My thread @ Futuremark(Re =Waite for Unwinder)

As has been said. The article was a good idea, but it suffered from:

a) A lack of range, one software test doesn't tell us a lot.

b) A conclusion that didn't look like to had much to do with the article (and stats) that come before it.

 

Unwinder, in that thread that you quoted Terry, you also stated that you thought that he was making an emotional response. If you had this suspicion in mind then why did you make a conclusion in which you used his remarks as though they were to be taken laterally

 

Correct. At that time I've not seen ATI driver internals and 3DM2001 tricks. Now I see nothing but PR in Terry's 'emotional' statement. Buisness is buisness, it ok to misinform to improve company appearance

 

demalion

I’m afraid that your words are aimed only to rehabilitate one IHV involved in this investigation. You may like the conclusion, you may dislike it, but it will not change utill IHVs will not act differently and your idol will not look better then he currently is. There is only one way to get really fair situation on the benchmarking scene – we need to see the real faces of *all* players to understand the situation. Now we have definitively brash NVIDIA and ATI, which playing ‘good boys’ today. However we’ve already seen similar situation a couple years ago when ATI were trapped on Quack and NVIDIA tried to play ‘good boys’. And now look what’s happened with that ‘good boys’ today? Where are the principles? Do you want the story to continue? I don’t.

There is no need to judge the things if you don’t know the facts. It’s absolutely not an emotional reaction on them for not prioritizing. It was private discussion dedicated (!!!) to my findings in the driver. And it was direct question about situation with 3DMark2001, that unfortunately remained without answer.

For me the statement ‘Third I guarantee you that I will ask for an investigation for optimized drivers tomorrow such that has never happened in ATI's history’ looks like plain lie. Both competitors have experience in ‘optimizing’ the drivers. Probably you like seeing public lie aimed to improve the company appearance, I don’t.

Against ATI? Excuse me but I’ve heard quite the opposite reproofs from NVIDIA fans. The people just see what they want and close the eyes on the rest facts. For me ATI looks against NVIDIA like a nipper against a robber. Furthermore, NV will get a way more problems than ATI from this investigation. But it doesn’t make ATI not guilty and it doesn’t mean that they play honestly now.
However, I really hope that the situation will change one day, ATI have all conditions for fair game because R3x0 don’t need any ‘optimizations’ to compete with NV3x.

Finally, I've made some comments about both IHV's reaction on AntiDetector investigation in this thread:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=1332078539#post1332078539

 

It seems to me that ATI are willing to listen and from the discussions I've had they are actually attempting to move away from as much application detection as possible (even if it a case of legitimately fixing a game, they would rather seek to do that with the developer), however without the buy in from all IHV's then this is just going to meet a dead end.

At the moment ATI has competetive hardware with a relatively clean bill of health (other than 3DMark2001 what else was there?) even in the face of some highly optimised drivers from their competition. At present it seems as though NVIDIA are sitting this one out silently, hoping it will all blow over - so far they've made no commitments that they should remove this types of optimisations, in fact they seem to believe its their right to make them. However, inevitably NVIDIA will get their act together from a hardware perspective and these optimisations will still be there - what are ATI going to do then? Loose sales becuase there may be a reasonable level of hardware parity but because there are no optimisations they look poor in comparison?

 

Having just read your comments at Rage I'd say this -

ATI: I've spoken to numerous people at ATI and they seem to genuinely portray that their drivers are relatively clean, and you won't find much beyond what has been found in the terms of 'illegal' optimisations, for sure there are some bug compatibility app detect in there (although, as I said they want to keep those to a minimum). Either this is really the case or all the people are very good at hoodwinking us and they have some really clever app stuff going on - given the 3DMark03 and 3DMark2001 stuff and the fact that other IQ/performance investigations so far hasn't turned up as much it seems to me to be fairly unlikely that this is the case.

NVIDIA: Ugh. Going to the point of having to reverse engineer drivers in the first place limits who can do these thing, encrypting them further makes limits who is going to be bothered to look at these things. Soon we'll have no way of knowing whether the characteristics alter in game to in-timedemo/benchmark further making reviewers jobs difficult.

 

I think Sharkfood just got owned.

 

Well, it would seem that you've decided to ignore what I've actually said, and any and all particulars of my requests to you, except to avoid repeating my words without addressing them. Please note that I did not wish for you to avoid addressing them with any accuracy at all.

You decide to ascribe to me the characteristic of having ATI as my idol, without bothering to substantiate the claim. This, I fear, you've convinced me is consistent, and I am disappointed that you appear to fail to be able to consider that a standard of substantiation applies to yourself in more details than just those select details that suite your preference.

Exactly. The problem here is simply that you are unable to process that, with regard to your conclusion specifically, you were not serving that end, but instead proposing your agenda and emotional reaction as a factual representation instead. I do find it amazing that you can so clearly dilineate your finding before that specific conclusion, and fail to display any recognition whatsoever of the difference between the emotions and statements in it compared to the facts and reasoning that came before. I do also find it a source of some dismay that your response consists of accusations that seem predicated on considering my criticism, of misrepresenting emotions and non factual conclusion, as a denial of facts, when the distinction between them was at the very heart of my commentary to you that you did not address at all.

Your usage of the words "playing" and "‘good boys’ " in reference to nVidia and ATI collectively is what leads to my disappointment, as you in no way address my support for disagreeing with it as you continue to propose it as a fact.

nVidia is making no attempt at "playing" a "good boy" at all by any stretch of fact, unless you refer to the act of engineering perception by causing the use of the word "cheat" to be prevented. Where you lose me is maintaining your practice of grouping this "play" as equivalent to providing any actions at all that might provide factual confirmation of that "play" being anything more (which it seems clearly established that ATI, specifically, has done).
I'm sure if you perused my prior post with any care, that a detailed discussion of this distinction would be evident, but your lack of addressing that discussion while proposing this sentiment (again) as a factual basis for your response seems to indicate that you are not interested in entertaining disagreement, reasoned or not. I'll use this opportunity to point out that this demonstrates the situation I mention prior of intelligence and capability not mattering much when not being applied...please note that refusing to discuss at all is a self-evident demonstration of this failure, atleast in regard to matters independent of things like ego or agenda.

You do not seem to intend to say anything new that I haven't addressed at length in a prior posts, and that you simply saw fit to ignore to repeat yourself. It is for brevity's sake that I do not establish this repetition by quoting you, but do feel free to ask for clarification if you do not recognize that the validity of such a description, which you can consider as applying fairly globally to your commentary.

Actually, my reply to this sentiment took up many paragraphs and went into great detail, specifically answering your question about where principles could be found, and it does cause me more than a little aggravation when it seems that the effort was completely wasted on someone with whom I am conversing. If it is merely a matter of lack of understanding, I'll point out for future reference that my private message to you, which seems to have been read, provided an opportunity for you to seek to correct a lack of understanding of my statements rather than simply display the lack as a demonstration of no interest in achieving such understanding as you ended up doing here.

This is confusing...are you claiming that you did not pass judgement?

Perhaps you are confused...I was maintaining that it was you that was displaying the emotional reaction of frustration, not ATI. Or perhaps I just misunderstand what you are trying to say? The alternate understanding I can take from that is that you propose that you were not reacting emotionally, which I have trouble believing you are proposing, as you went on in that previous message to agree that this was the case, to my understanding

Yes, this seems to fit the situation I was describing accurately, unless I simply continue to misunderstand what you are trying to communicate. Alternately, you may have failed to understand me, in which case my clarifications above might help, if you'll go over my statements again. Failing either of these, it would seem you are stating things that, in my opinion, simply do not make sense. I've addressed all these possibilities in a fair amount of detail, between the PM, this reply, and my last, and I await your extending me the same courtesy of effort as you are able.

Ah, that is indeed a clear accusation and opinion on your part. Where do you think you've provided one shred of evidence for it? Please consider the specifics of the actions he described when you clarify this factual support. Yes, I'm aware of what has been shown for "Quack", 3dmark 2001 GT4, and 3dmark 03 GT 4, but I'm also aware of things, it appears, that have not been shown, and the significance of them. I hope, to avoid a repetition of prior discussion, that you do not simply ignore the latter factor, or the specifics mentioned earlier, when replying.

Well, an argument against proposing absolute equivalency was provided (at length), though you display your dedication to completely ignoring the argument (again). To go with it, you accuse me of some unspecified and unsupported dedication to maintaining ATI's "public lie" and appearance (again) as a substitute to addressing that argument.

In case you might sense some sense of affront on my part, the above would be why, and I propose to you (if such was your intent) that intending to offend because you took offense does not make what offended you any less discussed, supported, and specified in detail; nor does that you being the one who gives offense change that such characteristics might be absent in your attempt when you fail to succeed in providing them.

Do you propose that you labor under such a logical fallacy as you seem to propose here? The reaction of nVidia fans has nothing to do with the long list of specific reasons I gave for making that statement, and intimating this is the case only serves to highlight that you have no interest in recognizing that discussion. It does have to do with your persistence in labelling me as simply an ATI fan, which is why your ignoring that discussion completely (again) seems to me to be just a contrivance to make it convenient for you to do so. My reaction to that is, I hope, well established by now.

By which, I presume, you intend as a description of myself, by the convenience of demonstrably ignoring evidence to the contrary? Perhaps I can point to the above discussion on my part, and point out that you might wish to consider applying consideration of these words to your own actions, both in the article and in your series of replies here.

A nipper is a pickpocket, I presume? Would it not be more useful to represent the analogy as more than just a pickpocket and robber?

For the pickpocket: where the pickpocket has committed 3 crimes with any degree of documentation (with indication that more crimes have specifically not been committed)...further, with varying degrees of uncertainty remaining about the actual severity of those crimes (in some regards), and, further, that two of those instances (as far as the analogy seems to allow) are those where the "purse" has been returned.

For the robber: where the robber has demonstrated the quality of complete unrepentence, where the documented crimes are more numerous and demonstrably more severe, as well as demonstrable less uncertain about severity....further, where indications of even more crimes are evident, and you yourself have noted that the robber is taking steps clearly and specifically geared towards preventing being stopped if such crimes occur.

What do you propose you serve by maintaining that these distinctions from your original label of each do not matter when passing judgement? I do continue to be surprised as to how you propose that your persistence that such distinction specifically not be significant is not emotional, or even rational. Perhaps you'll perceive that I asked you this question already, and that you failed to answer Feel free to provide me with a useful reply to this question, though you have given me reason to expect anything but that occurrence.

Not from people who depend on conclusions such as digit-life, including yourself, unfortunately, seem to be dedicated to proposing (as well as other specific sites, discussed at length elsewhere). To clarify: where blame is apportioned to other parties besides nVidia without such niceties as providing a connection to facts as strongly established as in nVidia's case, but where nVidia's actions are treated equivalently (and, in some cases, more favorably) than the actions of those other parties.

Right, it doesn't, but it doesn't make them the opposite either. Does the possibility of that, in any degree, really escape you as completely as you seem to maintain? However, I won't repeat my discussion of that again since you ignored it so completely as to propose this as a surprise.
I will, however, point out again that you just seem singularly unable to realize that there is a distinction between fact, and your emotions and reactions to both not receiving a prompt answer and your own interpretation of CM's comments (some of them atleast and specifically not others, apparently). Please don't ask what I mean by that statement: if you wonder about that, please instead read what I've already written and ask me in private if you fail to see how the question is already answered.

We do have indication of such an issue with GT 4 in 3dmark 2001, yet you propose, yet again, that you have indication of much more for ATI (when actual factual indication makes 3dmark 2001 GT 4 stand out by isolation, as well as there being some lack of conclusiveness in the facts and supported conclusions you presented). Turning the first into the second, in an absence of factual support of such, is how you give me the impression of simply being more dedicated to an agenda than to facts. Please consider the possibility of providing a reply that does anything other than convince me of it more strongly...that does not necessitate agreeing with me, but of agreeing to address my discussion instead of just ignoring it.

Are you going to add your various comments in forum threads on an ATI fansite to your article, or do you propose that the distinction between who you reach in each location does not matter? It would indeed be a start if the conclusion in the published article was made less selective in representing your stated emotions on these matters.

 

micron

Anything more to say? It won't change my mind and conclusions in the article. Wanna see saint ATI - simply see it.
Some ppl like demalion like provided facts but don't like the conclusion because ATI looks bad there. Some ppl like Sharkfood trying to discredit the facts with stupid contol and CPU-related theories. Some ppl who can't say anything just draw pictures and cry 'rules'/'sucks'. Different ways - the same target.

 

unwinder i just have one question . Why are there other sites using the anti cheat detector that are having much much diffrent results than you ?

here http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6796

and here http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6758

To me it seems that ati has been honest about every thing but 3dmark2001. Its nvidia that is cheating left and right. So if i was to pick which company to put my support behind I'd pick ati.

 

I think the point you miss that is key to all the text that's been layed out in this thread, is that the issue simply is not that ATI is a saint. Instead it is that in comparison to everything seen with the FX series, the sole issue with ATI is one noticed "cheat" (or "optimization" in Nvidia's words) in 3dmark 2001... nothing else. with the FX series there continues to be noted issues with at this point a minimum of a handful of regular benchmarks, and more keep being brought to light every day.

Your rhetoric in various threads i've seen goes contrary to the very conclusion that you have been defending in this thread. If 3dmark 2001 were of any consequence whatsoever today, perhaps that could be argued to be some major sin... and in that case, I expect ATI would remove the optimization just like it did the one noted in 3dmark2003. Perhaps in the next driver release we'll see that happen, or sometime soon when something of such trivial impact doesn't take time away from other legitimate driver work.

On the other hand, it is as if there can't be testing on enough apps to keep up with Nvidia's cheats both in benchmarks and in regular timedemos used to bench games. There simply is no comparison between what has been seen in the unprecidented amount of cheats to prop up the failures in the FX architecture, and one lone leftover optimzation for an effectively obsolete benchmark (for a r300 class graphics card) in ATI's current WHQL released driver.

 

All
If somebody intereseted in tests other than 3dMark with Antidetector
http://www.ixbt.com/video2/gffx-16.shtml

It's in Russian but figures and tables are informative enough (imho)
Look for the black and purple bars in D3D-tests

Hope digit-life will publish this in English soon

 

All
What about me I think that Alexey's article is solid work and conclusions are closely connected to the facts he had found. Tests other than 3dmark2001 was beyond the scope of the article. Somebody may say that conclusions are 2 emotional other may say they 2 harsh of course. As for me I ignore emotions, and I agree it's not possible to be partially honest. So I think that conclusions are fair first of all.

And really I don't know what most of the guys here and there want from Unwinder. He have done a good work and showed his results and his conclusions. If u wnat him to say that vendors act not in exactly similiar way he said this in the article. If u want him to say that ATI's position looks better he said this here.

Think that there is much more interesting theme 2 discuss " what to do after all of this"? Let imagine ATI will remove all application specific optmisations, NVIDIA will refuse. What then?

imho

 

Well, a few people in other forums see the Tri-AF implementation of ATi as an cheat as well, cause when you select Tri-AF in the panel you get Tri-AF only on the base texture and Bi-AF on all the other textures. This "inflates" the Tri-AF benchmarks ~30%, as it is said. So for this people ATi cheats on all D3D-benchmarks where the application does not specify AF themself.