Will Tom's, Anand, [H], etc., run with this story?

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by Sazar
how come you never came up with such detailed work dealing with nvidia's 'optimizations' as you call it ?
because i have realised my understanding of "shuffle instruction" is so different to many others in here, its so interesting i would like to share with you all guys :D
if nvidia brought up such terms, i would probably do the same depending on how people understand it, and of coz people are not gonna believe nvidia if they say "shuffle instructions" :D

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Behemoth
because i have realised my understanding of "shuffle instruction" is so different to many others in here, its so interesting i would like to share with you all guys :D
if nvidia brought up such terms, i would probably do the same depending on how people understand it, and of coz people are not gonna believe nvidia if they say "shuffle instructions" :D

nvidia did not shuffle instructions though :)

btw... how is it possible for futuremark to cheat ?

it is THEIR benchmark... THEY are not an IHV that is running hardware using the software... I have no idea what you mean by futuremark cheat...

further.. ET did not GUESS... they had enough evidence to suggest it was put in place on purpose... ie... code chcked applciation being run and ran optimizations based on that info...

couple of other things.. :D

you read through the futuremark report... they have provided the FILES that nvidia's drivers changed and replaced in order to run the benchmark...

there have been pictures posted on various websites incl this one showing the difference in precision as well in gt4 in the water.. and we have already seen teh sky :)

concerning the optimizations... read up in these forums about what uttar has to say as well as checking the frontpage of www.rage3d.com for sweeny's explanation of shaders and optimizations...

perhaps that will shed some light :)

enjoy..

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Spotch
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:

since kyle came out with the first jabs @ ET and futuremark... it is only fair to say nvidia is taking the same route as kyle don't you think ?

after all nvidia's first word on this has been this week... a few days ago... kyle has been discussing ET's ethics and futuremark's test and its validity far before nvidia decided to release a statement...

ergo.. I am not joking... I am posting with consideration to the precedence established by kyle in this matter considerng 'optimizations and cheats'

[Spotch]

Originally posted by Sazar
since kyle came out with the first jabs @ ET and futuremark... it is only fair to say nvidia is taking the same route as kyle don't you think ?

after all nvidia's first word on this has been this week... a few days ago... kyle has been discussing ET's ethics and futuremark's test and its validity far before nvidia decided to release a statement...

ergo.. I am not joking... I am posting with consideration to the precedence established by kyle in this matter considerng 'optimizations and cheats'

There is a difference between precedence and coincidence. Even assuming Kyle's bed buddy at NVIDIA didn't talk him into posting the reaction on [H], it is still incorrect to say that a multi-billion dollar corporation took the same road as some hack on a website. Besides, I am certain Kyle's mind was made up for him by NVIDIA and he, being an uncouth young lad, recklessly blurted it out like a kid who couldn't wait to tell the whole school about his first lay.

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by Sazar
nvidia did not shuddle instructions though :)

btw... how is it possible for futuremark to cheat ?

it is THEIR benchmark... THEY are not an IHV that is running hardware using the software... I have no idea what you mean by futuremark cheat...

further.. ET did not GUESS... they had enough evidence to suggest it was put in place on purpose... ie... code chcked applciation being run and ran optimizations based on that info...

couple of other things.. :D

you read through the futuremark report... they have provided the FILES that nvidia's drivers changed and replaced in order to run the benchmark...

there have been pictures posted on various websites incl this one showing the difference in precision as well in gt4 in the water.. and we have already seen teh sky :)

concerning the optimizations... read up in these forums about what uttar has to say as well as checking the frontpage of www.rage3d.com for sweeny's explanation of shaders and optimizations...

perhaps that will shed some light :)

enjoy..

i believe futuremark is possible to cheat. but why would futuremark want to cheat? please forgive me i dont want to go over it once again.
thanks for your kind info on the couple of other things. :) i am sure they may change my view on nvidia. :)

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Spotch
There is a difference between precedence and coincidence. Even assuming Kyle's bed buddy at NVIDIA didn't talk him into posting the reaction on [H], it is still incorrect to say that a multi-billion dollar corporation took the same road as some hack on a website. Besides, I am certain Kyle's mind was made up for him by NVIDIA and he, being an uncouth young lad, recklessly blurted it out like a kid who couldn't wait to tell the whole school about his first lay.

it is possible.. no doubt...

my point was not to make out that nvidia and hardocp are bed buddies...

that is your assumption... and I will leave it at that...

my point in the initial post followed from the rest of what I posted... :)

implication was that nvidia has done like kyle in not addressing the issue @ hand but rather pointing out other things that should have no bearing on the matter @ hand...

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Behemoth
i believe futuremark is possible to cheat. but why would futuremark want to cheat? please forgive me i dont want to go over it once again.
thanks for your kind info on the couple of other things. :) i am sure they may change my view on nvidia. :)

yes quite... I still don't have a clue what you mean by futuremark cheating...

they are not testing themselves so what is the cheating you are talking about ?

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by Sazar
yes quite... I still don't have a clue what you mean by futuremark cheating...

they are not testing themselves so what is the cheating you are talking about ?
when things are not proved, i usually dont rule out any possibilty, if i think futuremark is capable of cheating, why not put it on suspect list as well :D

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Behemoth
when things are not proved, i usually dont rule out any possibilty, if i think futuremark is capable of cheating, why not put it on suspect list as well :D

yes.. but in order to put in on the suspect list you need to have some evidence... :)

I STILL can't understand the possible logic you are using to suggest that futuremark is cheating... what are they cheating in and how can they possibly achieve this ?

:)

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by Sazar
yes.. but in order to put in on the suspect list you need to have some evidence... :)

I STILL can't understand the possible logic you are using to suggest that futuremark is cheating... what are they cheating in and how can they possibly achieve this ?

:)
ok, if there aint any evidence to eliminate a particular possibilty i would keep it on suspect list at least for a while just because it is possible hehe :p
now nvidia have been accusing futuremark how unfair 3DMark is, think along this way i dont think its too hard to see why futuremark wouldnt do cheating things in order to give unfair advantage to who they want :D
but i dont want to go over this thing again, i didnt see why its impossible so its possible :)

[StealthHawk]

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;

do a;
if (c == true) {do d;}
else {do e;
do b;
do f;
do g;
do i;
do j;
}
do h;


Are these two things actually functionally and mathematically equivalent? Because they do not do the same thing. Although with your explantion they do have the same output. But to my understanding, have the same output DOES NOT make two things functionally or mathematically equivalent.

Here's what ATI said about their instruction shuffling:
1) it produces the same output as Futuremark's original code.
2) it is functionally equivalent to Futuremark's code.
3) it is mathematically equivalent to Futuremark's code.

To me, that implies that they are not skipping any steps.

What you are proposing is that they are putting a spin on the truth. If that is your opinion, then that is your opinion.

OR, are you actually saying that your code examples are both functionally and mathematically equivalent. If you are saying that, then please provide the basis for what definitions of functional equivalence and mathematical equivalence are.

I mean, for example, if you know the output of something is 4 you could caluclate it one of several ways.

1) 2+2 = 4
2) 2^2 = 4
3) cube root(64) = 4

The output of all 3 methods are the same, but I would not consider any of them to be functionally or mathematically equivalent. Maybe I don't know the definition.

edit: I would also like to throw this quesiton into the air. Suppose your definition of functionally and mathematically equivalent is correct, and that as long as output is always correct, there is equivalence.

You gave some examples of instructions that are bypassed, but because they do not effect the IQ, the output is still the same. That's all nice and good in hypotheticals, but are REAL shader programs like that? Can you really throw out instructions and have them not affect the resulting image?

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Behemoth
i believe futuremark is possible to cheat. but why would futuremark want to cheat? please forgive me i dont want to go over it once again.
thanks for your kind info on the couple of other things. :) i am sure they may change my view on nvidia. :)

Hmm, Sazar posts a link to Sweeney's thoughts on optimization, and you say you will read it.

Are you saying when I posted links to dicussions on the same subject you don't read it :p

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
Hmm, Sazar posts a link to Sweeney's thoughts on optimization, and you say you will read it.

Are you saying when I posted links to dicussions on the same subject you don't read it :p
sorry StealthHawk, i forgot to thank you for your links, dont be mad, i havent read Sazar stuff yet :D
i will read them all :D

[StealthHawk]

Please read this post by CatalystMaker here (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=128465#post128465)

Something very important that he says. The second comment I would like to relate that to is from Tim Sweeney, the lead developer for the UT games. (also found on Beyond3d)

".. any code optimization performed on a function that does not change the resulting value of the function for any argument, is uncontroversially considered a valid optimization. "

That guys is exactly what we did. We optimized the code without changing the end resutl.

Notice that he is quoting Tim Sweeney. Notice that Sweeney says that any function that has the same result as the original for any argument is a valid optimization. Then notice that CatalystMaker says that is exactly what they did.

Now look at your example. It does not have the same output for every argument. If c = false then you are skipping instructions.

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
Are these two things actually functionally and mathematically equivalent? Because they do not do the same thing. Although with your explantion they do have the same output. But to my understanding, have the same output DOES NOT make two things functionally or mathematically equivalent.

Here's what ATI said about their instruction shuffling:
1) it produces the same output as Futuremark's original code.
2) it is functionally equivalent to Futuremark's code.
3) it is mathematically equivalent to Futuremark's code.

To me, that implies that they are not skipping any steps.

What you are proposing is that they are putting a spin on the truth. If that is your opinion, then that is your opinion.

OR, are you actually saying that your code examples are both functionally and mathematically equivalent. If you are saying that, then please provide the basis for what definitions of functional equivalence and mathematical equivalence are.

I mean, for example, if you know the output of something is 4 you could caluclate it one of several ways.

1) 2+2 = 4
2) 2^2 = 4
3) cube root(64) = 4

The output of all 3 methods are the same, but I would not consider any of them to be functionally or mathematically equivalent. Maybe I don't know the definition.
i knew you would question it, i was trying to say both programs were identical only in a particular case.
if i could just re-order some of the order-non-critical instructions to gain 8% performance boost that works in every case, i just got a better implementation of the same program, but now ati wouldnt use a better implementation in next driver because people think its a cheat!?! this is where i cant believe it, ati is unbelievable, ati should have used a better implementation and prove it to the public and say it is a better revised PS2 shader.
but removing it only makes me think it only works on GT4 sky and water, yes they are mathematically, functionally and visually identical to futuremark's, but only on GT4 sky and water.

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
Please read this post by CatalystMaker here (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=128465#post128465)

Something very important that he says.

Notice that he is quoting Tim Sweeney. Notice that Sweeney says that any function that has the same result as the original for any argument is a valid optimization. Then notice that CatalystMaker says that is exactly what they did.

Now look at your example. It does not have the same output for every argument. If c = false then you are skipping instructions.
wow you are correct, the program model of mine is what i think ati is doing, the shaders only work on GT4 sky and water :)

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Behemoth
i knew you would question it, i was trying to say both programs were identical only in a particular case.

Exactly!

They are only the same in a particular case. Now read my post above yours.

CatalystMaker affirms that ATI's optimizations are functionally equivalent, ie, that they are the same in all cases! Unless you think he is lying.

Also, you should note that I edited the post you responded to before you posted a reply. Although I basically went over the same thing(ie, that there are only equivalent in specific situations, not in all situations.).

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Behemoth
wow you are correct, the program model of mine is what i think ati is doing, the shaders only work on GT4 sky and water :)

Well, yes. Because they re-wrote the shader, by shuffling the instructions.

Even though in 3dmark03 the shader program has a specific correct output every time, that does not change the fact that they are using a general algorithm, which hypothetically coudl have different inputs, and thus different outputs.

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
Well, yes. Because they re-wrote the shader, by shuffling the instructions.

Even though in 3dmark03 the shader program has a specific correct output every time, that does not change the fact that they are using a general algorithm, which hypothetically coudl have different inputs, and thus different outputs.
hmm maybe its just me, i cant believe they dont use it just because people think its a cheat when its actually not a cheat. this is just stupid, imo.
edit: and obviously ati have to detect and alter the codes in order to facilitate the optimization, if the catalyst maker wanted it so bad to back out the optimization like he said in your link, its even more unbelievable, since all he has to do is swap the better ordering shaders in next driver, no more driver detection, no more code alteration, it should work in all cases, hence its very hard not to think they are mathematically functionally visually identical on GT4 sky and water only.

[Behemoth]

lets investigate further on your example:

1) 2+2=4
2) 2^2=4


assume operation ^ is PS2 shader
assume operation + is IHV siturational shader
assume both integers on the left side are inputs.
assume the integer on right side is output.

futuremark is testing PS2 shader performance of a video card, since the driver maker knows in this particular case, with input 2,2, both shaders are mathematically functional outputly identical, if the driver maker substitute a IHV siturational shader +, do you think it is a cheat?

[Behemoth]

here comes another contender:

3) 2?2=3.7(oops)

this stupid video card driver maker think 3.7 and 4 is around the same, hence he swaps in his IHV specific shader "?" too, just for speed, now even a dog will say this is cheating :D

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Behemoth
here comes another contender:

3) 2?2=3.7(oops)

this stupid video card driver maker think 3.7 and 4 is around the same, hence he swaps in his IHV specific shader "?" too, just for speed, now even a dog will say this is cheating :D

again... why were you not so vocal and imaginative when it came to nvidia's obvious and deliberate cheats ?

[Spotch]

Originally posted by Behemoth
here comes another contender:

3) 2?2=3.7(oops)

this stupid video card driver maker think 3.7 and 4 is around the same, hence he swaps in his IHV specific shader "?" too, just for speed, now even a dog will say this is cheating :D

Now what are you saying? That we shouldn't allow optimizations on anything incase the driver team makes a mistake and unconsciously changes the output? And furthermore your labeling such a situation as a cheat? You must be drunk! This example along with your entire argument is undeveloped and chaotic.

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by Sazar
again... why were you not so vocal and imaginative when it came to nvidia's obvious and deliberate cheats ?
hey i didnt say that was nvidia :D
whats wrong with discussing things from all angles :D

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Behemoth
hey i didnt say that was nvidia :D
whats wrong with discussing things from all angles :D

whats wrong is you are quick to dismiss hard evidence on one side while putting forth flimsy logic to support an argument which is based on far less solid footing on the other side...