View Single Post
Old 05-25-03, 08:12 PM   #72
Posts: n/a

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 me the logic. Your guess is based on what observations or evidence?
  Reply With Quote