Futuremark Announces Patch for 3DMark03

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by Nick[FM], Nov 11, 2003.

  1. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,079
    Likes Received:
    648
    Location:
    O Canada!
    As a member of the Futuremark Beta program, we've had acess to the release candidate of this patch for a little while. here's a peak:

    Code:
                          Patch Driver      3DMarks GT1    GT2   GT3   GT4 
    GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 330   52.16       6412    205.7  46.6  37    37.3 
    GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 333   52.16       5538    205    39.6  33.1  26.3 
    Radeon 9800 XT        330   3.8         6435    209.7  45.4  38.6  36.3 
    Radeon 9800 XT        333   3.8         6436    210.5  45.4  38.6  36.3
    http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/3dmark03/340/
     
  2. volt

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    3
    Oh my, GT4 :oops:

    I can see some people raise hell over that one :shock:
     
  3. tEd

    tEd Casual Member
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    switzerland
    52.16= trilinear in 3dmark03?
     
  4. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,079
    Likes Received:
    648
    Location:
    O Canada!
    No, that doesn't change since that DX specific rather than app specific.
     
  5. Entropy

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,049
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Good to see concrete results.
    What is odd is that 52.12 is an approved driver, even though it (according to Daves data) obviously attempts to cheat. Thus drivers whose cheats are blocked by the new patch are apparently regarded as OK.
     
  6. tEd

    tEd Casual Member
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    switzerland
    i just thought maybe nvidia would make a special case for 3dmark03 to get trilinear working to get approved drivers. But then that would be a app. specific (optimisation lol) which would be against futuremark rules

    ..just kidding
     
  7. vb

    vb
    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    2
    If the answer is yes how it is done?

    3DMark detection? :shock:

    And what about aniso on all stages? (when requested)

    Ps 340 BTW
     
  8. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,079
    Likes Received:
    648
    Location:
    O Canada!
    333 is the release candidate of 340
     
  9. AzBat

    AzBat Agent of the Bat
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,930
    Likes Received:
    1,732
    Location:
    Alma, AR
    Worm,

    Thanks for the heads-up on the new patch and certified drivers. I'll have more comments on my thoughts and opinions on Futuremark and 3DMark later.

    Dave,

    Thanks for the peak. ;) It sure is interesting. Something tells me we will see new drivers from both IHVs that increases their score. It's a good thing we now have this guideline/certification process in place to keep it from getting out of hand.


    What else is there to talk about? I think the press release had some interesting info...

    Anybody care to explain or comment any of these changes? I understand the first and last one, but not so much the other two.

    FYI, there was one more change that was only listed on their website...

    http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark03/?03patch340

    Looking great so far. Anybody see reports from other web sites about this?

    Tommy McClain
     
  10. vb

    vb
    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    2
    seen that, but I don't have 333 to test for myself, do I? :p

    How were 331 and 332 scores?

    :lol:
     
  11. Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    82
    Hang on, I'm a little confused here. It seem that the Nvdia 52.16 drivers cheat in 3DMark v330, but because 3DMark v333 disables those cheats, these same drivers now become "approved"?

    Yes, the score is now lower for the 52.16 drivers, but surely Nvidia should be taken to task for *attempting* to cheat and getting caught? What if not all the cheats have been detected by Futuremark and the Nvidia scores are still being artificially inflated?

    Is this what it means to be an approved driver - Nvidia impelment more cheats in every release, and Futuremark "approve" the drivers by attempting to block those cheats?
     
  12. Joe DeFuria

    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,994
    Likes Received:
    70
    Wow...I'm surprised!

    .....Not. ;)

    Yes, that seems to be the case. FM highlights that these drivers are aproved only with the 440 patch. Unfortunately, I don't like this approach.

    I would much rather that FM simply not approve any drivers when a "patch" is required to force the driver to follow the guidelines. They should still release the patch though...so that the drivers give the "correct score" to the best of FM's knowledge.

    The way it seems to be now, there is little incentive for the vendor not to cheat! Now, all the burden seems to be on FM to "circumvent" the cheats in order to have a set of "approved drivers" to test. Significant burden should be on the IHV.

    Seems very much backwards to me. :cry:
     
  13. Deathlike2

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    5
    A couple of thoughts...

    Although internal builds of 3DMark are not accessible to anyone... how do these drivers fare with the Catalysts 3.8 and 3.9... and the Det 52.16s with builds 330 and 340...

    If preliminary results hold true with the new Dets (though it should be tested with older Dets including Det 45.23 as Det 44.03 was the first set of drivers nullified by build 330), then it would be safe to say that NVidia has not stopped its stance with "aggressive optimizations"...

    If the above is true, what now?
     
  14. Deathlike2

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    5
    A more important question to ask yourselves is this:

    How did these drivers able to get "Futuremark Approved" status if they ARE cheating?
     
  15. Joe DeFuria

    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,994
    Likes Received:
    70
    Don't want to sound too harsh on FM.

    The fact that they are releasing patches to circumvent cheats is great.

    I can now very much recommend 3DMark03 to be used in benchmark tests...as long as "approved" drivers are used with the patch. FM is to be commended STRONGLY for taking an active stand against cheating in benchmarks.

    :D

    It's just that to satisfy me almost 100%, any driver that is "caught" cheating, should not be labeled as approved at all IMO.
     
  16. Joe DeFuria

    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,994
    Likes Received:
    70
    Presumably, because when the 340 patch is applied, it defeats all the "known" cheating attempts that the Dets are trying.

    (edit...patch 340, not 440. ;))
     
  17. AAlcHemY

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Belgium
    Is 52.16 the only affected driver? ( Not 52.14, 52.13? )
     
  18. Exxtreme

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Germany
    I looks like an typical application detection for me. I don't know which part of 3dmark the drivers are using to detect them but it seems that FM has removed/changed this part. The drivers are not able to detect the benchmark anymore.
     
  19. Deathlike2

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joe... it's 340 :)

    I guess that can be the case, but one of two things should happen then.

    1) Futuremark should let everyone be aware of this fact. If these drivers are approved because they stop "unauthorized optimizations" in this set of drivers, then that's fine.

    2) Futuremark should remove/revoke their approval to this set of drivers.

    I'd suspect NVidia has already been informed of this (hopefully).
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...