Will GTX570 be caught in new app detection cheat?

Rroff · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:33

I don't consider the images conclusive enough of anything - but the performance graphs would tend to indicate something was going on.

the_jetsetwilly · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:42

maybe by renaming the file nvidia profile is using the default profile which has less IQ settings than the hawx profile?

i know i need to sometimes add and tweak my profiles

Lightnix · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:42

Big.Wayne said:
Lightnix, it is irrelevant who is pointing it out as this has no bearing on whether something is true or not?

Oh I'm not saying it's untrue, I just find the drama side of it (being it seems to be a response to Nvidia's doing the same thing about the texture quality driver thing a while ago) a little amusing.

Big.Wayne · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:45

Oh the drama? . . . heh I didn't even think about anything like that until something is known to be true or not!

Surely one of the many OcUK "professors" can test this out?

Rroff · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:46

the_jetsetwilly said:
maybe by renaming the file nvidia profile is using the default profile which has less IQ settings than the hawx profile?

The default profile for HAWX has HDR + AA compatibility and a DX10 AA compatibility path - not sure what they are doing... but not necessarily a cheat.

There are DX10 compatibility options pre-defined for:

General
World in Conflict
HAWX
Far Cry 2
STALKER: CS
Lost Planet
Crysis
Bioshock

So this isn't necessarily an intentional attempt at cheating benchmark scores.

An Exception · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:46

the_jetsetwilly said:
maybe by renaming the file nvidia profile is using the default profile which has less IQ settings than the hawx profile?

i know i need to sometimes add and tweak my profiles

It's the other way around. The renamed .EXE has better IQ...

An Exception · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:47

Rroff said:
The default profile for HAWX has HDR + AA compatibility and a DX10 AA compatibility path - not sure what they are doing... but not necessarily a cheat.

It is if it reduces image quality as evidenced by the PNG's, which I see NO reason to doubt their validity.

Rroff · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:50

Read my edited post.

The drivers have compatibility profiles for that game as well as several others - not something hidden away in the drivers - so its possible theres an issue with the game and AA rather than necessarily an attempt to cheat benchmark scores.

Rroff · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:51

Ejizz said:
It is if it reduces image quality as evidenced by the PNG's, which I see NO reason to doubt their validity.

Personally I can only see the quality difference in the massively zoomed up bit so I don't really see it as an issue - ATI/AMD have been using similiar selective optimisations in Cat AI for years.

AWPC · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:51

ATi/Nvidia for many years have both used driver profiles to improve FPS on certain titles as they optimise via their drivers so naturally renaming the exe will produce different results as its not using the optimised profile settings is it!!

Unless the IQ is noticeably different the way I assume both achieve this is lower IQ on AA/AF for that title but do it in such a way that most users do not even notice

unless you micro analyse every frame whilst playing doubt you would in real world game play notice any difference between x16AA or x32AA. I see little difference in IQ in HAWX2 on my GTX580 with 16 vs 32 AA levels @ 1920x1200

An Exception · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:57

^^^
I think the issue is that it makes reviews misleading by distorting benchmark results!
If I set 8x AA, I expect to get 8x AA not 4x. Whether I can notice the difference is irrelevant.

RavenXXX2 · 28 Nov 2010 at 00:57

Joke of a site looking for more traffic hits.

A 580 can do Hawx at 32xAA and still average over 100 FPS, and why are they using in game selection menus. It's laughable.

Rroff · 28 Nov 2010 at 01:02

Ejizz said:
^^^
I think the issue is that it makes reviews misleading by distorting benchmark results!
If I set 8x AA, I expect to get 8x AA not 4x. Whether I can notice the difference is irrelevant.

I was leaning on the side of something more sinister til I looked in nHancer and saw it was one of a small number of pre-defined compatibility profiles... if nVidia was trying to cheat I think they'd have hidden it away more.

An Exception · 28 Nov 2010 at 01:03

RavenXXX2 said:
Joke of a site looking for more traffic hits.

A 580 can do Hawx2 at 32xAA and still average over 100 FPS, and why are they using in game selection menus. It's laughable.

Do you really not understand why they took a screen shot of the menu area for comparison or is this troll bait?

RavenXXX2 · 28 Nov 2010 at 01:11

lol from someone that has a habit of posting troll bait threads, that's rich. I would be embarrassed to link to kitguru and their dodgy articles, but I guess some just crave the attention.

drunkenmaster · 28 Nov 2010 at 01:14

RavenXXX2 said:
Joke of a site looking for more traffic hits.

A 580 can do Hawx at 32xAA and still average over 100 FPS, and why are they using in game selection menus. It's laughable.

As someone else said, can you really not understand how it works, the graphics menu shows the level of detail you selected, in a completely predictable, identical in any screenshot you take way.

Going in and taking a screen shot in game of an identical angle and scene would be close to impossible, and completely not required.

Likewise, what the heck has FPS got to do with it? The point is, if Nvidia are claiming its 25% faster than a 480gtx, and 30% faster than a 5870, when at the same settings, its actually only 15/22% faster, its cheating, the actual FPS doesn't matter.

To even suggest its laughable Nvidia might cheat because it already has good performance in ONE game, is just, well, lets just say its completely illogical, doesn't stand up as an argument and comes across like someone looking for an excuse as to why Nvidia lying is ok for some reason.

RavenXXX2 · 28 Nov 2010 at 01:16

Yeah DM it's Hawx 1, most reviewers don't test it anymore it's that old.

The point is, if Nvidia are claiming its 25% faster than a 480gtx, and 30% faster than a 5870, when at the same settings, its actually only 15/22% faster, its cheating, the actual FPS doesn't matter.

Yeah reminds me of the AMD IQ scandal.

These sites say that changes introduced in AMD’s Catalyst 10.10 default driver settings caused an increase in performance and a decrease in image quality.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18209236&highlight=ATI+cheating

Skyrocket · 28 Nov 2010 at 01:34

LoL Nvidia really need to stfu and get on with making cards.

Old, or new this is really cheap...

Skyrocket · 28 Nov 2010 at 02:38

"For those with long memories, NVIDIA learned some hard lessons with some GeForce FX and 3DMark03 optimization gone bad, and vowed to never again perform any optimizations that could compromise image quality. During that time, the industry agreed that any optimization that improved performance, but did not alter IQ, was in fact a valid “optimization”, and any optimization that improved performance but lowered IQ, without letting the user know, was a “cheat”. Special-casing of testing tools should also be considered a “cheat”.
"

http://blogs.nvidia.com/ntersect/2010/11/testing-nvidia-vs-amd-image-quality.html

errrr nvidia cheat....

Rroff · 28 Nov 2010 at 03:01

cheat or compatibility fix? (fire up nHancer on an nVidia card with recent drivers and look at the HAWX profile).