Wait for news from Unwinder (nvworld.ru)

chavvdarrr

Veteran
GF4600
3DMark Score 12257
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 179.6 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 62.8 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 226.7 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 123.2 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 157.2 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 70.5 fps
Game 4 - Nature 74.6 fps
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 1040.3 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 2305.2 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 55.3 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 12.6 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping 185.2 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping 157.3 fps
Vertex Shader 98.3 fps
Pixel Shader 118.9 fps
Advanced Pixel Shader 102.6 fps
Point Sprites 32.2 MSprites/s

44.03 after using AntiDetector.rts:

3DMark Score 11014
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 179.0 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 62.4 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 193.9 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 112.7 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 153.1 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 69.9 fps
Game 4 - Nature 42.8 fps
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 1043.6 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 2301.5 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 55.8 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 12.5 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping 185.1 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping 157.7 fps
Vertex Shader 98.2 fps
Pixel Shader 118.7 fps
Advanced Pixel Shader 90.1 fps
Point Sprites 32.0 MSprites/s
..................
........
looking in Catalyst's now .....

Any comments? What everyone knew - cheats not only in last version of 3dMark - is now confirmed ....
 
Remember the original Detonator 40 launch?
They claimed improved shading performance, and many people were amazed by the huge Nature increase.

Now we know where it comes from, I guess - it's pretty much back to the Pre-Detonator 40 scores. :(
Cheating is nothing new at NVIDIA Corporation, it seems...


Uttar
 
chavvdarrr said:
Any comments? What everyone knew - cheats not only in last version of 3dMark - is now confirmed ....

Confirmation is a step up from suspicion though, even if few are surprised.
Thanks.

Entropy
 
"Cheating" has been around in the Detonator's since the 12.xx releases- it's just there was too much of a fanbase to actually dig in and do any research at the time- any offerings of evidence were quickly discounted and hot air/windy retorts are all that ever came of them.

On topic of this current 2001 issue, the basics of research still need to be performed. Noting a ~10% delta in performance by running a benchmark two consecutive times isn't exactly earth shattering- and I'd also say is pretty close to the margin of error of 3dmark2001se (hell, a fresh reboot and re-run can often times effect the total score by 1000). The Nature test is of the most interest given it's huge delta.

What needs to happen with this scenario is the basics of homework- screenshots, comparisons, isolation of what (if any) visual differences may occur.. etc.etc. One can only raise a red flag if adequate controls are in place and if the differences can be isolated.
 
chavvdarrr said:
Any comments? What everyone knew - cheats not only in last version of 3dMark - is now confirmed ....
I've already said I want an anti-cheat 3dmark01se version...
What does AntiDetector.rts do? Does it prevent shader detection?
Though it looks only Game 4 is, umm, optimized a lot. The other optimizations don't seem to provide much benefits (aps and dragothic about 10%, the rest of the scores look identical). Do the optimizations change image quality?
 
Is there a URL somewhere? I looked on the Russian site, and didn't see anything that jumped out...but then again, my knowledge of Russian is pretty limited :)
 
I am sure this is no real suprise. We all know that when only 3dmarks scores of the nature test shot up nV was going some optimizations there. But its nice to have some data now to back it up. I wonder if all of those who "defened" sides on this 3dmark fasico because 3dmark2003 was "lame", "a bad benchmark", ect will do now that we know that even 3dmark2001, every ones pride and joy, was subjected to a simular process. Also notice that both AJ and Worm have not been posting as of late.

Things that make you go "Hmmmmm"..... ;)
 
jb said:
I am sure this is no real suprise. We all know that when only 3dmarks scores of the nature test shot up nV was going some optimizations there. But its nice to have some data now to back it up. I wonder if all of those who "defened" sides on this 3dmark fasico because 3dmark2003 was "lame", "a bad benchmark", ect will do now that we know that even 3dmark2001, every ones pride and joy, was subjected to a simular process. Also notice that both AJ and Worm have not been posting as of late.

Things that make you go "Hmmmmm"..... ;)
WHEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Thanks, I hadn't thought of how difficult it's gonna be for places like [t]ardOCP to wiggle around this one. :)
 
Depending on the driver versions, I've had my GF3 do scores in the low 30s to mid-50s in 2k1 nature test. Naturally, pun not intended, I hoped these score improvements were due to GENERAL optimizations in the driver, not GT4-SPECIFIC optimizations.

Naturally, it would be very disappointed to find I've been pinning my hopes of increased scores to nothing but an illusion. ...Especially since the general attitude towards Nvidia standards has been very high in the past.


*G*
 
interesting but not hugely suprising, i always though the 70-80 fps scores were a little too high.

Still, the 8500 went from 20ish at launch and is now about 45-50+ might be interesting to see if any of that is iffy.
 
interesting but not hugely suprising, i always though the 70-80 fps scores were a little too high.

Still, the 8500 went from 20ish at launch and is now about 45-50+ might be interesting to see if any of that is iffy.
Are you sure???

I remember that GT4 was always a strong point for the 8500 because it had a better Vertex engine to start with. their scores were also good on the Hardware lights tests.
 
Hellbinder[CE said:
]I remember that GT4 was always a strong point for the 8500 because it had a better Vertex engine to start with. their scores were also good on the Hardware lights tests.

I do remember a relatively earily 8500 driver build that added "non trivial" performance increases in some shading tests. Don't recall if it was GT4 or the synthetic shading tests, or both.
 
digitalwanderer said:
jb said:
I am sure this is no real suprise. We all know that when only 3dmarks scores of the nature test shot up nV was going some optimizations there. But its nice to have some data now to back it up. I wonder if all of those who "defened" sides on this 3dmark fasico because 3dmark2003 was "lame", "a bad benchmark", ect will do now that we know that even 3dmark2001, every ones pride and joy, was subjected to a simular process. Also notice that both AJ and Worm have not been posting as of late.

Things that make you go "Hmmmmm"..... ;)
WHEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Thanks, I hadn't thought of how difficult it's gonna be for places like [t]ardOCP to wiggle around this one. :)

Seeing that they don't have anything to "have to wiggle around," pretty easy. Issues pointed out with Futuremark and its use pre-dates 3DMark03.
 
I must caution the use of the word "cheat" as it applies to 3DM2K1.

FM has stated (in the "Help" file & the audit.pdf) what a "cheat" is in 3DM03, but I fail to see the word "cheat" used in any literature released by MO/FM concerning 3DM2K1 usage.

Carry on, but CYA (cover your a$$) in the terminology used. ;)

.02 info post,
 
DaveBaumann said:
wrt 3DMark2001 I'd be surprised if it was only NV.

Yeap I agree others to be shown "optimizing" most likely.

I guess my point was a lot of people said that since they did not like 3dmark2k3 then its ok for this to happen. I tried to show them that logic is flawed.
 
Does anybody have some David Kirk quotes handy? I'm sure there's somebody out there that keeps track of all the BS this guy has stated over time...

I'm specifically referring to the "we don't optimize for specific titles" quote...I want to re-read that quote, and see if it was carefully worded or not.
 
Typedef Enum said:
Does anybody have some David Kirk quotes handy? I'm sure there's somebody out there that keeps track of all the BS this guy has stated over time...

I'm specifically referring to the "we don't optimize for specific titles" quote...I want to re-read that quote, and see if it was carefully worded or not.

Think his excuse might be that he was smoking something hallucinogenic? ;)
 
Back
Top