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

Newegg Daily Deals

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-23-03, 12:00 PM   #61
RobHague
I like cheese.
 
RobHague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 905
Default

<feels cheated (no pun intended)>

I don't know about you but this really does make me distrust nvidia so much now.... after what happened with the NV30. Suddenly doing a u-turn and 'erasing' the 5800 from existance (on their site etc) then making fun of it in a small video clip leaked to the net. To top that off now their drivers really are proven to cheat and inflate scores in order to decieve people into picking one product over another.

Gutted.... i was all for looking at the 5900 Ultra's at one point. Now im not so sure...

Im just thankful i jumped to ATI when i did, i was starting to think if i had done the right thing but now im sure i did.

So then, can someone now confirm - With this new build and the 5800 Ultra what is the score? I used to get around 5202... im assuming that now that would be about 3500-3700?
__________________

There used to be a signature here, but now there isnt.
RobHague is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 12:03 PM   #62
deejaya
Monster 3d
 
deejaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by RobHague
So then, can someone now confirm - With this new build and the 5800 Ultra what is the score? I used to get around 5202... im assuming that now that would be about 3500-3700?
Someone on Futuremark forums got around ~5300, and with the new build scored ~1000 points less, which is about the same as 24%.
deejaya is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 12:04 PM   #63
c4c
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis77
Yes I noticed it. So? Fact is that it's 1.9% whch is really minor and overall within the margin of error. Whereas the 24% drop with NV is HUGE and in no wa or form within margin of error.
Ok 1.9% is not a major difference, we can all agree. But the score difference is apparently due to an 8% change in one test. Which IS a tad odd you must admit...

EDIT: I post slow
c4c is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 12:04 PM   #64
RobHague
I like cheese.
 
RobHague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 905
Default

Damn thats bad. So in other words < R300 does. Looks like i did 'upgrade' after all.
__________________

There used to be a signature here, but now there isnt.
RobHague is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 12:04 PM   #65
zakelwe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 768
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by RobHague
<feels cheated (no pun intended)>


Im just thankful i jumped to ATI when i did, i was starting to think if i had done the right thing but now im sure i did.

Sorry mate but there are no Snow Whites out there except two groups :-

nVidiots
FanAtics

the reason being we are the people paying the money. So we do at least have one thing in common

Regards

Andy
zakelwe is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 12:05 PM   #66
Skinner
Registered User
 
Skinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,128
Default



I got 4742 with an 5800Ultra
__________________
*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, 12:06 PM   #67
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gahd. I'm sick of people putting way too much importance on 3DMark. Hope Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 arrives soon so we won't have to base everything on one horribly unreliable benchmark.
 
Old 05-23-03, 12:07 PM   #68
Gar
I like cats.
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 151
Default

R O F L. I hope you can't hear that.
Gar is offline  

Old 05-23-03, 12:08 PM   #69
Nemesis77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by c4c
Ok 1.9% is not a major difference, we can all agree. But the score difference is apparently due to an 8% change in one test. Which IS a tad odd you must admit...

EDIT: I post slow
Yes it is odd, and FM is looking in to the matter.
Nemesis77 is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 12:08 PM   #70
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Gar
R O F L. I hope you can't hear that.
Hey, is that laughter I hear? It's so hard to hear it over all this chuckling...
__________________
[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, 12:08 PM   #71
OICAspork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 70
Send a message via AIM to OICAspork
Default Damn people... *shakes head and holds thought to himself*

First off... here are the cheats FutureMark found, as taken from their PDF (I've highlighted the things of greatest concern to me):

Quote:
What Are The Identified Cheats?

Futuremark’s audit revealed cheats in NVIDIA Detonator FX 44.03 and 43.51 WHQL drivers. Earlier GeForceFX drivers include only some of the cheats listed below.

1. The loading screen of the 3DMark03 test is detected by the driver. This is used by the driver to disregard the back buffer clear command that 3DMark03 gives. This incorrectly reduces the
workload. However, if the loading screen is rendered in a different manner, the driver seems to fail to detect 3DMark03, and performs the back buffer clear command as instructed.

2. A vertex shader used in game test 2 (P_Pointsprite.vsh) is detected by the driver. In this case the driver uses instructions contained in the driver to determine when to obey the back buffer
clear command and when not to. If the back buffer would not be cleared at all in game test 2, the stars in the view of outer space in some cameras would appear smeared as have been reported in the articles mentioned earlier. Back buffer clearing is turned off and on again so that the back buffer is cleared only when the default benchmark cameras show outer space. In free camera mode one can keep the camera outside the spaceship through the entire test, and see how the sky smearing is turned on and off.

3. A vertex shader used in game test 4 (M_HDRsky.vsh) is detected. In this case the driver adds two static clipping planes to reduce the workload. The clipping planes are placed so that the
sky is cut out just beyond what is visible in the default camera angles. Again, using the free camera one can look at the sky to see it abruptly cut off. Screenshot of this view was also
reported in the ExtremeTech and Beyond3D articles. This cheat was introduced in the 43.51 drivers as far as we know.

4. In game test 4, the water pixel shader (M_Water.psh) is detected. The driver uses this detection to artificially achieve a large performance boost - more than doubling the early
frame rate on some systems. In our inspection we noticed a difference in the rendering when compared either to the DirectX reference rasterizer or to those of other hardware. It appears
the water shader is being totally discarded and replaced with an alternative more efficient shader implemented in the drivers themselves. The drivers produce a similar looking rendering, but not an identical one.


5. In game test 4 there is detection of a pixel shader (m_HDRSky.psh). Again it appears the shader is being totally discarded and replaced with an alternative more efficient shader in a similar fashion to the water pixel shader above. The rendering looks similar, but it is not identical.

6. A vertex shader (G_MetalCubeLit.vsh) is detected in game test 1. Preventing this detection proved to reduce the frame rate with these drivers, but we have not yet determined the cause.

7. A vertex shader in game test 3 (G_PaintBaked.vsh) is detected, and preventing this detection drops the scores with these drivers. This cheat causes the back buffer clearing to be
disregarded; we are not yet aware of any other cheats.

8. The vertex and pixel shaders used in the 3DMark03 feature tests are also detected by the driver. When we prevented this detection, the performance dropped by more than a factor of
two in the 2.0 pixel shader test.


We have used various techniques to prevent NVIDIA drivers from performing the above detections. We have been extremely careful to ensure that none of the changes we have introduced causes differences in either rendering output or performance. In most case, simple alterations in the shader code – such as swapping two registers – has been sufficient to prevent
the detection.
Not that clipping planes are acceptable... or turning the background on and off in space as you see fit is either... but in the two cases I highlighted... NVidia didn't simply edit their drivers to prevent rendering of unseen code... THEY COMPLETELY REWROTE SHADER CODES TO REPLACE THOSE INCLUDED IN THE GAME!. This is sick... people using this against futuremark really upset me. Completely seperate from the fact that this totally invalidates the GFFX's results... does it occur to you that the shader is actually probably not a DX9 shader? Or that NVidia was wasting their driver development time writing new shader code for 3DMark instead of optimising for games that are already out there? It is also my theory that NVidia is doing something similar with the PS2.0 tests... as the GFFX performs PS2.0 abismally.

Seriously, how can anyone defend NVidia at this point?

Now onto a reply...

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?
ATI hasn't officially cheated, that is under investigation. The could be using a game specific optimization that improves rendering efficiency without changing what is rendered, which is perfectly acceptable, until Futuremark and ATI comment on this, your comment has no merit.

Quote:
We learn of course that we can no longer trust synthetic benchmarks, isn't it obvious?
I cringed at this comment... because it is completely asinine. In the past this may have been true... but today Futuremark proved that from her on we can trust synthetic benchmarks specifically because they can be policed like this.

Quote:
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.


But they could work in the fixed camera benchmarks within games... and switch off during normal gameplay.

Quote:
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...
Wow... I hadn't even read this when I got to part above. It means that NVidia can perform shaders that are hardcoded specifically for their hardware quickly... woo... who'd have thought! That doesn't mean they can run DX9 shaders at an acceptable speed... and guess what DX9 games won't be using NVidia's OpenGL functions if they aren't coded into the DX9 spec, so yes... this is a good indication of what you'll see in the future with PS2.0 running on NVidia's FX line. Take your blinders off sonny.
OICAspork is offline  
Old 05-23-03, 12:09 PM   #72
zakelwe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 768
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hanners
A




Not to deny that ATi are cheating (that seems pretty much clear-cut), but those two statements I just quoted seem to go against one another.


3% is the error margin but they got an 8% drop so it is outside ?

I agree it is a bit confusing but I think this is what they mean hanners !

Regards

Andy
zakelwe 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 07:17 PM.


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