Lack of Cinfx features (Score 0)

When T&L came out FutureMark jumped at it. SSE, 3dnow, etc... are all included in FutureMarks releases. FutureMark suggesting that 3dmark isn't bias and as policy shuns proprietary extensions is misleading. BABCo (a collection of company representatives to insure fair testing) is listed on FutureMarks homepage here but uses an outdated logo which neglects to show ATIs membership (BABCo membership page look under the logo shows ATIs membership). Nvidia isn't as of yet a member of BABCo, whether it be money or other, I'm not sure.

At present the ATI card is faster, but when you begin adding more shaders/textures the nvidia card is vastly superior and leaves ATIs card severly underpowered. Look at multitexture (textures per pass) capabilities here of each card. In hindsight, I wish Nvidia did go for the 256 bit engine, much of this argument would not currently exist.

I am a Nvidia fan but not a fanatic, FutureMark by design does favour the newer Radeon cards over the newer Nvidia cards, whether or not it is by intent, I'm in no position to say. But, if I was allowed to speculate, I'd suggest a little industrial espionage (meaning indepth knowledge of the FX card) on ATIs behalf existed long before 3dmarks release, there's certain aspects of 3dmarks release that are questionable or at least circumstantial. Which does suggest "a spy amoung us" scenario.

I do believe ATI is pawning off a substandard card and is once again lying about it (Rage Maxx).

Note:I accidently posted as AC (cookies), thus the repost.