If I see no graphic corruptions in my game playing and I am getting more fps, I could care less what it's called. Cheating, optimizing, whatever you want to call it. That company whoever it may be (Nvidia, Ati, Intel) will get my money because it is satisfying my needs. Not some synthetic benchmark....
I agree 100% with your comment, if the drivers resulted in lower image quality in 3dmark03 as seen with the v43.45 drivers then that would be bad. However the 3dmark03 optimisations don't effect image quality so there is no problem IMO.
Live, while I agree with supply and demand in the free market, and might point to it as reason the 5800/ultra were selling for much more than MSRP, this example is overly simplistic.
I doubt many people look at 3dmark as THE factor on whether or not to buy a card. IQ is subjective to some extent, and has many variables. Driver and hardware compatibility come into play. Past experience with company products. Benchmarks in games you consider important. Amount of time you plan to keep the card, expected useful life. Ease of purchase, return policy at purchase place, warranty. Etc.
You can care all you like about nVidia "cheating" the drivers, but you're living in a fantasy if you think these companies don't otimize for benchmarking any way they think they can get away with. Until someone shows me how I've lost speed/IQ/stability in a game I play due to the 3dmarik optimizations, I really don't care if they render 1/5 pixels in 3dmark to make it seem faster. I have a life and little time to spank my monkey at looping demos in 3dmark thinking "Oooh oooh! I bet if I OC my core 20 MHz I can score 100 more 3d marks! "
I'm looking for my source, I've lost it in my fricking favorites.
Regradless of what YOU all believe to be important regarding benchmarks.
Major publications and review sites USE 3dmark2003 to guage a video cards performance (it's still only one test, but it is usually mention in the first page) and since nvidia claims a 30-50% performance increase accross the board with the 44.03s; when reviews look at the results, most of that percentage occurs in 3dmark2003-not real life games, meaning nvidia is stacking the deck making the general public believe that the card is peforming at speeds which are not attainable in real life. This is decietful and bad buisness practice and when verified for good will tarnish the reputation of the company.
Reviewers are all ready pissed because of the extra work it entails now to bench with these drivers (over at b3d).
To say that it doesn't matter is simply ludicrous.
And here is our good buddy david (minister of propoganda
) spounting what is now viewed as complete and utter rubbish.
"We at NVIDIA don?t make it a practice to optimize our pipeline for specific benchmarks - we want to provide high quality and high performance on a wide variety of useful and entertaining applications, rather than just getting a good score. Ask yourself (or, better yet, ask ATI) why Radeon 8500 performs well on this one test, and poorly on many other 3DMark2001 tests."
Pointing the finger at ati and then doing what they accuse ati of stooping to. Their claim that the 8500 was performing too fast was never verified as a cheat.
I mean is this the way a multimillion dollar company should act in order to procure the publics money?
It's just sad.
rogo
Regradless of what YOU all believe to be important regarding benchmarks.
Major publications and review sites USE 3dmark2003 to guage a video cards performance (it's still only one test, but it is usually mention in the first page) and since nvidia claims a 30-50% performance increase accross the board with the 44.03s; when reviews look at the results, most of that percentage occurs in 3dmark2003-not real life games, meaning nvidia is stacking the deck making the general public believe that the card is peforming at speeds which are not attainable in real life. This is decietful and bad buisness practice and when verified for good will tarnish the reputation of the company.
Reviewers are all ready pissed because of the extra work it entails now to bench with these drivers (over at b3d).
To say that it doesn't matter is simply ludicrous.
And here is our good buddy david (minister of propoganda
) spounting what is now viewed as complete and utter rubbish."We at NVIDIA don?t make it a practice to optimize our pipeline for specific benchmarks - we want to provide high quality and high performance on a wide variety of useful and entertaining applications, rather than just getting a good score. Ask yourself (or, better yet, ask ATI) why Radeon 8500 performs well on this one test, and poorly on many other 3DMark2001 tests."
Pointing the finger at ati and then doing what they accuse ati of stooping to. Their claim that the 8500 was performing too fast was never verified as a cheat.
I mean is this the way a multimillion dollar company should act in order to procure the publics money?
It's just sad.
rogo
Originally posted by: Rogozhin
I'm looking for my source, I've lost it in my fricking favorites.
Regradless of what YOU all believe to be important regarding benchmarks.
Major publications and review sites USE 3dmark2003 to guage a video cards performance (it's still only one test, but it is usually mention in the first page) and since nvidia claims a 30-50% performance increase accross the board with the 44.03s; when reviews look at the results, most of that percentage occurs in 3dmark2003-not real life games, meaning nvidia is stacking the deck making the general public believe that the card is peforming at speeds which are not attainable in real life. This is decietful and bad buisness practice and when verified for good will tarnish the reputation of the company.
Reviewers are all ready pissed because of the extra work it entails now to bench with these drivers (over at b3d).
To say that it doesn't matter is simply ludicrous.
And here is our good buddy david (minister of propoganda
"We at NVIDIA don?t make it a practice to optimize our pipeline for specific benchmarks - we want to provide high quality and high performance on a wide variety of useful and entertaining applications, rather than just getting a good score. Ask yourself (or, better yet, ask ATI) why Radeon 8500 performs well on this one test, and poorly on many other 3DMark2001 tests."
Pointing the finger at ati and then doing what they accuse ati of stooping to. Their claim that the 8500 was performing too fast was never verified as a cheat.
I mean is this the way a multimillion dollar company should act in order to procure your money?
It's just sad.
rogo
Rogo -
As stated Nvidia is not a subscriber to 3DMark, therefore it has no way to view the "floating camera" as B3D did. Since they do not have access to this, they did not see any corrupt images when testing their drivers against it.
Let me ask you this.... Do you have a Nvidia card? If so, are you using the 44.03 drivers? I am using the 44.03 drivers and see no graphic corruptions while I get an increase in performance. So whatever the driver team at Nvidia did, they deserve a thank you. The Nvidia drivers always get better and better.
Yea, they dropped out a month before release, BUT they of course kept their dev sofware they had, I don't believe that BAMN it disappeared.
This isn't a "corrupt image" problem.
Just go read the article.
It has to do with culling and clipping operations that were coded a frame at a time by hand, not a rendering accident caused by the drivers.
This was just verified on a geforce 2 mx and geforce 4 ti over at b3d. They were able to get the cards with ONLY the 44.03 drivers to do the same thing.
Rogo
This isn't a "corrupt image" problem.
Just go read the article.
It has to do with culling and clipping operations that were coded a frame at a time by hand, not a rendering accident caused by the drivers.
This was just verified on a geforce 2 mx and geforce 4 ti over at b3d. They were able to get the cards with ONLY the 44.03 drivers to do the same thing.
Rogo
I would ask you
"increase in performance"
In what games and how much of an increase-show me your fraps txt log files.
rogo
"increase in performance"
In what games and how much of an increase-show me your fraps txt log files.
rogo
nemisis
I'm still looking for my source you asked for, I had to pm a few folks I'll try to get it up here today.
rogo
I'm still looking for my source you asked for, I had to pm a few folks I'll try to get it up here today.
rogo
No need for me to read the article...
I have not experienced these corrputions on my card, so I could care less what they say.
Nvidia did a hell of a job with these drivers.
I have not experienced these corrputions on my card, so I could care less what they say.
Nvidia did a hell of a job with these drivers.
IMHO, this is probably not a big deal until NV made it a big deal by NOT telling us before hand.
The perception is that they tried to cheat in order to get a higher score in 3DSysmark and frankly it doesn't look good especially with what has happened past few month.
The truly sad thing is that they have finally came around and delivered a much better product in NV35, if only they avoid these issues...
I do hope that this is an isolated incident, but if we found out that they have been doing this to other demos then this could be a serious problem.
The bigger picture here is that we really need to have a different approach towards bench marking video cards. After all, most people buys their video card based on reviews, which in turn give their recommendation based on the scores of certain test. We really need to ensure that the process of reviewing video cards is beyond tempering.
The perception is that they tried to cheat in order to get a higher score in 3DSysmark and frankly it doesn't look good especially with what has happened past few month.
The truly sad thing is that they have finally came around and delivered a much better product in NV35, if only they avoid these issues...
I do hope that this is an isolated incident, but if we found out that they have been doing this to other demos then this could be a serious problem.
The bigger picture here is that we really need to have a different approach towards bench marking video cards. After all, most people buys their video card based on reviews, which in turn give their recommendation based on the scores of certain test. We really need to ensure that the process of reviewing video cards is beyond tempering.
When I say increase in performance, I am referring to particular spots in games where I could also notice a drop in fps. With these drivers, I have not noticed the drop in fps. The gaming remains smooth. I don't benchmark on fly by's, I do my own benchmark by playing games. Thats the only real way to benchmark.
wicked
You don't know what you're talking about, so that is why I suggested you pull your head of the sand and go read that article.
Or do you like to be played "the way you're meant to be played?"
Also
when I ask you to show me a fraps txt log file, you use fraps to benchmark a certain amount of time in any given game (it works in all games). You start the game, press the hotkey for fraps txt logging and time it while you play, then press it again and you've recorded a txt file with your min, max, and average fps for that game and the amount of time between hotkey presses.
As it stands I don't believe you've seen an increase in peformance.
rogo
You don't know what you're talking about, so that is why I suggested you pull your head of the sand and go read that article.
Or do you like to be played "the way you're meant to be played?"
Also
when I ask you to show me a fraps txt log file, you use fraps to benchmark a certain amount of time in any given game (it works in all games). You start the game, press the hotkey for fraps txt logging and time it while you play, then press it again and you've recorded a txt file with your min, max, and average fps for that game and the amount of time between hotkey presses.
As it stands I don't believe you've seen an increase in peformance.
rogo
If you think that ATI does not optimize their drivers for any benchmarks you are not living in the real world. All companies optimize their drivers for one reason or another.
Just like games optimize their code for specific video cards. If the game says "optimized for Nvidia" are you not going to purchase it if you own an ATI card?
I ran 3Dmark to see what all this talk was about on my Geforce fx5600 256MB with the 44.03 drivers,. I did not see any corruption at all. Granted, I do not have the developer version to see the "camera" angles, but honestly I don't care.
Another person who needs to resort to name calling because he himself cannot backup his comments. I did read the article and frankly, it does nothing for me. At the end of the day I get no corrupt graphics and my games run better and faster than previous. Maybe that is why I got rid of my ATI card. You on the other hand have not experienced the drivers first hand, so you have nothing but talk to back you up.
hardocp slammed ET.
the only benchmarks one can believe are those that came out before the latest driver release.
it would be nice if web reviewers devised their own benchmarks like hardocp. and make new ones everytime a new driver set is released.
gururu
the only benchmarks one can believe are those that came out before the latest driver release.
it would be nice if web reviewers devised their own benchmarks like hardocp. and make new ones everytime a new driver set is released.
gururu
Wicked
I didn't call you a name.
Since you stated that the drivers improved performance then I am asking for some numbers.
I told you how to use fraps to do it.
I told you to read the article, and I don't believe you've read it.
I told you to pull your head out of the sand and you still haven't done it.
What other constructive critcism do you need?
rogo
I didn't call you a name.
Since you stated that the drivers improved performance then I am asking for some numbers.
I told you how to use fraps to do it.
I told you to read the article, and I don't believe you've read it.
I told you to pull your head out of the sand and you still haven't done it.
What other constructive critcism do you need?
rogo
"it would be nice if web reviewers devised their own benchmarks like hardocp. and make new ones everytime a new driver set is released."
extremetech created it's own "gamegauge" using many newer games to bench their cards.
I believe it's a good indicator of what other sites should do (like anand and toms)
rogo
extremetech created it's own "gamegauge" using many newer games to bench their cards.
I believe it's a good indicator of what other sites should do (like anand and toms)
rogo
I have no need to prove my enhanced game play to you. For me to use fraps correctly, I am going to have to uninstall the new drivers, install the old ones then go back to the new ones. I do not believe in this benchmarking crap. The games played noticeable better then the 43.5x drivers and I did not get any graphic corruptions. That's what matters to me!!
Once again I did read the article. What does it prove? It proves what Nvidia said a while ago that 3DMark means nothing and drivers can be optimized for it. 3dMark is not a game, its a scripted demo that goes over and over. So who cares!!!!!!
If they can "cheat" their drivers into giving more fps and I see no image loss, then let them "cheat" all they want. The same is for ATI, but as we all know, ATI can never get their drivers correct.
The problem isn't wether you see it.
It's the fact that nvidia claims HIGHEST 3dmark2003 numbers to impress consumers and then CHEATS to get those numbers.
No one here or anywhere else is accusing them of IQ degredation or rendering errors in game.
The other problem is that it is concievable that they could do the same thing in standard timedemo benchmarks (even though it would be alot of work, more than they did on 3dmark2003).
Rogo
It's the fact that nvidia claims HIGHEST 3dmark2003 numbers to impress consumers and then CHEATS to get those numbers.
No one here or anywhere else is accusing them of IQ degredation or rendering errors in game.
The other problem is that it is concievable that they could do the same thing in standard timedemo benchmarks (even though it would be alot of work, more than they did on 3dmark2003).
Rogo
Also
I'm not saying that the nv35 is a hunk of crap. It's a hell of a card and I don't see the need for them to do what they did to inflate the scores, the 5900 is great piece of silicon WITHOUT having to use cheats.
rogo
I'm not saying that the nv35 is a hunk of crap. It's a hell of a card and I don't see the need for them to do what they did to inflate the scores, the 5900 is great piece of silicon WITHOUT having to use cheats.
rogo
All companies "optimize" their drivers with every revision they put out.
If a company "optimizes" their drivers to render a seen more efficiently on their GPU and you cannot see any IQ loss then its an optimization. The image corruption B3B/ET are talking about is seen by using a technique that is not available to the average/power user. So if you could not see it from the get go, is it cheating???? I would say NO
If a company "optimizes" their drivers to render a seen more efficiently on their GPU and you cannot see any IQ loss then its an optimization. The image corruption B3B/ET are talking about is seen by using a technique that is not available to the average/power user. So if you could not see it from the get go, is it cheating???? I would say NO
Here is a quote from Kyle to back up all of you that believe nvidia is not really cheating.
"3DMark Invalid?
Two days after Extremetech was not given the opportunity to benchmark DOOM3, they come out swinging heavy charges of NVIDIA intentionally inflating benchmark scores in 3DMark03. What is interesting here is that Extremetech uses tools not at NVIDIA's disposal to uncover the reason behind the score inflations. These tools are not "given" to NVIDIA anymore as the will not pay the tens of thousands of dollars required to be on the "beta program" for 3DMark "membership".
nVidia believes that the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra is trying to do intelligent culling and clipping to reduce its rendering workload, but that the code may be performing some incorrect operations. Because nVidia is not currently a member of FutureMark's beta program, it does not have access to the developer version of 3DMark2003 that we used to uncover these issues.
I am pretty sure you will see many uninformed sites jumping on the news reporting bandwagon today with "NVIDIA Cheating" headlines. Give me a moment to hit this from a different angle.
First off it is heavily rumored that Extremetech is very upset with NVIDIA at the moment as they were excluded from the DOOM3 benchmarks on Monday and that a bit of angst might have precipitated the article at ET, as I was told about their research a while ago. They have made this statement:
We believe nVidia may be unfairly reducing the benchmark workload to increase its score on 3DMark2003. nVidia, as we've stated above, is attributing what we found to a bug in their driver.
Finding a driver bug is one thing, but concluding motive is another.
Conversely, our own Brent Justice found a NVIDIA driver bug last week using our UT2K3 benchmark that slanted the scores heavily towards ATI. Are we to conclude that NVIDIA was unfairly increasing the workload to decrease its UT2K3 score? I have a feeling that Et has some motives of their own that might make a good story.
Please don't misunderstand me. Et has done some good work here. I am not in a position to conclude motive in their actions, but one thing is for sure.
3DMark03 scores generated by the game demos are far from valid in our opinion. Our reviewers have now been instructed to not use any of the 3DMark03 game demos in card evaluations, as those are the section of the test that would be focused on for optimizations. I think this just goes a bit further showing how worthless the 3DMark bulk score really is.
The first thing that came to mind when I heard about this, was to wonder if NVIDIA was not doing it on purpose to invalidate the 3DMark03 scores by showing how the it could be easily manipulated.
Thanks for reading our thoughts; I wanted to share with you a bit different angle than all those guys that will be sharing with you their in-depth "NVIDIA CHEATING" posts. While our thoughts on this will surely upset some of you, especially the fanATIics, I hope that it will at least let you possibly look at a clouded issue through from a different perspective.
Further on the topics of benchmarks, we addressed them earlier this year, which you might find to be an interesting read.
We have also shared the following documentation with ATI and NVIDIA while working with both of them to hopefully start getting better and more in-game benchmarking tools. Please feel free to take the documentation below and use it as you see fit. If you need a Word document, please drop me a mail and let me know what you are trying to do please.
Benchmarking Benefiting Gamers
Objective: To gain reliable benchmarking and image quality tools placed in upcoming retail games and demos, thus allowing for more valuable hardware analysis. This in turn should impact the games sales through ?free? publicity that will reach millions of advanced computer owners. Also better driver performance, hardware performance, and compatibility should be realized through this, as the major GPU/VPU companies will give games and demos with benchmarks more technical attention.
Please see our editorial at this link for more perspective on how we should be ?benchmarking right?.
The Basics: id Software has outlined the ?Benchmarking Must Haves? in their previous tools very well. Their tool set has everything hardware analysts absolutely need but none of the things that "normal" gamers need in order to easily use the tool set. Making this tool set easy to use with a GUI interface has been successful for many companies in getting their games noticed, although a GUI is not ?needed?.
I have tried to convey my thoughts as quickly as possible so as to not make this a novel. Please do not hesitate to send any questions to: Kyle@HardOCP.com."
This sheds some light on the situtation. I suppose I will have to suspend judgement until we see some more info.
But remember nvidia has done this before and B3D is claiming that it also looks like a cheat-as well as some programmers over at nvnews.net
rogo
"3DMark Invalid?
Two days after Extremetech was not given the opportunity to benchmark DOOM3, they come out swinging heavy charges of NVIDIA intentionally inflating benchmark scores in 3DMark03. What is interesting here is that Extremetech uses tools not at NVIDIA's disposal to uncover the reason behind the score inflations. These tools are not "given" to NVIDIA anymore as the will not pay the tens of thousands of dollars required to be on the "beta program" for 3DMark "membership".
nVidia believes that the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra is trying to do intelligent culling and clipping to reduce its rendering workload, but that the code may be performing some incorrect operations. Because nVidia is not currently a member of FutureMark's beta program, it does not have access to the developer version of 3DMark2003 that we used to uncover these issues.
I am pretty sure you will see many uninformed sites jumping on the news reporting bandwagon today with "NVIDIA Cheating" headlines. Give me a moment to hit this from a different angle.
First off it is heavily rumored that Extremetech is very upset with NVIDIA at the moment as they were excluded from the DOOM3 benchmarks on Monday and that a bit of angst might have precipitated the article at ET, as I was told about their research a while ago. They have made this statement:
We believe nVidia may be unfairly reducing the benchmark workload to increase its score on 3DMark2003. nVidia, as we've stated above, is attributing what we found to a bug in their driver.
Finding a driver bug is one thing, but concluding motive is another.
Conversely, our own Brent Justice found a NVIDIA driver bug last week using our UT2K3 benchmark that slanted the scores heavily towards ATI. Are we to conclude that NVIDIA was unfairly increasing the workload to decrease its UT2K3 score? I have a feeling that Et has some motives of their own that might make a good story.
Please don't misunderstand me. Et has done some good work here. I am not in a position to conclude motive in their actions, but one thing is for sure.
3DMark03 scores generated by the game demos are far from valid in our opinion. Our reviewers have now been instructed to not use any of the 3DMark03 game demos in card evaluations, as those are the section of the test that would be focused on for optimizations. I think this just goes a bit further showing how worthless the 3DMark bulk score really is.
The first thing that came to mind when I heard about this, was to wonder if NVIDIA was not doing it on purpose to invalidate the 3DMark03 scores by showing how the it could be easily manipulated.
Thanks for reading our thoughts; I wanted to share with you a bit different angle than all those guys that will be sharing with you their in-depth "NVIDIA CHEATING" posts. While our thoughts on this will surely upset some of you, especially the fanATIics, I hope that it will at least let you possibly look at a clouded issue through from a different perspective.
Further on the topics of benchmarks, we addressed them earlier this year, which you might find to be an interesting read.
We have also shared the following documentation with ATI and NVIDIA while working with both of them to hopefully start getting better and more in-game benchmarking tools. Please feel free to take the documentation below and use it as you see fit. If you need a Word document, please drop me a mail and let me know what you are trying to do please.
Benchmarking Benefiting Gamers
Objective: To gain reliable benchmarking and image quality tools placed in upcoming retail games and demos, thus allowing for more valuable hardware analysis. This in turn should impact the games sales through ?free? publicity that will reach millions of advanced computer owners. Also better driver performance, hardware performance, and compatibility should be realized through this, as the major GPU/VPU companies will give games and demos with benchmarks more technical attention.
Please see our editorial at this link for more perspective on how we should be ?benchmarking right?.
The Basics: id Software has outlined the ?Benchmarking Must Haves? in their previous tools very well. Their tool set has everything hardware analysts absolutely need but none of the things that "normal" gamers need in order to easily use the tool set. Making this tool set easy to use with a GUI interface has been successful for many companies in getting their games noticed, although a GUI is not ?needed?.
I have tried to convey my thoughts as quickly as possible so as to not make this a novel. Please do not hesitate to send any questions to: Kyle@HardOCP.com."
This sheds some light on the situtation. I suppose I will have to suspend judgement until we see some more info.
But remember nvidia has done this before and B3D is claiming that it also looks like a cheat-as well as some programmers over at nvnews.net
rogo
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter