Gamersdepot with a review with 3DMARK 03 and 53.03

[Veridian3]

Too little, too late?

I think so.

TBH the only way i think the damage to Futuremark can be repaired is to release 3dMark04, which has built in anti-cheat technology from the beginning and regular support patches from FM to disable any driver issues. Doing something to 3Dmark03 now wont repair the damage already done to the benchmark and company name.

 

[AzBat]

]

Looks like you been doing more from the messages above. I'm going to check your site and forums to see if anything official was announced. Hopefully you did.

Hmmm, there's nothing to "announce" exactly. Our users use the ORB and other features of ours on a daily basis, so they are very aware of what is happening. If we add some new information to the ORB, or add some copy here and there, we don't make announcements of them. The reason why I am posting it here is because of this thread and where it has headed. If I would see any such discussion anywhere on our site/any other site, I sure would do the same thing.

Well, today I finally got a chance to check your site and forums and I didn't see any note whatsoever that you were going to include the "red flag" on ORB. I found probably 3 messages total on your forums where they posted the "red flag" after trying to post their results. No comments by you or anybody else at Futuremark. So it seems to be a non-issue with your fans at least. I expected as much. It's nice, but I have to say that I doubt in the end it will have any effect on whether or not reviewers will only use approved drivers in their articles.

Like Dig, I'm curious as to the kind of feedback you might have received from IHVs, beta members and review sites after you started using it? Something tells me it will probably get the same response as it did from your fans.

I think I'm going to have to agree with Veridian3: 3DMark03 is dead, release 3DMark04 ASAP.

Tommy McClain

 

[AzBat]

This may have been mentioned before but here is an idea for making sure reviewers/sites use approved drivers.

#1. Have an approved site review list with all sites on the list having signed an agreement stating to gain access to FM's approved reviews list they will use drivers only approved by FM for there reviews. Have them add a (approved review by FM) to every review which uses 3dMark03 for any reviews. This will not only help with cheating but it will also help with people unaware of cheating drivers that can be used.

#2. Have separate 3dMark03 programs for said review sites that will allow them to post there results on FM's site in a special FM 3dMark03 review results page. All other people downloading 3dMark03 benchmarks are forced to post there results in a common area with (in huge letters stamped across there results) non approved drivers if they are in fact not approved or just simply refuse to allow non approved driver results to be posted at all.

Just my 2 cents on options to help prevent reviewers from using cheat drivers & I apologize if this idea has been brought up already.

Some interesting ideas. They look like a natural progression of their approved drivers list, but I highly doubt that review sites and end-users will like the idea of Futuremark actually approving the reviews themselves. Now approving the sites seems fine. Futuremark could extend their Benchmark Development Program(BDP) to include review sites that adhere to certain testing requirements(approved drivers,etc) when using their benchmarks. By doing this there should be no need to actually approve individual reviews. However, I still like the idea of requiring them to post their results in a common area. Hopefully this area is separate from the ORB that's used for end-users. Though it would be nice if end-users could access these "special" results from within the ORB. Say for instance give an option to compare end-user results with results from Futuremark approved sites.

You could take it a step further like I mentioned earlier and not give away the Pro version to web sites that are not part of the BDP program.

Hopefully some of the ideas that's been discussed here since last year will eventually make it into the next version of 3DMark.

Tommy McClain

 

[Nick[FM]]

TBH the only way i think the damage to Futuremark can be repaired is to release 3dMark04, which has built in anti-cheat technology from the beginning and regular support patches from FM to disable any driver issues. Doing something to 3Dmark03 now wont repair the damage already done to the benchmark and company name.

As said many times before, there is no bullet-proof anti-system available. Any system can be worked around, and hence makes it obsolete. Sure we and everyone else who is in the benchmarking business could come up with a clever system, but it works only for a certain time and needs constantly to be updated. Point being, we would be back to square 1.

 

[MrGaribaldi]

]
As said many times before, there is no bullet-proof anti-system available. Any system can be worked around, and hence makes it obsolete. Sure we and everyone else who is in the benchmarking business could come up with a clever system, but it works only for a certain time and needs constantly to be updated. Point being, we would be back to square 1.

You would be back to square one on the point that you'll still have a problem with cheating, but you will (most likely) have made a good impression on your users that you take it seriously.

There is a difference between what you do and how it's percieved, as this thread is quite a good example of.

 

[Quitch]

A burglar could break your window, but that doesn't mean you should leave it unlocked.

 

[Nick[FM]]

You would be back to square one on the point that you'll still have a problem with cheating, but you will (most likely) have made a good impression on your users that you take it seriously.

There is a difference between what you do and how it's percieved, as this thread is quite a good example of.

You mean that what we have done the whole year doesn't show that we are serious about our benchmarks? How many other benchmark developers have you seen taking any interest in all of this?

I can't comment on our unannounced products, so time will tell.

 

[digitalwanderer]

]

You would be back to square one on the point that you'll still have a problem with cheating, but you will (most likely) have made a good impression on your users that you take it seriously.

There is a difference between what you do and how it's percieved, as this thread is quite a good example of.

You mean that what we have done the whole year doesn't show that we are serious about our benchmarks? How many other benchmark developers have you seen taking any interest in all of this?

I can't comment on our unannounced products, so time will tell.

I think he meant that while not all your efforts succeed you are at least perceived as trying like hell to keep things fair in your benchmark.

As much as I knock you guys, I really don't credit you enough for the effort. FM really is the only benchmark I see out there standing up to nVidia and saying, "this ain't right!"....thank you. 8)

 

[Tim Murray]

]I can't comment on our unannounced products, so time will tell.

Except you kinda just did through your hints...

But anyway, at least FM is trying. Then again, no other "pure" benchmark companies come to mind, so FM must try more than anyone else.

 

[Nick[FM]]

Except you kinda just did through your hints...

But anyway, at least FM is trying. Then again, no other "pure" benchmark companies come to mind, so FM must try more than anyone else.

Nah, I haven't hinted anything. Really. When we have something to say, we'll say it loud and clear.

 

[digitalwanderer]

]

Except you kinda just did through your hints...

But anyway, at least FM is trying. Then again, no other "pure" benchmark companies come to mind, so FM must try more than anyone else.

Nah, I haven't hinted anything. Really. When we have something to say, we'll say it loud and clear.

Ahh, the great advantages of being an amateur color commentator are once again made clear to me! 8)

 

[MrGaribaldi]

I think he meant that while not all your efforts succeed you are at least perceived as trying like hell to keep things fair in your benchmark.

As much as I knock you guys, I really don't credit you enough for the effort. FM really is the only benchmark I see out there standing up to nVidia and saying, "this ain't right!"....thank you. 8)

Quite correct! It was not meant to be a derogatory comment on your current activity, but rather how such a move would show it even clearer.

And I have to agree with Dig, that even though I keep asking for more from you guys, you are doing a good job.

 

[2senile]

http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum...526122&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1

Third post down; pay particular attention to the wording in the brackets.

 

[AzBat]

http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum...526122&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1

Third post down; pay particular attention to the wording in the brackets.

Hehe, nice catch.

Kaarlonen]The drivers do not have anything to do with the ability to publish (at least not yet).

Would be a great move if you ask me.

Tommy McClain

 

[digitalwanderer]

Oh man, that thread is absolutely slaying me!

I had no idea what poor Worm had to put up with.

 

[StealthHawk]

Oh man, that thread is absolutely slaying me!

I had no idea what poor Worm had to put up with.

You should have been able to guess. I took a look at a few threads on that forum a long time ago...and promptly never went back. Worse than R3D, I tell ya!

 

[digitalwanderer]

I'd really be more comfortable with a "worse than Anand's!" or "worse than Guru3d!" or something, I'm a friend of Rage3d's and they still got some serious ATi intelligence on that board. (Although I'll grant you the signal/noise ratio is getting out of control, again...but at least R3D is trying to do something about it this time. )

 

[cthellis42]

Although I'll grant you the signal/noise ratio is getting out of control, again...

XxxxxXXXxxXxXxxXxXx XxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxwHatXxxxxXXXxxXxXxxXxXxXxXXX XXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxXXXx xXxXxxXxXxXxXXXXXXXXXX XXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxdoXxxxxXXXxxXxXxxXxXxXxXXXXXXXXXX XXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyouXxxxxXXXxxXxXxxXxXxXx XXXXX XXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx XxxxxXXXxxXxXxxXxXxXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxXXXxxXxXxxXxXxXxX XXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxmeanXxxxxXXXxxXxXxxXx XxXxX XXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxbyXxxxxXXXxxXxXx xXxXxXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXX xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxXxxxxXXXxxXxX xxXxXxXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxthat?

 

[StealthHawk]

I'd really be more comfortable with a "worse than Anand's!" or "worse than Guru3d!" or something, I'm a friend of Rage3d's and they still got some serious ATi intelligence on that board. (Although I'll grant you the signal/noise ratio is getting out of control, again...but at least R3D is trying to do something about it this time. )

Hey man, I know there are some smart guys in the R3D community. But the signal/noise ratio was very high in the past. They've done a great job over there by making the Catalyst forum a technical support forum only, and moving general comments out of there. I think they also have an ATI rant forum.

I can't really say anything about Anand's or Guru3d, as I've never tried to read things there. I'm sure there's a very high S/N ratio at those forums too, but I'm sure there are a few gems there as well. Ok, I'll take back my original statement and replace it with this one: Worse than the old R3D! I think that's a fair assessment, as I don't want to belittle the efforts of the R3D staff to corral the useless comments.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Hey man, I know there are some smart guys in the R3D community. But the signal/noise ratio was very high in the past. They've done a great job over there by making the Catalyst forum a technical support forum only, and moving general comments out of there. I think they also have an ATI rant forum.

I can't really say anything about Anand's or Guru3d, as I've never tried to read things there. I'm sure there's a very high S/N ratio at those forums too, but I'm sure there are a few gems there as well. Ok, I'll take back my original statement and replace it with this one: Worse than the old R3D! I think that's a fair assessment, as I don't want to belittle the efforts of the R3D staff to corral the useless comments.

I think they've made about 6 new mods and 2 new supermods (congrats again Hanners! ) and they've been VERY liberal with handing out week bans like parking tickets for infractions.

It's helping, a LOT...I think we're going to see Rage3D's forums really improving over the next few weeks and they'll be in top shape for the R420 launch. (They really are doing a bang-up job of cracking down over there, it's fun to watch! )