Nέα έκδοση του 3dmark03

[MY80-]

που oποία επικεντρώνεται κατά των cheats σύμφωνα με τη futuremark. Περισσότερες πληροφορίες μπορείτε να βρείτε εδώ ενώ μπορείτε να κατεβάσετε το patch από εδώ <img src="http://www.insomnia.gr/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Exoskeletor]

den katalaba..pia cheat?

[MY80-]

What Are The Identified Cheats?

Futuremarks audit revealed cheats in NVIDIA Detonator FX 44.03 and 43.51 WHQL drivers.

Earlier GeForceFX drivers include only some of the cheats listed below.

1. 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.

2. 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 buffer

clear 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.

3. 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 the ExtremeTech and Beyond3D articles. This cheat was introduced in the 43.51

drivers as far as we know.

4. 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 our inspection we 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 we have not yet determined the cause.

7. 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; we are not yet aware of any other cheats.

8. The vertex and pixel shaders used in the 3DMark03 feature tests are also detected by the

driver. When we prevented this detection, the performance dropped by more than a factor of

two in the 2.0 pixel shader test.

 

Auta ta cheats

 

What Is the Performance Difference Due to These Cheats?

A test system with GeForceFX 5900 Ultra and the 44.03 drivers gets 5806 3DMarks with

3DMark03 build 320.

The new build 330 of 3DMark03 in which 44.03 drivers cannot identify 3DMark03 or the tests in

that build gets 4679 3DMarks a 24.1% drop.

Our 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. We are currently investigating this further.

[MY80-]

Arxisane kai ta comments...arxika exoume thn nvidia

 

A representative at Nvidia questioned the validity of Futuremark's conclusions. "Since Nvidia is not part of the Futuremark beta program (a program which costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in), we do not get a chance to work with Futuremark on writing the shaders like we would with a real applications developer," the representative said. "We don't know what they did, but it looks like they have intentionally tried to create a scenario that makes our products look bad.

 

 

Exei men ligo dikio h nvidia...apo th mia to 3dmark03 einai kyriws shader benchmark, kai h megalyterh adynamia twn fx einai oi shaders (Kai pou na ginei gnwsto to shadermark...pou stous dx9 shaders tou oi fx einai 2 kai 3 fores pio arges apo tis antistoixes radeon) alla de nomizw na htan kati pou h nvidia agnoouse...sto katw katw as mhn xexname oti efyge molis peripou 2 mhnes prin vgei to 3dm03. De nomizw na mhn xerane poia kommatia ths kartas tha testare...mallon to antitheto, giauto fygane kiolas. Apo thn allh exoune dikio oti ta games einai poly pio optimized gia tis kartes tous apo oti to 3dmark, as mhn xexname oti oi fx exoun arketa kolpa pou rixnoun men to iq alla tous epitrepoun na paramenoun poly antagwnistikes (vlepe doom3) kai einai sigouro oti oi perissoteroi megaloi dx9 titloi tha einai "optimized" kai gia fx. (pali vlepe doom3...an kai den einai dx9 titlos <img src="http://www.insomnia.gr/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> ) Merika vevaia "genika" optimizations einai arketa anorthodoxa kai enw meiwnoun th douleia se fx, thn auxanoun arketa se oles tis alles kartes (ekei ousiastika diaferei h Cg apo thn DX9 HLSL, enw o protarxikos stoxos ths deyterhs einai oso ligotera instructions, ths prwths einai oso ligotera registers)...giauto katanthsame kathe karta na exei to diko ths path (yeah, yeah, xerete ti tha sas pw na deite <img src="http://www.insomnia.gr/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> ). Apo thn allh de nomizw na dikaiologeitai etsi to cheating. Ama gia kathe dx9 game pou vgainei h nvidia grafei tous dikous ths shaders pou estw tha moiazoun kapws me tou game, ektws tou oti tha theloune arketous mhnes gian a tous grapsoune, se kapoio shmeio tha katanthsoume na katevazoume drivers 100mb+. Etsi opws pane tha arxisoune na vazoune pre-rendered stuff mesa stous drivers kai tha trexei h X app volida...kai poios tha prosexei oti o driver egine 500mb ?

 

Meta exoume to response ths ati

 

The 1.9% performance gain comes from optimization of the two DX9 shaders (water and sky) in Game Test 4 . We render the scene exactly as intended by Futuremark, in full-precision floating point. Our shaders are mathematically and functionally identical to Futuremark's and there are no visual artifacts; we simply shuffle instructions to take advantage of our architecture. These are exactly the sort of optimizations that work in games to improve frame rates without reducing image quality and as such, are a realistic approach to a benchmark intended to measure in-game performance. However, we recognize that these can be used by some people to call into question the legitimacy of benchmark results, and so we are removing them from our driver as soon as is physically possible. We expect them to be gone by the next release of CATALYST.

 

Apo oti epiasa, apla pairnoun tous idious tous shader tou 3dmark kai prospathoune na zeygarwsoun vec3 kai scalar ops opou ginetai ( oi r3xx based kartes boroun na ekteloun vec3 kai scalar ops taytoxrona). Auto de tha me peiraze an htan global (dhladh an o driver epsaxne olous tous shader pou tou edines gia tetoies entoles kai tis zeygarwne) alla apo oso exw akousei kanei detect tous shaders tou 3dmark kai isxyei mono kai mono ekei giauto kai einai katadikasteo ( pou eisai eisagelate ? <img src="http://www.insomnia.gr/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> ).

 

 

Epishs eipe kai thn apopsh tou o Tim Sweeney (main coder tis epic...ousiastika, the man behind the unreal engine).

 

Pixel shaders are functions, taking textures, constants, and texture coordinates as inputs, and producing colors as outputs. Computer scientists have this notion of extensional equality that says, if you have two functions, and they return the same results for all combinations of parameters, then they represent the same function -- even if their implementaions differ, for example in instruction usage or performance.

 

Therefore, any code optimization performed on a function that does not change the resulting value of the function for any argument, is uncontroversially considered a valid optimization. Therefore, techniques such as instruction selection, instruction scheduling, dead code elimination, and load/store reordering are all acceptable. These techniques change the performance profile of the function, without affecting its extensional meaning.

 

Optimization techniques which change your function into a function that extensionally differs from what you specified are generally not considered valid optimizations. These sorts of optimizations have occasionally been exposed, for example, in C++ compilers as features that programmers can optionally enable when they want the extra performance and are willing to accept that the meaning of their function is being changed but hopefully to a reasonable numeric approximation. One example of this is Visual C++'s "improve float consistency" option. Such non-extensional optimizations, in all sane programming systems, default to off.

 

3D hardware is still at a point in its infancy that there are still lots of nondeterministic issues in the API's and the hardware itself, such as undefined amounts of precision, undefined exact order of filtering, etc. This gives IHV's some cover for performing additional optimizations that change the semantics of pixel shaders, though only because the semantics aren't well-defined in the base case anyway. In time, this will all go away, leaving us with a well-defined computing layer. We have to look back and realize that, if CPU's operated as unpredictably as 3D hardware, it would be impossible to write serious software.

 

 

Ousiastika fainetai na apokalei auto pou ekane h ati "valid optimizations" kati sto opoio men symfwnw mazi tou alla diafwnw sthn logikh tou "optimize gia to X benchmark" kathws pisteyw oti ousiastika katariptei ton orismo tou benchmark.

 

Auta...elpizw na mhn kleisate to page me to pou eidate to megethos tou post <img src="http://www.insomnia.gr/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[Narayan]

Δείτε τα benchies στο HotHardware με "before patch" και "after patch":

 

http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/r9800256mb_gffx5900upd(2).shtml

 

Η μέρα με τη νύχτα! Πάντως σε σχέση με την 5900 Ultra η 9800 Pro επιρρεάζεται ελάχιστα.

Στο τέλος του άρθρου ο editor δεν μπορεί να αποφασίσει ποιά από τις δύο κάρτες είναι καλύτερη! Η 5900 υπερτερεί ελαφρώς σε ταχύτητα, ενώ η 9800 ελαφρώς σε IQ! Πέραν αυτού, στην Αμερική οι κάρτες έχουν το ίδιο ακριβώς retail price!!! Πανικός!

[pseira]

H 5900 profanws einai grigori se dx8-8.1 games. H 9800 pisteuw einai pio grigori se dx9 kai ayto metraei apo dw kai mpros. Eksallou einai koryfaia kai sta dx9 opote an einai na dwseis lefta as pareis Ati...

Kai gw an eixa fragka, aytin 8a epairna. Parolo pou ta teleytaia 5 xronia exw allaksei 4 kartes Nvidia.....Me apogoiteuse fetos.

Alla kala na pa8ei!!

[georgeadams]

Εγώ απ' όλα αυτά βλέπω την αποτυχία <img src="http://www.insomnia.gr/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> του 3DMark03 σαν benchmark, τουλάχιστον έτσι όπως το ήθελε η Futuremark, δηλαδή με έναν αριθμό να αντικατοπτρίζει τη συνολική απόδοση μιας κάρτας, δίκαια σε σχέση με τις άλλες.

 

Όντας τόσο ευάλωτο σε "κόλπα" των εκάστοτε driver και με τόσες γκρίνιες και αμφιλεγόμενα αποτελέσματα, χάνεται και η αξιοπιστία του <img src="http://www.insomnia.gr/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Marcos_Aurilius]

Οι γκρίνιες έρχονται περισσότερο από την μία μεριά, και όντως το επιδιωκόμενο αποτέλεσμα είναι αυτό που περιγράφεις στην τλευταία σου πρόταση...

[MY80-]

Opws kai na xei, pisteyw oti me thn extremetech kai thn beyond3d sto team ths futuremark de nomizw na epeixirisei kamia etairia tipota sto mellon <img src="http://www.insomnia.gr/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[dop]

Μακάρι να έκαναν optimizations για όταν παίζουμε παιχνίδια..

Καταρχάς είναι τελείως ηλίθιο να κάνεις βελτιστοποίηση για ένα benchmark, αφού έτσι επιβαρύνεις τον κώδικα σου με ηλίθιους ελέγχους...

Πλάκα θα είχε ένας driver με optimizations για όλα τα bench.. Θα έτρεχε σε αυτά σαν διάολος, αλλά στο DOOM θα έβγαζε 10fps..