Print 31 comment(s) - last by James Holden.. on Mar 5 at 11:37 PM

The RyderMark "screenshot" that was published in July 2006
My take on RyderMark's newest incarnation

Fudo posted something about Rydermark today, and the hate mail is already starting to kick up.

In a previous article, we pretty thoroughly debunked the authenticity of Fudo's "screenshots."  In the original article, Fudo published an expose claiming NVIDIA would not allow developers to use 24-bit or 32-bit precision -- whatever that means -- inside the benchmark.  Fudo then published the screenshots of an ATI and an NVIDIA card side by side.

Our rebuttal was to disprove his analysis of this situation based on the two images, at least one of which was just a Photoshop manipulation.  I have my doubts about Candella as well, but the gist of that article -- Fudo's accusations that NVIDIA was pulling some sort of scam with developers -- was untrue given the evidence.

So here's the gauntlet: If Fudo or Candella can supply me with a version of the RyderMark benchmark by midnight tonight, I will donate $1,000 to a charity of Fudo's choosing.  The software must show, in full-motion video, all three screenshots displayed in the article Fudo published today.  I'll donate another $1,000 if it can display the images from the RyderMark "screenshots" published in July 2006.

Update 2/20/2007: Neither individual was able to provide me with the software even after direct requests.  Fuad declined to send me the binary and Candella did not respond to my emails.

Update 2/20/2007: Ryan Shrout from PC Perspective has uploaded the teaser video for the benchmark on Fileshack.  I'm beginning to think this whole thing has been a horrible hoax played on Fudo.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No one noticed this yet?
By Chillin1248 on 2/20/2007 2:27:07 AM , Rating: 3
Surprising that people are paying so much attention to the pictures and not to the Spec printout, look at the facts:

1)- He claims and the spec sheet claims that he has a QuadFX system with four cores, but why the hell isn't Multi-Threading enabled?

2)- For a graphics benchmark, it sure talks a lot about the CPU data and NOTHING and the GPU data. It doesn't even say which GPU is in there...

3)- Why does the OS description say:

Microsoft Windows XP Sevice pacl

I mean is it really such a BETA that it can't even say Service Pack 2?

And finally my favorite:

Why would S3 be sponsering a graphic benchmark that the fastest and most expensive cards today can't manage, never mind their own low-end cards?


RE: No one noticed this yet?
By Le Québécois on 2/20/2007 3:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
I saw that but to be honest I was more amaze by the benchmark results. I know he claims that the benchmark look better in action but still how could something that ugly can perform so badly on a Quad FX with a GeForce 8800?

Is this a new trend to come with benchmarks in the future? Poorly writen code so we can see how our computers will perfom on a bad engine?

Kris, any follow up on that "give me a video and I'll give you $1000"?

RE: No one noticed this yet?
By KristopherKubicki on 2/20/2007 3:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
Not a peep from Candella, though they have told my colleages they will release a video within 10 days.

Fudo claims he will post a video shortly as well, but no one has been able to provide me of a binary.

RE: No one noticed this yet?
By Chillin1248 on 2/20/2007 1:42:28 PM , Rating: 3
My god, the INQ doesn't stop shooting themselves in the foot. Read this article posted today which claims that Nvidia has no WHQL Vista driver and that AMD/ATI will beat them:

Now please someone tell him that Nvida DOES HAVE a Vista WHQL driver (100.65):



And also unlike he claimed in the article, this driver does support the 8800 series in SLI.

RE: No one noticed this yet?
By KristopherKubicki on 2/20/2007 1:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
Their driver release dates and embargo dates are wrong anyway.

By KristopherKubicki on 2/20/2007 3:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
If anyone is intersted:

The real first production AIB ship is March 12, 2007. Embargo date is, and has been, the week ending March 30, 2007.

RE: No one noticed this yet?
By Griswold on 2/20/2007 7:03:48 AM , Rating: 3
You forgot to mention "OS Version: 7".

Last time I checked, XP was version 5 and Vista version 6. He must have this brandnew, to be released Windows Vista XP or something. :P

RE: No one noticed this yet?
By johnsonx on 2/20/2007 11:21:05 AM , Rating: 2
Actually XP is Windows NT v5.1; 2000 was NT 5.0. But you're right, Vista is version 6. There is no Windows version 7 yet. That might be Sausage, due out in

RE: No one noticed this yet?
By johnsonx on 2/20/2007 11:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
Another little detail from the 'result' screen that jumps out at me is that it identifies the CPU as 'Family 15, Model 1, Stepping 3'. Family 15 is correct enough, and Stepping 3 certainly seems plausible. However, Model 1 doesn't look right to me. The old S754 Newcastle I'm typing this from is Model C. While I don't have any other Athlon64 boxes handy at this moment (and certainly no FX-74!), I don't recall ever seeing Model 1 for any K8 product.

Now this doesn't prove anything to be bogus (in it's Beta state it could just be reading the wrong register), but like many other details here it is odd.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki