Digit-Life: More on the Dishonest Treatment of the 3DMark 2003

[surfhurleydude]

tertsi, I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of those shots... I can see the stars in the GF FX shot, but not in the Radeon 9700 shot... I'm guessing that means the GF FX has better ansio since it renders further? But the colors I just don't understand...Why is it pink and yellow in some places with the GF FX and then blue with the Radeon???

[Hanners]

Originally posted by surfhurleydude
tertsi, I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of those shots...

Me too, they're messy to say the least, they don't really show anything useful that I can see.

[phye2002]

what is it about companies the inspire loyalty? In the past it's been customer support, features, performance, and bundle.....I don'd know how anyone can stand behind Nvidia, who promotes cheating as a way to compete for second place. Don't worry about me being a fanATIc. I'm pissed off at them too. If both companies cheat in benchmarks, where is the determining guide to which card is better suited to my needs? There isn't one. And untill a company or group steps forward and calls foul against all offenders there will be no fair benchmarks. For all of you that blindly think buying into this argument that it's ok to cheat, I hope that you live long and health lives, and are happy with your ideals.....because you will be perpetually in the dark.

[tertsi]

surfhurleydude: colors corresponds mipmaplevels quality in UT2003.

Read this topic (from Beyond3d forum) (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6719) and then take a closer look again at my screenies (note the "blue" wall)

There is zip also ( download (http://www.skenegroup.net/ut2003/af8x.zip) ).

[extreme_dB]

Rather than evaluating the cheats themselves, we're justifying them by cheering about how the other company is cheating just as much. Way to defend the corporations against consumers! :mad:

[Ghola]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by surfhurleydude
[B]I love ATi fanboys and their selective quoting....

:spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam:

[Nv40]

well i finished reading the whole article... :)

its excelent.. wow! good job Digitlife... here is a quote that sums well everything in the article ..

Let's sum up the results of the 3DMark03. It's clear that NVIDIA prefers to camouflage the speed drops in the shader operation using certain tricks that boost the speed in the shader tests. The 3DMark03 is the most popular for today. But ATI is not only keeping pace in using such cheats but also lies by promising to remove them. Moreover, the RADEON 9800 stands farther from the reference than the FX5900 in the Game4. There is no doubt that the methods that let spend less resources on one or another mathematical function should be welcome. And if the guys at FutureMark do certain things imperfectly, and NVIDIA offers a simple and more optimal way, that is good. But in this case there is another rule that everyone must stick to: a program must work as originally planned (though I wish the developers showed what must be in the end). It's unfair to replace key commands in favor of one or another video card. We thus measure not the video cards performance but smartness of programmers.

and i will change the end by this.. "but the smartness of Futuremark programmers".because i have no problems with smart optimizations that increase performance without any drop in IQ.

the article could be even better in my opinion if they replaced the word cheat by optimizations. because we dont know exactly what ANti-detector is desactivating if legal optimizations or cheats. neither we know is antidetector is equally efective on ATI or NVidia drivers.because even the programmer UNWINDER told that he was unable to block some aplication detection from ATI drivers ,but that are there. so i think that unless ANti-detector do the same JOb in both cards ,or that we can clearly know what it is desactivating ,it should never be taken as the -ultimate Proof -of cheating.but more as a reference when ATI and NVidia detect aplications and compare the IQ diferences if there are any. even FUturemark patch 330 (the ones that FM says put everything right on track) and the detonators 4403 drivers doesnt look 100% exactly as the reference rasterizer images. so things are even more complicated because FM is not doing well their job.


The problem is deeply studied. In short, today all testers actually measure a degree of smartness of the guys at ATI and NVIDIA as well as of FutureMark instead of estimating cards' performance in the 3DMark. FM turned out to be a prostitute between these two majors. If it's so simple to replace shaders and the developers keep silence, what can we call it yet? That concerns 3DMark2001. Strangely enough but they started protesting against cheats only in the 3DMark03. At the same time it turned out that NVIDIA wasn't a beta tester anymore as the company didn't want to pay through the nose every year.


so even Futuremark in being critizised here.
the image comparisons between ATI and NVidia and the references shots looks exactly as the references images ,even at 400% zoom shots. the diferences are only noticeable when analizing the images at the ultra-microscopic level with the DIrecX9 references images,with photoshop . :rolleyes:

however what was a surprise to me is that in PS2.0 test and in game4 with or without optimizations the IQ of detonators 44.61 was even closest one -very close-to the directx9 references shots.what will be the ATI explantions now? that directx9 reference shots are not reliable :)

lest give up with 3dmarks ,enjoy it better as a demo,and compare better the performance in games. :D

[extreme_dB]

NV40, you should read the thread at beyond3d about that article. They raise some very good points. For instance, the reference image is not valid for pixel comparisons across different rendering methods of different architectures. Moreover, the difference between the reference image and an IHV's output can be caused by varying precisions. The CPU has been suggested to be using lower precision.

The style of the article was very unprofessional and sensationalist.

Another edit: If it turned out that ATI's lack of 32FPP caused the difference, then that's not cheating, just a drawback of the architecture.

[Nv40]

Originally posted by extreme_dB
NV40, you should read the thread at beyond3d about that article. They raise some very good points. For instance, the reference image is not valid for pixel comparisons across different rendering methods of different architectures. Moreover, the difference between the reference image and an IHV's output can be caused by varying precisions. Even the CPU can be using lower precision.

The style of the article was very unprofessional and sensationalist.

its quite Ironic isnt it?

that now the Reference SHots are not reliable ,but they were in the past used to demostrate that Nvidia was lowering the IQ. :)

[The Baron]

Sigh.

Difference between not using trilinear and the different floating point implementations.

[extreme_dB]

Originally posted by Nv40
its quite Ironic isnt it?

that now the Reference SHots are not reliable ,but they were in the past used to demostrate that Nvidia was lowering the IQ. :)


They are only valid for demonstrating the difference between driver versions on one architecture. Nvidia's drivers are regularly showing changes in the way the images are rendered, while ATI's stay the same.

[Nv40]

Originally posted by extreme_dB
They are only valid for demonstrating the difference between driver versions on one architecture. Nvidia's drivers are regularly showing changes in the way the images are rendered, while ATI's stay the same.


it is expected to be a ->change ,if new drivers fix almost old IQ diferences compared with the references shots. dont you think?

[StealthHawk]

Jesus, did some of you people even *read* the Digit-Life article? There is multiple evidence that nvidia is cheating in 3dmark03 with 44.65. There is zero evidence provided that ATI is still cheating.

Remember how we used to look at screenshots of 3dmark03 GT4 and compare ATI shots, and nvidia shots? Remember how nvidia shots always had the water and tree leaves in different places? Remember how with newer drivers the leaf positions changed again? I thought it was made abundantly clear by the time Unwinder exposed the 3dmark2001 cheats that the difference in IQ was caused by the drivers monkeying around with the shader programs. You can see that 44.03(shader optimizations disabled in 330 patch) and 44.65(new shader optimizations?) show differences in screenshots stock, without any anti-detection patch being used. Meanwhile, ATI drivers render the same image, and we already have benchmarks with the anti-detection script that show that 3dmark03 is cheat free with ATI drivers. Give it a rest already people.

[Nv40]

yes SH.. i have read the Digilife article , but seems you not..
you are saying ATI is inocent but digitlife say the opposite.
not in 3dmark2003,not in 3dmark2001. neither Nvidia.
if you take Digitlife 3dmark2003/2001/anti-detector reports as evidence ,then you need to take all their evidence ,and all their conclusions ,not only the ones that you like. you are just justifing one company according to your opinions which company cheats more or not. :rolleyes:

[extreme_dB]

Originally posted by Nv40
it is expected to be a ->change ,if new drivers fix almost old IQ diferences compared with the references shots. dont you think?

Evidence of pixel differences does not mean cheating in and of itself. Other aspects have to be examined for proper analysis.

I totally disagree with your praise of the article because it makes conclusions based on incomplete data, and fails to understand the findings.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Nv40
yes SH.. i have read the Digilife article , but seems you not..
you are saying ATI is inocent but digitlife say the opposite.
if you need another quote for the article just ask.

Like I said, they provided zero evidence that ATI is cheating. They did not quantify whatsoever that ATI was indeed cheating.

Unwinder has said multiple times that his anti-detection script catches ALL application specific optimizations. 3dmark03 has been tested with ATI cards and the scores are the same. Therefore, there are no application specific cheats for 3dmark03 present when running 3dmark03 330. Digit-Life's assumptions and conclusions are 100% baseless.

[Nv40]

Originally posted by extreme_dB
Evidence of pixel differences does not mean cheating in and of itself. Other aspects have to be examined for proper analysis.

indeed..
you will find that i have already said ,that the diferences between antidetector/referenceshots/ATI or NVidia not necessarily means cheats.
specially when we dont know exactly what is desactivating the antidetector,neither we know how effective is detecting ati and nvidia drivers. each one use diferent mechanism of protection.


I totally disagree with your praise of the article because it makes conclusions based on incomplete data, and fails to understand the findings.

well ,feel free to disagree then. its your opinion vs my opinion. vs other opinions.the UNwinder programmer ,the anti-detector programmer have accused not only One company both Two companies,Digitlife too of "optimizing". funny how Futuremark have also done that too.coincidence?
i found very informative the 3dmark 2003 and the 3dmark2001 reports with the IQ comparisons. with optimizations or without optimizations the IQ in detonators 44.61 is a good step in the right direction. whether optimizing shaders are valid or not in that benchmark is a diferent story .so probably Digitlife is right an ATI and NVidia are "optimizing" or probably not. only FutureMark can clarify that.its their benchmark and they set the rules. but taking only one side of the report (as others have done) that doesnt look good to company A and ignoring the other side of the information that doesnt look good to company B, is simply not being honest with yourself.

[extreme_dB]

Originally posted by Nv40
so probably Digitlife is right an ATI and NVidia are "optimizing" or probably not. only FM can clarify that.

So whether they're right or not, they can bash a company even if they didn't manage to prove that it did anything wrong?

That article is totally biased towards Nvidia because they not only put both companies on equal footing with regards to cheating in 3dmark, but they say ATI goes further by lying about its promises!

In addition, the degree of cheating is very significant. A cheat is not just a cheat. To illustrate, a product that falsely claims double the performance would be a much bigger ripoff than a product that claims a 1% increase. That's just an extreme example, not representing Nvidia and ATI. :)

[John Reynolds]

Originally posted by Nv40
well ,feel free to disagree then. its your opinion vs my opinion. vs other opinions.the UNwinder programmer ,the anti-detector programmer have accused not only One company both Two companies. of "optimizing". funny how FM have also done that too. i found very informative the 3dmark 2003 and the 3dmark2001 report with the IQ comparisons. with optimizations or without optimizations the IQ in detonators 44.61 is a good step in the right direction. whether optimizing shaders are valid or not in that benchmark is a diferent story .so probably Digitlife is right an ATI and NVidia are "optimizing" or probably not. only FutureMark can clarify that.its their benchmark and they set the rules. but taking only one side of the report (as others have done) that doesnt look good to company A and ignoring the other side of the information that doesnt look good to company B, is simply not being honest with yourself.

Well, then, so long as you accuse everyone of cheating, even when your method of induction is illogical, you're doing a good job? Great reasoning. . . .

[Nv40]

Originally posted by extreme_dB
So whether they're right or not, they can bash a company even if they didn't manage to prove that it did anything wrong?

That article is totally biased towards Nvidia because they not only put both companies on equal footing with regards to cheating in 3dmark, but they say ATI goes further by lying about its promises!

In addition, the degree of cheating is very significant. A cheat is not just a cheat. To illustrate, a product that falsely claims double the performance would be a much bigger ripoff than a product that claims a 1% increase. That's just an extreme example, not representing Nvidia and ATI. :)


the same was said with the 3dmark2001 article .
even when it was the Programmer ->UNwinder itself the one ,who wote the article. that it was "BIased". when both companies were accused in that review. is that some people will never accept that their favorite company cant do never anything diferent that ethical in their drivers. :rolleyes:

[extreme_dB]

Originally posted by Nv40
the same was said with the 3dmark2001 article .
even when it was the Programmer ->UNwinder itself the one ,who wote the article. that it was "BIased". when both companies were accused in that review. is that some people will never accept that their favorite company cant do never anything diferent that ethical in their drivers. :rolleyes:

Just because they're both accused, that means the article is free of bias? Your point of view could be right, but I don't agree after taking into account what a lot of knowledgeble people had to say on the subject.

To say that ATI and Nvidia are equally guilty in what we currently know about them just washes away everything that Nvidia has done lately, as if the cheating issue is cancelled out. Is that fair representation, in light of the inconclusive evidence against ATI? Does that help to stop these companies from cheating?

FM themselves issued a statement detailing all of Nvidia's cheats before they were reclassified as "invalid optimizations" (meaning the same thing).

On a sidenote, it's very odd how Nvidia now has FM making a demo to promote their new product. It definitely fuels the theories of shady tactics going on behind the scenes.

[CaptNKILL]

Where is The Baron?

This thread is going to be closed soon im sure....

BAM!!!

:D

[The Baron]

Where is The Baron?
Choking on the stupidity.