we know why Nvidia never released Dawn for any other video cards. Not only can the Radeon 9700/9800 render the little pixie just as well as any GF FX-equipped card, there's some unofficial evidence that suggests ATI's flagship products are even better at it then Nvidia's, even when using an OpenGL wrapper, which, as we all know, degrades video performance.
When Nvidia released the ill-fated NV30 architecture last
You nVidiots are so full of shit you stink all the way round the globe through to the delta quadrant. You have had it served to you repeatedly since first RADEON9500 was introduced, your faggoting assholes are now so ripe cause of getting a huge nvidia c**k up your dumb customer bungholes that you cant even sit STRAIGHT. Bunch of retarded no-life, fat, greasy teenagers jerking off at their mega-gay vidcard thats also so full of crap its almost impossible to fathom. nVidia is at war with you (its customers), nVidia wants to take your cash for a shitty product, and lies every step of the way in order to make it work, and you are soooo mentally challenged from looking at low quality AA and AF all the time, nVidia showes large amounts of gay cum down your sore throughts, you get so much protein intake you have to chew it before you swallow it - and it is so gooood for you, you actually go back for more. Furthermore you so like swallowing nVidia filthy cum you actually subscribe to their lies and echo them in hopes you get a little more protein for you cash. nVidia readily rapes your filthy mouths with their Our-card-this-and-that mumbo jumbo. 128bit color? yeah rite, actually no WHQL cert because it saves proc power and bandwith with tricks, and when you apply AA and AF on top of the tricks you get LOUSY quality. And guess what, DAWN plays fine on my RADEON 9500PRO max AA max AF at 1158x864 (ultra version) - at "128bit" color!!! Also ATI doesnt "engineer" its drivers to yield 10% faster results at 3dmark2003 - nvidia does, and still loses. f**k nvidia, that company actually managed to ruin 3DFX hardware (NV35)! the card had potential, but nvidia ruined it by trying to f**k the whole world in the ass. You cant f**k everybody up and make them buy your hardware...worse yet, it seems now that 1GHZ hardware with DDRII vidRAM and at a lower quality display cant really beat a card 40% smaller in size, and how do you explain this? by quoting nVidia lies. Youre so retarde
jon at 12:52 23/5/2003
Does anyone have a problem running it on the 9500Pro - cos i do. I followed the installation instructions but it still doesnt work.
Drift at 12:50 23/5/2003
Thats messed up for another company's demo to run faster on the competitions card lol,... good posts SSCREW, i agree.
Well, how about trying the site where the story originated?
Which is:
http://www.rage3d.com/articles/atidawning/
frobird at 12:31 23/5/2003
i would agree that sometimes this website provides bad links, and they can be very numerous. i think megagames should take the advice of the threads and fix some things on this site. the site is excellent, but some things are needing to be fixed.
dave at 10:58 23/5/2003
Your pish site doesny even f**kin work fukin 80 kbs file got 2mb and still cani even download it
I don't think there is any optimization at all. If it does indeed run better it's just because the ATi cards handle pixel shading better. The only change as far as I understand is the instructions were translated to be understood by the ATi cards. There's only one opengl32.dll file that is put in the demo folder. Everything else remains unchanged. I think it just converts the nVidia commands to their ATi counterparts. Also since it does this I doubt this modified demo would run on an nVidia card, or it just wouldn't use the opengl32.dll file.
It looks perferct though, and why wouldn't the 9700-9800 run this demo well? They perform on par with the 5800 which is what the demo was designed for. Why is that so hard for nVidia fans to believe?
Anonymous at 8:44 23/5/2003
WHY DON'T PEOPLE USE HIGHEND GRAPHIC CARD LIKE 3DLABS INSTEAD OF ATI & NVIDIA SH*T. ATI & NVIDIA ARE THE BIGGEST THIEVES IN THE COMPUTER INDUSTRIES. $499 FOR A STINKING NEW CARD IS WAYYYYYYYYY OVER PRICE. I CAN GET TWO 3DLABS CARD THAT RUNS WAYYYY BETTER THAN A STINKING ATI & NVIDIA.
FlashLV at 8:38 23/5/2003
>>>>>> just wanna know if this is legal or what? I bet Nvidia could have the right to sue over this, and it could be a pretty good amount of cash too<<<<
The main flaw about this is that this was written by college students. how many college students do you know tht have a LOT of money?
SSCREW at 8:12 23/5/2003
DRDEATH Will probably remain a mystery.. but theres no way that codes remotely close to Nvidias... its probably almost a different test i'd believe. How did it run before this thing was done to it on those cards? Did i run at all? Or just really slow?
Anonymous Ummmm yeah. LOL.
Anonymous at 7:13 23/5/2003
I dont like the tits, but she's doable
DRDEATH at 6:56 23/5/2003
Only thing SSCREW, is the R350 core and the R300 has a better pixel and shader engine then the NV30 or NV35. 1 more vertex shader and true 8x1 pixel pipeline support. So it can be faster as this demo showcases shader power...Not clock speed. But you're right, i would like to know how they optimized it to run on all directx9 Radeon cards.
B30 at 6:28 23/5/2003
my computer is 1000 times faster then game boy advance . but when i run some game boy advance game on my pc, it still run slower then game boy advance hardware. for all out there that have no idea watt an emulator is, end watt wrapper is..... do some reading, end make a wrapper for NV30/35 to run down demo faster.
DRDEATH at 6:22 23/5/2003
I HAVE FROOTIELOOPS AND IT ROCKS!!! GO BYE IT NOW OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES!!!
DRDEATH at 4:53 23/5/2003
I'm a gigantic pe-nis which likes to jerl off over the sound of the modem's dial-up sound.
DRDEATH at 3:51 23/5/2003
Listen everybody go to my other posts I already talked about this topic. Now everybody stop being such as-sholes and take a look at my 1 inch p***s.
anyone at 2:46 23/5/2003
I just wanna know if this is legal or what? I bet Nvidia could have the right to sue over this, and it could be a pretty good amount of cash too
justanotherasshole at 23:25 22/5/2003
Blah Blah, who gives a SHIT its a demo not a game, get over it! get a real girl friend :-)
anyone at 23:18 22/5/2003
Actually, its a long shot, but anyone got a 9700pro/9800pro and the NV30? If so, in the same PC, you should run both cards and see which does it better... More curiosity thing. Its got to be the fact that its been written better for Radeon 9*00pro cards than the NV30 by the students. ANd there has to be some hidden cheat code.... who here can scan for any optimisations? Anything thats changed and may be the cause?
Cant wait to see Nvidias views on this though... would this be illegal? Nvidia have no douct copyrighted it...
SSCREW at 23:14 22/5/2003
>>>These are some unconfirmed features added to the dawn demo by the use of ATI cards:
-It runs 15 per cent faster than NV30 on the 9800pro, and it also runs faster than NV35 -Creates higher quality images than the original due to the normalization being done in a fragment program (dp3/rsq/mul) instead of in a normalization cubemap which the FX extensions does directly in hardware -The OpenGL wrapper adds more overhead, as it has to interperet code calls for Nvidia extensions and map them to ATI/ARB extensions, and yet it still runs faster on the ATI card, due to its more sophisticated pixel shader engine. <<< See right there... unconfirmed. More than likely, these people where ATi fans (thats a given though aint it?). and they more than likely made optimisations to make it run faster. Its probably got some things removed to make it run better.... beating the NV35 on this test? I am sorry to say, but the NV35 is the more powerful of the two, and i dont see it beating it. And its more than likely the way its been written.... which sadly, it looks to have been written better by engineering students... they optimised it pretty good though. Another thing, the NV35 is more than 15% faster than the NV30, so i dont see how that works?
And i dont understand one part... THe optimisations. It says they where done in the Hardware by the FX... how are they being done in the Radeon Cards? Is that to say, that the way they have programmed, is faster than hardware driven?
SSCREW at 23:8 22/5/2003
>>>i've seen her nude! <<< Arent you one lucky mofo.... ;) LOL
SSCREW at 23:8 22/5/2003
>>>u notice how the nvidia fans are soo much more angry than the ati fans, maybe everyone should switch to ati than everybody will be happy. <<< How do you figure that? Within the first 20 posts on any Nvidia thread there are ATI people in there highjacking the thread abusing Nvidia. THis has slowed down with the NV35, but there still occuring nonetheless. And you think a comment like that, doesnt make you one of them?
Sorry Megagames, didn't mean to scoop you on this one. :)
SSCREW at 23:6 22/5/2003
>>Yup. Too funny. Made for Nvidia by Nvidia. ATI runs it faster and with better IQ then the NV30, NV35. LOLOLOLOLOLOL. All is left is for Nvidia to run the Chimp Demo on the NV35 better then the 9800pro. LOL.<< Its more than likely been reoptimised to work better on the ATi hardware. Its not running the same thing that Nvidia is.
And to everyone.. It said that those things where unconfirmed. I would love to see what coding they have done for it to work... might make it run better again on Nvidia cards. Anyone with the NV30 give it a whirl. BTW, what is it orignally in? Is it OpenGL? I never seen this demo... and why would the students wanna rip it off? Its nice there capable of doing so(im impressed), but its just a demo... LOL
Dude, they say it's been tested on a 9800pro 256MB. Well, it's been tested by me on a 7 month old 9700pro @ 1280 * 1024 and it runs perfectly with 4xAA and 16xAF!
Nice demo.
Anonymous at 22:41 22/5/2003
i've seen her nude!
Wyatt at 21:14 22/5/2003
">>>u notice how the nvidia fans are soo much more angry than the ati fans, maybe everyone should switch to ati than everybody will be happy.<<<<"
Actually its the ATI fan that gets the argument started.... I can be happy mother FUçker! After I murder ur ass!.. JK
NO actually just STFU!
rat at 21:8 22/5/2003
u notice how the nvidia fans are soo much more angry than the ati fans, maybe everyone should switch to ati than everybody will be happy.
Ati rules. I tried it wow it runs smooth and looks great even on 9700pro :)
Wyatt at 20:9 22/5/2003
"These are some >>>unconfirmed<<< features added to the dawn demo by the use of ATI cards "
I didnt see that before.. But READ THIS MOTHER FUçkêR. EAT SHìT AND DIE FUçKING BITCH!!!!!!!!!
unconfirmed.. HAHHAHAHA YEAH I DONT BELIEVE IT!!!! Fùckin newbs! GOd Damn.. Hmm wonder who made this article... must be some ATI fanboy trying to rip some company off and giving some dumb ass rumors.. ANY ways Enough of this BullShìt... I have better things to do than cuss at some newbs...
Anonymous at 20:5 22/5/2003
Asshats... ATI is a good pruduct.
Open yer goddamn eyes.
Anonymous at 19:35 22/5/2003
all you little ati fan boys can shut the f**k up beacuse when your testing the beta drivers aginst prodution driver (nvidia beta vs ati release driver of course it better ive already seen the bench marks between the 5900 and the TI 9800 with 256 ddr with new driver now its a compation and nvidia kicked ass to say the least they scored over 700 pts higher on futuremark 2003
Anonymous at 18:51 22/5/2003
like i said, drdeath,
that was her, oh man, what a fing loser
Anonymous at 18:34 22/5/2003
FIRST POST!!
Anonymous at 17:58 22/5/2003
whoops. well, drdeath already made an appearence
lol at 17:58 22/5/2003
Wyatt this is for u qoute from this site -It runs 15 per cent faster than NV30 on the 9800pro, and it also runs faster than NV35...now if ur blind and cant read that then i feel very sorry for u
Anonymous at 17:56 22/5/2003
you know what, i was the first to see this post and i didnt post, cause i wanted to see if some micreant would do something like what the first post person did. i prove my theory to be very true. and i am sure that drdeath is going to post here soon. if i ever met you girls, well, i will leave it at that.
i rest my case
nvidia rules
Wyatt at 17:33 22/5/2003
Hey Dumb Fuc-K they didnt even mention the NV35! Fuc-kn Dumbass'. Eat A DIçk and CHOKE ON THAT SHt!
DRDEATH at 17:19 22/5/2003
Yup. Too funny. Made for Nvidia by Nvidia. ATI runs it faster and with better IQ then the NV30, NV35. LOLOLOLOLOLOL. All is left is for Nvidia to run the Chimp Demo on the NV35 better then the 9800pro. LOL.
grungie at 16:26 22/5/2003
HAHAHAHA ati is even stealing the chicks off nvidia... ROFL!
RingMaster481 at 16:11 22/5/2003
I find this hilarious because I am a huge fan of ATI. FIRST POST!!!
