News

ATI Technologies’ Director of PR, Chris Evenden, responded to accusations in cheating with the CATALYST drivers in order to achieve higher results in 3DMark03. The scandal broke on Friday, the 23rd of May, when Futuremark, the developer of the 3DMark03 issued a document stating that NVIDIA and ATI Technologies implemented cheats in drivers in an attempt to score better in 3DMark03 benchmark.

According to ATI’s representative quoted by Beyond3D in their editorial over here, the 1.9% performance gain came from optimization of the two DirectX 9.0 shaders (water and sky) in Game Test 4. ATI rendered the scene exactly as intended by Futuremark, in full-precision floating point. Their shaders were math1ematically and functionally identical to Futuremark's and there were no visual artifacts; according to ATI Technologies, the company simply shuffled instructions to take advantage of their architecture. ATI states that these were exactly the sort of optimizations that work in games to improve frame rates without reducing image quality and as such, were a realistic approach to a benchmark intended to measure in-game performance. However, ATI recognized that these can be used by some people to call into question the legitimacy of the benchmark results, and so they would remove them from their driver as soon as is physically possible. They expect them to be gone by the next release of CATALYST. 

ATI Technologies was less aggressive in its statements than NVIDIA Corporation, who accused Futuremark of developing unfair benchmarks. Nevertheless, I would point out that ATI will not have to remove anything from the drivers keeping in mind that Futuremark already made the patch to ignore the cheats. Another thing for you to note is that 3DMark03 is not a game and every single technique to “optimize” it can be considered as a cheat. I wonder if ATI actually optimizes anything for real games with pixel shaders.

Anyway, the company claims it will not cheat again with the 3DMark03 and that is definitely a positive piece of information. But what about NVIDIA?

You can download the patch that defeats cheating mechanisms in drivers by NVIDIA and ATI Technologies for Futuremark’s 3DMark03 here.

Discussion

Comments currently: 8
Discussion started: 05/26/03 05:03:55 AM
Latest comment: 05/29/03 02:19:55 AM

[1-8]

1. 
I don't see what the big deal is. I ran 3dmark without the patch and got a 6296 and with the patch (330) I got a 6293 a differance of 3 points!
P4 2.53 @ 2.850
ATI9800 pro @ 461/360
[Posted by: BoomSlang  | Date: 05/26/03 05:03:55 AM]

2. 
Mr. Shilov, your journalistic qualities are simply too much for this website, I'm impressed! Have you ever considered working for a quality newspaper like The Sun or The Daily Mirror?

You also might want to take a look here: http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=67f18743971a7 ce15bd61aebf3f489b6&threadid=33670711 .
[Posted by: Xspringe  | Date: 05/26/03 07:45:11 AM]

3. 
Wow the author of this article is a complete idiot and an nvidia lackey to boot! At NO time did ATI admit to cheating. Apparently the writer here needs to have his parents re-read him ATI's press release.
[Posted by: Jason Miller  | Date: 05/26/03 07:57:34 AM]

4. 
Ditto...

Now I remember why I removed my bookmark to this site. Drop-outs and bottom of the class students from Electronics Technology diploma programs used to be able to get jobs in component sales, now they can just start writing mis-information on sites like this!
[Posted by: GTMan  | Date: 05/26/03 07:16:47 PM]

5. 
Good article overall, except for this one line, that gives the impression the writer has a very strong anti-ATI bias:

"I wonder if ATI actually optimizes anything for real games with pixel shaders."

--Phelps
[Posted by: Phelps  | Date: 05/27/03 06:12:40 AM]

6. 
I hope the check nVidia sent you was worth it.
[Posted by: John  | Date: 05/27/03 01:05:47 PM]

7. 
The following is one of the most moronic mindsets on the web:

Quoting Anton in the news commentary:
"Another thing for you to note is that 3DMark03 is not a game and every single technique to “optimize” it can be considered as a cheat."

No. It's not a cheat. The purpose of the 4 game benchmarks is to see how fast a video card can run each given scene, while rendering the scene in a manner that not only represents a true game (ie. NO fixed clipping planes allowed, capiche?), but also properly renders all parts of each scene in a manner that is identical to what the developer intended. Changing the DX9 shaders is NOT a cheat so long as they faithfully output values identical to the original shader as written by Futuremark for every input value.

On the other hand, if ATI had rewritten shaders for the individual tests other than the 4 gaming tests, then I'd consider that a cheat. Those are meant to evaluate each card's ability to perform a known processing task in an exact way, so changing them would be considered cheating.

And finally, while I don't know if ATI's written custom shaders to improve the performance of any games yet, I would be highly surprised if they don't, once more games that actually use DX9 are on the market. Of course, it would be very hard to write custom shaders for ALL games that will eventually be out, but they've optimized for the most popular games up to this point, and that's a trend that will most likely continue. (nVidia has done the same thing and still does the same thing, btw. I own cards from both companies, and have used several driver revisions from each).

[Posted by: Bleh  | Date: 05/28/03 06:06:53 AM]

8. 
more sensationalism about a boring and moot topic.

This whole discussion just shows how patently ludicrous it is to use a benchmark like 3dmark to gauge your graphics card, and how vapid the minds are of those who use these to flaunt one card's advantage over another.

Wait until doom 3 and half-life 2 , to declare a winner of the DirectX9-level tech. Until then, you are relying on the computer industry equivalent of a wind-tunnel test. Remember wind tunnel tests for aerospace engineers? Remember how those planes then are taken out into the "real world" ? Lets get back to the real world please.
[Posted by: anon  | Date: 05/29/03 02:19:55 AM]

[1-8]

You must log in to add comments.

Forgot password? Registration

remember me



Related news

Latest News

Friday, July 3, 2009

5:50 pm | Apple Reminds: iPhone and iPod Overheat at 35 Degrees Celcius. Apple Issues Warning Concerning Overheating

1:09 pm | Former Intel’s Chief Does Not Expect Quick Results from Intel-Nokia Pact. Feasibility of Intel’s and Nokia’s Partnership to Be Clear in Several Years

9:15 am | Nvidia's Chief Executive Publicly Unveils Pricing of "Ion" Core-Logic. Nvidia’s Ion Platform Appears to Be Up to Three Times More Expensive than Intel’s

Thursday, July 2, 2009

11:42 pm | Transcend Equips Memory Modules with Thermal Sensors. Transcend's New Memory Modules Can Monitor Their Temperature

10:17 pm | AMD Will Not Support Nvidia's CUDA Technology. AMD Not Interested in Supporting Nvidia's CUDA

3:46 pm | Sony Claims that UMD-Less PlayStation Portable Was Always In The Plans. Sony's Claims Raises Question Whether UMD Ever Was a Compulsory Element of PSP

12:43 pm | DDR3 to Capture 30% of the Market by Year End - DRAMeXchange. Contract DDR3 Prices to Increase in July