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

Newegg Daily Deals

View Poll Results: Are they cheating again?
Yes 132 67.01%
No 53 26.90%
I don't have a clue by four. 12 6.09%
Voters: 197. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-15-03, 06:48 PM   #217
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptNKILL
easy there killer.... I said I didnt read the article.... if you read my post you wouldnt be wasting your keyboard life flaming me.

At the time of posting, I didnt know what this was about, I was simply saying "If I cant SEEEEEEEEE the disadvantages of a cheat, I dont have a problem with it". OBVIOUSLY, this cheat involves something that we can SEEEEEEEEEEEEEE so my comment doesnt apply to this particular "bug" does it?

I was refering to the "cheats" people whine about that have no visible disadvantages until you take a screenshot and zoom in 100x. Those kinds of "cheats" dont ruin the picture do they? No, but lots of people complain about them just as much as this cheat.

Dont call me a n00b (or a Nub or whatever this week's stupid word is) if you are just going to skim over my post and rant about the first thing that pops into your head.
But these cheats are NOT something you can see. That's the point. You only know about them if you are a Futuremark beta partner and have access to the beta build with debug features like free look camera.

If the debug version didn't exist no one besides nvidia would ever know or be able to prove such cheats were taking place.


As a side note, with the exception of GT1, 3dmark03 is an extremely poor indicator of current gameplay. It's supposed to represent the possibility of future gameplay. Of course I question whether it really does or not.
 
Old 05-15-03, 06:57 PM   #218
ChrisRay
Registered User
 
ChrisRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis77
Funny, I don't see anyone whining about it though... I bet that if NV said "we don't think you should use CC because....", it would take about 5 minutes for these forums (and others) to be filled by NV-fans who tell everyone why CC sucks.

"When NV says "jump", only thing we will ask is "how high?""



Again, people were OK with 3DMark as long as it was OK with NV. The second NV complained about it, people started to complain as well.

And how come 3DMark doesn't have any credibility? There are plenty of people using it to benchmark their system, including professional reviewers. Or did it lose it credibility because NV doesn't like it?

You're taking my opinion of 3dmark based on What Nvidia is says, 3dmark2001 and 3dmark2003 lost all credibility with me when I saw ATI And Nvidia spending their time boosting 3dmark scores, Rather than fixing game issues.

3dmark was once a useful tool for testing Overall system performance and comparing systems to other systems. But thats about it. And 3dmark2003 even further damaged it's usefulness in that respect.

Being a primarly GPU dependent Benchmark. It's not really valid for it's over all usefulness of comparing system performance.


Now it's just a bench that benches 3d Graphics cards, Which doesn't reflect any real world game performance, 3dmark never reflected real world game performance. But it's over all value as a tool,


Many we4bsites have stated that they are not sure about the validity of the benchmark, Extreme tech, Toms hardware. Hardocp, And I think anandtech but don't quote me on that.


Anywho, 3dmark's peformance is just what it shows. a Number, It does not reflect real game performance and I doubt it ever will. None of them ever have.

3dmark has too much credibility, Far more than it deserves, Expecially considering it's overall usefulness has been even more degraded since the relese of 3dmark2003,

Now you have a strict GPU bench that does not reflect real game performance, Rather than an overall system bench (3dmark2001) that does not reflect system performance.


But the actual usefulness of comparing systems has been hurt by the release of 3dmark2003 currently.
__________________
|CPU: Intel I7 Lynnfield @ 3.0 Ghz|Mobo:Asus P7P55 WS Supercomputer |Memory:8 Gigs DDR3 1333|Video:Geforce GTX 295 Quad SLI|Monitor:Samsung Syncmaster 1680x1080 3D Vision\/Olevia 27 Inch Widescreen HDTV 1920x1080

|CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.5 Ghz|Mobo:Asus M3n HT Deluxe Nforce 780A|Memory: 4 gigs DDR2 800| Video: Geforce GTX 280x2 SLI

Nzone
SLI Forum Administrator

NVIDIA User Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members
ChrisRay is offline  
Old 05-15-03, 08:21 PM   #219
PsychoSy
 
PsychoSy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Monroe, MI
Posts: 489
Send a message via ICQ to PsychoSy Send a message via AIM to PsychoSy
Default

Since the other thread was closed due to a number people who thought it was a radical act to come on over and "neener friggin' neener" back and forth just to read their own BS back to themselves, I wasn't able to chime in...

But I'm gonna chime now...and briefly!!

Are you people honestly suggesting (some of you downright claiming) that Nvidia purposefully built these drivers to somehow detect when 3DMark2003 is launched, thus implementing these culling planes, resulting in a cheat that would vastly improve the scores in a effort to falsely hornswaggle people into buying more nVidia cards?!?

Am I reading that right? If so, then I think all those people who are claiming "CHEAT!!" are spinning their wheels!! If 3DMark2003 is the ONLY application where these extra culling planes occur, I have a suggestion that could immediately confirm or deny this "we cooked our drivers to detect 3DMark2K3" theory that some of your folks are preaching.

[size=huge]RENAME THE 3DMARK2003 ".EXE" FILE!!![/size]

I'd suggest a name of "thisuselessbenchygivesmearise.exe"!!

Anyway, after renaming 3DMark2K3, run the sucker. If this "bug" is still there and scores remain unchanged, then the "cooked driver" theory is baseless and without merit. But if this issue doesn't crop up and scores plument, then it's clear that nVidia has some serious explaining to do.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprized if nVidia done this just to show how irrelvant 3DMark2003 really is. I'm sorry, but when you have a synthetic benchmark where the same camera-fixed scenes are rendered each time you launch it, then you got something that can easily be manipulated. Any benchmark that uses a "fixed camera" in the sense that the camera's motion is identical every run is pretty much worthless because you can't orient the player 45, 90 or 180 degrees and run the benchmark again.

When you know exactly what's going to be rendered on a screen at every given moment, it gives you all the tools you need to brew up ways of implementing optimization methods that you wouldn't otherwise have, resulting in something that can be easily manipulated. It's an inherant flaw in any kind of "fixed camera" based benchmark and always will be.

What you need is a benchmarking suite that's so sophisticated that it can randomly generate scenes to render in order to test all the different aspects of the hardware's features. Something like the Random Mission Generator in SOF2 but much much more sophisticated and unpredictable. Add some interaction and you've got the Mother Of All Benchmarks because it would TRULLY measure real-world gaming performance unlike what 3DMark or a timedemo can do.

Such a benchmark will never exist.

Both nVidia and ATi would complain that the pure randomness and unpredictability of a such an application would severely hamper their abilities to implement driver optimizations to one up each other. And without their deep coffers funding the project, it would be way too costly for anyone else to develope independantly.
__________________
[b][i]A man's ambition must be small,
To write his name on a s**t-house wall.[/b][/i]
PsychoSy is offline  
Old 05-15-03, 08:29 PM   #220
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSy
Personally, I wouldn't be surprized if nVidia done this just to show how irrelvant 3DMark2003 really is. I'm sorry, but when you have a synthetic benchmark where the same camera-fixed scenes are rendered each time you launch it, then you got something that can easily be manipulated. Any benchmark that uses a "fixed camera" in the sense that the camera's motion is identical every run is pretty much worthless because you can't orient the player 45, 90 or 180 degrees and run the benchmark again.
Damn, I was expecting this from the NVIDIA PR machine, not from you bud.

Ain't sayin' I agree with 'ya necessarily. But I'm gonna keep my big yapper shut.
saturnotaku is offline  
Old 05-15-03, 08:29 PM   #221
Rogozhin
Registered User
 
Rogozhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: oregon
Posts: 826
Default

So you're saying there are only two options here.

1.You are more intelligent than the folks over at extremetech (and B3D) and can figure out how to prove that nvidia didn't cheat.

2.And two, even if they did the only motivation was to prove the vapidness of 3dmark2003.


I'd have to go with three.

3.You really are a psycho (they don't use logic )

rogo
Rogozhin is offline  
Old 05-15-03, 08:32 PM   #222
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSy
Since the other thread was closed due to a number people who thought it was a radical act to come on over and "neener friggin' neener" back and forth just to read their own BS back to themselves, I wasn't able to chime in...

But I'm gonna chime now...and briefly!!
Woo-hoo! It's about time, where ya been?

Quote:
Are you people honestly suggesting (some of you downright claiming) that Nvidia purposefully built these drivers to somehow detect when 3DMark2003 is launched, thus implementing these culling planes, resulting in a cheat that would vastly improve the scores in a effort to falsely hornswaggle people into buying more nVidia cards?!?
Sort of...yes!

Quote:
Am I reading that right?
Yup.

Quote:
If so, then I think all those people who are claiming "CHEAT!!" are spinning their wheels!! If 3DMark2003 is the ONLY application where these extra culling planes occur, I have a suggestion that could immediately confirm or deny this "we cooked our drivers to detect 3DMark2K3" theory that some of your folks are preaching.

[size=huge]RENAME THE 3DMARK2003 ".EXE" FILE!!![/size]
I totally agree with that, I wish I had an FX to test it with.

Quote:
Personally, I wouldn't be surprized if nVidia done this just to show how irrelvant 3DMark2003 really is.

I can see that argument, but their heralding of it as their proclamation as the "King" sort kills that idea off....'cept for "post-discovery damage control"

Why are we still kicking this dead horse? Hasn't nVidia given us anything new to chew on with it?
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline  
Old 05-15-03, 08:32 PM   #223
ChrisW
"I was wrong", said Chris
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: standing in the corner!
Posts: 620
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSy
Since the other thread was closed due to a number people who thought it was a radical act to come on over and "neener friggin' neener" back and forth just to read their own BS back to themselves, I wasn't able to chime in...

But I'm gonna chime now...and briefly!!

Are you people honestly suggesting (some of you downright claiming) that Nvidia purposefully built these drivers to somehow detect when 3DMark2003 is launched, thus implementing these culling planes, resulting in a cheat that would vastly improve the scores in a effort to falsely hornswaggle people into buying more nVidia cards?!?

Am I reading that right? If so, then I think all those people who are claiming "CHEAT!!" are spinning their wheels!! If 3DMark2003 is the ONLY application where these extra culling planes occur, I have a suggestion that could immediately confirm or deny this "we cooked our drivers to detect 3DMark2K3" theory that some of your folks are preaching.

[size=huge]RENAME THE 3DMARK2003 ".EXE" FILE!!![/size]

I'd suggest a name of "thisuselessbenchygivesmearise.exe"!!

Anyway, after renaming 3DMark2K3, run the sucker. If this "bug" is still there and scores remain unchanged, then the "cooked driver" theory is baseless and without merit. But if this issue doesn't crop up and scores plument, then it's clear that nVidia has some serious explaining to do.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprized if nVidia done this just to show how irrelvant 3DMark2003 really is. I'm sorry, but when you have a synthetic benchmark where the same camera-fixed scenes are rendered each time you launch it, then you got something that can easily be manipulated. Any benchmark that uses a "fixed camera" in the sense that the camera's motion is identical every run is pretty much worthless because you can't orient the player 45, 90 or 180 degrees and run the benchmark again.

When you know exactly what's going to be rendered on a screen at every given moment, it gives you all the tools you need to brew up ways of implementing optimization methods that you wouldn't otherwise have, resulting in something that can be easily manipulated. It's an inherant flaw in any kind of "fixed camera" based benchmark and always will be.

What you need is a benchmarking suite that's so sophisticated that it can randomly generate scenes to render in order to test all the different aspects of the hardware's features. Something like the Random Mission Generator in SOF2 but much much more sophisticated and unpredictable. Add some interaction and you've got the Mother Of All Benchmarks because it would TRULLY measure real-world gaming performance unlike what 3DMark or a timedemo can do.

Such a benchmark will never exist.

Both nVidia and ATi would complain that the pure randomness and unpredictability of a such an application would severely hamper their abilities to implement driver optimizations to one up each other. And without their deep coffers funding the project, it would be way too costly for anyone else to develope independantly.
That's pretty stupid as nobody is claiming it is detecting the filename. There are many ways to detect if a certain application is running that does not involve checking the filename.

Your claim that a benchmark with a fixed camers is worthless is stupid also. This would mean Quake3 and vitually all other benchmarks are irrelevant also.

Do you get your talking points straight from nVidia?

Last edited by ChrisW; 05-15-03 at 08:44 PM.
ChrisW is offline  
Old 05-15-03, 08:34 PM   #224
muzz
 
muzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 816
Default

I beg to differ on the irrelevancy issue.....
If anyone thinks that the scores mean nothing to consumers they are just fooling themselves, money is made off of that, and there is NO denying it.
There are some folks who see whats going on, and those folks will not bite..... but there are MORE folks who just see the #'s and BUY!!!!... Without coming to forums like this and B3D to find out the true stories behind the benches...... all they see are scorching scores, because they don't know any better.

These are my views on it, I'm sure there are others.
__________________
muzz
muzz is offline  

Old 05-15-03, 08:51 PM   #225
muzz
 
muzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 816
Default

All ya really gotta do to prove what I am saying is this:

Think back to when you were a noob...... you knew NOTTA/SQUAT!!!.... and half ( or more- probably alot more) of the folks that buy high end hardware know exactly that.

I am CERTAIN there are plenty of folks who know AT LEAST one person who buys " nothing but the best"...funny thing is they don't know jack, they read magazines or flip through benchmarks without digging for info ( they figure why would anyone lie)...

Then there are the types who listen to what the biased ( or just very uninformed for typical reasons) salesman telling them such-n-such is WAY better........


Half of them clowns know jack also.
__________________
muzz
muzz is offline  
Old 05-15-03, 09:45 PM   #226
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by CoWBoY

why they wasted time on it when they could be working on other things! AA ALgorithms damn it and better AF performance! lol
because the gamers and web reviewers and OEMS Focus *too much*
in 3dmark 2003 scores as *proof* directx9 cards performance.
they mislead the public about a performance they will not see in
TOday games or future games.

if Nvidia byte the bullet and doesnt cut corners in 3dmark2003/
and play by FUturemark rules.
THose people will be misleaded by webReviewers about the real performance of Nvidia cards in games .
(look at the radeon8500 release ,the only benchmarks they won
to the Geforce3 was 3dmark2001)
or look at the scores of the radeon9000 in 3dmark2003.. very high..
and very low in games.

look at the scores of COdecreatures benchmark ,optimized for Ps1.3
where all Nvidia cards performance is outstanding.
the only diference here is that benchmark *IS* the engine of an
incoming game.

however not all syntetic benchmarks are inaccurate for measuring
Performance ,there are many Profesionals Benchmarks outhere
about Real Aplications that People use in the market.

Nvidia knows this/ATI too.. but the average public doesnt know this.
So thats why either company will optimize the hell for that 3dmarks
shadermarks or any other Websites focus alot.
even when they know the performance will not translate
in the games of the FUture .

gamedevelopers need to sell games ,so they will do whatever cheat/hack/optimization or path they can ,to take the best IQ and performance of ATI and Nvida video cards.
thats why you see many Games using in ATI PS1.4 and trueform ,
and the same games using Ps1.3 in Nvidia cards.

in SPlinter Cell Nvidia can use diferent shadows techniques ,
because they have more to use ,in Doom3 they have a path.
Stalker/Halo will use Nvidia Cg .. probably Halflife2 will have OpenGl
extensions for Nvidia. and the list never end..

Game developers will not care to use propietary extensions
if using them ,Increase by a good margin ,the video card Performance
without IQ loss. everything is about increasing at all costs /without spending too much time ,the gamers experience..

Last edited by Nv40; 05-15-03 at 09:52 PM.
Nv40 is offline  
Old 05-15-03, 10:18 PM   #227
CaptNKILL
CUBE
 
CaptNKILL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 18,844
Default

NV40, you dont have to shorten your lines of text. Word wrap is on.

Save us some scrolling for gods sake!!!!!
__________________
---- Primary Rig ---- CoolerMaster 690 II Advance - Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0Ghz + Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme
6GB DDR2 @ 942Mhz 5-5-5-20 1.9v (2x1Gb Wintec AMPX PC2-8500 & 2x2Gb G.Skill PC2-6400) - EVGA Geforce GTX 470 @ 750/1500/1850 (1.050v)
Sparkle Geforce GTS 250 1Gb Low-Profile (Physx) - Crucial RealSSD C300 64Gb SSD - Seagate 7200.12 500Gb SATA - Seagate 7200.10 320Gb SATA
ASUS VW266H 25.5" LCD - OCZ GameXStream 700W PSU - ASUS Xonar DX - Logitech Z-5500 5.1 Surround - Windows 7 Professional x64
---- HTPC ---- Asus M3A78-EM 780G - AMD Athlon X2 5050e 45W @ 2.6Ghz - 2x2GB Kingston PC2-6400 DDR2 - Sparkle 350W PSU
Seagate 7200.10 320Gb SATA - Seagate 7200.10 250Gb SATA - Athenatech A100BB.350 MicroATX Desktop - Creative X-Fi XtremeMusic
CaptNKILL is offline  
Old 05-15-03, 10:47 PM   #228
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptNKILL
NV40, you dont have to shorten your lines of text. Word wrap is on.

Save us some scrolling for gods sake!!!!!
It's a poem.
__________________
[b]Optimization guidelines by Koji Ashida of NVIDIA:[/b][list][*]Use fx12 instructions whenever possible[*]Use lowest pixel shader version[/list][url=http://developer.nvidia.com/docs/IO/10878/ChinaJoy2004_OptimizationAndTools.pdf]source[/url]

[size=1]The politics are invading the technology. We don't really like to mess with politics because that kind of adversarial relationship has nothing to do with pure technical operations and the technical specifications of what we like to play with, the hardware![/size]
volt 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
Rumor regarding lack of 680 availability ViN86 Rumor Mill 6 05-09-12 04:48 PM
NVIDIA could rule if they really wanted to Vid_craze NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 25 08-16-02 05:24 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 AM.


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