Intel graphics drivers employ questionable 3DMark Vantage optimizations
- Thread starter MODEL3
- Start date
Wonder what happens if you rename Crysis Warhead (or any game) executable to 3DMarkVantage.exe. Could be quite spectacular as the workload is "offloaded" and "assisted."
If this was done as Intel claims then it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the user. Intel on-board graphics can use all the help they can get, even from the CPU. But more likely it's a benchmark targeted cheat/optimization.
If this was done as Intel claims then it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the user. Intel on-board graphics can use all the help they can get, even from the CPU. But more likely it's a benchmark targeted cheat/optimization.
Isn't this like, great fucking news? Maybe some shit games can now be played by owners of Intel igp-chipsets, if they have a decent cpu?
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,571
- 10,206
- 126
Actually, so long as the rendering quality remains the same I don't see this as a cheat at all and could prove very beneficial to the end user down the road. I'm guessing no one here gives two craps about Vantage performance on Intel's integrated graphics solution and I'm sure Intel doesn't believe any consumers who are using such a solution do either....I'm wondering if this isn't a test run for things to come. That would be a massive advantage and nice feature to have if somewhere down the road Intel's coming discrete cards ended up being truly competitive. CPU assist in GPU limited games, and who knows maybe they could find a way to reverse that, GPU assist in CPU limited games.
Maybe i can rename my 4890 to intels IGP and use their driver so my 4ghz i7 can finally start doing something
too bad it doesnt work like that
*edit*
If u put benchmarking aside, just think if ATI/Nvidia could deploy this as a global setting. Im sure most of us would love the extra fps at the expense of warming the cpu up a little bit
too bad it doesnt work like that
*edit*
If u put benchmarking aside, just think if ATI/Nvidia could deploy this as a global setting. Im sure most of us would love the extra fps at the expense of warming the cpu up a little bit
Majic 7
Senior member
- Mar 27, 2008
- 668
- 0
- 0
Exactly who is this supposed to fool? Gamers, not hardly. Systems builders, not unless they follow turnip trucks to hire their system designers. Grandmas, wouldn't even know what Vantage is. Who knows for sure if this was done specifically done for Vantage or is just a byproduct of optimizing drivers for a chipset that can't run modern games anyway? Seems like a total non-issue to me.
I think it was a system benchmark like either PC Mark or Sisoft Sandra I don't remember but it was definitely shady.
Not really. Intel has long disclosed that its newer GMA products will off-load to the CPU (e.g. software vertex) when some driver algorithm detects or determines that doing so would yield substantially better results.
The only thing "shady" going on is that Intel doesn't consider Futuremark to be some different kind of 3D application than any other 3D application where Intel's GMA will selectively off-load.
That was with their compiler.
"If the program detects a "Genuine Intel" microprocessor, it executes a fully optimized code path and operates with the maximum efficiency. However, if the program detects an "Authentic AMD" microprocessor, it executes a different code path that will degrade the program's performance or cause it to crash." - http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/07/12/1320202.shtml
People made programs that did nothing but remove this detection and programs sped up significantly. So yeh, no news here really, Intel is dodgy.
Person A is an "average" non-tech-savvy computer user who still likes to play a few games here and there.
Person B is a computer enthusiast with thousands of dollars worth of hardware and a huge library of games.
Person A: "Dude, I'm going to buy a new computer. I found a QUAD CORE rig on Dell.com - I bet that thing will run any program I want. Intel Inside, baby!"
Person B: "Uh, is this the one you mean? It has integrated Intel graphics, which suck. What are you going to use it for?"
Person A: "Oh, you know, surfing the web, doing homework, playing games on Facebook... I might resub my WoW account to check out the next expansion, and if that works well, I should be able to play Crysis too!"
Person B: "Let's... forget about Crysis. Anyway, let me build you a decent system. We could go with a dual core AMD to save a bunch of cash, and their newest 785G chipset's integrated graphics should be more than plenty for you. We can add a discrete card later if you want to do more serious gaming."
Person A: "AMD? Ewww. I don't want anything they make, it'll be too slow. Remember back in 2004? The processor you bought was only 2.4 GHz, but mine was 3.0!"
Person B: "They have quad cores that will be more than you'll need for years to come, and they're cheaper than anything Intel has out there right now. Don't even get me started on Netburst and clock speed."
Person A: "Wait, what? Now you're talking about blowing up my Internet connection? Hey, look at this - Intel's graphics are way better than AMD's graphics! See, it's right here on one of those charts you spend all your time looking over."
Person B: "Yeah, that's something Intel purposely did to get higher benchmark scores in Vantage. Ignore it - the real world performance of AMD's IGP is significantly better than Intel's."
Person A: "Blasphemy! You just hate Intel. Admit it!"
Person B: (rolling eyes) "...you know what, on second thought, just go ahead and buy the Dell. I'm sure you'll be happier."
Obviously fictitious, but I've had very similar conversations with different people on several occasions now. Basically, this targets the just-tech-savvy-enough crowd to be wowed by the marketing stickers you see all over systems at Best Buy and whatnot.
All graphics card makers optimise their drivers for every game now. Intel are only doing what nvidia and ati do for both 3d mark, and most games. We don't care as long as it works.
Majic 7
Senior member
- Mar 27, 2008
- 668
- 0
- 0
Still don't see how this useless factoid gets to the consumer. Intel uses their CPU to bolster their IGP that needs all the help it can get and this is a problem? I visit Dell or HP and I see no mention of this performance enhancement. All I see is a statement that if you want to game you need to get a better video card. Any review I see reviewing systems with IGPs of any make state this also. Sorry you know so many stupid people, I know some of them myself. Tell them the machine they are looking at won't play anything newer than 3 years old, if that, and I get that "but it's a computer and it should play computer games" look. The only danger to the consumer is a salesperson, and I doubt they know about Vantage either.
> Intel uses their CPU to bolster their IGP that needs all the help it can get and this is a problem?
the problem is that it's not generic
if it worked on all games fine, but these optimizations target only a select handful of games
and there is absolutely NO REASON for one of those targetted games to be 3dmark, because there is no 'gaming experience' to improve because it's NOT A GAME. The ONLY purpose is to deceive people into thinking the igp is faster than it really is
the problem is that it's not generic
if it worked on all games fine, but these optimizations target only a select handful of games
and there is absolutely NO REASON for one of those targetted games to be 3dmark, because there is no 'gaming experience' to improve because it's NOT A GAME. The ONLY purpose is to deceive people into thinking the igp is faster than it really is
Exactly. This would be similar to if a car dealership offered you to take their latest high-performance car out to a track to test it before buying, and secretly slapped on several performance parts before you got there. Then, after you brought the car back, impressed with the performance, they removed all of the aftermarket performance parts and put it back to the stock configuration. If they left the performance parts on, it wouldn't be a problem. However, since they remove them, it's just false advertising.
Intel should just use this technology in ALL 3D environments (with an option to disable it if desired, and perhaps and option for it to kick in if FPS drops below a threshold) and market it as a (slight) advantage to their chipsets with onboard graphics.
I think someone out there who has one of these IGPs should rename a game thats not on their list to crysis.exe and see if it does anything different; to see if it could be used globally
Ehh...the point of Intel's software rendering is to improve 3D application performance when off-loading is justified, not to off-load everything just because its Monday. The "select" games are those that Intel's testing has verified would benefit from off-loading.
Nor does Intel limit its off-loading scheme only to "3D games", but any 3D application (again, where it is proven justified, not because its Monday). 3DMark is a tool used to gauge 3D application performance of the tested SYSTEM, not strictly GPU performance. Ergo, for end-users wanting to know how their SYSTEM will perform compared to other solutions, its entirely valid.
For reviewers wanting to explore just the capabilities of Intel's GMA alone, it wouldn't be valid. Too bad 3DMark is not a tool exclusively targeted or intended for such limited purposes.
The real issue is disclosure. AMD and NVIDIA have never claimed to do this kind of off-loading and have only touted the capabilities of its hardware rendering. Intel has been disclosing freely for over two years now that its GMA 3000 and later IGPs are designed to selectively perform certain 3D rendering workloads in software where justified.
> 3DMark is a tool used to gauge 3D application performance of the tested SYSTEM, not strictly GPU performance. Ergo, for end-users wanting to know how their SYSTEM will perform compared to other solutions, its entirely valid
BULL and SHIT
there are hundreds of games out there, basing your comparison on an 'optimization' that helps only FIVE of those hundreds is LYING
95% of the time, users will NOT see the performance gains represented in 3dmark
If this actually helped half the games out there, you might have a point, but it's nowhere close that and never will be close to that
> Intel has been disclosing freely for over two years now that its GMA 3000 and later IGPs are designed to selectively perform certain 3D rendering workloads in software where justified
if all they have to show after 2 years is FIVE games, one of which happens to be THE premier video card benchmarking tool, i think it's pretty clear how sleazy intel is being
BULL and SHIT
there are hundreds of games out there, basing your comparison on an 'optimization' that helps only FIVE of those hundreds is LYING
95% of the time, users will NOT see the performance gains represented in 3dmark
If this actually helped half the games out there, you might have a point, but it's nowhere close that and never will be close to that
> Intel has been disclosing freely for over two years now that its GMA 3000 and later IGPs are designed to selectively perform certain 3D rendering workloads in software where justified
if all they have to show after 2 years is FIVE games, one of which happens to be THE premier video card benchmarking tool, i think it's pretty clear how sleazy intel is being
Right, because it makes sense that Intel would spend several million dollars and enlist several dozen employees during a period of massive lay-offs and economic downturn, in order to test several hundred games just to find the two dozen most popular titles that would in fact benefit from off-loading. :roll:
For technical reasons you will never understand, not all games are going to benefit. Intel never claimed otherwise.
Try to get your facts straight:
From the latest driver INF for Vista/7:
[Enable3DContexts_AddSwSettings]
HKR,, ~3DMark03.exe
HKR,, ~3DMark05.exe
HKR,, ~3DMark06.exe
HKR,, ~age3.exe
HKR,, ~BF2.exe
HKR,, ~BF2142.exe
HKR,, ~cod2sp_s.exe
HKR,, ~cod2mp_s.exe
HKR,, ~dreamfall.exe
HKR,, ~farcry.exe
HKR,, ~FEAR.exe
HKR,, ~GRAW.exe
HKR,, ~gta_sa.exe
HKR,, ~H5_GAME.exe
HKR,, ~hl2.exe
HKR,, ~IW3SP.exe
HKR,, ~MAINAPP.exe
HKR,, ~medieval2.exe
HKR,, ~PCMark05.exe
HKR,, ~RelicCOH.exe
HKR,, ~Sam2.exe
HKR,, ~UT2004.exe
HKR,, ~WoW.exe
HKR,, ~XR_3DA.exe
HKR,, _HPTV.exe
[Enable3DContexts_BLB_AddSwSettings]
HKR,, ~BF2142.exe
HKR,, ~CoD2MP_s.exe
HKR,, ~CoD2SP_s.exe
HKR,, ~dragonshard.exe
HKR,, ~FarCry.exe
HKR,, ~FSW2.exe
HKR,, ~GTR2.exe
HKR,, ~hl2.exe
HKR,, ~JustCause.exe
HKR,, ~legostarwars.exe
HKR,, ~medieval2.exe
HKR,, ~Oblivion.exe
HKR,, ~OblivionLauncher.exe
HKR,, ~ShatteredUnion.exe
1. that's exactly the point! such optimizations will only ever help a small handful of games and are not representative of the overall gaming experience
2. if they were so limited in resources, you would think they would spend most of their effort trying to actually help consumers
instead what do we see?
3DMark03.exe
3DMark05.exe
3DMark06.exe
3dMarkVantage.exe
PCMark05.exe
they sure did a thorough job of covering all the benchmark software
i'm sure that was all for the benefit of the consumer </sarcasm>
and again i repeat myself, if not all games are going to benefit (or even most games), whether it's technical issues or lack of resources, 'optimizing' for benchmarks is simply a LIE
ooh, well it's 20 games instead of 5
the point still stands
it is NOT representative of the general gaming experience
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter