Creator of RivaTuner determines both ATI/Nvidia are cheating.
Home | Reviews and Features | Special Reports | Forums |

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: Creator of RivaTuner determines both ATI/Nvidia are cheating.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    63

    Creator of RivaTuner determines both ATI/Nvidia are cheating.

    Unwinder the maker of RivaTuner has determined the following:

    I really RE'd both Detonator and Catalyst and found application detections mechanisms in each of the drivers. I really created the scripts to prevent the drivers from detecting D3D applications (the scripts block pixel/vertex shader and command line/window text checksum calculation in the Detonator and texture pattern/pixel shader code detections in the Catalyst).
    Blocking application detection code caused dramatic performance drop in 3DMark2001/Nature on both NV (74->42 FPS) and ATI (66->42 FPS) boards. IQ in this test changed on both of the systems. Do I have to continue?
    NVAntiDetector also caused significant performance drop in other D3D benchmarks (i.e. UT2003), 3DMark2003 score on NV35 dropped even more then with 330 patch (it's info from my tester and I cannot confirm it because I don't have NV35 sample).
    Review containing details and benchmarks is preparing for publishing on Digit-Life now.

    You need details and facts? No problem. Youíre free to follow our discussion on iXBT and comment texture pattern detections in D3DDP2OP_TEXBLT token handler, youíre free to comment pixel shader per-byte comparisons in D3DDP2OP_CREATEPIXELSHADER token handler in the latest Catalyst. Prove me that itís not application detection, prove me that blocking this code doesnít cause changes in performance and IQ.
    Youíre the real specialist, you perfectly understand what are D3DDP2OP_XXX so itís not a problem for you at all, right?

    Conclusion:
    My trust to NVIDIA and ATI PR is almost equal to 0 now. Both of them seem to use the same benchmark 'optimization' techniques, but NVIDIA promotes it as 'application specific optimizations', ATI simply tried to appear innocent, but both are fooling us for a long time. 3DM2001/Nature was de-facto in estimating PS performance, but both IHVs show distorted benchmark results by altering rendering code. And itís very sad.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    853
    Most interesting, do you have a link?
    Nforce 2 Mobo-oem stock
    Athlon Xp3000-Stock
    768 mgs PC2100 @ 2.5/3/3
    Radeon 9700 PRO/365/342
    Western Digital 8mg cache ATA-133/160G/7200 HD
    Win XP Home SP1
    19" KDS "Extreme Flat"

    Laptop
    Athlon 64 3200+
    512mg Ram
    Mobile Radeon 9600
    80G Hard Drive


  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    63
    I found it at HardOCP

    http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?...5&pagenumber=1

    You can always go to http://www.ixbt.com/ like unwinder mentions in his quote. I think it's in Russian though, time for babel fish.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Montreal, Que, Canada
    Posts
    8,688
    I don't think this proves anything yet. We'll see what other sites have to say about this.
    Gilles Lussier

    HWC Folding@Home Team

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    63
    Yeah we'll see what happens, though from that quote Unwinder seems pretty confident in his findings. But, we need more people to look into it and back him up.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,466
    They're using app-specific optimisations?!!! OMG!!!!

    MuFu.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Posts
    778
    Iam not on ati or nvidia side on this matter, because for me I do not pick a video card on how well the benchmarks. I go buy what people say and how it looks to me.
    Main
    AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 512 cache
    Asus K8V
    Samsung 1gig (2) 512 ddr400 timings 200mhz 2.5-3-3-5
    Zalman CNPS7000A-ALCU
    Radeon 9800PRO
    Audigy2
    Logitech z640
    Pioneer 107d
    Toshiba dvd 16x40
    BARRACUDA SATA 120GB,300GB
    ENERMAX 450w PSU
    Windows w2k Pro

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Independence, MO
    Posts
    8,071
    ATi and nVidia are just trying to give us what we apparently want: better scores on benchmarks that don't matter. Before things like 3Dmark, bapco, sandra, etc, we used to buy video cards based on user feedback, visual quality, and gaming results. It's kinda like Sammy Sosa's corked bat. He claims it was for a better show in batting practice. What a great response! He was just trying to give us what we want, a great show! Things can be spun in any direction, and money has a way of making them turn the right way. ATi, nVidia, Apple, AMD, Intel, Microsoft--they all do it. How else do you get people to replace something that isn't even obsolete yet?
    Give what you cannot keep to gain what you cannot lose.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Location
    Grand Haven, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    11,332
    I don't mind optimizations for games as long as they are not designed for a pre-recorded path used for benchmarking and it does not decrease image quality. They can take commands and break them down at the driver level so the card can proccess the commands faster. This is just one example of good optimisations. Bad ones are clipping the image based on a pre-recorded path or decrease the Z or color depth of images or textures.. Also changing things like LOD is bad.

    The 330 partch got rid of most of the "bad" optimizations in 3DMark2003.
    AMD Phenom II x4 945 3Ghz | ASUS M4A77TD | 2X WD 1TB SATA 2 hard drive | 2x2GB Corsair XMS3 | nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS | ATI TV Wonder Theater Pro 550 | Antec P-160 case | Antec 650w Earth Watts | LG Blu-ray Super Drive | LG DVD RW | Windows 7 Pro

  10. #10
    ol' man is offline workin fingas to the bone
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    9,664
    Better take away the apps optimizations in the rage tweaker then two cause by gollie we don't want anyone to optimize their settings

    There is a difference between optimized settings and optimized movie editing to increase it frame rates while decreasing video performence which is what nvidia did.

    ATI so far has not disabled buffers for certain scenes which garbled the picture worthless etc....

    Einstein was right. Human stupidity is infinite.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    6,459
    Now we have to wait and see if the people on the top of the Online Result Browser at Futuremark are honest and can stand to lose a few points. Breaking 10k in 3Dmark03 won't be happening for a long while now.
    My Guitar Hero 2 Xbox Live Ranking
    Main Rig (click this link for specs)
    Certified in: Nothing at all!
    Certifiable: 100% hands-on, real-world experience

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,193
    Another quote from "that other forum":

    Mighty Damn quiet in this thread. When there is proof of Ati cheating ONLY 2 or 3 people respond. But search over the last several months at the Nvidia Cheating threads. Hell some have 4 or five pages not just 2 or 3 people. Like I said before, Might yDamn quiet when it applys to Ati. Where did all of the experts with so much to share go?????

    That is funny!

    Current System
    - Antec Nine Hundred
    - Q6600 G0 Stepping @ 3.0GHz
    - Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6
    - Corsair XMS2 (4x1GB) PC2-8500
    - eVGA SuperClocked GeForce GTX 560 Ti
    - PC P&C Silencer 750 Quad
    - Enhance Technology Quadrapack Q14SS
    - HP Smart Array P400 SAS/SATA Controller w/ 512MB BBWC
    - 4 x 72g 15,000rpm 2.5inch SAS Drives @ RAID5
    - 2 x 750g 7,200rpm 3.5inch SATA Drives @ RAID1
    - 2 x LG DVDĪR Burners
    - Hanns∑G HH-281HPB 28" Display
    - Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit w/ SP1

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Montreal, Que, Canada
    Posts
    8,688
    Well, we endured a lot, a few years back with the original Radeon and the Quake3 benchmark. Even Nvidia was part of the game, and were really offended that ATI was cheating. Seems like what goes for one, doesn't always go for the other one.
    Gilles Lussier

    HWC Folding@Home Team

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,240
    So there is no benchmark left to be trusted. The medium is the message, so the income is earned by those with the resources available through their business enterprise to play the game of defying the benchmarks by placing some employees job description as manipulators of any current benchmark program utilized because their income is that great due to their product. This can change for the better.
    Technology increases at a parabolic curve upward.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,466
    Originally posted by wrathchild_67
    Now we have to wait and see if the people on the top of the Online Result Browser at Futuremark are honest and can stand to lose a few points.
    Unwinder posted this at B3D:

    Finally, I'd like to make some comments about the current test results. NVAntiDetector hurts NV performance much more that ATIAntiDetector hurts ATI results. Currently ATIAntiDetector affected performance in both 3DMark2001 and 2003 (performance drop in 2003 is similar to result of installing 330 patch).
    NVAntiDetector caused performance drop in a lot of 3DApplications including UT2003, CodeCreatures, AquaMark etc. Performance drop in 3DMark2003 is not comparable to 330 results, results are a way *lower* so it seems like FM missed some detections:

    Digit-Life results on FX5900Ultra, 3DM2K3 330

    44.03 - 4806
    44.61 - 5996
    NVAntiDetector + 44.03 - 3198
    NVAntiDetector + 44.61 - 3920

    Digit-Life results on FX5900Ultra, 3DM2K3 320

    44.03 - 5850
    I hope the Digit Life article comes soon. Pretty curious to see some more game benchmarks with the nV/ATi optimisations turned off. There are a few examples of reviews where custom timedemos, new games etc are now being used. The results are quite a bit different from those when the 5900 Ultra was launched:

    http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...fx5900u&page=1
    http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...ew/default.asp

    Compare the Q3 custom demo results...

    http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...view/page9.asp

    ...with the default demo ones...

    http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...tra/page18.asp


    Shadermark shows the most astonishing differences - Tommi reshuffled some of the instructions to bypass app-specific optimisations and if you compare these results...

    http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/5900u/5900u_16.htm

    ...with these...

    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcyLDEy

    ...you'll notice the performance of the 5900 Ultra drops by roughly a factor of ten in some cases.

    MuFu.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •