Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-24-03, 01:00 AM   #373
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

No The truth can be seen in these pics that Dave Bauman just put up at Beyond3d. He tested both cards with each build. Which clearly reveals that Nvidia *AGAIN* lowered precision with their *CHEATS*. While ATi's *OPTIMIZATIONS* which is what ATi called it in their public statement, and was backed up by Tim Sweeney from Epic... Is Identical visually in both versions.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6042

Read it and look at the pics yourself.

The Truth is the Truth people. Sometimes hardware loyalties have nothing to do with it.
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline  
Old 05-24-03, 01:05 AM   #374
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
I wasted a couple of hours reading who cheated ,They both cheated,ATI admitted it and so did nvidia,But how many games are made with the futuremark engine.
Excuse me, both did not cheat. ATi *optomized* Nvidia *Cheated* and it has jack diddley to do with Fanboyism.

Look at the pics for yourself, read ATi's statement, read the *TECHNICAL* discussions at Beyond3d, and see what Tim Sweeney from Epic says to top it off.

Bottom line, one is an Optimization to 2 pixel shaders that is completely within legit use, the other is a Series of Multiple Cheats in the same App that now have been shown to reduce IQ.
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline  
Old 05-24-03, 01:18 AM   #375
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Catalyst Maker, Aka Terry Makedon ATi's Software Product manager droped this in the thread on this At Rage3d, oh just a few min ago. (about 11:15PM)
Quote:
Man Rage3D sure is a popular site these days! Thought I would pop in for a couple of points CM style!

1) I have nothing to say about what our competition has done. You guys can decide and hopefully the truth which is in front of you wont be overlooked

2) Looks like Beyond3D has already done my work for me. I quote two items. First from our guy Chris Evenden " We render the scene exactly as intended by Futuremark, in full-precision floating point. Our shaders are mathematically and functionally identical to Futuremark's and there are no visual artifacts; we simply shuffle instructions to take advantage of our architecture."

That is a very important statement you need to understand. When every CATALYST comes out and you see performance boosts, what do you think you are getting? To put it bluntly it is optimizations which make the original code run more efficient.That is how we can continually improve performance. Usually it is applicable to all situations but this one in question was in particular to 3DM (as no other games use its engine).

The second comment I would like to relate that to is from Tim Sweeney, the lead developer for the UT games. (also found on Beyond3d)

".. any code optimization performed on a function that does not change the resulting value of the function for any argument, is uncontroversially considered a valid optimization. "

That guys is exactly what we did. We optimized the code without changing the end resutl.

3) I had a few meetings today and it was decided that we back out the 3DMark optimizations. I was not in favour of this as we are not cheating nor degrading image quality. We are giving ATI users the benefit of our research on the code. Anyways it was decided that we back out the optimizations but I promise you we will continue to work to find ways of getting the percentages back!

So there you have it. A little explanation goes a long way to understand this complex industry.

As anyone who knows me from the threads will tell you, I am a straight up guy, and if ATI was up to funny business I would not be associated with them any longer.

Now get back to some gaming on your RADEON's or "no drivers for you"

PS. Althought our guy Chris promised we would back out the optimizations from 3DMark in our next CATALYST, I will only permit that if it doesnt delay our postings. You have my word we will continue to post at the feverish rate we started last year, that left our competition in our dust!

Later everyone

CM
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline  
Old 05-24-03, 01:27 AM   #376
FunkTron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8
Default Trivial

This whole issue is so trivial it isn't even funny. People getting worked up because they think nVidia is lying to everyone and "can't be trusted" and people on the other side getting worked up because "it doesn't matter in the real world what nVidia does on a POS benchmark, its about the real-world stuff." There is no right and wrong here, only gray - gray that means a whole lot of nothing when taken in perspective.

In the end, what really matters?
With or without FutureMark, people are going to review cards and bench them against each other to find out who is faster for this insignificant period of time so they can drop $300 (because the issue definitely does not impact the budget cards very much). I for one, am going to completely disregard FM testing because I know it can be altered, changed, "cheated," optimized... WHATEVER you want to call it.
I can make a decision for myself by reading a few reviews and figuring out which card suits my needs best. FM can still hold its place in others' eyes, because I am sure some people really do feel it kick's the llama's ass (to steal from WinAmp).
But taking this any further than short discussion is bad for the brain cells, as it will, in the greater order of things, turn out to be rather insignificant --- it will be remembered most for the fodder it offered to the "Fanboys" of either camp.
So bitch and moan or preach the morals of the situation if you all like, but realize that there are many more significant things going on in the world of 3D than whether nVidia can screw with FM's poorly managed 3DM2k3 or if ATi "optimized" or "cheated."
One thing, for example, is the Half-Life 2 demo that runs about 600MB and can be had on the Fileplanet site (or your favorite P2P).

Funk
FunkTron is offline  
Old 05-24-03, 01:33 AM   #377
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
So bitch and moan or preach the morals of the situation if you all like, but realize that there are many more significant things going on in the world of 3D than whether nVidia can screw with FM's poorly managed 3DM2k3 or if ATi "optimized" or "cheated."
Again another illustration of someone who preaches like they are neutral, but makes statements that are clearly infuenced by Nvidias PR machine.

Only ONE company has said anything negative about 3dmark03 code. WE all know who that is.

So in your mind, Cheating doesnt matter becuase there are *many other important things in the world*.. Could you be any more Syrup laden?? im mean seriously. Comments like this are just soo *beep*.
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline  
Old 05-24-03, 01:44 AM   #378
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

now both nvidia and ati have been caught cheating, recently or not, but it doesnt affect how i buy my next video card, coz i always base my purchase on the overall performance mainly, the company image plays only a little part in the deciding process .
but its good to hear the whole story from both sides of fence
Behemoth is offline  
Old 05-24-03, 02:00 AM   #379
Miksu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Badboy_12345
Why is this cheating?? I don't get it
If nvidia programmers are so smart so they found another way to produce THE SAME **** but more efficient then why is it a cheat??
Did you miss the "not identical"-part? How about these screenshots: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6042
Miksu is offline  
Old 05-24-03, 02:15 AM   #380
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by solofly
But you're missing my point too... You think that's going to make me and others get Ati over nVidia just because of a worthless, useless demo that shows a calculated number by who knows what, to give you what...? The next time I find a warning on a retail game, stating minimum requirements and that being a 3dmark benchmark outcome, then I will become concern. 3dmark has no way of telling if your computers is too slow for a game or any game. I really can't find any use out of it but that's just me...
I never said 3dmark03 was good. I never said it was bad. I did not tell you what my stance on 3dmark03 was. It is obivous that nvidia believes it is important, that much is clear. Because they keep trying to draw attention away from it, and they also cheat to increase their scores.

In other words, my opinion as well as your opinion on 3dmark03 are not what we are arguing over. Just because you are I think 3dmark03 sucks doesn't make nvidia's cheating any more legitimate. In fact, it makes it worse(for why cheat in a useless application?).

And yes, I do think people can be influenced to buy(or not buy) a product based on 3dmark scores. And apparently nvidia does too, the way they constantly bash and downplay it, and find ways to increase their 3dmark score.
 

Old 05-24-03, 02:18 AM   #381
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by retsam
well stealth hawk nvidia has no say into how futuremark was writen they are no loger part of that .didnt they drop out back in december or something?? but ati is so wouldnt logic tell you that of course ati didnt need to cheat. the benchmark is already optimized for the 3xx series of cards.. not nv 3X series .ati had a lot of input on what went into the benchmark.... well how could nvidia not cheat if they had no say whats so ever what went into futuremark 2003.. im not justifying what they did .. i personally think nvidia is off there rocker for doing what they did. but i just dont see any other way nvidia could have optimized with out it being called cheating ..
Well, yeah. nvidia dropped out in December and the benchmark was released in late Jan/early Feb. Basically a month after nvidia dropped out.

Are you trying to say that 3dmark03 wasn't close to completion in December? Or that at the last minute(1 month) Futuremark radically changed the benchmark to screw nvidia?

It seems obvious to me that nvidia DID have a say in what was going to be in the benchmark, and because they didn't like what they saw/got, they dropped out and started their smear campaign. When that didn't work they resorted to cheating.
 
Old 05-24-03, 02:18 AM   #382
Jayeleme
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1
Default

Anyone who studied computer architecture or assembly programming knows that the order of instructions does affect the end performance even though the code is executing the same calculation.
It's a matter of hardware design preference, rather than the actual performance. ATI should've inform Futuremark of any and such optimization technique before FutureMark was released to avoid being accused of "cheating".

Now, what NVidia did, skipping instructions and discarding a bulk of polygons that are off-screen, is almost criminal. No wonder they're denying it.
Jayeleme is offline  
Old 05-24-03, 02:21 AM   #383
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Trivial

Quote:
Originally posted by FunkTron
In the end, what really matters?
With or without FutureMark, people are going to review cards and bench them against each other to find out who is faster for this insignificant period of time so they can drop $300 (because the issue definitely does not impact the budget cards very much). I for one, am going to completely disregard FM testing because I know it can be altered, changed, "cheated," optimized... WHATEVER you want to call it.
I can make a decision for myself by reading a few reviews and figuring out which card suits my needs best.
If they cheated in 3dmark03, why can't they cheat in game benchmarks too? Games in the future will use more shaders, which is what nvidia cheated on.

Basically, nvidia has proven that ALL timedemos are effectively dead and useless.
 
Old 05-24-03, 02:51 AM   #384
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jayeleme
Anyone who studied computer architecture or assembly programming knows that the order of instructions does affect the end performance even though the code is executing the same calculation.
It's a matter of hardware design preference, rather than the actual performance. ATI should've inform Futuremark of any and such optimization technique before FutureMark was released to avoid being accused of "cheating".

Now, what NVidia did, skipping instructions and discarding a bulk of polygons that are off-screen, is almost criminal. No wonder they're denying it.
i think what ati did was very similar to what nvidia did, except the results were different, both companies substituted its own IHV specific method to get deceptive PS2 score, ati was not using PS2 shaders on the sky and water, ati was not showing its PS2 performance, so i also consider its a cheat. it cheated us think its PS2 better than it actually was, although its very nice ati comes up with this PS2 cheat coz it looks the same, but futuremark was not measueing what IHV specific PS2 variant was capable of, so imho its the same, cheat.
Behemoth is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need Help Installing NVIDIA Tesla M2070Q in Linux RHEL5 Ferianto85 NVIDIA Linux 0 05-18-12 08:35 PM
Current NVIDIA FreeBSD graphics driver releases zander NVIDIA FreeBSD 0 01-27-09 05:22 PM
Current NVIDIA Linux graphics driver releases AaronP NVIDIA Linux 0 11-06-08 04:39 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.