Intel graphics drivers employ questionable 3DMark Vantage optimizations

Final8y · 12 Oct 2009 at 18:41

We recently learned AMD has notified Futuremark that Intel's 15.15.4.1872 Graphics Media Accelerator drivers for Windows 7 incorporate performance optimizations that specifically target the benchmark, so we decided to investigate.

We tested 3DMark Vantage 1.0.1 with these drivers on a G41 Express-based Gigabyte GA-G41M-ES2H motherboard running the Windows 7 x64 release-to-manufacturing build, a Core 2 Duo E6300, 4GB of DDR2-800 memory, and a Raptor WD1500ADFD hard drive.

We first ran the benchmark normally. Then, we renamed the 3DMark executable from "3DMarkVantage.exe" to "3DMarkVintage.exe". And—wouldn't you know it?—there was a substantial performance difference between the two.

Intel appears to be offloading some of the work associated with the GPU tests onto the CPU in order to improve 3DMark scores. When asked for comment, Intel replied with the following:

"We have engineered intelligence into our 4 series graphics driver such that when a workload saturates graphics engine with pixel and vertex processing, the CPU can assist with DX10 geometry processing to enhance overall performance. 3DMarkVantage is one of those workloads, as are Call of Juarez, Crysis, Lost Planet: Extreme Conditions, and Company of Heroes. We have used similar techniques with DX9 in previous products and drivers. The benefit to users is optimized performance based on best use of the hardware available in the system. Our driver is currently in the certification process with Futuremark and we fully expect it will pass their certification as did our previous DX9 drivers."

This CPU-assisted vertex processing doesn't appear to affect Vantage's image quality. However, Intel is definitely detecting 3DMark Vantage and changing the behavior of its drivers in order to improve performance, which would appear to be a direct contravention of Futuremark's guidelines

ReadMore & benches

gurusan · 12 Oct 2009 at 18:47

a bit shifty but it's not like anyone cares about integrated GFX.

londonbairn · 12 Oct 2009 at 18:49

GMA users rejoice as their 3D mark scores double from 1 to 2

gurusan · 12 Oct 2009 at 18:50

Martini1991 · 12 Oct 2009 at 18:50

When can we see Larrabee?

layte · 12 Oct 2009 at 19:09

Every GPU manufacturer does this. Just look at individual game optimisations found in NV and ATI drivers. If this does not effect visual quality this is nothing more than a total non-story.

D D Danneh · 12 Oct 2009 at 19:21

If they were going to fix the scores they might as well go the whole hog and implement GPGPU elements to improve the CPU tests.

Anyway, we all know 3dmark scores mean jack, so they can fix it all they like

Lightnix · 12 Oct 2009 at 19:25

Well, they're doing it in games, too, so it's not like they're just doing it to boost 3Dmark scores. If anything they're just trying to make 3Dmark reflect the best you can expect from the system - just like every other GPU manufacturer does.

However, it'd be better if Intel could implement the 'CPU acceleration' as you might call it into a more general solution, but that's probably quite difficult.

Greebo · 12 Oct 2009 at 19:28

I could understand their explaination if it still did it when the filename was changed.

Final8y · 12 Oct 2009 at 19:53

layte said:
Every GPU manufacturer does this. Just look at individual game optimisations found in NV and ATI drivers. If this does not effect visual quality this is nothing more than a total non-story.

The optimisations is not the issue, its that fact that the test is not running on the hardware set by the rules of Futuremark.

gurusan · 12 Oct 2009 at 19:56

but who really gives a crap until Intel make an integrated gpu solution that actually can run something.

Lightnix · 12 Oct 2009 at 19:59

Yeah, I could understand if it was a big powerhouse chip by Nvidia or ATi, but really Intel's integrated solutions need all the help they can get.

Junk · 12 Oct 2009 at 20:54

ATI are renowned for this, they normally get caught out about 10 minutes after they moan about someone else.

Final8y · 12 Oct 2009 at 21:11

Junk said:
ATI are renowned for this, they normally get caught out about 10 minutes after they moan about someone else.

For shifting the some of the gfx render to the CPU.. i didn't know this.

Lightnix · 12 Oct 2009 at 21:25

Yeah I think AMD are the pot calling the kettle black here, pretty much every GPU vendor has its specific optimisations for 3DMark (even S3). The difference being, Intel's GPU's are the only ones that can actually reap a performance benefit from offloading some of the graphics computations to the CPU. With even entry level ATi or Nvidia cards, the PCI-E bottleneck would make it not worth the effort.

Mr Paul · 12 Oct 2009 at 22:21

I think you'll find nVidia also "optimise"

Final8y · 12 Oct 2009 at 22:32

There is nothing wrong with optimising but that's not what's really being done.
Its like me saying im optimising my laptops battery performance test by having the laptop plugged into the mains.

Indy500 · 12 Oct 2009 at 22:33

gurusan said:
but who really gives a crap until Intel make an integrated gpu solution that actually can run something.

They always get suspiciously high 3dmark scores but run **** when it comes to games. Maybe this is why?

gurusan · 12 Oct 2009 at 23:02

integrated intel graphics get suspiciously high 3dmark scores? :confused:

Lightnix · 12 Oct 2009 at 23:08

Not sure I'd call it 'suspiciously high', to be honest:

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1635/nvidia_nforce_730i_geforce_9300_chipset_review/index10.html

Intel's newest and best only manages to beat out Nvidia's 3/4 year old integrated GPU - but still gets crushed by Nvidia's newest 9300. In that same review, the Intel chip still beats that old 7150 in Crysis, so it's not wildly off. No more than the benchmark is for any other chips, anyway.