PDA

View Full Version : Digit-Life news about Detonator drivers


DSC
07-17-03, 10:37 AM
http://www.digit-life.com/news.html?93467#93467


"Weíve recently posted a number of reviews dedicated to benchmark "optimizations" implemented by ATI and NVIDIA (it turned out the latter implemented more of them). We found out that all NVIDIA drivers up to 44.71 inclusive contain "optimizations" for all games that have benchmarks (itís strange, but none have been made for Unreal II, though itís based on the same engine, as UT2003, but still doesnít contain a benchmark.)

But there are some optimizations for UT2003. Funny, isnít it? Unreal II performs with Anti-detect same as without it. I doubt that Unreal II just doesnít require any optimizations. Unfortunately it just doesnít have an exposed benchmarking tool to "optimize" . NVIDIA specialists might have actually overlooked the tweakers who found scripts in Unreal II for executing the test.

Anyway, the thing is that in Code Creatures Anti-Detect found out that speed of all GeForce FX cards was "optimized" by cheating, as Code Creatures is not a game, but a pure benchmark. E.g., FX 5900 shows 46 fps (1024x768, 32bpp), but only 33 fps with Anti-Detect. And the newly leaked 44.90 beta doesnít seem to contain any optimizations, as we obtained the same fps values on the same card at the same resolutions, as 44.03 and 44.65 versions had provided with Anti-Detect. Weíll continue checking the situation, and it will be very good if optimizations have really been removed from other tests as well!"


Detonator 44.67 and higher doesn't seem to be encrypted as claimed by Unwinder, if NVAntiDetect affects the scores. :confused:

Hanners
07-17-03, 10:48 AM
Without a bit more evidence, as in screenshots and examination of what visual differences there were with and without AntiDetector running, their findings really aren't that helpful. They probably aren't invalid, but they've made a potentially complcated situation way too black and white. Typical Digit-Life stuff. :(

extreme_dB
07-17-03, 11:51 AM
Wow, what a coincidence. The scores are back up to the exact same levels for the latest drivers with no discrepancies using anti-detect.

Does it even occur to Digit-Life that only anti-detect was defeated? :rolleyes:

Sazar
07-17-03, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Hanners
Without a bit more evidence, as in screenshots and examination of what visual differences there were with and without AntiDetector running, their findings really aren't that helpful. They probably aren't invalid, but they've made a potentially complcated situation way too black and white. Typical Digit-Life stuff. :(

seconded...

StealthHawk
07-17-03, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by extreme_dB
Wow, what a coincidence. The scores are back up to the exact same levels for the latest drivers with no discrepancies using anti-detect.

Does it even occur to Digit-Life that only anti-detect was defeated? :rolleyes:

Typical Digit-Life conclusion. They put absolutely no thought or research into their conclusions. You'd think they'd have heard what Unwinder of all people said by now :rolleyes:

Nv40
07-18-03, 03:57 AM
well Digitlife fail to see that COdecreatures is a benchmark around a game engine..from a game that will ship in the future? something like that i read somewhere. so many optimizations can be valid there too. . others maybe not .COdecreatures is not 3dmark and 3dmark is not COdecreatures.the biggest problem with the anti-detector is that it doesnt tell you what optimations are desactivating ,and that you need to have Faith that program is- equally- desactivating all aplication detection in NVidia and ATI cards. but that is not the case.. since he already told..
is more dificult to block aplication detection with ATI drivers.
what anti-detector does is exactly what its name says. anti-detect. its not a cheat detector.. like Digitlife and others could think.
anti-detector should be seen as an experiment. nothing more and nothing left. it can block valid optimizations and invalid too,it can block also fixed game bugs . and anti-detector program can be defeated ,so theres no guarantees that will work fairly in all video cards in next drivers revisions.

optimization are valid in all games (if the output and IQ is the same), and if their developers agreed with the optimiztions done. (doom3..fp16 vs fp24), all optimizations are invalid ,in syntetic benchmarks -IF - their developers say that no single optimizations is valid there. cough(3dmark) .
those benchmarks measure more programmers "abilities" than hardware potential. and they are the ones ,-the only ones-that set the rules. SO ONly their developers can say that what is valid or not. not digitlife ,not any other site.

Hanners
07-18-03, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by Nv40
well Digitlife fail to see that COdecreatures is a benchmark around a game engine..

No arguing with you here, because you're right, Code Creatures is supposed to be a game engine. I'm curious though, have any shippping games actually used this engine? I can't remember seeing or hearing of any.


Originally posted by Nv40
is more dificult to block aplication detection with ATI drivers.

Why?


Originally posted by Nv40
the biggest problem with the anti-detector is that it doesnt tell you what optimations are desactivating

You're right, and this is exactly my issue with all Digit-Life's conclusions regarding cheating of late - They have either applied the wrong tests regarding image quality and what changes occur with AntiDetector running, or they don't make any image quality comparisons at all. It's a very poor, unprofessional way to go about these issues, but then coming from Digit-Life it doesn't suprise me at all. :(

Nv40
07-18-03, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by Hanners
No arguing with you here, because you're right, Code Creatures is supposed to be a game engine. I'm curious though, have any shippping games actually used this engine? I can't remember seeing or hearing of any.




Why?




You're right, and this is exactly my issue with all Digit-Life's conclusions regarding cheating of late - They have either applied the wrong tests regarding image quality and what changes occur with AntiDetector running, or they don't make any image quality comparisons at all. It's a very poor, unprofessional way to go about these issues, but then coming from Digit-Life it doesn't suprise me at all. :(

just look at Unwinder huge thread in B3d ,he explain how Nvidia and ATI detect aplications . im not going to read again that huge discussion. :)

Hanners
07-18-03, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by Nv40
just look at Unwinder huge thread in B3d ,he explain how Nvidia and ATI detect aplications . im not going to read again that huge discussion. :)

To create the initial script was more difficult, but now it works, it works.. and we haven't seen ATi encrypt their Direct3D driver yet. ;)

Anyhow, we don't want to start getting into all that again, so back to talking about how unprofessional Digit-Life are. :D

StealthHawk
07-18-03, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by extreme_dB
Wow, what a coincidence. The scores are back up to the exact same levels for the latest drivers with no discrepancies using anti-detect.

Does it even occur to Digit-Life that only anti-detect was defeated? :rolleyes:

Actually, re-reading their statement it does look like CodeCreatures is clean now.

And the newly leaked 44.90 beta doesnít seem to contain any optimizations, as we obtained the same fps values on the same card at the same resolutions, as 44.03 and 44.65 versions had provided with Anti-Detect.

Of course it still bothers me that 44.90 has an older date than other drivers which still DO have cheats in them. Otherwise, I would be optimistic that NVIDIA has turned over a new leaf, in conjunction with some other stuff that has been revealed.

NickSpolec
07-18-03, 05:11 PM
Yeah.. I don't think the Digi life guys realize that Nvidia had a work around for the Anti-Detection script with the first driver release after the Anti-Detection was released.