Futuremark has problems here.

[engall]

Futuremark has problems here.
First,
Forceware 52.16 drivers still have 3dmark03 specific optimization ,which didnt obey Futuremark rules.
How could they be reviews and approved by futuremark?
Quoting from Futuremark
http://www.futuremark.com/community/drivers/?approved

The 52.16 drivers have 3DMark03 specific optimization for the Pixel Shader 2.0 test and that score is solely comparable between nvidia cards.

Secondly,
Why are not nVIDIA latest official drivers forceware 53.03 approved by futuremark?
nVIDIA Cheat?OK,nVIDIA is one of Futuremark BDP members.
How could a 3dmark cheater become one of Futuremark BDP members?and why could futuremark stand with that?
[/quote][/url]

 

[AlphaWolf]

Futuremark has problems here.
First,
Forceware 52.16 drivers still have 3dmark03 specific optimization ,which didnt obey Futuremark rules.
How could they be reviews and approved by futuremark?
Quoting from Futuremark
http://www.futuremark.com/community/drivers/?approved

The 52.16 drivers have 3DMark03 specific optimization for the Pixel Shader 2.0 test and that score is solely comparable between nvidia cards.

Secondly,
Why are not nVIDIA latest official drivers forceware 53.03 approved by futuremark?
nVIDIA Cheat?OK,nVIDIA is one of Futuremark BDP members.
How could a 3dmark cheater become one of Futuremark BDP members?and why could futuremark stand with that?

The 53.03 drivers seem to reenable all of the cheats that were disabled by the 340 patch.

How could nvidia be a member? Membership is paid is how they could be a member.

How could futuremark stand with that? see above.

 

[MY80S]

AFAIK, the optimizations in 52.16 do not affect the final score. (whether this is a good excuse or not, is up to you to decide)

 

[pino]

AFAIK, the optimizations in 52.16 do not affect the final score. (whether this is a good excuse or not, is up to you to decide)

ehe so ps2.0 performance do not affect score in a dx9 syntethic benchmark ?

 

[Mariner]

The 3DMark score is generated from the 4 Game Tests. The other synthetic measurements don't count towards the final score.

 

[Nick[FM]]

The final score (3DMark score) is generated from the GameTests only. The theoretical tests do not affect the 3DMark score at all. As said, the theoretical PS2.0 score is solely comparable between NVIDIA cards (when using the 52.16 drivers).

 

[engall]

]The final score (3DMark score) is generated from the GameTests only. The theoretical tests do not affect the 3DMark score at all. As said, the theoretical PS2.0 score is solely comparable between NVIDIA cards (when using the 52.16 drivers).

You mean IHV drivers can have 3dmark03 specific optimization to gain the theoretical score, dont you?And these drivers can be approved by Futuremark?

 

[Freak'n Big Panda]

yeah i think he does... A little dissapointing but what can you do I really think ATI should just give up and cheat as well, I mean that way at least it would be a little more fair, both companies could optimize all they want as long as they didn't fuck up the bench IQ wise. I wonder what score ATI would be able to pull off...

 

[cthellis42]

My, how many times will THIS drum get beat? It is quite possible to make sure all the operations in the game tests are being performed properly, yet miss a different optimization in a feature test. This would seem to be what happened; and offhand, pulling the approval for 52.16 would bring about explosive results, while adding a qualifier to a feature test keeps things under control. Since the PS2.0 test does not factor into the score and does not affect ORB results... I can certainly see why they chose to go that route.

I can also SEE why they have to tip-toe around 53.03, I just get frustrated with it. :?

 

[danhong]

yeah i think he does... A little dissapointing but what can you do I really think ATI should just give up and cheat as well, I mean that way at least it would be a little more fair, both companies could optimize all they want as long as they didn't fuck up the bench IQ wise. I wonder what score ATI would be able to pull off...

If ATI starts cheating, then everyone in the industry would cheat and sacrifice IQ for FPS in all programs.

 

[Nick[FM]]

You mean IHV drivers can have 3dmark03 specific optimization to gain the theoretical score, dont you?And these drivers can be approved by Futuremark?

Did I say that, or did you just try to put words in my mouth? No, of course we do not allow any 3DMark specific optimizations, not for any of the tests. Read the pdf's found here:

http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark03/

Look to the left under "SUPPORT & RESOURCES".

 

[ByteMe]

]

The final score (3DMark score) is generated from the GameTests only. The theoretical tests do not affect the 3DMark score at all. As said, the theoretical PS2.0 score is solely comparable between NVIDIA cards (when using the 52.16 drivers).

]

Did I say that, or did you just try to put words in my mouth? No, of course we do not allow any 3DMark specific optimizations, not for any of the tests. Read the pdf's found here:

http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark03/

Look to the left under "SUPPORT & RESOURCES".

Let me start by saying I do not know you. I personally have nothing against you in any way except maybe FM related.

You say that FM does not allow ANY 3DMark specific optimizations for any of the tests? Then you say that "the theoretical PS2.0 score is solely comparable between NVIDIA cards (when using the 52.16 drivers)."

So it seams to me that there are optimizations in the APPROVED FM drivers (52.16).

On the surface this leaves me with two thoughts. One is you are lying, as in something a crapy politician would do. The second is you don't know what you are talking about. I doubt the second.

So please explain why I should not think you are lying.

 

[vnet]

must drivers be WHQL to be approved ?

 

[digitalwanderer]

yeah i think he does... A little dissapointing but what can you do I really think ATI should just give up and cheat as well, I mean that way at least it would be a little more fair, both companies could optimize all they want as long as they didn't fuck up the bench IQ wise. I wonder what score ATI would be able to pull off...

If ATI starts cheating, then everyone in the industry would cheat and sacrifice IQ for FPS in all programs.

ATi won't start cheating in their drivers as long as Terry Makedon is in charge of the catalysts, he totally opposes that idea and I respect him for it.

 

[vnet]

I thought I read a post at R3D where he said he wanted to discuss with his colleagues about it as he was really tempted to follow suit

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I thought I read a post at R3D where he said he wanted to discuss with his colleagues about it as he was really tempted to follow suit

That was him just having a bit of a vent after Futuremark backed down from calling Nvidia's "optimisations" cheats. I think he was very disappointed by FM, and the fact that Nvidia is getting away with cheating where ATI feels obliged to be honest. It makes ATI look second best on the ORB, even though their cards are actually miles ahead in performance and IQ.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I thought I read a post at R3D where he said he wanted to discuss with his colleagues about it as he was really tempted to follow suit

That was him just having a bit of a vent after Futuremark backed down from calling Nvidia's "optimisations" cheats. I think he was very disappointed by FM, and the fact that Nvidia is getting away with cheating where ATI feels obliged to be honest. It makes ATI look second best on the ORB, even though their cards are actually miles ahead in performance and IQ.

I can go vnet's story one better. When that all first went down allegedly someone on ATi's driver dept added an app detect to their in-house driver set that replaced all of 3dm2k3's textures with the ATi logo and it REALLY jacked up the score!

(I've wanted to get me hands on that set of beta drivers SOOOOO bad too just to see it, but haven't had any luck yet.)

 

[cthellis42]

I can go vnet's story one better. When that all first went down allegedly someone on ATi's driver dept added an app detect to their in-house driver set that replaced all of 3dm2k3's textures with the ATi logo and it REALLY jacked up the score!

<laughs> Impressive.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I can go vnet's story one better. When that all first went down allegedly someone on ATi's driver dept added an app detect to their in-house driver set that replaced all of 3dm2k3's textures with the ATi logo and it REALLY jacked up the score!

<laughs> Impressive.

Yeah, but Terry did apologize later for even considering going down that slippery slope. He really does care about his job and how he represents his company.

 

[ByteMe]

Yeah, but Terry did apologize later for even considering going down that slippery slope. He really does care about his job and how he represents his company.

I wonder if ATI (and any others) offered to pay for the legal expenses.... would FM fight then? (Of course this would be a very sad thing for ATI to have to do, instead of FM doing it on their own).

It has been proven that Nvidia can be beaten, just as M$ can be beaten. It might not be fun or pretty. But sometimes it is just the right thing to do.

Someone could start a legal fund for FM, enthusiast supported. If FM approves of this fund (and fights) I'll donate $1,000 USD.