Futuremark Publishes Guidelines for Driver Optimizations

I'll post this here too as this topic seems to be discussed in two threads.

If you guys have any questions concerning the ground rules, please post them in this thread, or over at our boards in this thread. We will collect the most frequently asked questions and publish a QA within the next few days. Thanks!
 
worm[Futuremark said:
]I'll post this here too as this topic seems to be discussed in two threads.

If you guys have any questions concerning the ground rules, please post them in this thread, or over at our boards in this thread. We will collect the most frequently asked questions and publish a QA within the next few days. Thanks!
Click to expand...
How does Futuremark plan to enforce it's new guidelines when an IHV is exposed to be cheating somehow in their drivers?
 
Fairly common-sense, those rules. Took you guys a month to come up with that? Regardless, let's see if you guys actually enforces them this time.

Since they obviously break all of these "new" rules, when can we expect the GeForceFX scores to get removed from the ORB and Hall of Fame lists?[/b]
 
I don't like this as it can be interpreted in many, many ways :

In its sole discretion, Futuremark may approve detection in order to fix a specified hardware error.
Click to expand...
 
Whats your policy on bugs introduced in a driver? If a bug in some way enhances the preformance of 3dmark is there a timeframe which you'll give a company to fix that bug before the results are pulled?

And to expand on DWs question: In what way and at what time do you plan to inform the public of any optimizations or performance enhancing bugs that may occour from this point?

-

I have to say I am also concerned with the vagueness of these guidelines (Though I cant say I didnt expect it.)

For anyone who may know: Did futuremark consult the public in any way before making these guidelines or did they only consult their beta partners?

BTW Dave whats the status of B3D in the beta program and whats the official stance on this particular case of pr?
 
Another couple of 'em I posted up at FM's thread about it:

Which current detonator drivers are considered "legal" for 3dm2k3?

Will you be reviewing driver sets before allowing them to post scores, or will you be investigating drivers only when there is a reported problem/cheat?
 
digitalwanderer said:
Will you be reviewing driver sets before allowing them to post scores, or will you be investigating drivers only when there is a reported problem/cheat?
Click to expand...

That is a good question.

I how fast FM will act is another one.
 
Those are nice rules of thumb, Worm. Of course, we will see when the time to enforce (*cough* Cheatonators 51.75 *cough*) comes...

Those rules have been reviewed and accepted by *all* your beta partners, correct ?

BTW, any clarification on what drivers are allowed for 3DMark ? What is FutureMark's official stance on websites/publications using beta or "special PuRpose" drivers for benchmarking with 3DMark ?
 
It is prohibited to detect 3DMark directly or indirectly. In its sole discretion, Futuremark may approve detection in order to fix a specified hardware error
Click to expand...
Read "Loophole for Nvidia. Please take your lawyers and go home.. btw.. thanks for the money."
 
Hellbinder said:
It is prohibited to detect 3DMark directly or indirectly. In its sole discretion, Futuremark may approve detection in order to fix a specified hardware error
Click to expand...
Read "Loophole for Nvidia. Please take your lawyers and go home.. btw.. thanks for the money."
Click to expand...
I don't think "sucks butt actually running DX9" counts as a specified hardware error....

....at least I sure hope it doesn't. :rolleyes:
 
Ok so that guideline are here but how will they be enforced?
so thats still behind closed doors ... ?
maybe give a RED card if anyone doesn't follows these guidelines ;)
 
My thoughts:

Common sensical guidelines. If I know large corporations at all, the last month or two were spent dealing with disputes over specific semantic wordings. To be expected.

I would like to echo some of the follow up questions, and have suggestions:

1) To make the new guidelines clear, you should point out examples in past drivers that have broken these rules (and what optimizations DON'T break these rules). This gives us a more clear understanding of what is, and equally important, what is not a rule breaker.

2) Identify the most recent driver set from all contributing IHVs that to the best of Futuremark's knowledge, don't break these rules. What good are the guidelines if the users don't know which of the existing drviers are legit?

3) How will 3DMark "police" their guidelines? Rely on 3rd party investigations...do their own set of tests....combination of both?

There are legitimate concerns about the "vagueness" of a couple of the rules. (Understandably, the rules can't be too specific, because then they are at risk of being bypassed with loopholes.)

What would alleviate some concern about rules being bent improperly, (for example with rule number 2) would be for Futuremark to agree to make public those cases where it approves application detection. The public needs to know about any "hardware error" that relies on application detection to be addressed. If for no other reason that this means similar application detection would be needed for every other game that uses similar techniques....and if one card relies on app detection and one doesn't, that means there is additional risk invovled in purchasing a card that needs application detection.
 
Since Worm asked I will copy my comment from the other thread....

I would like to see a form of punishment in place whereby if a IHV is found to be cheating its drivers containing the cheats would be disqualified. Furthermore the next driver release from that company should automatically have its score reduced by 10%-20% for period of time. Consider it a form of probation. This would give Futuremark and others time to investigate and would prevent IHV’s from continually releasing drivers for the purpose of circumventing the guidelines.
 
Sorry for the post. Accidently hit "Submit" instead of "Preview". I tried for like 4 hours after I posted it to edit the message, but it kept timing out. "Preview" and posting new messages worked fine, but for some odd reason "Edit" wouldn't. Anyway, looks like its working again.

Tommy McClain
 
nelg said:
Since Worm asked I will copy my comment from the other thread....

I would like to see a form of punishment in place whereby if a IHV is found to be cheating its drivers containing the cheats would be disqualified. Furthermore the next driver release from that company should automatically have its score reduced by 10%-20% for period of time. Consider it a form of probation. This would give Futuremark and others time to investigate and would prevent IHV’s from continually releasing drivers for the purpose of circumventing the guidelines.
Click to expand...
I still think that publically flogging the offending IHV's CEO would be a hell of a lot more effective and fun.... :devilish:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
13K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
N
Page 5 of 4 ?
Replies
4
Views
2K
jvd
J
K
A very useful reply from Futuremark
Replies
3
Views
2K
dan2097
D
A
Full transcript of John Carmack's QuakeCon 2005 Keynote
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
32K
nemisis
N
Back
Top