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

Newegg Daily Deals

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-09-03, 08:33 PM   #61
extreme_dB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nv40
its quite Ironic isnt it?

that now the Reference SHots are not reliable ,but they were in the past used to demostrate that Nvidia was lowering the IQ.

They are only valid for demonstrating the difference between driver versions on one architecture. Nvidia's drivers are regularly showing changes in the way the images are rendered, while ATI's stay the same.
extreme_dB is offline  
Old 07-09-03, 08:55 PM   #62
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by extreme_dB
They are only valid for demonstrating the difference between driver versions on one architecture. Nvidia's drivers are regularly showing changes in the way the images are rendered, while ATI's stay the same.

it is expected to be a ->change ,if new drivers fix almost old IQ diferences compared with the references shots. dont you think?

Last edited by Nv40; 07-09-03 at 08:59 PM.
Nv40 is offline  
Old 07-09-03, 08:59 PM   #63
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jesus, did some of you people even *read* the Digit-Life article? There is multiple evidence that nvidia is cheating in 3dmark03 with 44.65. There is zero evidence provided that ATI is still cheating.

Remember how we used to look at screenshots of 3dmark03 GT4 and compare ATI shots, and nvidia shots? Remember how nvidia shots always had the water and tree leaves in different places? Remember how with newer drivers the leaf positions changed again? I thought it was made abundantly clear by the time Unwinder exposed the 3dmark2001 cheats that the difference in IQ was caused by the drivers monkeying around with the shader programs. You can see that 44.03(shader optimizations disabled in 330 patch) and 44.65(new shader optimizations?) show differences in screenshots stock, without any anti-detection patch being used. Meanwhile, ATI drivers render the same image, and we already have benchmarks with the anti-detection script that show that 3dmark03 is cheat free with ATI drivers. Give it a rest already people.
 
Old 07-09-03, 09:05 PM   #64
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default

yes SH.. i have read the Digilife article , but seems you not..
you are saying ATI is inocent but digitlife say the opposite.
not in 3dmark2003,not in 3dmark2001. neither Nvidia.
if you take Digitlife 3dmark2003/2001/anti-detector reports as evidence ,then you need to take all their evidence ,and all their conclusions ,not only the ones that you like. you are just justifing one company according to your opinions which company cheats more or not.

Last edited by Nv40; 07-09-03 at 09:10 PM.
Nv40 is offline  
Old 07-09-03, 09:06 PM   #65
extreme_dB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nv40
it is expected to be a ->change ,if new drivers fix almost old IQ diferences compared with the references shots. dont you think?
Evidence of pixel differences does not mean cheating in and of itself. Other aspects have to be examined for proper analysis.

I totally disagree with your praise of the article because it makes conclusions based on incomplete data, and fails to understand the findings.

Last edited by extreme_dB; 07-09-03 at 09:12 PM.
extreme_dB is offline  
Old 07-09-03, 09:10 PM   #66
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nv40
yes SH.. i have read the Digilife article , but seems you not..
you are saying ATI is inocent but digitlife say the opposite.
if you need another quote for the article just ask.
Like I said, they provided zero evidence that ATI is cheating. They did not quantify whatsoever that ATI was indeed cheating.

Unwinder has said multiple times that his anti-detection script catches ALL application specific optimizations. 3dmark03 has been tested with ATI cards and the scores are the same. Therefore, there are no application specific cheats for 3dmark03 present when running 3dmark03 330. Digit-Life's assumptions and conclusions are 100% baseless.
 
Old 07-09-03, 09:28 PM   #67
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by extreme_dB
Evidence of pixel differences does not mean cheating in and of itself. Other aspects have to be examined for proper analysis.
indeed..
you will find that i have already said ,that the diferences between antidetector/referenceshots/ATI or NVidia not necessarily means cheats.
specially when we dont know exactly what is desactivating the antidetector,neither we know how effective is detecting ati and nvidia drivers. each one use diferent mechanism of protection.

Quote:
I totally disagree with your praise of the article because it makes conclusions based on incomplete data, and fails to understand the findings.
well ,feel free to disagree then. its your opinion vs my opinion. vs other opinions.the UNwinder programmer ,the anti-detector programmer have accused not only One company both Two companies,Digitlife too of "optimizing". funny how Futuremark have also done that too.coincidence?
i found very informative the 3dmark 2003 and the 3dmark2001 reports with the IQ comparisons. with optimizations or without optimizations the IQ in detonators 44.61 is a good step in the right direction. whether optimizing shaders are valid or not in that benchmark is a diferent story .so probably Digitlife is right an ATI and NVidia are "optimizing" or probably not. only FutureMark can clarify that.its their benchmark and they set the rules. but taking only one side of the report (as others have done) that doesnt look good to company A and ignoring the other side of the information that doesnt look good to company B, is simply not being honest with yourself.

Last edited by Nv40; 07-09-03 at 09:50 PM.
Nv40 is offline  
Old 07-09-03, 09:48 PM   #68
extreme_dB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nv40
so probably Digitlife is right an ATI and NVidia are "optimizing" or probably not. only FM can clarify that.
So whether they're right or not, they can bash a company even if they didn't manage to prove that it did anything wrong?

That article is totally biased towards Nvidia because they not only put both companies on equal footing with regards to cheating in 3dmark, but they say ATI goes further by lying about its promises!

In addition, the degree of cheating is very significant. A cheat is not just a cheat. To illustrate, a product that falsely claims double the performance would be a much bigger ripoff than a product that claims a 1% increase. That's just an extreme example, not representing Nvidia and ATI.
extreme_dB is offline  

Old 07-09-03, 09:51 PM   #69
John Reynolds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nv40
well ,feel free to disagree then. its your opinion vs my opinion. vs other opinions.the UNwinder programmer ,the anti-detector programmer have accused not only One company both Two companies. of "optimizing". funny how FM have also done that too. i found very informative the 3dmark 2003 and the 3dmark2001 report with the IQ comparisons. with optimizations or without optimizations the IQ in detonators 44.61 is a good step in the right direction. whether optimizing shaders are valid or not in that benchmark is a diferent story .so probably Digitlife is right an ATI and NVidia are "optimizing" or probably not. only FutureMark can clarify that.its their benchmark and they set the rules. but taking only one side of the report (as others have done) that doesnt look good to company A and ignoring the other side of the information that doesnt look good to company B, is simply not being honest with yourself.
Well, then, so long as you accuse everyone of cheating, even when your method of induction is illogical, you're doing a good job? Great reasoning. . . .
John Reynolds is offline  
Old 07-09-03, 09:57 PM   #70
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by extreme_dB
So whether they're right or not, they can bash a company even if they didn't manage to prove that it did anything wrong?

That article is totally biased towards Nvidia because they not only put both companies on equal footing with regards to cheating in 3dmark, but they say ATI goes further by lying about its promises!

In addition, the degree of cheating is very significant. A cheat is not just a cheat. To illustrate, a product that falsely claims double the performance would be a much bigger ripoff than a product that claims a 1% increase. That's just an extreme example, not representing Nvidia and ATI.

the same was said with the 3dmark2001 article .
even when it was the Programmer ->UNwinder itself the one ,who wote the article. that it was "BIased". when both companies were accused in that review. is that some people will never accept that their favorite company cant do never anything diferent that ethical in their drivers.
Nv40 is offline  
Old 07-09-03, 10:23 PM   #71
extreme_dB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nv40
the same was said with the 3dmark2001 article .
even when it was the Programmer ->UNwinder itself the one ,who wote the article. that it was "BIased". when both companies were accused in that review. is that some people will never accept that their favorite company cant do never anything diferent that ethical in their drivers.
Just because they're both accused, that means the article is free of bias? Your point of view could be right, but I don't agree after taking into account what a lot of knowledgeble people had to say on the subject.

To say that ATI and Nvidia are equally guilty in what we currently know about them just washes away everything that Nvidia has done lately, as if the cheating issue is cancelled out. Is that fair representation, in light of the inconclusive evidence against ATI? Does that help to stop these companies from cheating?

FM themselves issued a statement detailing all of Nvidia's cheats before they were reclassified as "invalid optimizations" (meaning the same thing).

On a sidenote, it's very odd how Nvidia now has FM making a demo to promote their new product. It definitely fuels the theories of shady tactics going on behind the scenes.
extreme_dB is offline  
Old 07-09-03, 11:03 PM   #72
CaptNKILL
CUBE
 
CaptNKILL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 18,844
Default

Where is The Baron?

This thread is going to be closed soon im sure....

BAM!!!

__________________
---- 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  
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42 PM.


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