<%BANNER[top_768x90]%>
<%BANNER[banner_468x60_h]%>
<%BANNER[article]%>

News

<%BANNER[fp_160x600_r_1]%>

Modern graphics cards and processors are very powerful and capable of performing numerous operations and features. The highest-end solutions like the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra from NVIDIA Corporation and the RADEON 9800 PRO from ATI Technologies are able to provide enough performance in almost all modern games, however, that is not enough and we are looking forward even more eye-candy 3D games that require even more powerful graphics cards. Since we do not have those powerful 3D games now, in order to determine the performance of expensive graphics cards we use synthetic benchmarks, such as Codecult Codecreatures and Futuremark 3DMark Although this is the only opportunity to measure the performance in upcoming applications, IHVs usually try to tweak their drivers to show better results in such benchmarks.

Today Futuremark released its patch and a document explaining how NVIDIA and ATI cheated the results of the 3DMark03 benchmark. Below you find some statements by the company.

Futuremark’s audit revealed cheats in NVIDIA Detonator FX 44.03 and 43.51 WHQL drivers. Earlier GeForce FX drivers include only some of the cheats listed below. Note that neither NVIDIA Corporation nor ATI Technologies commented on this.

  • The loading screen of the 3DMark03 test is detected by the driver. This is used by the driver to disregard the back buffer clear command that 3DMark03 gives. This incorrectly reduces the workload. However, if the loading screen is rendered in a different manner, the driver seems to fail to detect 3DMark03, and performs the back buffer clear command as instructed.
  • A vertex shader used in game test 2 (P_Pointsprite.vsh) is detected by the driver. In this case the driver uses instructions contained in the driver to determine when to obey the back bufferclear command and when not to. If the back buffer would not be cleared at all in game test 2, the stars in the view of outer space in some cameras would appear smeared as have been reported in the articles mentioned earlier. Back buffer clearing is turned off and on again so that the back buffer is cleared only when the default benchmark cameras show outer space. In free camera mode one can keep the camera outside the spaceship through the entire test, and see how the sky smearing is turned on and off.
  • A vertex shader used in game test 4 (M_HDRsky.vsh) is detected. In this case the driver adds two static clipping planes to reduce the workload. The clipping planes are placed so that the sky is cut out just beyond what is visible in the default camera angles. Again, using the free camera one can look at the sky to see it abruptly cut off. Screenshot of this view was also reported in certain articles by ExtremeTech and Beyond3D. This cheat was introduced in the 43.51 drivers as far as Futuremark recognizes.
  • In game test 4, the water pixel shader (M_Water.psh) is detected. The driver uses this detection to artificially achieve a large performance boost - more than doubling the early frame rate on some systems. In their inspection Futuremark noticed a difference in the rendering when compared either to the DirectX reference rasterizer or to those of other hardware. It appears the water shader is being totally discarded and replaced with an alternative more efficient shader implemented in the drivers themselves. The drivers produce a similar looking rendering, but not an identical one.
  • In game test 4 there is detection of a pixel shader (m_HDRSky.psh). Again it appears the shader is being totally discarded and replaced with an alternative more efficient shader in a similar fashion to the water pixel shader above. The rendering looks similar, but it is not identical.
  • A vertex shader (G_MetalCubeLit.vsh) is detected in game test 1. Preventing this detection proved to reduce the frame rate with these drivers, but Futuremark have not yet determined the cause.
  • A vertex shader in game test 3 (G_PaintBaked.vsh) is detected, and preventing this detection drops the scores with these drivers. This cheat causes the back buffer clearing to be disregarded; Futuremark are not yet aware of any other cheats.
  • The vertex and pixel shaders used in the 3DMark03 feature tests are also detected by the driver. When Futuremark prevented this detection, the performance dropped by more than a factor of two in the 2.0 pixel shader test. Futuremark boys have used various techniques to prevent NVIDIA drivers from performing the above detections. Futuremark have been extremely careful to ensure that none of the changes Futuremark have introduced causes differences in either rendering output or performance. In most case, simple alterations in the shader code – such as swapping two registers – has been sufficient to prevent the detection.

A test system with NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra and the 44.03 drivers gets 5806 3DMarks with 3DMark03 build 320. The new build 330 of 3DMark03 in which Detonator FX 44.03 drivers cannot identify 3DMark03 or the tests in that build gets 4679 3DMarks – a 24.1% drop.

Futuremark's investigations reveal that some drivers from ATI also produce a slightly lower total score on this new build of 3DMark03. The drop in performance on the same test system with a RADEON 9800 PRO using the CATALYST 3.4 drivers is 1.9%. This performance drop is almost entirely due to 8.2% difference in the game test 4 result, which means that the test was also detected and somehow altered by the ATI drivers. Futuremark crew is currently investigating this further.

Are synthetic benchmarks good if they can be cheated? You will decide it next week.

<%BANNER[banner_468x60_f]%>

Discussion

<%BANNER[fp_160x600_r_2]%>
Comments currently: 9
Discussion started: 05/23/03 03:43:41 PM
Latest comment: 06/01/03 05:45:41 PM

[1-9]

1. 
That's certainly a disingenuous headline. Futuremark has said they are investigating further. They didn't come outright and state that ATI is in fact cheating.

There's a huge difference. Enough with the sensationalism?
[Posted by: Natoma | Date: 05/23/03 03:43:41 PM]

2. 
Yeah, nice headline there... ATI being investigated does not = ATI cheating.
[Posted by: Joe | Date: 05/23/03 04:15:48 PM]

3. 
That newsposting is incorrect. The NVIDIA cheating has been confirmed, the ATI cheating has not, but is still under investigation. Please correct it.

[Posted by: Xspringe | Date: 05/23/03 04:34:28 PM]

4. 
>> Are synthetic benchmarks good if they can be cheated?

Are ya kiddin? Timedemos (which are used most of the time for game benchmarks) can be cheated as easily as syntetic benchmarks. So the question is just silly. Sorry for the harsh words.

The opposite is true: FutureMark as the benchmark writer is watching over that noone cheats in their benchmark. The game writers don't care much. So the final verdict is this:

Cheating is equally easy in synthetic benchmarks and in game timedemos. But you can get away with cheating in game timedemos more easily than in benchmarks. So if it has any effect, this whole cheating debate should strengthen synthetic benchmarks, not weaken them.
[Posted by: madshi | Date: 05/24/03 12:09:29 PM]

5. 
True, i have to agree with madshi.
Remember how AT was cheated on the timedemo Q3 - replacing the Q3 executable with direrent names and calls for routines cause similar performace drop...
Its shame that they dont learn from each other and that the cards are crappy and dont show any real speed-up.

I was a longtime used of GF2Ti and "upgrading" to R9100 bring me milions of bugs, problems - and surprisingly - no performace gain.
Except on cheated members =8-(

Remember, ATI is crap too, just look at the drivers issues:

ATI driver bugses on R9100
--------------------------
NFS5 - font letters are trashed into whole game all the time, on brother R9000 only sometime during game
MaxPayne - terribly slow loading (6x slower that on GF2Ti) and after finishing first level - a crash during loading
SoF2 - graphic bugses - marks on walls flicking, windows in distance get trashed, etc.

Not enought? I can define custom resolutions i need and get used to on GF2Ti, even using latest PowerStrip build and latest Catylyst drivers 3.4 ...
I cant get rid of "getting out of 128MB videomemory" but, what happens when i extensively using IE and saving large number of jpeg pictures from one IE window - then i got out of videomemory. Closing the IE window help, but thats mean alosing the work... =8-(
...not to mention that after replacing the damn noisy cooler on the chip with half of the Zalman VGA cooler ZM80A-HP - half because Sapphire R9100 crap dont featuring mounting holes i i have to glue using arctic silver epoxy the cooler on the chip permemently - but now i can run at max of 209Mhz core clock, instead of 250, whats default. What a shame. Tought memory is overclockable (260Mhz is not a problem), the core is not and - very surprisingly - Radeons cant manage other clocks for memory/core during overclocking. WTF is this?!?!
On my GFTi i run at 272/482 W/O problem with big passive cooling and that is quite old card!
So, i looking forward to replacing this thing with slower, but bugs-free GF FX 5200 - bye bye, ATI.
[Posted by: trodas | Date: 05/25/03 06:42:15 AM]

6. 
NVIDIA is loosing costomers thats why they do this to prevent from even more.
ATI is true performer!
[Posted by: JUZEK | Date: 05/25/03 12:35:37 PM]

7. 
http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3dmark03_audit_repor .pdf

It was nVidia whom cheated this time
but ATI had done in the Past

" In 2001 ATI was discovered to sacrificed quality for frame rates in a Quake 3.0 benchmark: when Quake was renamed "Quack", the drivers produced much better output but frame rate performance fell. "

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/30860.html
[Posted by: AngelLaHash | Date: 05/26/03 03:45:33 AM]

8. 
The Headline is just wrong!
[Posted by: Bbig | Date: 05/26/03 10:50:45 AM]

9. 
Use ut 2003 as it's the top game of the time - so you can judge if there is an improvement in performance - we should also move to 1600X1200 resolution as most of us now use this in game - bench marks that are posted should be stable and abile to tolerate these levels in game - so stop people sellecting the least amounts of tests possible and make the system cycle it twice as to show stablity. A True Benchmark
[Posted by: Benz | Date: 06/01/03 05:45:41 PM]

[1-9]

You must log in to add comments.

Forgot password? Registration

remember me



Latest News

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

5:43 pm | AMD Confident In Ability to Produce x86 Microprocessors Despite Intel’s Doubts. AMD Reassures It Can Outsources Production of All x86 Chips

3:04 pm | Intel Has “Serious Questions” Regarding AMD’s Fab Spin Off. Intel Questions Legitimacy of AMD’s Fab Spin Off

12:34 pm | Less Companies to Supply Nvidia GeForce Graphics Cards . Nvidia Intends to Reduce Number of Add-In-Board Partners

9:13 am | AMD Unveils Asset Smart Strategy: Transfers Fabs to The Foundry Company. AMD Spins Off Manufacturing Facilities into Foundry Company

Monday, October 6, 2008

11:27 pm | Analyst Expects Nvidia to Leave Chipset Business Next Year. Rumours Regarding Nvidia’s Exit from Chipset Business Resurrect

11:25 pm | HTC to Monopolize Market of Google Android Based Phones for a Year. HTC Quietly Monopolizes Market of Google Android Cell Phones

9:26 pm | Nvidia Plans Another Re-Branding of Graphics Cards. Nvidia’s GeForce 9 to Become Nvidia GeForce GT, GTS

7:52 pm | Intel: Core i7 to Be Up to 52% Faster Compared to Core 2 Quad. Intel Predicts Massive Performance Improvements with New Chips

4:55 pm | Kingston to Join the SSD Market. The Company to Sell SSDs by Intel

4:51 pm | Sega Preparing a Portable Gaming Console – Rumor. One More Competitor for Sony

4:48 pm | Elpida Completes Development of 65nm Chip Shrink. Enhances Cost Competitiveness and Manufacturing Flexibility