1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

New 3DMark patch out, Nvidia still cheating in newest drivers

Discussion in 'ATI' started by rms, Nov 11, 2003.

  1. rms

    rms Guest

    rms, Nov 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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.
     
    Andrey Tarasevich, Nov 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. rms

    jeffc Guest

    Isn't it obvious? When they've learned not to receive bad publicity.
     
    jeffc, Nov 11, 2003
    #3
  4. rms

    Lenny Guest

    What approach? What are you talking about? Provide evidence of ATi
    "pioneering" application cheating, thank you.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    Which cheats are those, exactly?

    Are you suggesting ATi is untruthful in their statements that they have no
    application-specific optimizations in their drivers?
     
    Lenny, Nov 12, 2003
    #4
  5. rms

    Don Burnette Guest


    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, Nov 12, 2003
    #5
  6. 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.
    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/antidetect/r300-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/antidetect/nv25-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.
    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.
     
    Andrey Tarasevich, Nov 12, 2003
    #6
  7. rms

    phobos Guest

    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.
     
    phobos, Nov 12, 2003
    #7
  8. rms

    Mike B Guest

    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
     
    Mike B, Nov 12, 2003
    #8

  9. 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.
     
    Cyclone Owner, Nov 12, 2003
    #9
  10. rms

    John Lewis Guest

    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
     
    John Lewis, Nov 12, 2003
    #10
  11. rms

    Nick Guest

    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.
     
    Nick, Nov 12, 2003
    #11
  12. rms

    Nada Guest

    That's naive. A lot of them and us do. Dads reading PC Hardware
    magazines before Christmas do take notes of what they see benchmarked;
    whether or not it's a synthetic or a real game benchmark. A lot of
    people do buy cards based on what the benchmark results are.
     
    Nada, Nov 12, 2003
    #12
  13. rms

    xyzzy Guest

    The problem is when the graphics card/drivers behave in a manner
    that's undocumented. Sure, there's nothing wrong with card drivers
    detecting, say, Quake and involving a different set of optimizations
    tailored for that game *as long as* this behaviour is documented. That
    said, the best place with that kind of "optimization" is within the
    game itself. However, there's no legitimate reason to artificially
    boost performance by sacrificing quality when a benchmarking program
    is detected. It's not even a matter of if you can tell the quality
    difference or not, it's the principle that yields that benchmark
    misleading. If a manufacturer is going to make these tradeoffs, it
    should make it across the board. Otherwise, it's cheating and stealing
    your money, plain and simple.
     
    xyzzy, Nov 12, 2003
    #13
  14. rms

    Ben Pope Guest

    Indeed.... there are quite a few.

    I thought I'd do a little test to see how much difference there is in the
    images.

    I downloaded all the images from http://www.ixbt.com/video2/antidetect.shtml
    and loaded them into matlab, trimmed 64 pixels from the top and checked the
    PSNR of them.

    Between r300-antidetect and nv25-antidetect ~37dB
    Between r300 and nv25 ~31dB

    So I guess you have to set the bar at 37dB, since when antidetect is on for
    each, there is still 37dB PSNR.

    Between r300 and r300-antidetect ~37dB
    Between nv25 and nv25-antidetect ~32dB

    Clearly nVidia is altering the image more - as to whether the images look
    better or worse between ATI and nVidia is still a tough one to call...
    especially as the two antidetect images are not equal.

    Ben
     
    Ben Pope, Nov 12, 2003
    #14
  15. rms

    John Lewis Guest

    Ever been a passive observer of video-card purchasers at Fry's ?

    I have spent a very amusing spare hour or so doing so.

    Quite instructive. Come out of your ivory tower and try it
    yourself.

    John Lewis
     
    John Lewis, Nov 12, 2003
    #15
  16. rms

    phobos Guest

    Heh, which is one reason I never thought of buying 3dmark Pro :)
     
    phobos, Nov 12, 2003
    #16
  17. Ian Carmichael, Nov 13, 2003
    #17
  18. Another knobbing ATI employee. Go suck your nose twat.
     
    Ian Carmichael, Nov 13, 2003
    #18
  19. rms

    Mark Leuck Guest

    Been there and seen that, from what I could tell most bought the card with
    the best looking artwork on the box
     
    Mark Leuck, Nov 13, 2003
    #19
  20. rms

    Ben Pope Guest

    Thats a particularly well-reasoned argument, well done.

    :p

    Ben
     
    Ben Pope, Nov 13, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.