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

[DSC]

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-13.html

Found some interesting tidbits.

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.

Hmmmm...... :eek:

[Sazar]

I am trying to figure out how this is the case...

here is the comparative animated ati 9800pro gif...

http://www.ixbt.com/video2/images/gffx-13/r9800pro-g4-1500.gif

here is the same thing with teh 5900ultra..

http://www.ixbt.com/video2/images/gffx-13/gffx5900-g4-1500.gif

looking @ the rest of the information...

this is just gt4 mind you... but I am trying to figure out how the conclusion was reached... (and yes ok.. you did leave out the nvidia reference... but I am assuming that was for a reason)... I can't for the life of me see the change...

anyways... considering the lad who did the article basically calls everyone a liar :D I'ma gonna wait for dave and co on b3d to lay down the smacketh on this one...

[Hanners]

I thought it had been proven that ATi had removed all their rewritten shaders from 3DMark 2003 (the scores certainly suggest that they have).

[Morrow]

Originally posted by Hanners
I thought it had been proven that ATi had removed all their rewritten shaders from 3DMark 2003 (the scores certainly suggest that they have).

no, not all, just the two Futuremark had found previously...

[SurfMonkey]

Nobody proved that ATI had removed any cheats. They've probably just hidden them better, the same as Nvidia seems to have done.

Both companies are cheating scum that don't deserve our hard won cash. I mean they're both selling products based on lies and artificially propped up benchmarks. It sucks.

Roll on Kyro V.

[Hanners]

Originally posted by SurfMonkey
Nobody proved that ATI had removed any cheats. They've probably just hidden them better, the same as Nvidia seems to have done.

Unlike nVidia they gave their word though - I know somebodies word doesn't mean much in business but I'd just be surprised if ATi would even want to risk leaving the cheats in in any shape or form after making the statement they did.

I'm not totally convinced by this article on either the ATi or nVidia front - There just seems to be too many differences, even with AntiDetector running. :confused:

[Hanners]

OK, well I think after a brief foray to Beyond3D (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6796) we can forget the 'ATi is still cheating' idea right now. As for nVidia's results, well some (if not most) of them are probably incorrectly being labelled as cheats too. I really wish Digit Life would actually research into what they are doing before they do it. :rolleyes:

From Kristof at Beyond3D:

While the ref rast is indeed "the reference", making direct per pixel comparisons with it can be quite tricky and even potentially incorrect. One issue :

RefRast will do all maths at 32bits IEEE... R9800 is 24bits... so there are bound to be differences. There are a lot of other small tidbits that can go wrong or cause differences... there are lots of other accuracy issues that can show, texture interpolators, iterators, filtering accuracy...

So its not a trivial step to compare with ref rast and claim cheating if there are some difference present. Judging if ATI and or NVIDIA are within the margin of error can really only be answered by comparing the hardware spec and the ref rast spec and only ATI can do that.

[kmolazz]

and also, ATI cards get the same score with and without unwinder anti-cheat program. At least it shows there is no specific aplication optimization.

[surfhurleydude]

I don't really care one way or another if either company cheats, but I wouldn't mind ATi being proven to cheat as much as nVidia just so all of the ATi fanboys here can go back to their caves.

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by surfhurleydude
I don't really care one way or another if either company cheats, but I wouldn't mind ATi being proven to cheat as much as nVidia just so all of the ATi fanboys here can go back to their caves.


Looks like that isn't going to happen while nVidia just keeps getting caught with more cheats as time passes.

[surfhurleydude]

Looks like that isn't going to happen while nVidia just keeps getting caught with more cheats as time passes.

Apparently ATi *IS* getting caught for something now, even after saying they TOOK OUT EVERYTHING, however nVidia is just getting caught for doing what they've always been doing...

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by surfhurleydude
Apparently ATi *IS* getting caught for something now, even after saying they TOOK OUT EVERYTHING, however nVidia is just getting caught for doing what they've always been doing...


They did take out 3DMark03 optimizations. Dunno about 3DMark2001 but with nVidia it's more serious since its been confirmed they drop their AF quality in UT2003.

[GlowStick]

Originally posted by surfhurleydude
I don't really care one way or another if either company cheats, but I wouldn't mind ATi being proven to cheat as much as nVidia just so all of the ATi fanboys here can go back to their caves.

That was pritty much proven wtih 3dmark01.

[surfhurleydude]

They did take out 3DMark03 optimizations. Dunno about 3DMark2001 but with nVidia it's more serious since its been confirmed they drop their AF quality in UT2003.

The funny thing about 3dMark03 is that it's all a bunch of crap no matter which way you look at it. You can easily say that ATi took their optimizations OUT OF THEIR DRIVERS, but since they are also part of the 3dmark03 beta, their optimizations could just as easily still be in the PROGRAM ITSELF, a luxary that nVidia doesn't have.

EDIT: Looked at the BEyond3d Ansio article and what a surprise, ATi's drivers also won't perform Trilinear filtering while on Quality setting either...

[Hanners]

Originally posted by surfhurleydude
Apparently ATi *IS* getting caught for something now, even after saying they TOOK OUT EVERYTHING, however nVidia is just getting caught for doing what they've always been doing...

Read my last post - Digit Life's conclusions are highly flawed.

[The Baron]

Um.

Where's the tech document that defines what makes hardware DX9-compliant?

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by surfhurleydude
The funny thing about 3dMark03 is that it's all a bunch of crap no matter which way you look at it. You can easily say that ATi took their optimizations OUT OF THEIR DRIVERS, but since they are also part of the 3dmark03 beta, their optimizations could just as easily still be in the PROGRAM ITSELF, a luxary that nVidia doesn't have.

Oh give me a break. :rolleyes: Yeah poor nVidia, they couldn't afford the beta membership cost right? Although they LEFT the beta program halfway through! Don't worry, your precious nVidia has rejoined Futuremark's beta program now and they are getting a custom demo made for them last I heard. :rolleyes: :lame:

[tertsi]

ATI Busted!

Buahahahaaahhahaaa... lol :afro:

[reever2]

When are we going to see a cheating article about GAMES? They keep doing the same things OVER AND OVER, i dont give a **** about 3dmark03 when they already did the exact same things and came to the same conclusions in just about every other review of the 5900 they have done

[5150 Joker]

Surfhurley:

Taken from beyond3d forums for the 5900 ultra. He used the anti-cheat script for his tests:

I've done one quick benchmark run at 1600x1200 no AA/AF:

Code:
Normal Anti
Flyby 145.0 93.6
Bot 69.22 63.69


BTW ATi's driver doesn't do it when its forced in the control panel but works fine with application preference checked. nVidia doesn't do trilinear at all according to the findings on B3D.

[jAkUp]

its impossible to cheat in games... so thats where we need to get our benchies from now on:)

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by jAkUp
its impossible to cheat in games... so thats where we need to get our benchies from now on:)


Noticed your sig, only 2.89 Ghz?? Push that sucker a bit more, go for at least 3.2 Ghz.

[Hanners]

Originally posted by jAkUp
its impossible to cheat in games... so thats where we need to get our benchies from now on:)

Not strictly true, just look at UT2003 on GeForceFX cards. Not cheating in the most literal sense perhaps, but still swindling the customer out of features to inflate performance.

[surfhurleydude]

I love ATi fanboys and their selective quoting....

You left off the:

"There is a large disparity in performance with Antidetect in use, and an the mipmap transition do appear to be more like Trilinear, however we don't know what other things AntiDetect disables here (however, there were no other visual rendering errors, quite the opposite!)"

Part...

I seriously doubt just adding Trilinear filtering will cut the performance by such an extremely large margin.



I mean crap, think logically, the game has a damn nVidia logo when you first start the game...do you not think it's optimized for nVidia or anything? :eek:

[surfhurleydude]

Not strictly true, just look at UT2003 on GeForceFX cards. Not cheating in the most literal sense perhaps, but still swindling the customer out of features to inflate performance.

Well, one could argue that it doesn't really matter since all of the GeForce FX cards (Save for the NV30 and 35) aren't even fast enough to use those features anyhow ;)