Another review with 3DMARK and 53.03 (hardcore ware)

[{Sniping}Waste]

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-196-3.htm

 

[Hanners]

I will note, however, that the 53.03 drivers we are using for the 5700 Ultra are not listed under Futuremark's "Reviewed and Approved Drivers" list. These drivers are brand new from NVIDIA, so they probably have yet to be tested.

*Sigh*

I have to say that this one is more FutureMark's fault.... Again we have to ask, how are sites supposed to know that a site has failed the approval tests?

 

[3dilettante]

While we're on the subject of 3dmark, it was alleged on an Amdmb forum that someone was able to spoof 3dmark into giving a ORB-topping score with an athlon xp2100+ and radeon 9600XT.

It supposedly was a matter of slowing the system clock down so that the benchmark would calculate frames rendered compared to an erroneously short time.

It probably only took FutureMark a short time to remove the entry, so I must have missed it if it happened at all.

 

[cthellis42]

Again we have to ask, how are sites supposed to know that a site has failed the approval tests?

Annoying, but then again these sites don't seem to know frickin' step one about what's going on or how it relates anyway...

 

[digitalwanderer]

Damn it FutureMark, DO SOMETHING!!!!

 

[Deathlike2]

I have to say that this one is more FutureMark's fault.... Again we have to ask, how are sites supposed to know that a site has failed the approval tests?

You mean the drivers failing the approval tests...

It's not as obvious (Futermark doesn't make it blatently obvious). The last date in which they have checked are listed..

We have inspected all offical NVIDIA WHQL drivers through December 9th, 2003. Listed below are the latest official drivers that have been approved for 3DMark03 usage:

Note that December 9th is the date when the Det 53.03 are released. However, noone really bothers to check up on that. People assume that the 53.03 were not (have not been) checked even though the date verifies this bit. It's very obscure.

If there was a failed drivers list (to make it blantently obvious) and a description of the problems (which is needed to show Futuremark's integrity, if they have any hope of saving themselves), it would be vastly more helpful.

 

[2senile]

Damn it FutureMark, DO SOMETHING!!!!

Hi DW.
Seems there are still two reviewers at 3DVelocity who are willing to deal with FXs.
Just to make you feel better "3DMark03 Build 340 abiding by Futuremark's Approved Driver listings" was how the guy did the 5700 review at the end of January.

Sadly, I can provide a link to yet another site using the 53.03 driver with 3DMark03.
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD03MDA=

Annoying, but then again these sites don't seem to know frickin' step one about what's going on or how it relates anyway...

Certainly seems that way.

 

[digitalwanderer]

If there was a failed drivers list (to make it blantently obvious) and a description of the problems (which is needed to show Futuremark's integrity, if they have any hope of saving themselves), it would be vastly more helpful.

Yeah, but that's WAY too proactive for them....they might offend someone or something.

 

[kkevin666]

hit the nail on the head there dig.

 

[Deathlike2]

Yeah, but that's WAY too proactive for them....they might offend someone or something.

Probably so.

It's best to imagine the NVidia-Futuremark situation like this:

NVidia is the patient, and Futuremark is a doctor. NVidia is "bleeding cheats" everywhere and Futuremark refuses to release patient info (as you know there is a doctor-patient confidentiality). Of course Futermark loves injecting morphine to themselves (like their approved drivers page) and realize nothing's wrong.

ATI's the healthy patient. The only time he visits is to get a checkup and gets a free lollipop (new driver becomes approved).

Both NVidia and ATI have to pay the doctor (Futuremark).