View Full Version : Will Tom's, Anand, [H], etc., run with this story?
Originally posted by Uttar
Your understanding of shuffle instruction is not correct.
The tradtional ( read: NV20, NV25, NV30, ... ) architectures work on Vec4s. The R300 works on Vec3s and on Scalars at the same time.
This results in improved performance if you can run both of them in parallel.
All they're doing is saying "Do this before that instead of after that" - nothing more. This will result in no IQ difference, and the shader will still work in all cases.
IMO, this is a perfectly valid optimization, and ATI is really only removing it to make sure people who don't know what they're talking about don't spread BS about them cheating.
Uttar OMFG I love you Uttar!....that was the most brilliant, perfect explanation of the ATi situation I've ever seen written.
Behemoth
05-25-03, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Uttar
Your understanding of shuffle instruction is not correct.
The tradtional ( read: NV20, NV25, NV30, ... ) architectures work on Vec4s. The R300 works on Vec3s and on Scalars at the same time.
This results in improved performance if you can run both of them in parallel.
All they're doing is saying "Do this before that instead of after that" - nothing more. This will result in no IQ difference, and the shader will still work in all cases.
IMO, this is a perfectly valid optimization, and ATI is really only removing it to make sure people who don't know what they're talking about don't spread BS about them cheating.
Uttar
i dont believe it works without external pre-calculation but if what you said was true, i really think ati is stupid not using 8% more performance boost just because people THINK its a cheat, ati could just prove that it was not a cheat by using it properly without doing driver detection and code alteration in next driver.
to me, removing it does not make it more innocent than proving it to be a valid optimization.
but thanks for you view, i just cant believe it. if its valid why remove it? i just cant get it, sorry.
Behemoth
05-25-03, 05:48 AM
by the way if its not too much a trouble can you tell me what exactly did ati shuffle?
StealthHawk
05-25-03, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Behemoth
but thanks for you view, i just cant believe it. if its valid why remove it? i just cant get it, sorry.
Is it really that hard for you to believe it? That's pretty cynical, especially why you wouldn't believe nvidia was cheating when the clipping planes came to light.
Why the reversal? You said you didn't want to believe that nvidia was cheating without "hard evidence." But you are quick to believe that ATI is cheating? Without any evidence? And now we know that nvidia was employing a multitude of cheats....ATI has only been implicated in GT4, as far as we know it was only the shader re-ordering.
nvidia was lowering IQ, ATI was not (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6042).
As for reasons why they would remove it, isn't that simple?
1) They took a lot of flak over the Quack "cheats." <- Yes, I still think that was a cheat. Anyway, it tarnished their reputation. Removing something questionable shows that ATI has integrity.
2) Implicit comparison with nvidia. ATI owns up to what they did, nvidia won't comment on their cheats or admit they were cheating. This makes ATI look like a more honest company.
Sean P.
05-25-03, 01:18 PM
Wow.....I leave for a week and come back to find the whole world turned upside-down...
The events we've witnessed over the past week are certainly a cause for concern. Given the severity of the accusations and implications we have seen, it is far too easy to make a quick judgement on this matter. However, I believe that we should take a step back and wait until we have all the information before we make up our minds entirely. Should the final collection of information prove NVIDIA to be in the wrong, you can be sure that a flame-fest is warranted and justified.
Don't get me wrong...right now I tend to believe that NVIDIA was caught in the act of cheating. However, since we do not know all the details from BOTH sides, this initial impression cannot be solidified into a final opinion. Though I have not had the opportunity to speak with Kyle on this matter, I tend to believe that he feels the same way. As a result, ( I believe ) he is waiting to speak fully on the matter until all the information is given to him.
For one reason or another, people seem quick to tackle Kyle for not jumping on this matter. Though we may or may not agree with his approach on this matter, I think that he deserves the benefit of the doubt here. HardOCP readers come to our website for the cold [H]ard truth...with all the PR bull**** cast to the side. Kyle has run [H] that way from the start and I don't think he is planning on changing that anytime soon...
In the end, let's trust Kyle ( and the rest of the media ) to do the right thing...Wait for all the information before making your mind up and let's see what happens in the coming weeks...
If anyone has any direct questions they would like to ask me, please email me...
pelly@hardocp.com
Have a good one guys...
DivotMaker
05-25-03, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Sean P.
Don't get me wrong...right now I tend to believe that NVIDIA was caught in the act of cheating. However, since we do not know all the details from BOTH sides, this initial impression cannot be solidified into a final opinion. Though I have not had the opportunity to speak with Kyle on this matter, I tend to believe that he feels the same way. As a result, ( I believe ) he is waiting to speak fully on the matter until all the information is given to him.
I think you make some reasonable assumptions.
One question that hasn't been asked, or at least I have not seen it asked.
Are the Detonator 44.03 drivers going to be the shipping drivers for FX 5900 U and other 5900 cards? The reason I ask is, nVidia just announced the NV35 and all the "reviews" have been "previews" of potentially shipping product. So far, I don't believe nVidia has provided retail boards/drivers for "review".
I do realize that the 44.03's are WHQL and have been posted for use. The fact that they do what they do in 3D Mark 2003 is well documented. I don't agree with the way the 44.03's or prior FX drivers perform while running the 2003 benchmark.
Could it be that nVidia is just not up to speed with their shader operations/drivers? I don't know, but it seems to be a weakness up to this point in the NV30+ series and I am just wondering if it is indeed hardware-related or driver-related.
Could this also be the beginning of a new API like Glide for 3dfx? Could Cg be the next Glide and is this the reason that nVidia is not up to speed with shader performance in 3D Mark?
I certainly do not have the answers, but I have a hard time accepting nVidia's current position. They are awfully quiet and I don't feel we have heard the whole story yet.
Food for thought...
Behemoth
05-25-03, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
Is it really that hard for you to believe it? That's pretty cynical, especially why you wouldn't believe nvidia was cheating when the clipping planes came to light.
Why the reversal? You said you didn't want to believe that nvidia was cheating without "hard evidence." But you are quick to believe that ATI is cheating? Without any evidence? And now we know that nvidia was employing a multitude of cheats....ATI has only been implicated in GT4, as far as we know it was only the shader re-ordering.
nvidia was lowering IQ, ATI was not (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6042).
As for reasons why they would remove it, isn't that simple?
1) They took a lot of flak over the Quack "cheats." <- Yes, I still think that was a cheat. Anyway, it tarnished their reputation. Removing something questionable shows that ATI has integrity.
2) Implicit comparison with nvidia. ATI owns up to what they did, nvidia won't comment on their cheats or admit they were cheating. This makes ATI look like a more honest company.
yes it is hard to believe.
i didnt say there was no chance nvidia was cheating, i even said in one post that the clipping plane issue was possibly nvidia cheat.
now futuremark caught ati doing driver detection and code alteration, and ati have admitted they did shuffle the instructions, these are hard evidences, they say much more than just a few screenshots and a guess in ET site, nvidia didnt admit anything, fureturemark did not provide any evidences, so i dont think it is cynical, a few corrupted screenshots plus a guess means very different to me than an ati confession plus futuremark evidences.
and yes i didnt believe a few screenshots plus a guess were evident enough to prove nvidia cheating.
i am sorry, i cant really understand how stop doing a suspicious cheat again makes a company more honest than just to prove it was a valid optimization. when people think its a cheat, ati appease them by not doing it again? does that mean ati agreed with people that it was a cheat? or cheat once in a while is ok, forgive-able?
as for gaining speed by shuffling instructions, i can only think they have changed the flow of control that results in skipping part of shader codes and workload that is irrelevant to GT4 sky and water. of coz this is just my guess.
Hanners
05-25-03, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Sean P.
Don't get me wrong...right now I tend to believe that NVIDIA was caught in the act of cheating. However, since we do not know all the details from BOTH sides, this initial impression cannot be solidified into a final opinion. Though I have not had the opportunity to speak with Kyle on this matter, I tend to believe that he feels the same way. As a result, ( I believe ) he is waiting to speak fully on the matter until all the information is given to him.
For one reason or another, people seem quick to tackle Kyle for not jumping on this matter. Though we may or may not agree with his approach on this matter, I think that he deserves the benefit of the doubt here. HardOCP readers come to our website for the cold [H]ard truth...with all the PR bull**** cast to the side. Kyle has run [H] that way from the start and I don't think he is planning on changing that anytime soon...
With all due respect, I'm not sure what further evidence you are expecting to see in the next week or two. It's not going to get any more clear-cut than this.
Sean P.
05-25-03, 02:25 PM
I think NVIDIA will respond with some sort of technical information to try and prove their case...What we've heard so far is a quick response...I'd imagine a more thorough and formal response will be coming sometime this week...
Once we have this information, we can look at both sides and then make our final decisions...
Hanners
05-25-03, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Sean P.
I think NVIDIA will respond with some sort of technical information to try and prove their case...What we've heard so far is a quick response...I'd imagine a more thorough and formal response will be coming sometime this week...
Once we have this information, we can look at both sides and then make our final decisions...
I hope you're right, but I get a nasty feeling all we'll be seeing is another attempt to discredit FutureMark, possibly disguised as a technical document. :(
ClyssaN
05-25-03, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Sean P.
Though I have not had the opportunity to speak with Kyle on this matter, I tend to believe that he feels the same way. As a result, ( I believe ) he is waiting to speak fully on the matter until all the information is given to him.
For one reason or another, people seem quick to tackle Kyle for not jumping on this matter. Though we may or may not agree with his approach on this matter, I think that he deserves the benefit of the doubt here.
Like kyle give the benefit of the doubt to ET ?! He sure didn't wait a single minute before attacking them ...
I really like your reviews (and of course Brent reviews ) at HardOCP but your boss has been far from imparcial on this matter.
digitalwanderer
05-25-03, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Sean P.
I think NVIDIA will respond with some sort of technical information to try and prove their case...What we've heard so far is a quick response...I'd imagine a more thorough and formal response will be coming sometime this week...
Once we have this information, we can look at both sides and then make our final decisions...
Pelly, how many more "give 'em a chance fellas!" do you seriously expect us to give to nVidia when their attitude seems to be so freakingly blatant BS denial?
No offense Pelly as I respect you quite a bit, but how long do you give nVidia to respond? I really don't feel it should be up to them for when we should be able to render a judgement if they ain't gonna step up to the plate and talk about it.
They had quite a bit of time to address it before Futuremark came out with their findings, yet they didn't.
They could have addressed it Friday when this broke in a much more professional and realistic manner, rather than "Futuremark is being mean to us!" :mad:
They are all out of time come Tuesday morning Pelly, there is no excuse for them to not have addressed this yet. Holiday or no, this is company killing stuff here! :eek:
Behemoth
05-25-03, 03:30 PM
this is one way of shuffling instructions that manually reduces workload:
original program:
do a;
do b;
if (c == true) {do d;}
else { do e;}
do f;
do g;
do h;
do i;
do j;
by studying the scene, c is always true, instructions other than a,d,h have no visual effect in this scene, let me make a faster version of a mathematically functionally visually identical program of above by "shuffle instructions":
do a;
if (c == true) {do d;}
else {do e;
do b;
do f;
do g;
do i;
do j;
}
do h;
original program does 8 instructions and 1 comparison per pass.
my mathematically functionally visually identical program does only 3 instructions and 1 comparison per pass. what an optimization!
shuffle instructions can be very cheaty imho :D
p.s. if my post offend you in any way, i am sorry, i am just here to share my point of view :)
DivotMaker
05-25-03, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
They are all out of time come Tuesday morning Pelly, there is no excuse for them to not have addressed this yet. Holiday or no, this is company killing stuff here! :eek:
All out of time by Tuesday morning? I think someone is being just a tad over-dramatic. I do agree they need to respond and the response needs to make sense and it needs to come pretty soon. But hand-wringing, teeth-gnashing Bad nVidia, Bad responses on forums aren't going to get us or nVidia there any faster. Face it, there is not a thing you, I, or anyone here can do about this other than nVidia.
I happen to feel strongly that there is a whole helluva lot more to this story than a solitary response from an anonymous nVidia employee...we'll see...hopefully soon....
digitalwanderer
05-25-03, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by BigBerthaEA
I happen to feel strongly that there is a whole helluva lot more to this story than a solitary response from an anonymous nVidia employee...we'll see...hopefully soon....
I just keep thinking that I wish nVidia would take this problem half as seriously as the rest of the world seems to, they really disapoint me by not treating this with the seriousness it is due.
So I mock 'em, nuts to ya if'n you don't like it...I hope they don't either. :p
DivotMaker
05-25-03, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
So I mock 'em, nuts to ya if'n you don't like it...I hope they don't either. :p
Sorry, but I highly doubt they are real concerned with what you or I have to say about them.
I am sure they will respond when they are ready....not when you or any of us tell them.
And as far as your constant derision of nVidia and anyone who remotely supports them, you aren't impressing anyone. Tell me what good that does for ANY discussion on ANY of these boards? :rolleyes:
digitalwanderer
05-25-03, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by BigBerthaEA
Sorry, but I highly doubt they are real concerned with what you or I have to say about them.
I am sure they will respond when they are ready....not when you or any of us tell them.
And as far as your constant derision of nVidia and anyone who remotely supports them, you aren't impressing anyone. I am not calling you a troll, but you sure seem to exhibit very troll-like responses. Tell me what good that does for ANY discussion on ANY of these boards? :rolleyes:
I disagree, I think they ARE worried about their image and I think it does drive 'em nuts to have to read the drivel I've been putting out. I think they know they're wrong and they're hoping it blows over and everytime they read someone ranting/mocking/informing about what they're doing I think it drives 'em a bit bonkers especially since they apparently CAN'T respond publically to any of it or they'll have to publically respond to ALL of it. :lol:
So I mock, scorn, and inform. It's how I get me jollies, don't read it if you don't like it.
DivotMaker
05-25-03, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
So I mock, scorn, and inform. It's how I get me jollies, don't read it if you don't like it.
Mock and scorn, yes. 2 out of three ain't bad. Being as I have been a target of your misinformation earlier, I can't exactly ignore what you post here.
Someone is certainly consumed with self-importance...
digitalwanderer
05-25-03, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by BigBerthaEA
Someone is certainly consumed with self-importance...
Yeah I know, that's why I poke fun at ya! :p
DivotMaker
05-25-03, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Yeah I know, that's why I poke fun at ya! :p
You confuse me with one who cares....
Originally posted by Sean P.
Wow.....I leave for a week and come back to find the whole world turned upside-down...
The events we've witnessed over the past week are certainly a cause for concern. Given the severity of the accusations and implications we have seen, it is far too easy to make a quick judgement on this matter. However, I believe that we should take a step back and wait until we have all the information before we make up our minds entirely. Should the final collection of information prove NVIDIA to be in the wrong, you can be sure that a flame-fest is warranted and justified.
Don't get me wrong...right now I tend to believe that NVIDIA was caught in the act of cheating. However, since we do not know all the details from BOTH sides, this initial impression cannot be solidified into a final opinion. Though I have not had the opportunity to speak with Kyle on this matter, I tend to believe that he feels the same way. As a result, ( I believe ) he is waiting to speak fully on the matter until all the information is given to him.
For one reason or another, people seem quick to tackle Kyle for not jumping on this matter. Though we may or may not agree with his approach on this matter, I think that he deserves the benefit of the doubt here. HardOCP readers come to our website for the cold [H]ard truth...with all the PR bull**** cast to the side. Kyle has run [H] that way from the start and I don't think he is planning on changing that anytime soon...
In the end, let's trust Kyle ( and the rest of the media ) to do the right thing...Wait for all the information before making your mind up and let's see what happens in the coming weeks...
If anyone has any direct questions they would like to ask me, please email me...
pelly@hardocp.com
Have a good one guys...
nice response sean...
here's my thing with kyle though...
fair enough if he is not aware of the situation.. he can reserve judgement on nvidia's side of matters...
but... the speed with which he attacked (and I would consider it an attack purely based on the terminology used) ET and the fact that he practically dismissed the document put forth by futuremark is not really a sign of an un-biased 'journalist'
seeing the way he reported the quake issue even with the evidence @ hand and the handling of this matter... it is very apparent there appear to be different standards... whether it is because of bias to a particular IHV or whether it has anything to do with his rather apparent dislike for 3dmarko03 (and therefore perhaps futuremark ? ) I can't say...
but the fact of the matter is we have evidence of something going on... which when disabled renders a product in a not so attractive light... and instead of making ANY comments on this... kyle is making rather thinly veiled accusations at the people reporting this matter rather than discussing anything related to nvidia's side of things... ie how these optimizations affect us...
whether kyle likes 3dmark03 or not is NOT in question... nvidia's use of 'optimizations' is... and yes... while kyle does have a distinct style of reporting... it is disturbing to see the way he has handled this matter...
fair enough... if more info is required... so be it... kyle could have taken the high road and done like anandtech and toms and NOT implicated himself in this matter in the manner he has...
comments made about kyle are based on HIS actions thus far... and are not based on rumours or innuendo... they are based on cross-referencing what we.. the consumers... are seeing on various sites/the futuremark .pdf/independent testers
I am willing to wait to see what happens... I have no problems with that... I just wish kyle had decided to do the same...
ergo... I will 'trust' kyle perhaps when I see what he has to say on the full matter and to see if he manages to do this without throwing out petty and utterly useless accusations concerning other sites and benchmark devs...
-edit- btw nvidia has taken the same route as kyle in attacking futuremark and implying ati's connection rather than taking anytime whatsoever to address the fact that their drivers have been shown to be acting improperly in a benchmark...
StealthHawk
05-25-03, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Behemoth
yes it is hard to believe.
i didnt say there was no chance nvidia was cheating, i even said in one post that the clipping plane issue was possibly nvidia cheat.
No, you said we should wait for official word from nvidia before condemning them. We have official word from one company on what they did, and it's not nvidia. And ATI never said they were cheating. CatalystMaker said it was an OPTIMIZATION, and he was against removing it because he felt it was valid.
now futuremark caught ati doing driver detection and code alteration, and ati have admitted they did shuffle the instructions, these are hard evidences, they say much more than just a few screenshots and a guess in ET site, nvidia didnt admit anything, fureturemark did not provide any evidences, so i dont think it is cynical, a few corrupted screenshots plus a guess means very different to me than an ati confession plus futuremark evidences.
and yes i didnt believe a few screenshots plus a guess were evident enough to prove nvidia cheating.
What guess? Did you even read the .pdf audit from Futuremark? They said that they DETECTED nvidia's shader programs, and they tell you where each shader program was found.
What Futuremark evidence against ATI? There is NONE. No claims, no screenshots, NOTHING. They said ATI lost 8% in GT4 and they would investigate further. They did not accuse ATI of doing anything. ATI are the ones who said they changed a shader.
i am sorry, i cant really understand how stop doing a suspicious cheat again makes a company more honest than just to prove it was a valid optimization. when people think its a cheat, ati appease them by not doing it again? does that mean ati agreed with people that it was a cheat? or cheat once in a while is ok, forgive-able?
How would they prove it's a valid optimization? By showing you their code compared to the original code? Is that even legal? Can they show you Futuremark's original code legally?
as for gaining speed by shuffling instructions, i can only think they have changed the flow of control that results in skipping part of shader codes and workload that is irrelevant to GT4 sky and water. of coz this is just my guess.
So you don't want to believe the guess of ET, B3D, or Futuremark, but we're supposed to believe your guess....show me the logic. Your guess is based on what observations or evidence?
Originally posted by Behemoth
this is one way of shuffling instructions that manually reduces workload:
original program:
do a;
do b;
if (c == true) {do d;}
else { do e;}
do f;
do g;
do h;
do i;
do j;
by studying the scene, c is always true, instructions other than a,d,h have no visual effect in this scene, let me make a faster version of a mathematically functionally visually identical program of above by "shuffle instructions":
do a;
if (c == true) {do d;}
else {do e;
do b;
do f;
do g;
do i;
do j;
}
do h;
original program does 8 instructions and 1 comparison per pass.
my mathematically functionally visually identical program does only 3 instructions and 1 comparison per pass. what an optimization!
shuffle instructions can be very cheaty imho :D
p.s. if my post offend you in any way, i am sorry, i am just here to share my point of view :)
how come you never came up with such detailed work dealing with nvidia's 'optimizations' as you call it ?
Originally posted by Sazar
nice response sean...
here's my thing with kyle though...
fair enough if he is not aware of the situation.. he can reserve judgement on nvidia's side of matters...
but... the speed with which he attacked (and I would consider it an attack purely based on the terminology used) ET and the fact that he practically dismissed the document put forth by futuremark is not really a sign of an un-biased 'journalist'
seeing the way he reported the quake issue even with the evidence @ hand and the handling of this matter... it is very apparent there appear to be different standards... whether it is because of bias to a particular IHV or whether it has anything to do with his rather apparent dislike for 3dmarko03 (and therefore perhaps futuremark ? ) I can't say...
but the fact of the matter is we have evidence of something going on... which when disabled renders a product in a not so attractive light... and instead of making ANY comments on this... kyle is making rather thinly veiled accusations at the people reporting this matter rather than discussing anything related to nvidia's side of things... ie how these optimizations affect us...
whether kyle likes 3dmark03 or not is NOT in question... nvidia's use of 'optimizations' is... and yes... while kyle does have a distinct style of reporting... it is disturbing to see the way he has handled this matter...
fair enough... if more info is required... so be it... kyle could have taken the high road and done like anandtech and toms and NOT implicated himself in this matter in the manner he has...
comments made about kyle are based on HIS actions thus far... and are not based on rumours or innuendo... they are based on cross-referencing what we.. the consumers... are seeing on various sites/the futuremark .pdf/independent testers
I am willing to wait to see what happens... I have no problems with that... I just wish kyle had decided to do the same...
ergo... I will 'trust' kyle perhaps when I see what he has to say on the full matter and to see if he manages to do this without throwing out petty and utterly useless accusations concerning other sites and benchmark devs...
-edit- btw nvidia has taken the same route as kyle in attacking futuremark and implying ati's connection rather than taking anytime whatsoever to address the fact that their drivers have been shown to be acting improperly in a benchmark...
NVIDIA has taken the same route as Kyle? Your joking right? Kyle has NV's cork up his sellout arse and thats the fact jack. I wouldn't be surprised if they put him up to his original Futuremark attack with promises of gold and jewels. (And more special Doom 3 like benchmarks) He is in this for the money... he is no longer a journalist, he is a billboard with NV Biach stamped on his forehead! But thats just my opinion, yours may differ.
:jammin:
Behemoth
05-26-03, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
No, you said we should wait for official word from nvidia before condemning them. We have official word from one company on what they did, and it's not nvidia. And ATI never said they were cheating. CatalystMaker said it was an OPTIMIZATION, and he was against removing it because he felt it was valid.
ok you didnt even believe what i said, here is the quote:
possibly bug.
possibly nvidia cheat.
possibly futuremark cheat.
its on page 8 near the bottom in a thread called my thoughts on "optimization" in this forum. i would wait to see it proved, i didnt rule out the nvidia cheating possibllity as welll.
Ati never said they were cheating, but nvidia was even better, nvidia said nothing!!! but ati admitted they "shuffle instructions" which alone looks cheaty enough to me already. at the time i said i would wait to see more nvidia evidences, i didnt know there was official word from any company on what nvidia did.
What guess? Did you even read the .pdf audit from Futuremark? They said that they DETECTED nvidia's shader programs, and they tell you where each shader program was found.
the guess refered to ET guessed clip planes were manually inserted.
What Futuremark evidence against ATI? There is NONE. No claims, no screenshots, NOTHING. They said ATI lost 8% in GT4 and they would investigate further. They did not accuse ATI of doing anything. ATI are the ones who said they changed a shader.
ok if you dont like them to be called evidences, lets call them whatever you like, however i believe what futuremark said about ati on 2 things.
1. "the test was also detected"
2. "and somehow altered by the drivers"
both on page 4 of futuremark audit report, actually they are one sentence but they tell me 2 things.
these are what i would consider as much better evidences than a few screenshots plus a guess, whether they should be called evidences or not that is not important to me, i only know they are much better than a few screenshots plus a guess.
and again, ati even admitted they "shuffle instructions", this plus futuremark's 2 points, maybe its just me, are much more different than a few screenshots and a guess.
How would they prove it's a valid optimization? By showing you their code compared to the original code? Is that even legal? Can they show you Futuremark's original code legally?
i dont know how would they prove it, but if they incorporate the so called questionable but valid optimization properly in their next driver, and the performance wont drop 8% without doing driver detection and codes alteration, its already enough a proof to me.
So you don't want to believe the guess of ET, B3D, or Futuremark, but we're supposed to believe your guess....show me the logic. Your guess is based on what observations or evidence?
i believe ET,B3D,Futuremark to some extent.
i have already showed you my logic, observations and evidences, believe what you will, i am just sharing my point of view. :)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.