Futuremark Announces Patch for 3DMark03

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

  1. StealthHawk

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    I exist
    :?: What makes you say that?

    It was late when I read his post. Just ignore that stupid comment I made. The scores are clearly not legit :oops:
     
  2. vb

    vb
    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    2
  3. tEd

    tEd Casual Member
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    switzerland
    ...if you force aniso through the CP. If n aniso degree is requested by the application then you will get the proper aniso degree on all texture stages. Pseudo-trilinear though still remains no matter what.
     
  4. XForce

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks. :)
     
  5. Mendel

    Mendel Mr. Upgrade
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Finland
    from futuremarks (updated) approved drivers page:

    Why do they still list it as approved?!
    Is it like it is okay to cheat in the benchmark if the cheats were undetected at first but revealed later?
     
  6. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,270
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Eeew! This is major suckage on FM's part!

    Well, apparently the 52.16 drivers that have been out for months have cheats in them for the PS 2.0 test. Since this is a flagrant violation of our rules we're forced to only recomend that PS 2.0 tests be compared amongst FX cards.

    How bloody hella-lame is that? :shock:
     
  7. Hanners

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    57
    Location:
    England
    I guess the theory is that because it isn't a cheat in one of the tests that comprise the final 3DMark score, they are willing to let it slide this time.

    Which is a bad decision in my opinion, it sets a poor precedent - Better to withdraw certification for that driver altogether.

    Funnily enough though, nVidia seems to have removed the Pixel Shader 2.0 test optimisations from the 53.03 drivers - At least, that test is scoring much lower than it was in the 52.16s.
     
  8. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,270
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    And have a public flogging of their CEO and PR dept.... :twisted:
     
  9. ByteMe

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    7
    I will admit that I have not been keeping up on this.

    Is nvidia still cheating where Futuremark catches them and then Futuremark is STILL being a wimp?

    Is this what is happening?
     
  10. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,270
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    It's kind of different now. FM put out a new set of guidelines after the last fiasco to try and regain their respectability which explained what they would do if any IHV broke their guidelines.

    The beta 53.03 set of dets broke the guidelines (cheated), but since they were beta it was no biggy since FM only accepts official drivers.

    Now that the official 53.03 set is out and appears to still contain the cheats it gets a bit more interesting. Apparently FM's rules now give nVidia one week to either remove or explain the cheats to FM's satisfaction before _________ happens. (I don't know what ______ is...I'm hoping they took my recomendations for public floggings. )

    At least, that's where I THINK we are now. :)
     
  11. Joe DeFuria

    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,994
    Likes Received:
    70
    That is correct as far as I know.

    There are one of three possibilities:

    1) Futuremark reviews the new drivers, finds them legit, and puts them on the "reviewed and approved" list. (Anyone think this is gonna happen?)

    2) Futuremark reviews the new drivers, finds the same (or some of the same) illigitimate issues as last time. Creates ANOTHER patch for 3DMark, and puts the new drivers on the "reviewed" list.

    3) Futuremark reviews the new drivers, finds the same issues, does not release a patch, but puts the drivers on the "black list."

    There are pros and cons to approaches 2 and 3...I'm not sure which one I'd prefer...
     
  12. ByteMe

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    7
    Wow, is it me or is Futuremark doing everything they can not to confront Nvidia?

    Futuremark has got to learn to stand it's ground. If they did I think they would get overwhelming public support. Atleast they would have a few months back.

    It seems to me that someone at Futuremark needs to grow some balls then stand and FIGHT! Business can be war and so far Futuremark fields a small army of teenage girls with powderpuff weapons.

    Am I completely off?
     
  13. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,270
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Not completely, but a bit....but don't feel too bad 'cause I share your opinion. FM seems to have grown a set of nuggers since the last brew-ha-ha with nVidia, but they still have to give nVidia a chance to correct the "problem" before they can take action.

    I'm hoping for a patch meself, I wanna see the "patch-new cheat drivers-patch-new cheat drivers" pattern happen for a bit just to drive home the fact that nVidia is still cheating.

    SIDENOTE: Just to keep you up to snuff, nVidia is claiming that optimizing for 3dm2k3 is legitimate because it's a "synthetic gaming benchmark" which makes it ok to optimize for just like a game. The only problem with that is it makes absolutely no sense and no one in their right mind agrees with 'em. (Well, at least FM and most of the folks here don't. :) )

    Just thought I'd kick ya up to speed, it's about to get fun in a few days again. :D
     
  14. Hanners

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    57
    Location:
    England
    As far as I see it, option three is the way to go - Another patch can be circumvented by nVidia in about a week, whereas there is nothing they can do to get around having blacklisted drivers.
     
  15. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,270
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    What would the effects be of their drivers being blacklisted? Couldn't nVidia just claim that FM is unfairly prejudiced and insist that review sites use the blacklisted drivers anyway as they represent how REAL games will play on their hardware? (I don't think that way, but that's what I think nVidia will say.)

    We've been hearing about BB's strong-arming & blacklisting in that other thread, what's to keep them from continuing it?
     
  16. Nazgul

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, for one thing scores from blacklisted drivers aren't supposed to show up in FM's rankings. As for review sites, I dunno if they are under any obligation to follow FM's rules about what drivers to use. I suppose the ones that would be most likely to ignore FM are the same ones that wouldn't use 3DMark in a review anyway :)
     
  17. Joe DeFuria

    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,994
    Likes Received:
    70
    There are, however, cons to that approach.

    The most significant being web reviewer inconvenience. If 3DMark just "black lists" the drivers, web reviewers can still run "the latest 3D mark" patch, and get results...just not publish them to the database.

    Reviewers are not going to "like" having to install a specific (and older) set of nvidia drivers just to benchmark 3DMark. So I'd predict one of two things could happen:

    1) Reviewers just don't use 3DMark
    2) Reviewers just use 3DMark with black-listed drivers.

    Both of which are obviously bad.

    And rather than be mad at nVidia for this situation (and refuse to review their card), they'll just stop using 3DMark.

    By going with the "new patch" approach, at least web reviewers can freely use the "most up to date" drivers and 3DMark patch. The downsides to this approach:

    1) More work for FutureMark
    2) Slightly more inconvenience for everyone by having to download new 3DMark patches with every official driver release
    3) The point of nvidia's drivers being "cheaters" is not as effectively driven home, IMO, vs. blacklisting drivers.
     
  18. nelg

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Toronto
    Right Joe, nV puts Futuremark in somewhat of a no win situation. What I would like to see is a rule from FutureMark saying that any site that uses 3Dmark will publish the results as they are seen on screen. This would allow FutureMark to add a banner across that states something like "FutureMark has not verified if these drivers contain Illegal optimizations".
     
  19. cthellis42

    cthellis42 Hoopy Frood
    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,890
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Out of my gourd
    I was talking with Patric about it, and he let me know when they added that bit. Seems the PS2.0 test was still being looked at after they changed the version to cover the game tests properly, since they needed the primary attention first. Releasing ANOTHER version for the PS2.0 fix would be detrimental, though, so they can just inform people as possible.

    Hardly matters at this point, though. How they react to the newly-WHQL'd 53.03's are what really matters right now. PS2.0 is an unfortunately side-concern, but of much less importance than what they do regarding nVidia's new drivers. (Since by all accounts I've heard so far the optimizations are back in, right?)
     
  20. Quitch

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    UK
    This just goes to show that the patch method is as flawed now as it was when build 330 was put out. Seems nVidia aren't the only ones breaching their guidelines.
     
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...