-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
New 3dmark03 patch - nVIDIA cheating ... again???
- Thread starter Vonkhan
- Start date
NYHoustonman
Platinum Member
Interesting, I'll post results for my 9800 Pro and, if asked, Ti4400.
Run it twenty times and take a rounded average however...
Precisely why is it BS? Just because it's unlikely to get a score within 1 point of the previous test in your experience doesn't make that true. Ideally, it should ALWAYS give the same result within a certain margin of error. Whether this is the case or not is irrelevant. Just look at how much the 56.12 drivers lose when the 3DM03 333 patch is used (which supposedly disables the 'optimizations' that nVidia uses) vs the 330 patch.
By releasing a new patch that appears to negate the Det 52's 3DM03-specific optimizations, FM seems to have found a diplomatic solution to nV's cheating.
And it is cheating. FM sets the rules for its own app, and now they're finally enforcing it. You can choose to view 3DM03 as irrelevant and therefore ignore its results (much easier to do as more alternative DX9 benchmarks appear), but you can't deny the obvious fact that nV is doing things in 3DM03 that FM doesn't think they should be doing.
What'll be interesting is seeing FM's reaction if nV figures out another way of slipping in their cheats for the new 340 build of 3DM03. Will FM stand firm and not label the future Dets as approved, or will they approve them with another patch? Only time will tell.... 🙂
Jeff, no doubt FM ran the tests multiple times and reported an average. If not, it's possible they chose those numbers to enforce the perception that 3DM03 is a very accurate and repeatable benchmark. Regardless, the differences with the new patch are not small enough that a few points either way matter. The difference is big and obvious.
And it is cheating. FM sets the rules for its own app, and now they're finally enforcing it. You can choose to view 3DM03 as irrelevant and therefore ignore its results (much easier to do as more alternative DX9 benchmarks appear), but you can't deny the obvious fact that nV is doing things in 3DM03 that FM doesn't think they should be doing.
What'll be interesting is seeing FM's reaction if nV figures out another way of slipping in their cheats for the new 340 build of 3DM03. Will FM stand firm and not label the future Dets as approved, or will they approve them with another patch? Only time will tell.... 🙂
Jeff, no doubt FM ran the tests multiple times and reported an average. If not, it's possible they chose those numbers to enforce the perception that 3DM03 is a very accurate and repeatable benchmark. Regardless, the differences with the new patch are not small enough that a few points either way matter. The difference is big and obvious.
As I posted at Beyond3D:
Excuse me good sirs, but
-We had real world benchmarks in games allowing us to compare ATi and Nvidia performance in games.
-We had real world IQ comparisons at NUMEROUS reputable sites allowing us to compare ATi and Nvidia IQ.
-People could use this information to choose between the video cards and purchase what they wanted.
-No one had any complaints.
So, if Nvidia is running "non-standard" code (like that exists or something) in the background to achieve their results, WHO CARES? We know what we're getting when we buy, regardless of whether or not we truly know how we get it.
This is a pretty pointless thread in my opinion. 3Dmark is a pretty useless utility in my opinion. Wait for DX9 games, real DX9 performance tests using those games, and then make your decision. Sheesh. Who cares if they code their drivers differently?
Excuse me good sirs, but
-We had real world benchmarks in games allowing us to compare ATi and Nvidia performance in games.
-We had real world IQ comparisons at NUMEROUS reputable sites allowing us to compare ATi and Nvidia IQ.
-People could use this information to choose between the video cards and purchase what they wanted.
-No one had any complaints.
So, if Nvidia is running "non-standard" code (like that exists or something) in the background to achieve their results, WHO CARES? We know what we're getting when we buy, regardless of whether or not we truly know how we get it.
This is a pretty pointless thread in my opinion. 3Dmark is a pretty useless utility in my opinion. Wait for DX9 games, real DX9 performance tests using those games, and then make your decision. Sheesh. Who cares if they code their drivers differently?
Hello Insomniak,
You said
"gg_melodramatic
You know what companies do? They make money. ATi has it's own batch of shady tactics just as Nvidia has theirs. The world is not perfect. Get over it."
So honesty is not important to you? -Reality does not matter? Accountablity is not important? The world is imperfect - it is up to us to try and improve it. Are you always this cynical?
You said
"gg_melodramatic
You know what companies do? They make money. ATi has it's own batch of shady tactics just as Nvidia has theirs. The world is not perfect. Get over it."
So honesty is not important to you? -Reality does not matter? Accountablity is not important? The world is imperfect - it is up to us to try and improve it. Are you always this cynical?
From their website:
3DMark03 Patch (build 340) Improvements
Fixes & Updates:
Patch changes the program's build number to 340
Maximum point sprite size is now limited to 256x256 instead of the maximum supported by the hardware
Provides more detailed and accurate system information and improved detection of hyperthreaded CPUs
Incorporates new version of the Entech library (used to detect the clock frequency of the graphics chip core and memory)
Fixed all reported and reproduced minor issues
Important Notes:
3DMark03 (build 340) is currently the only supported version of 3DMark03. Users are not able to submit any results to the Online ResultBrowser with any of the older versions of 3DMark03.
3DMark03 (build 340) is available both as a patch (5.4MB) and as a full install (177MB).
The registration codes for 3DMark03 (build 313, build 320 and build 340) also work for 3DMark03 (build 340).
3DMark03 Patch (build 340) Improvements
Fixes & Updates:
Patch changes the program's build number to 340
Maximum point sprite size is now limited to 256x256 instead of the maximum supported by the hardware
Provides more detailed and accurate system information and improved detection of hyperthreaded CPUs
Incorporates new version of the Entech library (used to detect the clock frequency of the graphics chip core and memory)
Fixed all reported and reproduced minor issues
Important Notes:
3DMark03 (build 340) is currently the only supported version of 3DMark03. Users are not able to submit any results to the Online ResultBrowser with any of the older versions of 3DMark03.
3DMark03 (build 340) is available both as a patch (5.4MB) and as a full install (177MB).
The registration codes for 3DMark03 (build 313, build 320 and build 340) also work for 3DMark03 (build 340).
Yes, I'm always this cynical. It helps me to be always this right.
People talk about cynicism as if it isn't the truth. Oh well. Nice guys finish last.
As for reality, accountability - that's basically a bunch of mumbojumbo.
As for improving the world that's one of the most laughable ideas I've ever heard. "Improving" things for one person or persons will only piss off another group. Welcome to Chaos Theory 101.
Look, see my other post here, the one I dragged over from Beyond 3d. That's about the size of the situation. This whole thing has been a waste of time, and thus I wash my hands of it.
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
