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

Newegg Daily Deals

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-23-03, 11:33 AM   #37
Nemesis77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by tertsi
Copy from Futuremark's report:

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.

Busted!
HAH! I just love how you focus on the 1.9% difference wit ATI-drivers (that falls well within the 3% margin of error) and complete ignore the 24% drop with NV-drivers!

damn, talk about bias!
Nemesis77 is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 11:35 AM   #38
schuey74
GTX 280 (675/1458/2500)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: South Florida
Posts: 819
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by rokzy
has anybody decided to not buy a FX card after seeing these results? or decided to get one anyway?

I personally wouldn't feel comfortable buying from a company who would try to cheat me out of 24.1% of it's performance, especially with something as expensive as the FX's...
Sorry to say but Nvidia is not trying cheat anyone out of any performance. They were cheating to up their scores in 3DMark03. You're getting all the performance in games, unless someone has something proving otherwise.
schuey74 is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 11:37 AM   #39
Clockwork
I was cured all right...
 
Clockwork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Korova Milk Bar
Posts: 115
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Morrow

Another thing we learn from this is that FutureMark now has also officially stated that their shader routines are inefficient! They say that nvidia managed to implement nvidia hw optimized shaders which are sometimes more than twice as fast as the shaders used by FutureMark. What does this say about FutureMark's credibility having released a benchmark optimized for future hardware! Well, nothing positive in any case...

That statement holds no merit. Futuremark is using DirectX9 standard shader code. This is a standardized benchmark afterall. The whole point is not to optimize for one particular card.


__________________
| AMD Athlon 64 3500+ | 1GB Corsair XMS Extreme Memory PC3200 DDR | GIGABYTE GA-K8NSNXP-939 nForce3 Ultra | WD 120GB SATA | BFG 6800GT OC w/ Zalman VF700cu | Pioneer DVR-A07XLA 8x DVD+-R/RW | Aopen 1640Pro-A 16x DVD | Cooler Master Cavalier 1 CAV-T01-WWA case | Ultra X-Connect 500watt psu | Windows XP Professional w/ SP2 |Samsung 193p+ 19" LCD
Clockwork is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 11:37 AM   #40
c4c
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Typedef Enum
Because of all this crap, guess who has to spend the time to correct the code to account for such practices? Yep, not nVidia...FutureMark has to then dedicate some of their resources to addressing this crap that probably should be doing other more important things.
GOOD.

Because that's exactly what they should be doing. I want Futuremark to have resources devoted to making sure their benchmark is worth the time that it took to code it in the first place. After all, they are in the business of making benchmarks, not demos. The most important aspect to a benchmark is credibility, and it is their responsibility to make sure they have some

Sadly, I think most of the original cheating info came from outside sources. Although I hope that Futuremark has some people "on the case"
c4c is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 11:37 AM   #41
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
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.
why does ATI detect 3DMark?
Behemoth is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 11:38 AM   #42
Skinner
Registered User
 
Skinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,128
Default

In the nature test the framerates dropped from 110 to 38 in the beginning, in the other tests, which don't effect the score, the fps remain the same.
__________________
*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, 11:38 AM   #43
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Morrow
After officially knowing now that both nvidia and ATI cheat in 3dmark03 (anyone surprised?), what do we learn from this incident?

We learn of course that we can no longer trust synthetic benchmarks, isn't it obvious?

Cheating in games is certainly easier to hide but not as easy to implement because the cheats found in 3dmark03 do not work in games where the camerapath is random.

Another thing we learn from this is that FutureMark now has also officially stated that their shader routines are inefficient! They say that nvidia managed to implement nvidia hw optimized shaders which are sometimes more than twice as fast as the shaders used by FutureMark. What does this say about FutureMark's credibility having released a benchmark optimized for future hardware! Well, nothing positive in any case...
officially only nvidia @ the moment has been implicated...

ati is under investigation for an 8 odd percent anomaly in gt4... I expect more details to emerge from this in the next coupla weeks if there is a valid cheat being engaged here...
Sazar is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 11:38 AM   #44
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis77
HAH! I just love how you focus on the 1.9% difference wit ATI-drivers (that falls well within the 3% margin of error) and complete ignore the 24% drop with NV-drivers!

damn, talk about bias!
Did you miss the part where FutureMark said the test was altered by ATI drivers?

I think this whole thing is only further going to invalidate 3DMark as a reasonable benchmark. You all can sit here and whine about what NVIDIA and ATI did or didn't do. But I'm going to take my cards and use them for what they were intended - to play games. That's all that should ever matter. If any card is found to be cheating in games, that's a different matter. But it's 3DMark, and I can't play it so I don't care.
saturnotaku is offline  

Old 05-23-03, 11:41 AM   #45
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Behemoth
why does ATI detect 3DMark?
nice to see you acknowledge officially that nvidia cheated all along

and yes... it is interesting to see ati using application specific code in gt4...

read previous post for thoughts
Sazar is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 11:41 AM   #46
DivotMaker
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by saturnotaku
Did you miss the part where FutureMark said the test was altered by ATI drivers?

I think this whole thing is only further going to invalidate 3DMark as a reasonable benchmark. You all can sit here and whine about what NVIDIA and ATI did or didn't do. But I'm going to take my cards and use them for what they were intended - to play games. That's all that should ever matter. If any card is found to be cheating in games, that's a different matter. But it's 3DMark, and I can't play it so I don't care.
Thanks for saving me the time and energy to type exactly the same points....
DivotMaker is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 11:42 AM   #47
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sazar
nice to see you acknowledge officially that nvidia cheated all along

and yes... it is interesting to see ati using application specific code in gt4...

read previous post for thoughts
no big deal, i am gonna keep my FX until my next upgrade anyway
Behemoth is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 11:45 AM   #48
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by saturnotaku
Did you miss the part where FutureMark said the test was altered by ATI drivers?

I think this whole thing is only further going to invalidate 3DMark as a reasonable benchmark. You all can sit here and whine about what NVIDIA and ATI did or didn't do. But I'm going to take my cards and use them for what they were intended - to play games. That's all that should ever matter. If any card is found to be cheating in games, that's a different matter. But it's 3DMark, and I can't play it so I don't care.
the fact that you have a synthetic benchmark that is using standards to demonstrate the potential perofrmance of a product in expected scenarios has no bearing on the product one buys?

FYi... none of the timedemo's used to benchmark cards is playable either... are they ?

hence... what is the criterion used ? actual games where IHV's working closely with game devs CAN have application or hardware specific code ? or synthetic benches where it is supposedly harder to get away with cheats as has been proven...

if anything I believe it underlines the authenticity of futuremarks bench as it shows they are determined to eliminate these application specific hacks... regardless of the IHV... and that should be commended...

I too am going to take my card and play games with it... but I can also rest assured in the fact that potential consumers are less likely to be misled by 3dmark03 scores when benching dx9 hardware...
Sazar 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 09:35 PM
Current NVIDIA FreeBSD graphics driver releases zander NVIDIA FreeBSD 0 01-27-09 06:22 PM
Current NVIDIA Linux graphics driver releases AaronP NVIDIA Linux 0 11-06-08 05:39 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 AM.


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