backtop


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

RE: Video
By nurbsenvi on 2/20/2007 10:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
My question is why is Fudo doing this?
Though he might be cold blooded cynic I thought he was at least kinda entertaining.

I can't help notice his bias towards ATI time to time (I think he has close friend working there) and now going so far as fabricating a none existing benchmark is just timid and stupid!

Any way, Kris why do you hate The Inq so much? I think they are entertaining if you take it with grain of salt.


RE: Video
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/20/2007 10:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't hate them at all. If Anand wrote the same rubbish Fudo did I would just as surely refute his claims as well.


RE: Video
By Le Québécois on 2/21/2007 1:18:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Anand wrote the same rubbish Fudo did I would just as surely refute his claims as well.


THAT would be entertaining!!!

But back on the video, I've seen it and must say that I'm not sure how to react. While the water effects are ok the models are pretty simple, the background doesn't seem to have any effect and except for the light and the waves on the water, nothing is moving...

Maybe someone with better knowledge than I have on:

quote:
* True 64-bit High Dynamic Range Lighting with Antialiasing
* Parallax Occlusion Mapping
* Soft Shadows
* Normal Mapping
* Soft Particles
* Full Scene Motion Blur
* Depth-of-Field
* Heat Haze
* Volumetric Explosion
* Realistic Water Physics


...could explain to me what is special with this benchmark. As far as I'm concern, it could use all the most advance effects in the world, if the end result is ugly, I don't see the point.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki