ATi cheated in 3DMark2001SE too(figures)

[GeneticWeapon]

Dave, I cut this from my original post on page one.

They are supplying a faster driver to do the job, yes,....but they are using a method of application detection stored in their drivers to do the swap. Regardless, 3DMark is calling for pixelshader 1.0, not 1.4, or 2.0. I would probably get by with calling it an optimization if they werent using a detection method to achieve it. But they are.

Pretty much the same thing you just said....


3DMark 03 = 4,140
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=897633" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=897633</A>
<font color=red>AthlonXP 2100+/Radeon 9500Pro</font color=red>
<font color=red>Folding for Beyond 3D</font color=red>

 

[davepermen]

yep

can't be said enough, though.. this sort of "cheating" is done all the way. no pentium, no athlon, no geforce, no ati card _would_ run fast else..

the problem is just the detection..

and believe me, programming for a p4 would be thousand times more easy if he would not do such optimisations. on the other side, he would run like a 200mhz p1 😀

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com

 

[rain_king_uk]

Honestly I think optimizations that can be reproduced in games should be allowed. Anything that can't be reproduced in a game I consider to be a cheat.

This way we see the full potential of the card.

Maybe they can also implement something which turns off all driver optimizations so we can compare the full potential of the card and the raw power.

Just my 2 cents on the issue.

 

[GeneticWeapon]

Maybe they can also implement something which turns off all driver optimizations so we can compare the full potential of the card and the raw power.

There are some very smart people who have done just that.
Thats how some of these cheats were uncovered


3DMark 03 = 4,140
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=897633" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=897633</A>
<font color=red>AthlonXP 2100+/Radeon 9500Pro</font color=red>
<font color=red>Folding for Beyond 3D</font color=red>

 

[shadus]

Like I keep saying... they're all going to cheat.

Shrug, buy based on how games you play perform, if they want to optimize for games you play, 'yay'... if not, so long as it performs well enough.

Ralph

Shadus

 

[daddywags214]

I still say that there's a big difference. It's like saying that you can't use new technologies on a card to run old games faster. There's nothing wrong with getting rid of it, the performance hit isn't that bad, but I think some of you are taking this cheating think a little too far.

Bottom line: I don't feel lied to like I did in the nVidia situation. 3dMark looks no worse, games run just as fast, and still look spectacular.

Tit for tat, butter for fat, ATi's dog kicks nVidia's cat

(Maximum PC)

 

[daddywags214]

Did PS 1.4 or 2.0 even exist when 3dMark came out? Because if not, the use of the more modern PS would be an honest to goodness mistake. Think of it; 3dMark2001 gets released, in the meantime, ATi puts PS 2.0 support on their board and sends it off to kick asss. When the new board goes to render 3dMark, all of the sudden you have 3dMark being rendered more efficiently by the new board. They didn't use PS 2.0 just to raise the 3dMark score (as you would see in the nVidia situation w/ 3dmark03), they did it to raise performance across the board. That's all.

Tit for tat, butter for fat, ATi's dog kicks nVidia's cat

(Maximum PC)

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Shadus, that's nice in theory, but then I need to go through the effort of buying a card, and then deciding if it's good enough or if the other card 'might' be better on my system.

Without good benchmarks, if there are two cards at the same price level, I then have to buy 1 of each and then Return the other one after I compare on my system. Not really looking forward to a world where that kind of hassle is the norm.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red> :tongue: GA to SK

 

[GeneticWeapon]

Did PS 1.4 or 2.0 even exist when 3dMark came out?

PS 1.4 did. It was introduced in the R200(Radeon 8500), and has since become part of DX9 spec.
Nvidia made claims that PS 1.4 would never come into industry acceptance, but they were wrong. They were just pissed that it allowed for longer instruction lengths then their shader.
PS 2.0 didnt exist yet.

3DMark 03 = 4,140
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=897633" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=897633</A>
<font color=red>AthlonXP 2100+/Radeon 9500Pro</font color=red>
<font color=red>Folding for Beyond 3D</font color=red>