nVidia, nVidia, nVidia.....

and it still goes on......look.

mica

wow, thats pretty ugly

hahahahaha

so I guess futuremark is taking measures to combat nVidia's cheating? lol

i cant believe these stupid ppl if it was ATi they would leave it to rest instead off keep bringing it up

More of the same.......I really did think nVidia had gotten past this already, still, considering their previous cheating, I'm not really too surprised.

Steven4563 said:

i cant believe these stupid ppl if it was ATi they would leave it to rest instead off keep bringing it up

Click to expand...

No I'm pretty sure plenty of Nvidia people would be up in arms

Steven4563 said:

i cant believe these stupid ppl if it was ATi they would leave it to rest instead off keep bringing it up

Click to expand...

People still bring up the Quake/Quack thing

Steven4563 said:

i cant believe these stupid ppl if it was ATi they would leave it to rest instead off keep bringing it up

Click to expand...

I'm a nVidia fan by nature...no pun intended at GT4.

and I would be posting this if it was ATI as well.

oh, and btw, it seems that PS2.0 wasn't a factor at all...
GT4 and vertex shader were the biggest hit after the new build.
linky.

mica

man when are they going to stop...they should know by now that they always get caught there is no sense in trying to cheat, people will find out and it makes them look horrible.

Falcon-K said:

man when are they going to stop...they should know by now that they always get caught there is no sense in trying to cheat, people will find out and it makes them look horrible.

Click to expand...

I think it's the company's culture. They have always been that way and you can't change a company's culture overnight.

People resist change.

This is what they know and this is what they do. I don't expect that they will stop anytime soon either.

That's how they killed 3Dfx.
If you think their cheating is bad now, you should've seen then a few years ago. As was said, it is nvidia's nature to cheat. To cheat at everything, and steal....... Nothing new here.......

Mike

I always save the best for last......Image Quality Differences!!!!!!!!

ok, very few peeps will notice anything showed on this page.
yet it is clear that the biggest differances can be clearly seen in GT3....hair, sword

but take a look at what is said by Derek Perez:

""NVIDIA asked for a conference call with us to go over some of the points, and in general some of the responses from Derek Perez were fairly frank and honest. It would seem that NVIDIA agrees with tome of the optimisation policy that Futuremark have put in place, but not all as they don't necessarily tally with the internal policies that NVIDIA have. From the gist of the conversation it seems that NVIDIA feels that it is their right to optimise specifically for applications as long as it doesn't interfere with image quality - which is fine if it is benefiting games as it will benefit the end user, however in this case the image quality can be argued as there are differences in the image produce with the optimisations that NVIDIA have used in the 52.16 drivers for the 3.3.0 patch. Derek went on to suggest that they may well end up chasing each patch release and re-optimising as Futuremark puts a patch that defeats previous detections!

At one (point)we asked Derek how this sat with the optimisations guidelines that were given to press by NVIDIA, specifically the guideline that suggests "An optimization must accelerate more than just a benchmark" To which Derek's reply was "But 3DMark03 is only a benchmark" -- it was suggested that this particular guideline should read "An optimization must accelerate more than just a benchmark unless the application is just a benchmark"! ""(article was dated November 12)

hmmmm....Nov. 3rd, nVidia spells out there optimasation policy on "editors day":
We will continue to do application specific performance optimizations and compatibility fixes. We met with Futuremark and discussed the optimizations they questioned. Some of the optimizations (such as intelligent color clears and clip planes) they viewed as too aggressive, so we have removed them from our drivers. We have new, stricter guidelines in place to insure that questionable driver optimizations do not get introduced in future driver builds including:

An optimization must produce the correct image
An optimization must accelerate more than just a benchmark
An optimization must not contain pre-computed state


I realy like what follows on the same page....

""With respect to NVIDIA's optimisation guidelines, questions should be asked exactly how stringent they are being applied, or whether they are just for the purposes of appeasing the press. One the face of it here, the optimisations applied here appear to break all three guidelines - the correct images do not appear to have been produced with the 52.16 drivers, pre-computed state in the form of shader replacements appear to have been used (if this were part of a generic optimisation then it should not have been defeated by simply altering the order of instructions), and hence these optimisations would be specific to this benchmark only. Given that we first heard talk of NVIDIA's optimisations policy during the Detonator 4x.xx release of drivers there would appear to have been ample time to have removed these types of optimisations by now.""

full read here.

mica

im not an nVidia fan nor a ATi fan seeing ive had both. I just dont know y people cant leave it to rest and move on

lool

I just posted this , I thought this thread was named something else and whne I couldn't find it I just posted this same info elsewhere . Anyway it just goes to show that NV doesn't care about guidlines ,rules or what gamers and the industry think . Until fully checked , no benchmark involving them can be trusted especially if it is popular . Just look at Mr.Perez's comments ! Is anyone surprised by Valve's statements earlier in the year , Mr. Perez has basically said that they intend to continue cheating with each new patch/driver !

then if they are always gonna cheat y dont the companies that make the games and benchmarks take them to court ?

I can say this though

I dont know what res and all those Comparison IQ pics were at, But my 9600pro with the 3.9 drivers, My IQ in the benchmark are atleast 75% better and Alot sharper looking.

As for the nvidia Socalled Opti's. Im glad more and more i didnt buy that 5600ultra FX i was gonna but instead of this card. Yikes.

Harry

Re: I can say this though

harryinny3 said:

I dont know what res and all those Comparison IQ pics were at, But my 9600pro with the 3.9 drivers, My IQ in the benchmark are atleast 75% better and Alot sharper looking.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering if there ARE any IQ differences inherant to the patch... The article says that there shouldn't be, but they never mentioned running a test on a reference board which dosen't cheat (possibly ATi, though to be truly ubiased, you'd need somebody else). This means that IQ differences could have popped up between the patches, making the FX look anywhere from a lot worse than it is, to just a bit worse than it is.

I'm willing to bet that at least 80-90% of the difference shown isn't a result of the patch changing things (and thus a result of the FX's cheats being thwarted), but I much prefer definate proof on an issue (specifically, this patch issue) to near-definate proof.

Anybody here willing (or know how) to take screenies from 03 at the frames they used?
JigPu

Actually i Can look

I use to have a program that took snapshots of anything i ran. I used it to Report Abusers in my yahoo pool league when i was a mod. Ill look it up and get back to you. It just might work.


Harry

jigpu,

you'll need the pro vertion of 3dmark03.....so you may take a snapshot of a perticular frame.
(say you want to show frame #125 with two different cards)

mica