Futuremark has problems here.

[Craig]

I don't know if those same shader optimizations made it back in in recent Catalyst releases, has anyone checked?

I think we would have seen Alexey crying foul all over the place if anything odd was happening.

 

[Tim Murray]

AFAIK, ATI scores have remained consistent since the shader optimizations in 3.4 or whatever it was were removed. Well, consistent in lieux of improvements to the pixel shader compiler, which sped up ps_2_0 calls across all apps.

 

[Quitch]

MAybe he meant XGI?

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

MAybe he meant XGI?

Just goes to show that if you cheat, you will get caught and your reputation will get damaged.

 

[digitalwanderer]

MAybe he meant XGI?

Just goes to show that if you cheat, you will get caught and your reputation will get damaged.

Get caught, yes; reputation damaged, not enough yet....

 

[parhelia]

Why would you want to damage reputation anyway?
Don't like them, just ignore them, no need to cause harm and distress to others.
It happens to everyone, let's not forget Quack now, shall we ?

 

[akira888]

Get caught, yes; reputation damaged, not enough yet....

Come on DW, SiS's positive reputation as a graphics provider hasn't been damaged...

...because it never had one to begin with!

 

[digitalwanderer]

Why would you want to damage reputation anyway?
Don't like them, just ignore them, no need to cause harm and distress to others.
It happens to everyone, let's not forget Quack now, shall we ?

No one ever lets me forget about Quack Parhelia, don't worry.

Get caught, yes; reputation damaged, not enough yet....

Come on DW, SiS's positive reputation as a graphics provider hasn't been damaged...

...because it never had one to begin with!

I was referring to nVidia needs their public image a bit more tarnished, but I agree with you on your assesment of SiS. (I know we all know about what nVidia has been up to, but it's still like it's secret knowledge or something! )

 

[karlotta]

MAybe he meant XGI?

Just goes to show that if you cheat, you will get caught and your reputation will get damaged.

Get caught, yes; reputation damaged, not enough yet....

Reputation is only damaged if the offence gets some traction... Like if [T] ,Toms,AndTech..ect... They dont care, they promote the down with FutureMark and the other "Legit" Dweebsites follow...... Only the OEMs/Dell can make a diff and they are ..

 

[Quitch]

Why would you want to damage reputation anyway?
Don't like them, just ignore them, no need to cause harm and distress to others.
It happens to everyone, let's not forget Quack now, shall we ?

What, you mean the single lone incident, which was instantly resolved with no speed loss, which no one ever proved was a cheat?

How could I forget it? It's the thing that reminds me just how different these two companies are.

 

[parhelia]

Only the OEMs/Dell can make a diff and they are ..

They certainly are, you can bet on that, and I'm willing to bet some will be surprised with Dell in the near future

 

[parhelia]

What, you mean the single lone incident, which was instantly resolved with no speed loss, which no one ever proved was a cheat?

and the shader replacements in 3D Mark 2003 which was later removed ?

and the optimizations for 3D Mark 2001 which according to Digitlife was never removed ?

 

[MrGaribaldi]

and the shader replacements in 3D Mark 2003 which was later removed ?

You mean those legally optimized, mathematically correct shaders which Futuremark had no problem with?

and the optimizations for 3D Mark 2001 which according to Digitlife was never removed ?

Which was detected by Unwinders Anti-Detect script, but of which we know no more?

So you're talking about Quack (of which the debate still goes if it was a cheat or bug (was a thread about it here not so long ago)), a legal optimization and a lower result when all detection mechanisms were disabled, but of which we have no knowledge of what was disabled...

But maybe we should try to get this thread a bit more back to topic?

I'm interested in seeing what you're saying about Dell... Maybe they'll help settle this mess once and for all...

 

[Quitch]

Only the OEMs/Dell can make a diff and they are ..

They certainly are, you can bet on that, and I'm willing to bet some will be surprised with Dell in the near future

I didn't know they were dropping P4's for AMD chips!

and a lower result when all detection mechanisms were disabled, but of which we have no knowledge of what was disabled...

Well, there was a thread on this, and the 01 optimisation is like nVidia in that it changes the image. Can't recall more than that, or what changes (something to do with leaves in the nature test). However, let's not go back to this nonsense of "all crimes are equal", especially since, right now, only one company is cheating.

 

[cthellis42]

and the shader replacements in 3D Mark 2003 which was later removed ?

You mean those legally optimized, mathematically correct shaders which Futuremark had no problem with?

Futuremark did inveigh against it, actually, and it would go against their current guidelines. They WERE, however, mathematically equivalent, apologized for, and immediately removed.

For some reason, no one ever wants to look at context. To me, context, severity, and the follow-up actions are the most telling bits of any situation.

 

[MrGaribaldi]

and the shader replacements in 3D Mark 2003 which was later removed ?

You mean those legally optimized, mathematically correct shaders which Futuremark had no problem with?

Futuremark did inveigh against it, actually, and it would go against their current guidelines. They WERE, however, mathematically equivalent, apologized for, and immediately removed.

My apologies. I seemed to recall there being aceptable shader optimisations in ATI's drivers, which they could have put back in, but decided against due to the need for an app detection...

For some reason, no one ever wants to look at context. To me, context, severity, and the follow-up actions are the most telling bits of any situation.

I agree that the context, severity and follow-up actions is what tells you the most of a situation, but I don't feel that people never look at the context. It is mostly a matter of what points you're trying to sell, as it's easier to discuss single issues than taking in everything.

But it depends on who you're talking to... Die-hard fanb0ys are people I'd expect would refuse to look at the context unless it would give their target of affection the best position, but for the rest I think it's mostly a matter of interest. (Ie., chances are that if you're interested in a topic you'll try to focus on the context first, and then delve into the single issues being discussed)

 

[dan2097]

My apologies. I seemed to recall there being aceptable shader optimisations in ATI's drivers, which they could have put back in, but decided against due to the need for an app detection...

Thats the point, your not supposed to app detect 3d mark 03. If they can get their compiler to a level where it would automatically optimize the shader (and other similar ones obviously as otherwise its not much different to app detection) without application detection then it would be acceptable I believe.