View Single Post
Old 11-13-03, 12:53 PM   #19
TheTaz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 621
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by aapo
Uhhuh, if you've been reading B3D, you should know the relevant changes in the pixel shaders of the new patch are register permutations. If the nVidia unified compiler would be a real deal, it should have no effect on the performance. Actually, the compiler is a real deal, because performance only drops ~15%. It would be a lot more if the compiler would be the old one - the 15 % difference emerges from hand-compiled shaders replacement (cheating, slightly different output).

Furthermore, someone at B3D extracted the old 3dMark patch 330 shaders, and tried them with his own program. Then he tried the patch 340 shaders with his own program. No performance difference - so nVidia drivers are not only doing shader detection but also application detection to make sure only 3dMark03 shaders get replaced. This is obviously not very nice.

EDIT: Some clarifications...
Huh?

Not sure where your coming from with this (In regards to my statements).

I wasn't claiming that Futuremark wasn't legitematly trying to block cheats. I believe they are, and I believe nVidia is cheating.

I'm just saying... as long as they take money from IHVs and OEMs... there's always going to be "political accusations", like the one I mentioned. (The can of worms I was referring to).

Though *I* believe Futuremark is doing it's best to stop cheats... others *may* believe something stupid like "Dell threw it's weight around because they're selling ATi cards now". Which, in the consumer's eye, may make 3DMark not be taken as seriously.

That's why I said it's a bad tool, nothing to do with it's technology.

Regards,

Taz
TheTaz is offline   Reply With Quote