Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Finally! An article about the cheating scandal!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 24, 2003 7:56:47 PM

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20030624/index.html" target="_new"> Here it is... </A>

What do you think? I agree with Tim Sweeney.

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

(Maximum PC)
June 24, 2003 8:22:47 PM

As I said in the other thread, I agree with it, looks good, but ati should have been ripped up too.

Shadus
June 24, 2003 8:29:30 PM

It seems from the part about the Futuremark beta program - "influence the development of the benchmarking software to suit their hardware" - that 3DMark scores can be bought.
Related resources
June 24, 2003 10:25:11 PM

Why do you think ATi should've been 'ripped up?' Their optimizations were legitimate (in my eyes)! The article explained that! Even so, ATi said that since they weren't part of the original benchmark, they would be (and have been) removed, just for honesty's sake. That ISN'T cheating. They did not deceive anybody to gain an edge on the competition. And they owned up to what changes they had made, and removed them... Wherein did they deserve to be 'ripped up?'

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

(Maximum PC)
June 24, 2003 10:35:26 PM

Lars did a pretty good job this time. He remained pretty nuetral, but still managed to poke a finger at Nvidia. Not an easy thing to do.

"We need fangirls" - dhlucke
June 24, 2003 10:39:46 PM

Well, nVidia needed a good poking. Right in the eye.

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

(Maximum PC)
June 25, 2003 12:58:17 AM

there teh Quack ting

that DEFINATELY should have been mentioned



otherwise its no suprise. theres not a single person that doesnt know that what Nvidia did was wrong. even teh Nvidiots cant deny it in their heads (even tho some wont admit it ... tools)

not like itll make a difference. people will still buy more nvidia cards, because people are stupid, people are shallow and follow brands and names like religious idols

-------

<A HREF="http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001355.html" target="_new">*I hate thug gangstas*</A>
June 25, 2003 1:27:45 AM

well right now it CLEARLY shows that both nVidia and ATi deserves a smacking from their mothers...... LONG LIVE MATROX!!! hahhahahahaha

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% MATROX/INTEL EXTREME GRAPHICS Fanboy
June 25, 2003 1:38:01 AM

Quote:
people will still buy more nvidia cards, because people are stupid

I hope you aren't saying that anyone who buys an nVidia card is stupid, because the 5900 is NOT a bad card.
June 25, 2003 1:51:37 AM

It certainly justify's my long held opinion that 3dmarks are a pretty meaningless commodity with a variable result.

Unfortunately noobs need numbers to justify a purchace.

<b>Melb_angel: PooBaa's <A HREF="http://www.secretarythemovie.com" target="_new">Secretary!</A></b>
June 25, 2003 2:02:54 AM

Nice bandwagon skills, i bet if Nvidia was winning in 3dmark03, or if they didnt start their anti-3dmark smear cmapaign, or even if there was no article published on this site about the 3dmark smear campaign, which was FILLED with Nvidia's usual BS, whining PR statement, you wouldnt be saying "3dmark is useless"

i like how Tom manages to get their 3dmark is useless point across in the conclusion, as if the entire article devoted to the issue, and money from Nvidia to create and post the article wasn't enough. Oh, and the way he says and doesnt say "nvidia cheated" really gets his point across "I love Nvidia". These aren't accusations anymore, they are facts, Nvidia cheated, its alright for you to just go out and say it now
oh wait i just realized something.....
June 25, 2003 2:23:05 AM

Reever2 wrote
Quote:
Oh, and the way he says and doesnt say "nvidia cheated" really gets his point across "I love Nvidia".

You dont know how to read, do you moron?


From the article...
Quote:
One thing is clear though, in our opinion - the use of clipping frames is a cheat, pure and simple, employed only to improve benchmark scores. And this practice deserves to be condemned.

I think that statement say's alot. Reever, why dont you go make comments to Kyle in his forums... Lars already deserves a ton of respect in my eyes, compared to the commentaries published by [H].

"We need fangirls" - dhlucke
June 25, 2003 2:47:10 AM

Sorry to dissapoint you and holt your froth laden diatribe, but ive allways thought that 3dmark was pretty useless, along with the "mark monkey's" who spend countless hours tweaking their rig for 100 more points.
I think ive had this view all the way back to the days of the TNT2.

And before you label me a ATI lackey or something (i know u want to), ive owned:
A. 4mb Diamond stealth 2d PCI graphics card.
B. 4mb ATI RagePro PCI 3d card.
C. 32mb Diamond Viper V770 TNT2 AGP.
D. 32Mb Gigabyte TNT2Pro.
E. 32Mb Leadtek Geforce2Pro.
F. And just recently aquired a R9700pro, and donated the Geforce2pro to the GirlFriend.




<b>Melb_angel: PooBaa's <A HREF="http://www.secretarythemovie.com" target="_new">Secretary!</A></b>
June 25, 2003 3:32:01 AM

I will, Phial. First look at the prices:

GeForceFX 5900 = $500 (Referred to hereafter as 5900)
ATi Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb = $500 (Radeon 256)
ATi Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb = $350 (Radeon 128)

Notice that the 5900 and Radeon256 are the same price. Their performance is very close, with the cards trading benchmark victories. Image Quality is superior on ATi, but we will ignore that for the time being. Now, to compare the two Radeons. The Radeon256 only beats the 128 at high resolutions with AA. And even so, the difference is minimal, barely noticeable to the human eye. Therefore, if A=B and B=C, then A=C. In other words, the 5900 only outperforms the 9800 128 some of the time, and only by a small margin when it does. Therefore, the Radeon 128 is obviously the best choice in high end video cards. The 5900 isn't bad necessarily, but there's really no advantage to buying one when you could save $150 and buy one just as fast (AH!) with better image quality.

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

(Maximum PC)
June 25, 2003 3:53:36 AM

YEEAAAAAAAHHHH BAYYYYBEEEEEEE I'm an ENTHUSIAST NOW!!! HAHHAHHA.... Wow, I'm a loser, too...

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

(Maximum PC)
June 25, 2003 3:56:58 AM

I can personally attest as a forum veteran that Poobaa has always had a stance against 3dMark. Don't put words into Poobaa's mouth people.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 25, 2003 4:00:03 AM

An excellent article that proves they got our opinion across.
Not only did they mention what we mentioned about benchmarking becoming something that will change from now on (namely GrapeApe), but they mentioned the argument of Quack against ATi.
Kudos to Lars, they really read our posts.

I am hoping we as readers can help THG get their point accross those 2 companies.
Let us join with other websites and start a rally.

Seriously, has anyone read the PR crap from ATi's attack on nVidia with their Enthusiast-Mainstream-Value comparisons?
Someone read the Value part mentioning the hypocrisy with the 9200 being touted as so good when it has no DX9 while FX5200 has it. It was even one of the pics on the article, it can be seen near the end.
It is so childish to see how they attack each other. It is demoralizing. What a capitalistic world. An ideal but become a web of lies world.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 25, 2003 4:17:39 AM

Thankyou.... errr.... i think LOL :lol: 

Having one single number to show a graphics card capability is allways tempting for the OEM to convince the noob...

But:

A. The number is also greatly influenced by the CPU & memory subsystem
B. Its open to all sorts of devious tactics, financial and technical.
C. Markmonkeys :smile:


<b>Melb_angel: PooBaa's <A HREF="http://www.secretarythemovie.com" target="_new">Secretary!</A></b>
June 25, 2003 4:27:23 AM

Hahah!
Well, maybe number 1 can be removed, as clearly seen by the CPU tests for 3dMark 03. Barely 100 points are gained per 500MHZ increase!

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 25, 2003 4:47:56 AM

i like the article. i just don't like how they still bash on futuremark. futuremark gave out a "contest", wich card performs best in a certain task. no mather if its game releated or not, it IS graphic releated, and it IS great to measure the performance of your gpu, IFF the driver developers are fair and take the contest as what it is, a contest.

too bad capitalistic marketing walked into the driver developer room and told them "look, we have to win this contest, NO MATHER WHAT!! we don't care about fair and sportive, just WIN THE BENCHMARKS!".
THAT is where the failure is. not 3dmark, not futuremark. nvidia and ati marketing parts. its like taking a car in a bycicle-race just to win no mather what.

futuremark presents a sportive event, a contest. and thats ALL they do. and there is NOTHING wrong with that. intel could come to the realstorm benchmark (www.realstorm.com) as well, and claim they have only compiled a basic version, making p4 looking worse than they are. or they could release a new "chipsetdriver" wich .. optimises for realstorm.. means determining "RealStorm_Benchmark.exe" and replace it by an own, SSE and SSE2 and MMX and all the fuzz optimized version. realstorm _would_ perform then much bether.

if a gpu does not work good in futuremark, it shows to not fit well into the given contest. like taking a race-bike to go downhill-biking (ouch!:D ). too bad futuremark is _THAT_ gaming-near, that a bad result in futuremark leads to bad results in games as well .. if not "optimized" for nvidia as well.

btw, nvidia does not really help developers by recoding their stuff to optimize for their gpu. they just make them dependently on them.

and there is no "shift" in the graphics world that games should get optimized for different gpu's manually. at least, there should not be. we're still x86 compatible on cpu's, there is no "shift" away from amd and intel to make them incompatible.
nvidia made a shift away from being fast in opengl or directx to some... shitworld where they are only fast in their own small world coding own stuff. again, this is to make developers dependently on them.

a good gpu performs well in ANY opengl benchmark and in ANY dx benchmark with NO optimisation specific to that benchmark.
be the benchmark the futuremark 3dmark, be it a game, be it realstorm (while it doesn't actually use the gpu..:D  at least, not yet..).

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 25, 2003 8:33:45 AM

I wanted to comment on this, but the article was posted just before I went to party with some Quebecers in Calgary (Mmm Tortiere and Boreal Rousse!) now I'm awake at work and it's almost all been said! Dang Drinking in the Daytime! :eek: 

So this mean I can't pimp out my 3dmark03 scores like it's a badge of 'coolness'? Dang I need something Else! Quick, Here's my Lego Land marks!

I enjoyed the article it seemes as even handed as the current cheats issue could get, so be it. I just wonder what he fall out will be; it took a while to get people (reviewers) on board with this being a bad thing for them too, but the question is what does the fall-out create/change. Nothing new? A new standards body. Pledges of 'fair play'? I hink it's likely the former since the later woudl be expecting alot from the industry.

At least it been said and fairly clearly, and both ATI and Nvidia now realize that the issue is out there.

As a Testament to this issue I will try and find a <A HREF="http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/35a796d8/5e08eed..." target="_new"><b>Bitchin Fast 3D 2000</b></A> because I KNOW you can't cheat Bungholiomarks!

<font color=red>ATI</font color=red> Sux, <font color=green>Nvidia</font color=green> Blows, and <font color=blue>Matrox</font color=blue> gives good Multi-Head!


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 25, 2003 11:19:42 AM

And see what you guys think about this <A HREF="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030624/sftu011_1.html" target="_new">Nvidia press release</A> (released as if it were an article in Yahoo Biz).

Expect alot more of this 'manufactured' news in the future.

I can see it now "SIS extends performanc lead to the chears of gamers everywhere" Of course now it's a performance lead over itself an the cheers are from the 12 Fanboys in each continent, but the story is 'legally' correct.

The end of any serious benchmarking standerd means this is what we are left with from the review sites (not that Yahoo is a review site), just expect this kinda thing to be more wide spread. Great!


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
June 25, 2003 1:27:30 PM

Do you mean you missed the part where the guy who caught nvidia also found 6-8 places where ati was doing the same type of opts? On the original fiasco, nvidia got caught with alot more cheats of a worse variety, but its all evening up now.

Shadus
June 25, 2003 2:29:35 PM

The article is almost too neutral. Also, regardless of whether you think Futurmark's 3Dmark is a good performance indicator, this article still points out how much sway it has in convincing a prospective customer that a company's card is worth buying. The simple truth is that companies find it worth cheating on the benchmarks since they know it'll make them money.

What Nvidia did was wrong. I like Tim Sweeney's statement.

Why be so neutral? Unless a cheater is punished, they will continue cheating. They need to lose sales.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
June 25, 2003 2:49:46 PM

I don't think Futuremark is completely without blame here.

Let's face it... this is a company that basically holds graphics cards manufacturers testacles in it's pocket.

Futuremark stance: "You don't HAVE to pay us. But if you don't pay us, how can we afford to work closely with you to make this impartial benchmark?"

Give me a break. Why should the amount of money that is donated by a graphics card company have anything to do with how much they get to be involved in the creation of what is supposed to be an impartial benchamark? That's just plain wrong. There should be no "tiers" of supporters. Video card developer "A" should not have the opportunity to be treated any differently from other video card developer "B" in what is supposed to be an impartial test.

I'm not saying that driver cheating is justified (it isn't, in fact it's detestable), but I am pointing out that from where I'm sitting, Futuremark is doing something that smells alot like extortion.

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 25, 2003 4:37:02 PM

Futuremark's relationship is symbiotic. If Both parties benifit, and Nvidia's lack of participation came ONLY after their cards weren't showing up as #1.
If Futuremark didn't take money for the cardmkers involvement, then it would be a FREE service they were providing to the chip makers helping them sell more cards.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
June 25, 2003 5:03:03 PM

I see it as more parasitic than symbiotic. The video card companies could certainly survive without futuremark's products. Futuremark, on the other hand, could not survive alone.

I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't take money for involvement; what I'm saying is that there shouldn't be "Tiers" of involvement based solely on the amount of contribution.

Doesn't that lend itself to a model where video companies are extorted in order to get a fair result?

Basically, if Ati decided to stop paying Futuremark's huge fees, their competitors who continued to pay the fees would have more of a say in how a benchmark is created.

That seems very, very impartial to me. Especially since the whole purpose of a benchmark is to be impartial...

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 25, 2003 5:32:03 PM

I see what you're saying but Nvidia left on it's own because the FAIR benchmark wasn't painting their card in a good light (mainly because it fairly included PS 1.4 [a subset of DX shaders]).

Futuremark existed before the people started to contribute coin, and they made 'DEMOS' long before then to.

Unless there is BLIND participation (like a Graphics card tax) then there will always be influence and potential for there to be distortions. Heck my main problem with the lose of some 'objective' benchmark is that then it will be left in the hands of people (reviewers) who are much easier to mold/manipulate based on advertising dollars. Unlike REAL papers and magazines, the E-zine and reviewer are completely dependant on the 'kindness of strangers' lining their pockets, which is unlikely to happen if the reviewer pans a piece of hardware. I guess Matrox just didn't advertise enough to buy off all the reviewers. :wink:

The number of contributors to Futuremark is more than just ATI and Nvidia.

I understand what you're saying I just don't see any other model for the benchmark businees other than a consortium or athority that receives some kind of tax, which isn't likely to go over well with the chip makers. A voluntary contribution wouldn't work either since the body wouldn't have the teeth for fear of offending it's patrons (just like the UN IMO).

Well that's my two frames worth.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
June 25, 2003 5:40:35 PM

True, true. There isn't an easy solution.

My vote would be for a completely impartial benchmark that uses coding techniques which are released in a public whitepaper.

Then, Futuremark would take subscriptions to it's "beta" program, that would allow graphics card companies to implement card-specific optimizations. These opimizations would have to be approved by Futuremark as "Valid" i.e. no-camera movement based optimizations, but perhaps shader optimizations that did not adversely affect image quality.

This version of 3dMark would run the impartial benchmark, and provide a score.
THEN, if you had a video card that was supported with optimizations through the beta program, 3dMark would run AGAIN, and show you the "Optimized" score.

The impartial score would be a raw hardware benchmark: the optimized score would show the potential of the hardware to work under optimized conditions.

That would be cool.

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
June 25, 2003 6:42:42 PM

Damn, GW!

Now THAT is some funny $hit.

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
June 25, 2003 7:42:03 PM

Yea...I busted up reading it :smile:

"We need fangirls" - dhlucke
June 25, 2003 7:54:08 PM

ATI and nVidia BOTH cheated. Both need to be more open and stop the brutal PR tactics. As it stands, as history has shown me and experience with both cards, nVidia is more stable and reliable, and quite faster. But ATI comes up on occasion with nice hardware and greater quality graphics. To each their own, neither will be gone in the next few years. So who cares.

BTW, 3dmark is the poorest benchmark to go by when you want a new video card. Only the newest games on the market and what will be out in the next year will be the norm, and even the NEW games will be optimized to run on most cards. So ATI's tactics for PR and Mad Onions program are both quite pointless and useless. Benchmarks like 3dmark 03 are a joke.

dinoX aka BlackDog
June 25, 2003 8:00:36 PM

No they are not. They are designed to show what an unoptimized game would play like. When they badly code these tests, they are trying to see which card can survive the showdown.
As we have seen, unoptimized basic DX9 code (the normal general DX9) is VERY POOR on nVidia cards. Maybe it's because they tried to use 32-bit precision, maybe it's the code itself not being so adapted by the NV30 architecture.
ATi proves even in the worst case scenarios, their cards COULD potentially survive.
While I agree that the overall points are not helpful, the individual tests are.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 26, 2003 2:00:34 AM

As for stable, not anymore.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 26, 2003 2:24:05 AM

So let's see then, Dino got it all wrong didn't he? You guys are right. Oh yeah, and that thing GW posted was funny and ALL TOO TRUE.

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

(Maximum PC)
June 26, 2003 2:34:07 AM

Man that original is complete BULLSHIZ. I wish we could stop those lackeys from being misled by those comments. Notice they never quoted ATi. Hell, they could have been referring to Matrox as the "nearest competitior." Especially the stuff about the image quality, because, man, their AA sucks.

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

(Maximum PC)
June 26, 2003 2:49:00 AM

I still want to know why there is at least one person here that while calling what nvidia did "detestable" still seems to be trying to find blame elsewhere. Come on that is crap; there is no excuse period... Perhaps they also agree colleges and universities are to blame for kids cheating in school now because they are raising their entrance requirements?

Someone also mentioned quake, which was, by the way, mentioned in the article and is at this point very old news...

I think nvidia could do a lot to redeem themselves by owning up to their mistakes and making some promises to its customers. Instead they are dragging their feet kicking and screaming saying they didn't eat the candy while there is plainly chocolate all over their mouth...
June 26, 2003 3:05:38 AM

You're right, cat, you're right. They're being FRICKIN' babies. Someone should poke them in the eye. I'll do it.

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

(Maximum PC)
June 26, 2003 3:09:22 PM

I wonder what the nVidia boards have had to say about all this...?

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

(Maximum PC)
June 26, 2003 3:16:45 PM

*pokes daddywag's eye*

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 26, 2003 3:19:11 PM

OOWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! DAMN YOU EDEN!!!!!!!



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

(Maximum PC)
June 26, 2003 3:22:32 PM

Well, since I'm the only person who used the term "detestable", I'll assume you're talking to me.

If you look at my post, I'm certainly not making excuses for Nvidia. As a matter of fact, I think they're behavior is childish and bullish, without justification.

Noting this, however, does not prevent me from assessing other players as well. Their behavior is no less detestable because I may have found fault in another player.

But because I see two parties doing something wrong at the same time doesn't mean I'm making an excuse for the other; what is means is that I'm capable of examining a situation without assuming only one person can be doing something wrong at one time.

In fact, I find that lots of people are capable of screwing things up concurrently...

To summarize:
1. Cheating is just plain wrong
2. So is Extortion
3. Someone extorting doesn't make someone else's cheating alright

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
June 27, 2003 12:46:01 AM

good points...
especially:
Quote:
In fact, I find that lots of people are capable of screwing things up concurrently...

June 27, 2003 10:20:24 AM

"So let's see then, Dino got it all wrong didn't he? You guys are right. Oh yeah, and that thing GW posted was funny and ALL TOO TRUE."

So lets see...no I didn't.

dinoX aka BlackDog
!