Ati doing something funny with 3dmark?

K

K.I.L.E.R

Retarded moron
Veteran
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ksaho/benchmarks/364core_330MEM.JPG

This is using Cat 3.4 3dmark version 3.20

Look at what I renamed the executable.

I ran a test a few days before hand with the original 3dmark name and 371MHz core and 344MHz mem and scored 1875 with the same settings/drivers/version of 3dmark except my reolution was at 1024x768.

Someone suggested in the thread below this one that has anyone tested the renaming thing on an Ati card.

So here are my results.
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ksaho/benchmarks/364core_330MEM.JPG

This is using Cat 3.4 3dmark version 3.20

Look at what I renamed the executable.

I ran a test a few days before hand with the original 3dmark name and 371MHz core and 344MHz mem and scored 1875 with the same settings/drivers/version of 3dmark except my reolution was at 1024x768.
Click to expand...
Wait a sec, you ran it with the original name and scored 1875. Then you renamed the .exe (and upped the resolution) and you score 2533?

Or did I misunderstand your post & screenshot? :?
 
whats the default res, I thought it was 1280x1024. looking at your screenshot it looks like you used 1024x768. so that could be your higher score.

later,
 
The default 3DMark03 res is 1024x768, and in the screenshot it shows that he used 1280x960.

But I'm confused because of the screenshot. To me, it looks like he actually scored more when he changed the .exe name (regardless of upping the resolution too), which would be rather odd.
 
I have contacted an Ati employee and I will post what he tells me. I have come to the conclusion that Ati are playing a joke. It's doing the reverse of what a cheat (Quack) is supposed to.
 
Heh, something funny just crossed my mind...

You renamed the .exe and got a higher score. Imagine ATI artificially lowering the score when the driver detects 3dmark03.exe. Then later on, they gradually increase the score and can tout a performance improvement :LOL:

What I'm wondering now is just how real something like that could be.. :?:

Edit: For the record, that's just some hypothetical blah blah :) And as you can see in the post below, totally not true.
 
Some other people have tested it at Rage3D and they haven't found a difference so this most likely is a thing on my end which I am still trying to work out.
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
Some other people have tested it at Rage3D and they haven't found a difference so this most likely is a thing on my end which I am still trying to work out.
Click to expand...

Personally I think it's a not very elaborate practical joke... and not by ATI... ;)
 
andypski said:
K.I.L.E.R said:
Some other people have tested it at Rage3D and they haven't found a difference so this most likely is a thing on my end which I am still trying to work out.
Click to expand...

Personally I think it's a not very elaborate practical joke... and not by ATI... ;)
Click to expand...

If it were a practical joke it would make sense and would be funny. So far I can only conclude something is not right. My control panel options are the same as my 3dmark options which makes me think something funny is going on. Then again no one can replciate what I have so it clearly must be my fault one way or another.
 
It was the particular name chosen for the renaming that made me believe that it was, perhaps, not entirely a serious post. Since you seem to actually be having a problem then I apologise. On the other hand, I have absolutely no idea what could cause such a problem.
 
andypski said:
It was the particular name chosen for the renaming that made me believe that it was, perhaps, not entirely a serious post. Since you seem to actually be having a problem then I apologise. On the other hand, I have absolutely no idea what could cause such a problem.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider it a problem. ;)

Who else do you know who used those settings as I have got that high of a 3dmark score?
IMO I would think the R400 or so could score THAT much with those settings. I am just stating that it is insane. I want to know WTH is happening. I am going to post an in game screenshot and you guys will tell me if AA/AF are FULLY working. If in any case it seems that AA/AF is not FULLY working then my guess is right and someone HAS placed an egg in 3dmark and somehow I found it.

Here is the link to the pics:
Exact same settings and resolution as I benchmarked.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ksaho/benchmarks/iq.rar
 
OpenGL guy said:
K.I.L.E.R said:
Here is the link to the pics:
Exact same settings and resolution as I benchmarked.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ksaho/benchmarks/iq.rar
Click to expand...
The screenshot of your score showed 1280x960 at the resolution, but the screenshots in the .rar file are 1024x768.
Click to expand...

Damn, you are right. I picked the shots to be at 1280x960.

Anyway I found out the problem and I PM'ed you at Rage3D OpenGL Guy.
It was a registry problem and it has been fixed. Something funny had been going on and I had no idea what it was so I cried conspiracy. Sorry about that.

I appeared to be 2 tweakers conflicting with the CP options. I uninstalled them and finally my framerate dropped down from 20 and into the smaller double digits.

Might I add: someone else could do the same thing as I have on purpose to boost their 3dmark score.
My error can be used as a cheat. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top