chavvdarrr
Veteran
Any comments? What everyone knew - cheats not only in last version of 3dMark - is now confirmed ....
Wait for news from Unwinder (nvworld.ru)
- Thread starter chavvdarrr
- Start date
Any comments? What everyone knew - cheats not only in last version of 3dMark - is now confirmed ....
Remember the original Detonator 40 launch?
They claimed improved shading performance, and many people were amazed by the huge Nature increase.
Now we know where it comes from, I guess - it's pretty much back to the Pre-Detonator 40 scores.
Cheating is nothing new at NVIDIA Corporation, it seems...
Uttar
They claimed improved shading performance, and many people were amazed by the huge Nature increase.
Now we know where it comes from, I guess - it's pretty much back to the Pre-Detonator 40 scores.
Cheating is nothing new at NVIDIA Corporation, it seems...
Uttar
"Cheating" has been around in the Detonator's since the 12.xx releases- it's just there was too much of a fanbase to actually dig in and do any research at the time- any offerings of evidence were quickly discounted and hot air/windy retorts are all that ever came of them.
On topic of this current 2001 issue, the basics of research still need to be performed. Noting a ~10% delta in performance by running a benchmark two consecutive times isn't exactly earth shattering- and I'd also say is pretty close to the margin of error of 3dmark2001se (hell, a fresh reboot and re-run can often times effect the total score by 1000). The Nature test is of the most interest given it's huge delta.
What needs to happen with this scenario is the basics of homework- screenshots, comparisons, isolation of what (if any) visual differences may occur.. etc.etc. One can only raise a red flag if adequate controls are in place and if the differences can be isolated.
On topic of this current 2001 issue, the basics of research still need to be performed. Noting a ~10% delta in performance by running a benchmark two consecutive times isn't exactly earth shattering- and I'd also say is pretty close to the margin of error of 3dmark2001se (hell, a fresh reboot and re-run can often times effect the total score by 1000). The Nature test is of the most interest given it's huge delta.
What needs to happen with this scenario is the basics of homework- screenshots, comparisons, isolation of what (if any) visual differences may occur.. etc.etc. One can only raise a red flag if adequate controls are in place and if the differences can be isolated.
I've already said I want an anti-cheat 3dmark01se version...chavvdarrr said:
What does AntiDetector.rts do? Does it prevent shader detection?
Though it looks only Game 4 is, umm, optimized a lot. The other optimizations don't seem to provide much benefits (aps and dragothic about 10%, the rest of the scores look identical). Do the optimizations change image quality?
Typedef Enum
Regular
Is there a URL somewhere? I looked on the Russian site, and didn't see anything that jumped out...but then again, my knowledge of Russian is pretty limited
I am sure this is no real suprise. We all know that when only 3dmarks scores of the nature test shot up nV was going some optimizations there. But its nice to have some data now to back it up. I wonder if all of those who "defened" sides on this 3dmark fasico because 3dmark2003 was "lame", "a bad benchmark", ect will do now that we know that even 3dmark2001, every ones pride and joy, was subjected to a simular process. Also notice that both AJ and Worm have not been posting as of late.
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm".....
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm".....
wrt 3DMark2001 I'd be surprised if it was only NV.
WHEEEEEEE!!!!!!!jb said:I am sure this is no real suprise. We all know that when only 3dmarks scores of the nature test shot up nV was going some optimizations there. But its nice to have some data now to back it up. I wonder if all of those who "defened" sides on this 3dmark fasico because 3dmark2003 was "lame", "a bad benchmark", ect will do now that we know that even 3dmark2001, every ones pride and joy, was subjected to a simular process. Also notice that both AJ and Worm have not been posting as of late.
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm".....
Thanks, I hadn't thought of how difficult it's gonna be for places like [t]ardOCP to wiggle around this one.
Depending on the driver versions, I've had my GF3 do scores in the low 30s to mid-50s in 2k1 nature test. Naturally, pun not intended, I hoped these score improvements were due to GENERAL optimizations in the driver, not GT4-SPECIFIC optimizations.
Naturally, it would be very disappointed to find I've been pinning my hopes of increased scores to nothing but an illusion. ...Especially since the general attitude towards Nvidia standards has been very high in the past.
*G*
Naturally, it would be very disappointed to find I've been pinning my hopes of increased scores to nothing but an illusion. ...Especially since the general attitude towards Nvidia standards has been very high in the past.
*G*
Hellbinder
Banned
Are you sure???
I remember that GT4 was always a strong point for the 8500 because it had a better Vertex engine to start with. their scores were also good on the Hardware lights tests.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Hellbinder[CE said:
I do remember a relatively earily 8500 driver build that added "non trivial" performance increases in some shading tests. Don't recall if it was GT4 or the synthetic shading tests, or both.
digitalwanderer said:WHEEEEEEE!!!!!!!jb said:I am sure this is no real suprise. We all know that when only 3dmarks scores of the nature test shot up nV was going some optimizations there. But its nice to have some data now to back it up. I wonder if all of those who "defened" sides on this 3dmark fasico because 3dmark2003 was "lame", "a bad benchmark", ect will do now that we know that even 3dmark2001, every ones pride and joy, was subjected to a simular process. Also notice that both AJ and Worm have not been posting as of late.
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm".....
Thanks, I hadn't thought of how difficult it's gonna be for places like [t]ardOCP to wiggle around this one.
Seeing that they don't have anything to "have to wiggle around," pretty easy. Issues pointed out with Futuremark and its use pre-dates 3DMark03.
I must caution the use of the word "cheat" as it applies to 3DM2K1.
FM has stated (in the "Help" file & the audit.pdf) what a "cheat" is in 3DM03, but I fail to see the word "cheat" used in any literature released by MO/FM concerning 3DM2K1 usage.
Carry on, but CYA (cover your a$$) in the terminology used.
.02 info post,
FM has stated (in the "Help" file & the audit.pdf) what a "cheat" is in 3DM03, but I fail to see the word "cheat" used in any literature released by MO/FM concerning 3DM2K1 usage.
Carry on, but CYA (cover your a$$) in the terminology used.
.02 info post,
chavvdarrr
Veteran
Actually it was posted on ixbt forum:
http://forum.ixbt.com/0010/044212-30.html
- Detonators have 73-element table of "recognized" applications
- ~50 "recognized" shaders
He simply wrote rivatuner-patch hich will "block" detection routines in the driver.
IMHO just a matter of time to see how 8500 fps in GT4 jumped ahead...
http://forum.ixbt.com/0010/044212-30.html
- Detonators have 73-element table of "recognized" applications
- ~50 "recognized" shaders
He simply wrote rivatuner-patch hich will "block" detection routines in the driver.
IMHO just a matter of time to see how 8500 fps in GT4 jumped ahead...
Typedef Enum
Regular
Does anybody have some David Kirk quotes handy? I'm sure there's somebody out there that keeps track of all the BS this guy has stated over time...
I'm specifically referring to the "we don't optimize for specific titles" quote...I want to re-read that quote, and see if it was carefully worded or not.
I'm specifically referring to the "we don't optimize for specific titles" quote...I want to re-read that quote, and see if it was carefully worded or not.
