View Single Post
Old 05-25-03, 10:19 PM   #75
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
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.
ok you didnt even believe what i said, here is the quote:
Quote:
possibly bug.
possibly nvidia cheat.
possibly futuremark cheat.
its on page 8 near the bottom in a thread called my thoughts on "optimization" in this forum. i would wait to see it proved, i didnt rule out the nvidia cheating possibllity as welll.
Ati never said they were cheating, but nvidia was even better, nvidia said nothing!!! but ati admitted they "shuffle instructions" which alone looks cheaty enough to me already. at the time i said i would wait to see more nvidia evidences, i didnt know there was official word from any company on what nvidia did.

Quote:

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.
the guess refered to ET guessed clip planes were manually inserted.


Quote:

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.
ok if you dont like them to be called evidences, lets call them whatever you like, however i believe what futuremark said about ati on 2 things.
1. "the test was also detected"
2. "and somehow altered by the drivers"
both on page 4 of futuremark audit report, actually they are one sentence but they tell me 2 things.
these are what i would consider as much better evidences than a few screenshots plus a guess, whether they should be called evidences or not that is not important to me, i only know they are much better than a few screenshots plus a guess.
and again, ati even admitted they "shuffle instructions", this plus futuremark's 2 points, maybe its just me, are much more different than a few screenshots and a guess.


Quote:

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?
i dont know how would they prove it, but if they incorporate the so called questionable but valid optimization properly in their next driver, and the performance wont drop 8% without doing driver detection and codes alteration, its already enough a proof to me.

Quote:

So you don't want to believe the guess of ET, B3D, or Futuremark, but we're supposed to believe your guess....show me the logic. Your guess is based on what observations or evidence?
i believe ET,B3D,Futuremark to some extent.
i have already showed you my logic, observations and evidences, believe what you will, i am just sharing my point of view.

Last edited by Behemoth; 05-25-03 at 10:37 PM.
Behemoth is offline   Reply With Quote