[Rockman]

So this is just further investigation of of the 3dmark incident ? Well it's nice to know that nvidia just cheated again but I don't see what your getting at with ATI, I would suggest that you try your test against maybe 4-5 driver versions of each card vendor, comparing IQ all the way and releasing those pics and techniques used after everything is done with. This would definately ground your work in integrity, allowing others to reproduce the results so their is no doubt. As of right now this seems to do nothing more but attempt to say ATI(damage their character) did more what than they admitted to without concrete proof. Also throw a few game benches in their, please

[chavvdarrr]

On russian:
http://www.ixbt.com/video2/antidetect.shtml
Antidetector scripts:
http://www.ixbt.com/video2/images/an...torscripts.zip
Results in 3dmark2001
Game4 normal/with AntiDetect
GF4600 75/43 (changes vertex shader)
R9500Pro 66/47 (changes texture format&compressing)
R8500LE 42/31

So... waitng for reviews with AntiDetector scripts....

[Miksu]

On russian:
http://www.ixbt.com/video2/antidetect.shtml

Hmh, I thought Digit-Life was supposed to post an article about this? Now it seems that the writer of this script has posted it himself. So, didn't Digit-Life think this thingie is big enough to go public or are they still writing their report?

[chavvdarrr]

AFAIK testing is almost done, now writing&preparing
Edit: It seems the order of publications will be:
1. 5900&3dmark2003 without anti-detect & 44.65
2. 5900 vs 5900U vs R9800Pro
3. Anti-detect - comparing how much cards lose in different games&demos

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by chavvdarrr

AFAIK testing is almost done, now writing&preparing

thanks for FYi...

hopefully the english translation will show exactly what is going on and exactly WHAT unwinder did to display this information...

will be nice to eventually see higher end cards from both ihv's tested and info released as to whats going on

[mr]

This whole issue seems to be very complicated (atleast for me), so thanks everybody for your intersting comments on the matter.
Also thanks Unwinder for your effort.

I'm not sure if Unwinder's detection mechanisms catch the AF improvement witnessed by renaming the 3DMark03.exe (the 3DMurk issue), so you might do that additionally when benchmarking with AF on.
If I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

Keep up the good work!

[WaltC]

Originally Posted by Geeforcer

Regarding the game benchmark application detection for both Nvidia and ATI, how do we know that these are not legitimate optimizations? While optimizing for 3dmark clearly defeats the purpose on synthetic benchmark, optimizing game performance is more then welcome as far as I am concerned, as long as IQ is not adversely effected.

I actually completely agree with this. A benchmark is one thing--and frankly, even in a benchmark as long as no reduction of the default workload is achieved, optimizations don't bother me in the least. (Reducing the workload to simulate optimization, however, would be cheating.)

But in a game--I don't think it matters... Do what nVidia did in 3DMk with clip planes and so forth and you'll produce a set of drivers so buggy the game will be unplayable--so that kind of thing isn't a worry in real 3D games. Games are meant to be played, not used as benchmarks. If an IHV does something like sacrifice image quality to inflate performance in a game--that's where the role of the thorough hardware reviewer comes in and he can spot that when it happens and make people aware of it.

[UncleSam DL iXBT]

Will be published today, later, at http://www.digit-life.com

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by UncleSam DL iXBT

Will be published today, later, at http://www.digit-life.com

WOO-HOO! Thanks for the heads-up. 8)

[Pete]

Tomorrow, then? I hope this isn't one of those nVidia "Are You Ready--Psyche!!1(TM)" hoaxes.

[Hanners]

Still no sign of it...

[YeuEmMaiMai]

yeah not here yet either...............

[digitalwanderer]

tease...

[martrox]

Hmmmm......maybe some lawyer got involved........... Just kidding!

[just me]

Originally Posted by martrox

Hmmmm......maybe some lawyer got involved........... Just kidding!

After the Omega threats of a lawsuit, I wouldn't doubt it > kidding or not. But then UW has said he ain't afraid of no lawyers. He'll call 'em cheats & stand by it w/o fear of retaliation.

Odd that UW has a forum @ Guru3D but I can't find any posts about this @ Guru3D. You'd think he'd use his own forum to 'spread the word', wouldn't you?

.02,

[Bolloxoid]

Well, in the US companies have the luxury of scaring and bankrupting individuals and organisations with repeated lawsuits but it is not necessarily possible in more sophisticated countries.

[Dave Baumann]

If you read the terms and conditions in the driver downloads you'll note there is a clause stating that you won't attempt to reverse engineer them, which I believe someone said thats what they have done.

[Bolloxoid]

Originally Posted by DaveBaumann

If you read the terms and conditions in the driver downloads you'll note there is a clause stating that you won't attempt to reverse engineer them, which I believe someone said thats what they have done.

The idea that downloading a set of drivers constitutes a legal agreement would be indefensible in most countries. End-user agreements like that are at most useful for wiping your butt (well, you would need to print the text first). And you cannot be criminally prosecuted for something that isn't prohibited by law.

[2senile]

I expect that even if the testing & write up is finished there will be several days wait while they check, re-check, re-re-check & re-re-re-check everything in the article.

A little off topic but there is still no sign of the new shaders for Shadermark that were supposed to be made available on the 25th of June. Pixelat0r over at 3dvelocity told me he hasn't even gotten a reply to e-mails asking about it.

[Miksu]

Originally Posted by DaveBaumann

If you read the terms and conditions in the driver downloads you'll note there is a clause stating that you won't attempt to reverse engineer them, which I believe someone said thats what they have done.

Afaik, atleast most of the countries in EU allow reverse engineering if you don't have source codes of the product and if you need to use that product in your own work, but can't because it's not working as it should.

It doesn't matter if nVidia wants to deny it.

[Hanners]

According to Unwinder in a thread over at Rage3D, the article has already been released on iXBT.com (the Russian version of Digit Life):

I don't know what causes English version publishing delay, but it's definitively not NV pressure Russian (original) version of this article was published on iXBT.com (Digit-Life is English mirror of this site) almost a week ago, so if you're tired to wait for DL translation, you may use any online translator and read it: http://www.ixbt.com/video2/antidetect.shtml

Not what I was expecting and hoping for, but I suppose that's it.

[K.I.L.E.R]

UW lives in Russia and NV has no powers to stop UW doing whatever he likes.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Hanners

According to Unwinder in a thread over at Rage3D, the article has already been released on iXBT.com (the Russian version of Digit Life):

Not what I was expecting and hoping for, but I suppose that's it.

My babelfish gave out about 2 pages down on me, I have damn near no clue what the article is about.

Translationish Link to Unwinder article.

[SvP]

They used 3DMark 2001, not that interesting.

But on the other hand - if they had used 2003, they couldn't have written about ATI I suppose

[digitalwanderer]

Yo Unwinder!

Could you please just post up a thumbnail of what your article will say once it is translated? Just hit the high spots, please?