Egg on Nvidia's face: 6800U caught cheating?

[MasterBaiter]

Every time i get some hardware in there are a few tests which i always run on the drivers to ensure things are working normally....obviously some differ from product type to product type. In the case of video cards 3dm03 is one of the quick tests i do. E.g. its useful to make sure the hardware is working.

Fair enough. I was just suprised you spotted it without explicitly looking for it, that's all.

I really don't care if ATI tipped them or it was pure luck that they spotted the issue with the 6800. As long the article is accurate I really don't have a problem with it. Maybe if ATI and Nvidia policed each other we wouldn't have to worry about these kind of issues as much eh (unless they made an agreement not to tattle on each other that is)? :| They found an inconsistancy & I think they did good.

 

[galperi1]

We test all drivers throughly (ATI/NV/XGI - whoever), i always look at mipmaps etc i found a similar issue in another application before i went looking in 3dmark. The volari review i wrote recently followed a similar theme though it wasn't necesary on that to delve into mipmaps when there were far more serious issues with that product/software.

The examples used in the review are not the only screenshots/examples for these and other applications. They are however 2 of the most easy to recreate for the end user max payne because it happens early on in the game and 3dmark because its free.

We also had to draw the line at how many examples were enough...the ones published were enough imo and its always useful to hold some back.

by the way he worded this. If necessary, it seems they have more
examples to throw out if needed to prove their conclusion

Also, digi, I think Ati doesn't match the refrast because they render in FP24 instead of FP32 so there should be minor differences. NV40, if truly rendering in FP32, like it should, should have been spot on.

 

[Evildeus]

I would like to know:
How does LOD calculation affects the images?
Have you taken into account that isotropic filtering are not done equally between NV38 and NV40, and NV40 and R350?

 

[Diplo]

Were you actually around at the time of this stuff going on? [/b]

Yes, I can safely say I'm more than 3 years old...

Like perhaps when two weeks later, a patch was issued that fixed the issue without performance loss?

Really? I certainly don't remember this; I'm sure, in fact, ATI said they'd remove the 'optimisations' after the uproar. But even if they did as you say, they were still attempting to cheat by optimising for a particular benchmark. People use benchmarks as indicative of general performance, not just for that game. Nvidia have been guilty and ATI have been guilty. To be honest, I trust neither, and why should I? They don't want my love, adulation or undying loyalty - they just want my money.

 

[T2k]

Sigh....no ATI were NOT definitely cheating wrt to Quake3 debacle.

MOST OF YOU ARE probably familiar by now with the controversy surrounding the current drivers for ATI's Radeon 8500 card. It's become quite clear, thanks to this article at the HardOCP, that ATI is "optimizing" for better performance in Quake III Arena?and, most importantly, for the Quake III timedemo benchmarks that hardware review sites like us use to evaluate 3D cards. Kyle Bennett at the HardOCP found that replacing every instance of "quake" with "quack" in the Quake III executable changed the Radeon 8500's performance in the game substantially.

The folks at 3DCenter.de followed Kyle's trail and discovered that, on the Radeon 8500, "Quack 3" produces much better image quality?texture quality in particular?than Quake III. The FiringSquad observed the same behavoir, only they did so in English.

With the publication of these articles, it became a matter of public record that ATI was intentionally sacrificing image quality in Quake III for better benchmark scores. The issue, as far as I was concerned, was settled: ATI was busted.

- http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2001q4/radeon-q3/index.x?pg=1

And you don't call that cheating?!?!?!?!?!?! Lol, it's funny how people are loyal to a video card company that tries to screw them over for money.

But it's rather sad when schoolkids from the bush are popping in and trying to argue with an old article without knowing shit about the whole story... go and educate yourself first.

 

[Veridian3]

Its a difficult one to say if it happens in everything... because the issues dont happen in all areas of the things tested. Eg. MP2.... if i'd walked out of the previous room and "played" differently whilst looking at mipmaps i'd never have seen that particular example. So although i may whip round a lap or two of NFSU and see no new issues i'm not going to say there aren't any at this time.

 

[tEd]

Could you dumb it down for peeps like me still having trouble with it all? What do you think nVidia is doing?

their mipmap selection is a alittle bit sub-standard compared to radeon and nv3x with the current drivers

 

[T2k]

Were you actually around at the time of this stuff going on? [/b]

Yes, I can safely say I'm more than 3 years old...

Like perhaps when two weeks later, a patch was issued that fixed the issue without performance loss?

Really? I certainly don't remember this; I'm sure, in fact, ATI said they'd remove the 'optimisations' after the uproar. But even if they did as you say, they were still attempting to cheat by optimising for a particular benchmark. People use benchmarks as indicative of general performance, not just for that game. Nvidia have been guilty and ATI have been guilty. To be honest, I trust neither, and why should I? They don't want my love, adulation or undying loyalty - they just want my money.

So technically you don't know anything just posting an old article?
What a surprise.


Of course, now you are the voice of the customer.
Ah, it's so pathetic.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Were you actually around at the time of this stuff going on? [/b]

Yes, I can safely say I'm more than 3 years old...

You know what I mean, right?

Really? I certainly don't remember this;

That's exactly what I mean. You either have a selective memory (from bias?) or you're just pulling specific stories, and were not "around" back then to actually get the whole story.

But even if they did as you say, they were still attempting to cheat by optimising for a particular benchmark.

Since when is optimizing for a game bad?

Or do you not also "remember" that the bug didn't just apply to timedemos, but to actual gameplay itself?

 

[Malfunction]

If ATi is aiding in the distribution of these unconfirmed results without explainations from either party just to sell videocards, then it tells me that X800Pro and possibly X800XT are in trouble as far as competition is concern.

Following this logic, does this mean that nVidia were in trouble when they tipped off websites about Quake/Quack III?

Damn hanner's, how long ago was that? Does it really matter now in this case? I haven't spent a great deal of time reading the completeness of previews done on the 6800U, though from what I have read on some and in the forums here, this is the largest generational leap from any IHV.

If ATi isn't close to that, I'd be concerned. If ATi has Tim Sweeney showcasing the Ureal3 engine, I'll lessen my dobt. If ATi has John Smedley talking about Everquest II and how great it is going to run on ATi hardware, I will lessen my doubt. If Mark Skaggs talks about how well LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth will run on ATi hardware, I will lesses my doubt.

Lastly, if the list of games that will take advantage of SM 3.0 grows larger than what it already is and a 6800U runs them about as slow as my FX5200 does now, I will be happy with that 6800U. If the R420 can do that, I will be just as happy.

 

[Hanners]

Following this logic, does this mean that nVidia were in trouble when they tipped off websites about Quake/Quack III?

Damn hanner's, how long ago was that? Does it really matter now in this case?

Okay then... How about AquaMark 3 last year?

 

[John Reynolds]

Damn hanner's, how long ago was that? Does it really matter now in this case? I haven't spent a great deal of time reading the completeness of previews done on the 6800U, though from what I have read on some and in the forums here, this is the largest generational leap from any IHV.

So journalistic standards should only apply when the f@nboys aren't excited about "generational leaps"? Not only did NV point [H] to the Quack issue they provided the utility for showing that ATI was detecting game executables in their drivers, all the while knowing full well they themselves had been doing the very same thing for several years!

 

[Diplo]

You know what I mean, right?

Not really, no.

Do you mean was I alive then? Then yes. Was I playing video games then on a PC? Then yes (and yes, I remember Pong when it first came out, if you must know). Was I reading about 3D hardware then? Yes. Was I part of the Beyond3D ATI clique? Well, no, sorry.

Since when is optimizing for a game bad?

Oh, come on, Quake 3 was the defacto 'real world' benchmark back then. Every review site used it to show performance. Do you think it was just coincidence ATI 'optimised' for this game alone, to the point were if the .exe was renamed the optimisations stopped working? If you really are that naive to believe that then fine, but I think you are the one being selective.

 

[RussSchultz]

That's exactly what I mean. You either have a selective memory (from bias?) or you're just pulling specific stories, and were not "around" back then to actually get the whole story.

Assuming this is the 'quake/quack' issue, we on this board could never get to the bottom of the issue.

Nobody could come up with any proof of what the 'bug' really was, or that it wasn't simply more skillfully hidden. The only 'proof' was that quake isn't in the driver, and renaming quake doesn't change the performance any more.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You know what I mean, right?

Not really, no.

Do you mean was I alive then? Then yes. Was I playing video games then on a PC? Then yes (and yes, I remember Pong when it first came out, if you must know). Was I reading about 3D hardware then? Yes. Was I part of the Beyond3D ATI clique? Well, no, sorry.

No, I mean were you actively interested in and following the "3D" scene, be it at B3D or not. Or were you just playing games and such? That's not a slant of any kind....it's gauging what your perspective on the situations is based on.

Oh, come on, Quake 3 was the defacto 'real world' benchmark back then.

Right. Point?

Every review site used it to show performance. Do you think it was just coincidence ATI 'optimised' for this game alone...

No, of course it's no coincindece. Doesn't make it wrong.

And also, there's nothing wrong with optimizing for a game. There WOULD be something wrong if only the timedemos benefitted from the optimizations, but when you played the game, you didn't get the benefit of those optimizations.

to the point were if the .exe was renamed the optimisations stopped working?

Again, there is NOTHING WRONG in and of itself with app detection. It's what you do when you detect the app that makes it right or wrong.

If you really are that naive to believe that then fine, but I think you are the one being selective.

It's called common sense.

 

[Malfunction]

Damn hanner's, how long ago was that? Does it really matter now in this case? I haven't spent a great deal of time reading the completeness of previews done on the 6800U, though from what I have read on some and in the forums here, this is the largest generational leap from any IHV.

So journalistic standards should only apply when the f@nboys aren't excited about "generational leaps"? Not only did NV point [H] to the Quack issue they provided the utility for showing that ATI was detecting game executables in their drivers, all the while knowing full well they themselves had been doing the very same thing for several years!

What is your gripe? Is that gonna change the fact that ATi is still doing FP24? Is until ATi begins FP32 and has some issues will it finally be ok to say, "Hmmm... somethings not quite right here?"

As far as journalistic integrity, wasn't there a huge backlash felt by extremetech last year for jumping the gun and not waiting for responses from both camps? I think so, I remember reading it here I thought...

 

[Hanners]

What is your gripe? Is that gonna change the fact that ATi is still doing FP24? Is until ATi begins FP32 and has some issues will it finally be ok to say, "Hmmm... somethings not quite right here?"

What does that have to do with cheating? You do know what the DirectX 9 spec calls for, right?

 

[Malfunction]

Following this logic, does this mean that nVidia were in trouble when they tipped off websites about Quake/Quack III?

Damn hanner's, how long ago was that? Does it really matter now in this case?

Okay then... How about AquaMark 3 last year?

I said my peace about it hanners and accept it or ignore it for all I care. I am not gonna get into this posting style you have at Rage3D and nVnews man. Not everyone agree's with everyone, does that automatically make someone a fanboi?

Forgive me that I don't just play games that play well on ATi products. I figured if spending $400 and above for a videocard, it shouldn't matter what I play, guess I was wrong.

[Edit]- fixed some misspelled words and misspelled some...lol.

 

[Althornin]

Was I part of the Beyond3D ATI clique? Well, no, sorry.

pffft.

 

[Unit01]

Not really, no.
Do you mean was I alive then? Then yes. Was I playing video games then on a PC? Then yes (and yes, I remember Pong when it first came out, if you must know). Was I reading about 3D hardware then? Yes. Was I part of the Beyond3D ATI clique? Well, no, sorry.

Oh, come on, Quake 3 was the defacto 'real world' benchmark back then. Every review site used it to show performance. Do you think it was just coincidence ATI 'optimised' for this game alone, to the point were if the .exe was renamed the optimisations stopped working? If you really are that naive to believe that then fine, but I think you are the one being selective.

Man should use your brain before making stupid idiotic trollish statements like above. It's one thing being new here and discussing and exchanging opinions to each other. But when making shitty comments like this one "Was I part of the Beyond3D ATI clique? Well, no, sorry." you're just being insulting.

Let me guess, you weren't around either when 3dmark.exe was renamed to 3dmurk.exe and Nv's score was lowered? Who's being selective?