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

Newegg Daily Deals

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-23-03, 09:50 AM   #13
DSC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 888
Default

Yes I understand, that was meant as sarcasm.

I hope this will prove once and for all to ATI defenders that yes, your company CHEATS also.
DSC is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 09:51 AM   #14
Darren555
Radeon 9700Pro
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 35
Default

Yeah bad week for nvidia.........first news that Dawn prefers ATI & now this!!
Darren555 is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 09:52 AM   #15
Nebuchadnezzar
Registered User
 
Nebuchadnezzar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Internet
Posts: 122
Default

First of all let's wait for Futuremark to insestigate on the ATI drivers before saying anything about cheating.
Nebuchadnezzar is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 09:55 AM   #16
Kombatant
K to the max!™
 
Kombatant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 140
Default

Quote:
Our investigations reveal that some drivers from ATI also produce a slightly lower total score on this new build of 3DMark03. The drop in performance on the same test system with a Radeon 9800 Pro using the Catalyst 3.4 drivers is 1.9%. This performance drop is almost entirely due to 8.2% difference in the game test 4 result, which means that the test was also detected and somehow altered by the ATI drivers. We are currently investigating this further.
Well, if you look at it from a different perspective, it could mean that the ATi driver guys are so incompetent that their cheats don't even produce good results LOL
__________________
There is no spoon...
Kombatant's Lair
Kombatant is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 09:55 AM   #17
Toastywheatman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7
Default

The performance drop concerning ATI is not yet confirmed to be cheating until it can be shown that it in some way reduces image quality or does not fulfill the precise instructions sent to the driver by 3DMark2003, as was shown with the Nvidia drivers.

It may be that ATI has a 'game-specific' optimization in the mother nature test that does not take any artificial short cuts which reduce work load. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. If the ATI drivers are still doing EVERYTHING that the 3DMark2003 application asks, then it is not cheating.

If this is the case for ATI, I hope that they come out and say it so that they can dispel any doubts.

-Toasty
Toastywheatman is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 09:56 AM   #18
Skinner
Registered User
 
Skinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,128
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by PreservedSwine
Who's going to download the patch run the tests? I'd like to see the new results for both cards.

I never, ever thought I'd ever say this, but Great job futuremark!
I'm downing 3dmark03 now (yes, never run it, ok one time, but all I care are games )
__________________
*Intel i7@3,8gHz*Asus P6T Deluxe* 2x Sapphire HD7970 3GB Crossfire *6 GB Corsair Dominator 1600C8*OCZ Vertex 120 GB SSD*adaptec 19160U160*Intel X25 80 GB Quantum Atlas 15KII SCSI U160 147Gig* WD Raptor 300 GB*Apple 24" LED Cinema *X-Fi Titanium*Logitech Z5500*Coolmaster RP 1000W*W7 64 Home *
Skinner is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 09:57 AM   #19
rokzy
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nebuchadnezzar
Rofl you people trying to tell that that 1.9% difference on the ATI cards justifies the 24% of the Nvidia's?
yep 1.9% could easily be a bug or an error. either way I'm glad this sort of thing is being discovered because at the end of the day I want to see accurate results.

nvidia's 24% is just ridiculous. it reminds of when the U.S. was helping rig elections in Vietnam before the war. the U.S. suggested faking a win of about 98%, but they went for a 100% victory, which was obviously just total BS.
rokzy is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 10:01 AM   #20
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Thumbs down No, cheating is cheating.

If ATi's 1.9% is actually a driver detection routine than I intend to have some words with some ATi folks...albeit a lot more pleasant ones than with nVidia. (Hey, I know ATi will listen to me without shouting! )
__________________
[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 05-23-03, 10:02 AM   #21
deejaya
Monster 3d
 
deejaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nebuchadnezzar
Rofl you people trying to tell that that 1.9% difference on the ATI cards justifies the 24% of the Nvidia's?
Are you trying to justify the 1.9% difference as being acceptable in light of nVidia being caught? The report clearly states "This performance drop is almost entirely due to 8.2% difference in the game test 4 result, which means that the test was also detected and somehow altered by the ATI drivers."

Cheating is cheating is cheating, the same applies for any company. It should not be done, no matter how large or small the gains, a cheat is a cheat. It's like saying "Ah, I'm only using a wallhack though, at least I'm not using an aimbot"

You are right to say to wait, but take a little look around this forum (and others) to see how long people waited before calling nVidia cheaters.
deejaya is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 10:04 AM   #22
c4c
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nebuchadnezzar
Rofl you people trying to tell that that 1.9% difference on the ATI cards justifies the 24% of the Nvidia's?
If anything it highlights just how bad Nvidia is cheating.

They mention that the 1.9% score difference is almost entirely on a 8.2% score difference in game test 4. An 8.2% difference is nothing to sneeze at, but now I think about the 24% difference in Nvidia scores

Of course it remains to be seen if Ati is cheating or not. But it is pretty clear Ati is doing SOMETHING to detect 3DMark and make it faster..At least for the one test.

IMO this should come as a surprise to nobody. This is the first REAL scrutiny I have seen from 3DMark, so it makes me wonder how bad the cheating is on previous versions (from both companies). After all, if they can get away with it, they will do it.
c4c is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 10:04 AM   #23
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

fyi... from the driver reports from 3dmark03...

Quote:
In our testing, all identified detection mechanisms stopped working when we altered the
benchmark code just trivially and without changing any of the actual benchmark workload. With
this altered benchmark, NVIDIA’s certain products had a performance drop of as much as
24.1% while competition’s products performance drop stayed within the margin of error of 3%. To
our knowledge, all drivers with these detection mechanisms were published only after the launch
of 3DMark03. According to industry’s terminology, this type of driver design is defined as ‘driver
cheats’.
note the +/- 3% variance that they have listed... v/s the 1.9% variance shown by the ati driver set overall..

however with the 8 odd percent variance in gt4... there may well be some optimization going on... thus far no one has reported on it..

will be interesting to read the reports on the cat 3.4 series to see just what the 'optimizations' were..

but those same people who were deflecting criticism of nvidia's cheats are now taking it upon themselves to bash ati for a variance of 1.9% v/s well over 20% for nvidia's driver hacks... it is a little hard to understand why this is so...
Sazar is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 10:07 AM   #24
schuey74
GTX 280 (675/1458/2500)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: South Florida
Posts: 819
Default

Give a lot of credit to Futuremark for not using this as an all out attack on Nvidia. Given Nvidia's very outspoken discrediting of 3DMark03, it would have been very easy to get drawn into that game. Instead they chose to learn from Nvidia's mistake and not try to hide something that may come up later. By releasing the patch and making public the fact that both Nvidia & ATI had cut some corners in their tests they are at least making a decent effort into making 3DMark03 a more accurate benchmark.

I'm not saying that 3Dmark is now the end all, definitive benchmark, but I like the way Futuremark handled the issue.......discreet & fair.
schuey74 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 09:54 AM.


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