3DMurk03 new cheats ?
- Thread starter nelg
- Start date
Typedef Enum
Regular
nVidia has now earned the right to be called a "has been" outfit. Holy crap. There's no level that they _won't_ stoop to.
These are the signs of a Company that has clearly been defeated...this round, at the very least.
These are the signs of a Company that has clearly been defeated...this round, at the very least.
Busted! (again?)
Looks like ATI have decided that have had enough of being the 'mr. nice guy' and have taken the gloves off, so to speak.
Completely out of sense of fairness, has anyone tried this with ATI drivers? You gotta figure though if ATI released this info, they'd have made pretty damn sure that their driver don't do it too!!
Funny though, I don't see this story splashed all over the front pages of [H]. Wouldn't this be a, errm, optimisation that could be just as easily applied to all benchmarking-capable games?
Looks like ATI have decided that have had enough of being the 'mr. nice guy' and have taken the gloves off, so to speak.
Completely out of sense of fairness, has anyone tried this with ATI drivers? You gotta figure though if ATI released this info, they'd have made pretty damn sure that their driver don't do it too!!
Funny though, I don't see this story splashed all over the front pages of [H]. Wouldn't this be a, errm, optimisation that could be just as easily applied to all benchmarking-capable games?
You know, I find this whole cheating thing kind of strange. If more widespread cheats are found, regardless of who is cheating, the more it makes 3Dmark valuable. Let me explain myself, lest you think I have gone bonkers. Question have been raised (currently) about benchmark accuracy (re. Cheats) in 3Dmark, Shadermark, DoomIII, Splinter Cell and probably a few more. If it is found that IHV are in fact cheating in a number of widely used benchmarks it make their detection harder to uncover. 3Dmark, by its very nature, as the most widely used benchmark makes it the most probable target for cheating (I just cannot bring myself to say “driver optimizationsâ€). But with such attention also brings more scrutiny and more likelihood that these cheats would be uncovered. I would rather have a benchmark policed as many people as possible to keep everyone honest.Pete said:
Hellbinder
Banned
i would start testing this with as many games as possible. I commented in a thread at Nvnews today that I thought Nvidia was still Doing some Fishy things with AF... Being that there was no reason for their big AF gains, especially since they only appear to be in certain major benchmarks... Pretty funny that i made those comments a few hours ago.. Almost looks prophetic.
There are other ways to do this kind of thing without this Kind of application detection. I personally believe they are pulling the same kinds of things in
Serious Sam
Quake3
Unreal Tournament
There are other ways to do this kind of thing without this Kind of application detection. I personally believe they are pulling the same kinds of things in
Serious Sam
Quake3
Unreal Tournament
radar1200gs
Regular
I think it very perculiar that tech report tested only the patched version of 3dmark2003 - ie: this could be a trap laid for nVidia by futuremark, with the help of their sponsors ATi.
It'll probably be like :Ichneumon said:
"All the more reason to not use 3DMark03. I have not seen evidence of such in actual games. Anyone tried renaming game executables and see if this happens too? No? There, point proven. NVIDIA won't dare attempt anything like this in actual games. Even if they do, it's probably reasonable to call it game-specific optimizations because its aim is to provide a better gaming experience to the user. If performance falls below a certain threshold (the threshold as decided by NVIDIA), I think it's acceptable to do such optimizations. You can't have a good gaming experience when you set high IQ options and the performance falls below this threshold."
Or something like that
Hellbinder
Banned
I was actually going to comment on something else.. but then I read this and went like WOW.. Man you have some balls of Steel.
Do you have any idea how rediculous that is???? The fact that they renamed the .EXE means that Driver app detection was being used. It has nothing to do with the patch at all.
Further there are numerous 3dmark03 Beta partners. Even Dell. Is Dell out to get Nvidia To???
Hellbinder
Banned
What i was actually going to post was this..
You also have to wonder...
Didnt Nvidia realize with everything else that something like this would get uncovered??? I cant believe they went this far, considering everything else.... Its pretty damn scarry. Especially with all that negotiations and agreements going on behind the scenes. And Official Statements of not cheating and getting special IHV support and the other things suggested in the Nvidia-Futuremark statements.
All the While Nvidia knew damn well they were Still doing something like this??? While seemingly threatening leagal action??
Its just unbelievable.
You also have to wonder...
Didnt Nvidia realize with everything else that something like this would get uncovered??? I cant believe they went this far, considering everything else.... Its pretty damn scarry. Especially with all that negotiations and agreements going on behind the scenes. And Official Statements of not cheating and getting special IHV support and the other things suggested in the Nvidia-Futuremark statements.
All the While Nvidia knew damn well they were Still doing something like this??? While seemingly threatening leagal action??
Its just unbelievable.
I can see the Nvidia press releases now....
The first will say, "It's a feature....errm....intelligent filtering optimisation." A later release will say, "Our Drivers are obviously out to try and make us look bad." Finally a joint release will say, "Nvidia and our Driver Code have sat down and talked and we have agreed this is simply an 'application specific optimisation'. Namely, we have detected an application, performed specific routines and determined an optimisation to reduce the amount of filtering we feel we should have to do to increase our score to a reasonable level."
Maybe they should trademark these 'optimisations'? I have a suggestion - 'Intellib*llsh*t'.
Of course I'm also looking forward to [H] stating that the discovery should be discounted because it came from ATI. Then the poopoo will really hit the air circulation device!
The first will say, "It's a feature....errm....intelligent filtering optimisation." A later release will say, "Our Drivers are obviously out to try and make us look bad." Finally a joint release will say, "Nvidia and our Driver Code have sat down and talked and we have agreed this is simply an 'application specific optimisation'. Namely, we have detected an application, performed specific routines and determined an optimisation to reduce the amount of filtering we feel we should have to do to increase our score to a reasonable level."
Maybe they should trademark these 'optimisations'? I have a suggestion - 'Intellib*llsh*t'.
Of course I'm also looking forward to [H] stating that the discovery should be discounted because it came from ATI. Then the poopoo will really hit the air circulation device!
mondoterrifico
Newcomer
radar1200gs said:
Please guy, all your posts are of the stupid kind. Hint, this is beyond3d, if you don't have anything intelligent to offer refrain from posting. Sorry to sound harsh but i specifically read this forum because i don't have to wade through your particular brand of bs.
Reverend said:It'll probably be like :Ichneumon said:
"All the more reason to not use 3DMark03. I have not seen evidence of such in actual games. Anyone tried renaming game executables and see if this happens too? No? There, point proven. NVIDIA won't dare attempt anything like this in actual games. Even if they do, it's probably reasonable to call it game-specific optimizations because its aim is to provide a better gaming experience to the user. If performance falls below a certain threshold (the threshold as decided by NVIDIA), I think it's acceptable to do such optimizations. You can't have a good gaming experience when you set high IQ options and the performance falls below this threshold."
Or something like that
Pretty close
i'm waiting to see if the news headline on hardocp mysteriously disappears or comes with a clever explanation , like "i can't see the differences and i have better eyes than you , so you shouldn't see the differences either"
I went to hardocp after seeing the tech report thing , to see what he would say , by the title of the headline 'quack 2' i was under the impression ATI had done something wrong ...
still i can't understand why he wants 3dmark gone when such 'optimizations' happen are being used in games too ..
i have problem believing companies take him seriously with his benchmarking right article , someone with a little more authority should do that
( i really need to stop looking at hardocp , i know it's bad , but )
I went to hardocp after seeing the tech report thing , to see what he would say , by the title of the headline 'quack 2' i was under the impression ATI had done something wrong ...
still i can't understand why he wants 3dmark gone when such 'optimizations' happen are being used in games too ..
i have problem believing companies take him seriously with his benchmarking right article , someone with a little more authority should do that
( i really need to stop looking at hardocp , i know it's bad , but )
Similar threads
