Gamersdepot with a review with 3DMARK 03 and 53.03

[Nick[FM]]

I'm not really worried if FM employees post up responses to people asking why so many sites are using the wrong drivers either accidentally or purposefully, I really wish you folks would just do something about it all instead of just saying "Just wait a bit longer guys, trust us".

FM has used up all it's trust, show us something.

Trust me (if you still can ), if it would be as easy as you may think, everyone would be doing it. It is not something you "cook up" in one day or two. As we have said on several occasions, these things simply take time. We are working on solutions, and new ideas are being discussed. Some even from you guys.

 

[digitalwanderer]

]Trust me (if you still can ), if it would be as easy as you may think, everyone would be doing it. It is not something you "cook up" in one day or two. As we have said on several occasions, these things simply take time. We are working on solutions, and new ideas are being discussed. Some even from you guys.

Save your energy and resources. The lack of a timely response is just about as good as no response.

I really thought FM was on a turn-around there for a bit, but I guess I was mistaken and you're more interested in keeping your IHV 'partners' happy at all costs.

How happy is ATi with all the latest BS, have they been in contact with you about it yet? :|

 

[Nick[FM]]

Save your energy and resources. The lack of a timely response is just about as good as no response.

We do have a lot of work to do, and lately I have been involved in several projects which eat up a lot of my time. That's why I haven't been able to post here (and at other boards) as often as I usually do.

 

[digitalwanderer]

]

Save your energy and resources. The lack of a timely response is just about as good as no response.

We do have a lot of work to do, and lately I have been involved in several projects which eat up a lot of my time. That's why I haven't been able to post here (and at other boards) as often as I usually do.

Is that what was keeping you sooo busy that you couldn't even drop an e-mail to the sites who did the reviews in question telling them it was wrong? (I'm specifically refering to Driver Heaven with this one since it was thrown in my face that no one from FM had/has contacted them about it. )

Why should we care anymore Worm? What is the point? I'm happy to try and help you folks out as I like your product, but if you're not willing to even put forth the effort to help yourselves out I just don't see the point of trying/caring/being much interested in it anymore.

 

[see colon]

.... or one that wont run if the drivers are not approved.

that's the last thing we need. if a 3dmark did not run on "unappoved" drivers, we'd (and futuremark, of course) hear no end to the "you are showing bias twords <company X>!!" from a certain camp. furthermore, it would be impossible for anyone to confirm (or disprove) accusations of cheating.

perhaps a warning message when 3dmark is launched (drivers not approved! press "ok" to continue) and/or blatently labeling results as being obtained using unapproved drivers would be in order; but having the program fail to run would be worse imo than the situation that exists now
c:

 

[digitalwanderer]

.... or one that wont run if the drivers are not approved.

that's the last thing we need. if a 3dmark did not run on "unappoved" drivers, we'd (and futuremark, of course) hear no end to the "you are showing bias twords <company X>!!" from a certain camp. furthermore, it would be impossible for anyone to confirm (or disprove) accusations of cheating.

perhaps a warning message when 3dmark is launched (drivers not approved! press "ok" to continue) and/or blatently labeling results as being obtained using unapproved drivers would be in order; but having the program fail to run would be worse imo than the situation that exists now
c:

I disagree. I think it would be a bit extreme, but at least they would be showing an effort to enforce their programs rules.

 

[Brent]

don't forget guys there are other synthetic tests out there some much better In My Personal Opinion

D3D RightMark, and ShaderMark for example

 

[Nick[FM]]

Is that what was keeping you sooo busy that you couldn't even drop an e-mail to the sites who did the reviews in question telling them it was wrong? (I'm specifically refering to Driver Heaven with this one since it was thrown in my face that no one from FM had/has contacted them about it. )

I am sorry but there are so many sites posting reviews every day that it is next to impossible to follow up every one of them. If some site uses non-approved drivers and almost instantly removes the results before we even have seen it, there isn't much to do about that case. Emailing reviewers who use non-approved drivers is one way, but it would be even better if the reviews would be posted in the first place using approved drivers. That's what we are focusing on.

Sorry if I don't make sense, but I haven't slept that much and the time here is now 2:33am..

*edit: added a bit more sense to it. I hope..

 

[Nick[FM]]

don't forget guys there are other synthetic tests out there some much better In My Personal Opinion

D3D RightMark, and ShaderMark for example

Just out of curiosity, technically how are they much better and how can you be sure that there aren't any app specific optimizations in any drivers for those apps? Just for my Personal Interest.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

]
I am sorry but there are so many sites posting reviews every day that it is next to impossible to follow up every one of them. If some site uses non-approved drivers and almost instantly removes the results before we even have seen it, there isn't much to do about that case. Emailing reviewers who use non-approved drivers is one way, but it would be even better if the reviews would be posted in the first place using approved drivers. That's what we are focusing on.

All the more reason to put this function directly into the application instead of just crossing your fingers and hoping people will follow the rules. Heck, your own 3DMark members don't follow your guidelines - maybe you should start cleaning that up before worrying about reviewers?

 

[Brent]

]

don't forget guys there are other synthetic tests out there some much better In My Personal Opinion

D3D RightMark, and ShaderMark for example

Just out of curiosity, technically how are they much better and how can you be sure that there aren't any app specific optimizations in any drivers for those apps? Just for my Personal Interest.

ShaderMark has an Anti-Detector mode, to prevent just that.

D3D RightMark supports many more features than 3DMark, it has various PS/VS modes you can use and lots of specific tests of 3D hardware performance.

Plus, both don't try to be something they are not.

They are put out there as pure synthetic tests, not as a synthetic test trying to represent game performance.

these are my personal views btw

 

[digitalwanderer]

]

don't forget guys there are other synthetic tests out there some much better In My Personal Opinion

D3D RightMark, and ShaderMark for example

Just out of curiosity, technically how are they much better and how can you be sure that there aren't any app specific optimizations in any drivers for those apps? Just for my Personal Interest.

ShaderMark has an Anti-Detector mode, to prevent just that.

D3D RightMark supports many more features than 3DMark, it has various PS/VS modes you can use and lots of specific tests of 3D hardware performance.

Plus, both don't try to be something they are not.

They are put out there as pure synthetic tests, not as a synthetic test trying to represent game performance.

these are my personal views btw

I've never really checked out either much before, but I will after your excellent points on their advantages.

Thanks Brent.

 

[Tim Murray]

ShaderMark has an antidetect mode, but more importantly you can revert to driver versions that are known to not contain cheats and compare the images to ensure that the new version is rendering the correct image. Same is true of RightMark (plus that's open-source, so you can change the D3D context's title (if I recall Unwinder's Antidetect article correctly), recompile, and defeat the cheats yourself).

 

[Brent]

]

don't forget guys there are other synthetic tests out there some much better In My Personal Opinion

D3D RightMark, and ShaderMark for example

Just out of curiosity, technically how are they much better and how can you be sure that there aren't any app specific optimizations in any drivers for those apps? Just for my Personal Interest.

ShaderMark has an Anti-Detector mode, to prevent just that.

D3D RightMark supports many more features than 3DMark, it has various PS/VS modes you can use and lots of specific tests of 3D hardware performance.

Plus, both don't try to be something they are not.

They are put out there as pure synthetic tests, not as a synthetic test trying to represent game performance.

these are my personal views btw

I've never really checked out either much before, but I will after your excellent points on their advantages.

Thanks Brent.

the new beta 4 of 3DRightmark adds support for ps/vs 3.0, it also supports ps/vs 2.x with dynamic flow control

check it out http://3d.rightmark.org/

shadermark here: http://www.shadermark.de/start.html

 

[{Sniping}Waste]

Nick put a thread in the futuremark 3DMARK 03 fourm for ppl to post site that are using un approved drivers so others can help you out.

 

[cthellis42]

ShaderMark has an Anti-Detector mode, to prevent just that.

D3D RightMark supports many more features than 3DMark, it has various PS/VS modes you can use and lots of specific tests of 3D hardware performance.

Plus, both don't try to be something they are not.

They are put out there as pure synthetic tests, not as a synthetic test trying to represent game performance.

these are my personal views btw

Problem is, as we've seen, with enough attention any anti-detect is able to be defeated in some way or another, and while one can stay on top of the situation and make personal adjustments, that's the same thing as keeping yourself informed and just using the right drivers. And as we've seen, the vast public seems uninclined to understand, and certainly to do anything not absolutely normal in right in front of them--reviewers included.

If the impetus to "optimize" for 3DRightmark (and others) were there and IHV's were doing it, would their base state remain pristine and exactly as they intend? How would they handle an IHV's unwanted "scrutiny"--as it were?

Problem is, most people don't care enough to keep themselves informed or talk about the full nature of problems; it's much easier to complain about the visable side-effects. But if the source of the problem doesn't change--or worse if it's validated--then it stands to reason that it will act once a target presents itself. It also stands to reason that--unaddressed--the problem will only get worse.

This counts for all problems from all parties, and it should not ever amount to one taking backseat or being ignored because of another.

 

[andypski]

ShaderMark has an Anti-Detector mode, to prevent just that.

What do you think the 'Anti-detect' mode does that is significantly more difficult for an interested party to circumvent than what Futuremark did with their patch?

Putting a button marked 'Anti-detect' on something doesn't necessarily make it so, or, at least, not for long.

 

[andypski]

ShaderMark has an antidetect mode, but more importantly you can revert to driver versions that are known to not contain cheats and compare the images to ensure that the new version is rendering the correct image.

The same is also true of 3DMark03 with their 'Anti-Detect' patch, and Futuremark also put in some extra effort to try to tell people which driver versions are performing appropriately and producing the correct image for reference.

 

[Nick[FM]]

ShaderMark has an Anti-Detector mode, to prevent just that.

And you are sure that there is no way to work-around it in any drivers? You should know by now that there is no 100% bullet-proof anti-detector system.

D3D RightMark supports many more features than 3DMark, it has various PS/VS modes you can use and lots of specific tests of 3D hardware performance.

Many more features as in options, or more theoretical tests, or what do you mean?

Plus, both don't try to be something they are not.

They are put out there as pure synthetic tests, not as a synthetic test trying to represent game performance.

3DMark represents many things. Do read the whitepaper if you think 3DMark is representing only game performance. FYI, 3DMark03 has more to offer than only the Game Tests.

Talking about this (synthetic vs game benchmarks) reminds me of the days when 3DMark2000 and 2001 were released, and the discussions I had with various members over at 3dfxgamers.com.. Oh those days...

the new beta 4 of 3DRightmark adds support for ps/vs 3.0, it also supports ps/vs 2.x with dynamic flow control

Using Beta versions of benchmarks is something I have never understood. Beta means that it is beta, and that the final release might have some big changes which could affect the results. It is like you would use leaked beta (or even alpha) versions of games as timedemos, and make conclusions out of that. IMHO, doesn't work at all. Besides, how many released graphics cards do you know that support PS/VS 3.0?

All the more reason to put this function directly into the application instead of just crossing your fingers and hoping people will follow the rules. Heck, your own 3DMark members don't follow your guidelines - maybe you should start cleaning that up before worrying about reviewers?

Putting some new anti-detect system into 3DMark would be possible, but as we have discussed several times before, there is no 100% proof system. :? Until someone comes up with a perfect solution which works 100%, it is not a very feasible option. If 3DMark would detect driver versions and inform the user if the driver is approved or not, it would mean that we would need to patch 3DMark everytime a new driver is released and approved..

Nick put a thread in the futuremark 3DMARK 03 fourm for ppl to post site that are using un approved drivers so others can help you out.

That might help us to find more reviews using non-approved drivers with 3DMark03, but I am still sure that we need to prevent the use of non-approved drivers with 3DMark03 rather than waiting for reviews to be posted, and then contact them. Don't you agree?

 

[MrGaribaldi]

]

All the more reason to put this function directly into the application instead of just crossing your fingers and hoping people will follow the rules. Heck, your own 3DMark members don't follow your guidelines - maybe you should start cleaning that up before worrying about reviewers?

Putting some new anti-detect system into 3DMark would be possible, but as we have discussed several times before, there is no 100% proof system. :? Until someone comes up with a perfect solution which works 100%, it is not a very feasible option. If 3DMark would detect driver versions and inform the user if the driver is approved or not, it would mean that we would need to patch 3DMark everytime a new driver is released and approved..

Not neccessarily...

3DMark allready use access to internet to publish the results from the testing. Why not have it download a list of approved/disapproved drivers when it encounters an unknown driver?

So when you start 3DMark you'll get a window telling you that 3DMark doesn't recognize the driver beeing used and that it wants to connect to the internet to download the latest list of drivers from futuremarks site.

If the computer doesn't have net access, let the user be able to download the list manually and copy it onto the test computer. You'll have to encrypt the list of course so as to avoid any tampering.

The only problem with such a solution would be that you'd have to keep abreast of every new driver being released, but you allready do that.

This would also help inform your users about the problems with cheating drivers.