Did the FM time limit expire? Are they supposed to be doing SOMETHING now about it, or am I jumping the gun?
Whatever happened with Futuremark and nVidia with 53.03?
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
52.16 was approved for 340 because 340 broke the cheats.
Deathlike2
Regular
geo said:
Yep.
340 broke the cheats that impacted the actual score, didn't it? as for why anyone would cheat in the theoretical tests, that's beyond me... but it worries me that FM couldn't prevent NV from detecting it.
and didn't Stealthy bring this up a while ago? damn him for not keeping me up to date. damn him.
and didn't Stealthy bring this up a while ago? damn him for not keeping me up to date. damn him.
Deathlike2
Regular
If you read some of those 3DMark03 threads here (the big ones), I believe Patrick (the Futuremark developer) stating something along the lines of one of NVidia's cheats was not blocked (the PS 2.0 one). The patch was rushed to be posted... and here we are. Then you have Futuremark's website with its "scribbled in" notes.
Yeah I believe the problems were discovered after they released the patch and approved the drivers instead of revoking the drivers which would lead to all sorts of problems they decided to add stuff to the notes saying its only validate to bench between nvidia cards.
If they revoked the drivers they would have shown that there process is flawed and doesn't work as well as leaving nvidia with no drivers meaning 3dmark could not be used with nvidia cards using the 340 patch ( you can still use the 330 patch as long as you have never attempted to install 340 and seen the updated EULA ) so either futuremark would have had to release a new patch or have nvidia @$#@ off as well as OEMs.
If they revoked the drivers they would have shown that there process is flawed and doesn't work as well as leaving nvidia with no drivers meaning 3dmark could not be used with nvidia cards using the 340 patch ( you can still use the 330 patch as long as you have never attempted to install 340 and seen the updated EULA ) so either futuremark would have had to release a new patch or have nvidia @$#@ off as well as OEMs.
StealthHawk
Regular
The Baron said:340 broke the cheats that impacted the actual score, didn't it? as for why anyone would cheat in the theoretical tests, that's beyond me... but it worries me that FM couldn't prevent NV from detecting it.
and didn't Stealthy bring this up a while ago? damn him for not keeping me up to date. damn him.
Yep. The answer was that Futuremark didn't want to spent the extra time it would take to examine and defeat cheats in the Pixel Shader2.0 test since it doesn't affect the final score. The instead decided to release a patch that would fix all the tests contributing to the final score, and they caught some other things too I believe- such as Ragdoll.
ByteMe said:
The only answer at this point is to remind people what IS kosher while they hash out relations with nVidia, or go all out and take them on directly. At this point I'm voting they take them on directly, because I'm just sick and tired of the whole thing, with FutureMark being the only whipping boy.
The ONLY thing I can think of otherwise is that they may work up a "final patch" which makes the program unable to be manipulated in that fashion--say by writing random, unique shaders of mathmatical equivalence but different structure before each test, so there is NO way to predict the order and prepare shortcuts. Despire the waffling, I could accept a reprogramming of 3DMark that doesn't seek to counter illicit optimizations, but makes it so that they CANNOT take place again.
Still, the silence is rather deafening. If that option is not being pursued, I'd rather we get EVERYTHING in the light at this point--full disclosure instead of "duelling PR statements" once in a blue moon.
The only other thing I can think is that they're holding off until it's closer to the NV40's launch, just to make them suffer a bit more.
They're abiding by their guidelines, they're just not shouting out about the 53.03's... which wasn't a part of said guildlines. People can make their own stink about it if they want, since if the 53.03's haven't been accepted it's because (shock of shocks!) the illicit optimizations are back in.
I don't believe they ever stated they would be making press releases for any IHV whose latest driver does not qualify and thumb their noses at them, did they? Problem is if they say almost anything, the PR wars we've seen shooting back and forth before will happen again, and if it happens again at this point it's probably a "for good"-type situation. They may still be trying to salvage the nVidia situation behind the scenes so it doesn't turn ugly and impact other areas.
I'd like to see the gloves come off, but then I have nothing riding on the situation.
People can make their own stink about it if they want, since if the 53.03's haven't been accepted it's because (shock of shocks!) the illicit optimizations are back in.I don't believe they ever stated they would be making press releases for any IHV whose latest driver does not qualify and thumb their noses at them, did they? Problem is if they say almost anything, the PR wars we've seen shooting back and forth before will happen again, and if it happens again at this point it's probably a "for good"-type situation. They may still be trying to salvage the nVidia situation behind the scenes so it doesn't turn ugly and impact other areas.
I'd like to see the gloves come off, but then I have nothing riding on the situation.
what ?
I really don't get it, Futuremark states that 52.16 are approved but then they say that 52.16 have specific optimiziation (cheats?).
How the hell can they approve them ?
They should change their driver guidelines or remove the 52.16 from approved drivers list and rename their benchmark 3dAti2003.
I really don't get it, Futuremark states that 52.16 are approved but then they say that 52.16 have specific optimiziation (cheats?).
How the hell can they approve them ?
They should change their driver guidelines or remove the 52.16 from approved drivers list and rename their benchmark 3dAti2003.
cthellis42 said:They're abiding by their guidelines, they're just not shouting out about the 53.03's... which wasn't a part of said guildlines.
I don't believe they ever stated they would be making press releases for any IHV whose latest driver does not qualify and thumb their noses at them, did they? Problem is if they say almost anything, the PR wars we've seen shooting back and forth before will happen again, and if it happens again at this point it's probably a "for good"-type situation. They may still be trying to salvage the nVidia situation behind the scenes so it doesn't turn ugly and impact other areas.
I'd like to see the gloves come off, but then I have nothing riding on the situation.
52.16 had optimisations for the PS 2.0 test which FutureMark knew of and didn't do anything about, they then approved these drivers. Regardless of the reasons for this, it is a violation of their own guidelines. It is also irrelevant how big a violation this is, because once you've shown that you will violate the guidelines...
No, no it doesn't. I wanna hear about how they're going to pull nVidia into a dark alley and work 'em over with a bloody f-ing rubber hose!Hanners said:Well, they've added Catalyst 3.10 to the approved driver list, but not the ForceWare 53.03 - I think that should tell you everything you need to know.
You and me both, but didn't they say something about "enforcing" their guidelines? Do you mean that their idea of "enforcement" is to not put the official drivers on the officially approved list?cthellis42 said:They're abiding by their guidelines, they're just not shouting out about the 53.03's... which wasn't a part of said guildlines.
I don't believe they ever stated they would be making press releases for any IHV whose latest driver does not qualify and thumb their noses at them, did they? Problem is if they say almost anything, the PR wars we've seen shooting back and forth before will happen again, and if it happens again at this point it's probably a "for good"-type situation. They may still be trying to salvage the nVidia situation behind the scenes so it doesn't turn ugly and impact other areas.
I'd like to see the gloves come off, but then I have nothing riding on the situation.
Has anyone seen a review with the 53.03 drivers benched in 3dm2k3 yet? (I can't recall)
That's the way it's looking to me too. I remember there was supposed to be some form of grace period to allow the IHV & FM to work out the differences of what is/isn't a cheat, but we haven't heard ANYTHING out of them and it's pretty apparent that something is up with the 53.03 set.Quitch said:
Worm, you lurking? :|
digitalwanderer said:No, no it doesn't. I wanna hear about how they're going to pull nVidia into a dark alley and work 'em over with a bloody f-ing rubber hose!Hanners said:Well, they've added Catalyst 3.10 to the approved driver list, but not the ForceWare 53.03 - I think that should tell you everything you need to know.
They probably should, but again, the fact that they haven't tells you everything you need to know about how FutureMark are going to play this.
