If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New 3DMark patch out, Nvidia still cheating in newest drivers
Nvidia is still cheating in the latest drivers. Why why why haven't they
learned yet? http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8952 rms |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
rms wrote:
Nvidia is still cheating in the latest drivers. Why why why haven't they learned yet? http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8952 ... Learned what? Modern video-hardware manufactures _learned_ to use cheats/optimization in their drivers several years ago. The approach pioneered by ATI is accepted now as a legitimate "optimization" technique and used by virtually anyone these days. The only difference is in the stance each particular manufacturer takes when its "optimization" techniques receive some bad publicity. For example the relatively recent bad publicity around ATI's Futuremark cheats cased ATI to remove these particular cheats from their Catalyst drivers (which was publically announced). However, other ATI's cheats which received less public attention are still there in their latest drivers. nVidia, on the other hand, seems to be more calm about these issues and prefers not to make any sudden moves. -- Best regards, Andrey Tarasevich |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrey Tarasevich" wrote in message ... rms wrote: Nvidia is still cheating in the latest drivers. Why why why haven't they learned yet? Learned what? Modern video-hardware manufactures _learned_ to use cheats/optimization in their drivers several years ago. The approach pioneered by ATI is accepted now as a legitimate "optimization" technique and used by virtually anyone these days. The only difference is in the stance each particular manufacturer takes when its "optimization" techniques receive some bad publicity. Isn't it obvious? When they've learned not to receive bad publicity. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
rms wrote:
Nvidia is still cheating in the latest drivers. Why why why haven't they learned yet? http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8952 rms Do folks really take that seriously results from 3D Mark in determining what brand of video card they buy? Personally, I only use it when making tweaks with the same hardware, checking out drivers, overclocking, to see what might give me best perfomance - for what I have. When I decide on purchasing a video card, I pay more attention to reviews and these forums to help me make my decision. And so far, I have not been dissappointed in any of my purchasing decisions over the years. -- Don Burnette |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lenny wrote:
The approach pioneered by ATI is accepted now as a legitimate "optimization" What approach? What are you talking about? Provide evidence of ATi "pioneering" application cheating, thank you. The "evidence" is that ATI was first caught on cheating in good old 3DMark2001 a couple years ago. Nobody really paid much attention to the discovery because at that time this topic wasn't as hot as it is now. You can either do some Google searches yourself or simply test even the _current_ ATI's drivers for the presence of 3DMark2001 cheats - you'll be surprised. By the way, S3 I think, was caught red-handed by cheating in Winbench by not rendering all the frames in that program's 3D test (which was terribly lame even by those days' standards), that should give you a hint about how long ago THAT was. A further hint is that it was pre-Savage era too. So I would suggest you take those lies of yours and shove em. For example the relatively recent bad publicity around ATI's Futuremark cheats cased ATI to remove these particular cheats from their Catalyst drivers Which cheatS in particular are you talking about? The only application-specific optimization ATi did for 3DMark 2003 was to re-order a shader for the Mother Nature test. It still produced the same output (differing in about four pixels out of a 1024*768 screen), only difference was it ran better on their hardware. Exactly. The Nature test. This link leads to the high-resulution picture showing the difference between the real (cheats disabled) and the "optimized" (cheats enabled) picture produced by ATI cards for Nature test http://www.ixbt.com/video2/images/an...difference.rar Sorry to rain on your delusions, but this is a lot more than "four pixels". And this link leads to the same type of picture produced by nVidia card http://www.ixbt.com/video2/images/an...difference.rar The similarities are striking. While I can't deduce all "optimizations" used by ATI by just looking at this picture, it is rather likely that in both nVidia and ATI case they include forceful reduction of precision of trigonometric calculations, which is activated for this particular test. Instruction re-ordering is not a cheat. Main processors have done re-ordering of instructions for over a decade now, it's a common enough procedure. Only real difference is that GPUs lack the neccessary hardware to do it in real-time (it is extremely costly in not only transistors and die area, but also in research and development), so it has to be done in software in the driver's shader compiler. However, other ATI's cheats which received less public attention are still there in their latest drivers. Which cheats are those, exactly? Are you suggesting ATi is untruthful in their statements that they have no application-specific optimizations in their drivers? Which statements are taking about? I hope you remember that when ATI was publically confronted with the facts showing that they do use Futuremark cheats in 3DMark2003, ATI responeded with new version of their drivers and _publically_ _stated_ _in_ _their_ _press-release_ _that_ _ATI_ _drivers_ _did_ _actually_ _contain_ _these_ _cheats_ and now they are removed. I hope the fact that ATI publically acknowledged the presence of Futuremark cheats in their drivers answers your "which cheats are those" question. A simple experiment shows that ATI did indeed remove _these_ _particular_ cheats from their drivers, while the older 3DMark2001 cheats are still there is their full glory. You could easily repeat all these experiments at home, if you weren't that ignorant. -- Best regards, Andrey Tarasevich |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
rms wrote: Nvidia is still cheating in the latest drivers. Why why why haven't they learned yet? http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8952 ... Learned what? Modern video-hardware manufactures _learned_ to use cheats/optimization in their drivers several years ago. The approach pioneered by ATI is accepted now as a legitimate "optimization" technique and used by virtually anyone these days. The only difference is in the stance each particular manufacturer takes when its "optimization" techniques receive some bad publicity. For example the relatively recent bad publicity around ATI's Futuremark cheats cased ATI to remove these particular cheats from their Catalyst drivers (which was publically announced). However, other ATI's cheats which received less public attention are still there in their latest drivers. nVidia, on the other hand, seems to be more calm about these issues and prefers not to make any sudden moves. I have a question which I think nobody has ever really brought up -- Do you really believe that the only way to optimize a game is by pure mathematical optimizations? With something like lossless compression you have no choice, but with video cards, the end product is HIGHLY qualitative. Equally spread between the differences between hardware implementations itself and whatever methods of achieving the resulting image are considered valid themselves. Some believe that the hardware was built to be used one way and one way only ("the best image will only be produced when used in thus manner"), but since GPU's are becoming so infinitely programmable, their maximum capabilities cannot be solely fixed. If the image can be approximated or resolved with visually no difference or minor imperfections, I say all the better. But to think that all speed increases through driver updates have come at the expense of IQ is pesimistic to say the least. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
lol, i don't even use benchmarks to tell me what my hardware is capable of
because i don't trust them. i only run them to see some cool 3D demonstrations. i could care less about my synthetic score "rms" wrote in message om... Nvidia is still cheating in the latest drivers. Why why why haven't they learned yet? http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8952 rms |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Lenny" wrote in message ...
The approach pioneered by ATI is accepted now as a legitimate "optimization" What approach? What are you talking about? Provide evidence of ATi "pioneering" application cheating, thank you. Was it not ATI who was caught detecting the quake executable years ago and then turning off internal features to get better performance? This was one of the very first times that video card drivers were detecting the software and adjusting to get better results. In this case, a simple renaming of the executable give very different results. Today these types of "cheats" are much more cleaver and harder to detect. So I think that is why he said ATI pioneered the driver "optimization" cheat. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:35:58 GMT, "rms" wrote:
Nvidia is still cheating in the latest drivers. Why why why haven't they learned yet? http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8952 rms Who cares ? Except the benchmarking narcissii who haunt this newsgroup. Get a life and enjoy USING your computer either for entertainment or high-performance pro software with a useful end-product. I am quite happy for Ati/nVidia to customize their drivers for each video-performance-demanding game/application out there, and only use the benchmarks to verify that something is not grossly underperforming or broken compared to a previous release, plus verify that any new driver features are properly implemented. John Lewis |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The benchmarks are not aimed at people who already have h/w and want to know its performance. The benchmarks are not aimed at you. The benchmarks are there for people who are looking to make a purchase and want some kind of comparison in order to make the correct decision. On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 05:35:06 GMT, "Mike B" wrote: lol, i don't even use benchmarks to tell me what my hardware is capable of because i don't trust them. i only run them to see some cool 3D demonstrations. i could care less about my synthetic score |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
writing cd`s | biggmark | Cdr | 7 | December 31st 04 08:57 AM |
pc problems after g card upgrade + sp2 | ben reed | Homebuilt PC's | 9 | November 30th 04 01:04 AM |
Nero help needed | foghat | Cdr | 0 | May 31st 04 08:23 PM |
Response by Nvidia concerning HL2 *warning, lengthy post, strong opinion content, some bad langwidge* NC-17 rating administered... | Dave | Ati Videocards | 28 | September 14th 03 05:51 PM |
Kyle Bennett (HardOCP) blasts NVIDIA | Radeon350 | Ati Videocards | 12 | August 13th 03 09:19 PM |