[991060]

I saw the news at nvnews,you can download the leaked driver at

ftp://evga.com/5303XP.exe
or
http://www.bfgtech.com/images/5303_IS-NV111403D.zip

it seemed the score in 3dmark03 with 340 patch is back to the level with 330 patch, there're also some improvements in games.

Updates to this driver:

Improved support for HDTV Modes

Corrected the following issues from 52.16:

Clone mode may be set for the GeForce FX 5600 although only one display is connected.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra: When 4x FSAA is enabled, half of the screen is black in Tiger Woods 2004 introductory video.

GeForce4 MX 440 and GeForce4 Ti 4400, Windows XP: Blue-screen crash during Battlefield 1942 Desert Combat.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra: Homeworld2 antialiased performance is slow.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and GeForce4 Ti 4400, Windows XP: Rendering corruption in Battlefield 1942 Desert Combat.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, Windows XP: “X2: The Threat� benchmark is choppy or jerky in some places.

All GeForce FX: Intermittently, Warcraft III videos are not displayed properly on some systems.

[bloodbob]

Well its released by a OEM so its not really a leak.

A little conversation about it here too
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewto...=193907#193907

Very sad to hear the hacks are back :/

[3dilettante]

A couple of posters at [H] and Guru3d claim to have gotten back hundreds of points in 3dmark.

Whether these are isolated flukes or not will probably be clear in a few hours.

Given how simple many of the mentioned changes were for the 3dmark 340 build, I'm erring on the side of Nvidia cheating again. Nvidia has gone through a lot more trouble for much less. :?

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

It's the same pattern as before. Futuremark block Nvidia cheats, and then Nvidia release "leaked" drivers which they don't have to support and which put the cheats back in. As these are "leaked" Nvidia can even deny all responsibility of cheating.

Bet these don't come up as an approved Futuremark driver.

[THe_KELRaTH]

Nv are obviously not using quality No CD hacker guys or they would have cracked Ver 340 in a few days rather than 8

[Hanners]

Originally Posted by THe_KELRaTH

Nv are obviously not using quality No CD hacker guys or they would have cracked Ver 340 in a few days rather than 8

To be fair it probably took a couple of days to check the driver build against nVidia's optimisation guidelines, and then another couple of days to think up an excuse for why they fail to follow the guidelines.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Hanners

To be fair it probably took a couple of days to check the driver build against nVidia's optimisation guidelines, and then another couple of days to think up an excuse for why they fail to follow the guidelines.

Have they announced that excuse yet? Or are we to assume that it's just a coincidence that one of the game fixes happened to serendiciously "fix" the 3.40 patch too?

[Tahir2]

They have already excused themselves.

They have the right to implement these 'optimisations' as it is their hardware.
You have the right not to buy their hardware or to not install these drivers if you already have it.

You also have the right to agree with NVIDIA policy.

FM cannot disagree with this fundamental right NVIDIA has. Whether people like it or not is a "meh" point.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Tahir

FM cannot disagree with this fundamental right NVIDIA has. Whether people like it or not is a "meh" point.

Well, unless nVidia signed up as beta partners with FutureMark and agreed to FM's terms of service....which they did.

[Tahir2]

And they still do whatever they please WRT the drivers and 3dmark03 detection. They break the contract on the basis of the fact that it is 'their drivers' and no one is going to tell them what to do with it. Since they are 'breaking' this contract what does that tell you?

Hey it is their excuse and more power to them - they think it is more important to be seen as fast or better than their competitors even if it involves unethical tactics. I wouldnt touch an NVIDIA product with a 6 foot pike unless I got it for free, of course, hehe.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Tahir

And they still do whatever they please WRT the drivers and 3dmark03 detection. They break the contract on the basis of the fact that it is 'their drivers' and no one is going to tell them what to do with it. Since they are 'breaking' this contract what does that tell you?

Hey it is their excuse and more power to them - they think it is more important to be seen as fast or better than their competitors even if it involves unethical tactics. I wouldnt touch an NVIDIA product with a 6 foot pike unless I got it for free, of course, hehe.

Well I can't argue with that as long as you agree it breaks some rules with FM and invalidates their results.

That's what I don't get about it. These aren't official drivers so they can't be FM approved anyways, but even if they were I don't believe FM is going to approve 'em unless they make sure nVidia isn't up to their old tricks. (Which I firmly believe they are, at least for now.)

What's the point of making driver that can score better on 3dm2k3 if you can't USE those drivers with 3dm2k3?

[Tahir2]

Reviewers do use the drivers so when comparing X to Y the reviewer says something like, '..and in 3dmark03 we can clearly see the GFFX is able to keep up with its competitor.'

Etc..

Reviews AFAIK affect sales in some way and IIRC in the UK at least people are more inclined to buy products with good reviews.

[Malfunction]

It's just gonna reinforce the demise of the benchmark. Patch after patch after pact... Pretty soon, people are just going to get tired of patching 3DMark and it just floats away into software oblivion.

Hardware updates are always going to be justified. They make a product better. Software is a different story, it puts doubt in peoples minds. Just look at the Windows XP patches and what the public feels about there being so many.

Peace,

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Malfunction

It's just gonna reinforce the demise of the benchmark. Patch after patch after pact... Pretty soon, people are just going to get tired of patching 3DMark and it just floats away into software oblivion.

Hardware updates are always going to be justified. They make a product better. Software is a different story, it puts doubt in peoples minds. Just look at the Windows XP patches and what the public feels about there being so many.

Peace,

Yeah, people HATE it when games put out patches... (BTW-Deja vu, didn't you get this argument shot down yesterday?)

I think it's against FM's rules to use non-FM approved drivers in reviews anymore.

[Malfunction]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Yeah, people HATE it when games put out patches... (BTW-Deja vu, didn't you get this argument shot down yesterday?)

I think it's against FM's rules to use non-FM approved drivers in reviews anymore.

Game patches are different wonderer. Last I check, 3DMark is not a game is it?

Peace,

[EntombeD]

The best driver 52.16 whql Problemz, Problemz.......

Well at least one of my problems is fixed with 53.03 downloaded them earlier 2day from guru3d I am don't usually use the crappy beta drivers but so far they are stable........

Checking them out if my other problems are fixed to.......

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Tahir

They have already excused themselves.

They have the right to implement these 'optimisations' as it is their hardware.
You have the right not to buy their hardware or to not install these drivers if you already have it.

You also have the right to agree with NVIDIA policy.

FM cannot disagree with this fundamental right NVIDIA has. Whether people like it or not is a "meh" point.

This time around I don't quite get your point Tahir.

Futuremark is a company that manufactures testing programs, which test the performance of hardware. Now they have a clear set of guidelines how to use the software. When you install the software I believe you agree to those guidelines are part of the license agreement.

Now if someone wants to create drivers that violate the guidelines that's certainly possible. If reporters knowingly want to misuse the software to obtain better results that's certainly possible also (Futuremark wouldn't have legal resources to stop this in practice). But they certainly do not have a 'right' to do that. Violating the guidelines violates the results and renders the data meaningless. The fact that this can be done does not justify it in the least.

At the same time I have to say that my focus has now shifted towards the hardware editors. Futuremark has done what has been requested and anyone who wants to use 3DMark in an unbiased way can do that now (with the Build 340 and the approved drivers). It's certainly interesting to see how sites will react to this.

Cheers,

AJ

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Malfunction

Patch after patch after pact...

Given that Futuremark has implemented the Driver Approval processes we shouldn't need many patches in the future. There's now a build out there which gives correct results with the approved drivers and all is well.

The chances are that not that many new drivers will be approved, but that's quite okay. You'll still get valid results with the approved ones.

Cheers,

AJ

[Tim]

Originally Posted by Tahir

They have already excused themselves.

They have the right to implement these 'optimisations' as it is their hardware.

They do not optimize their hardware they replace code in someone else’s software.

[bloodbob]

Originally Posted by Tim

They do not optimize their hardware they replace code in someone else’s software.

Just to be correct they don't alter the software but their drivers don't implement the API correctly ( and shouldn't be WHQLed but M$ is M$ ).

If they did actually modify the software futuremark could slap the DMCA on nvidia but probably to provie it futuremark would have to violate the DMCA.

Now I have a interesting legal question can you patent a shader as a software patent?