• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

XGI cheeting exposed.

that's pretty damned sad if you ask me. They have a dual gpu card that they have to cheat on to make it look like it's a decent midrange card.

Hell, they might get that thing faster if they rip off the second gpu and oc the crap outta the first one. That way they don't have precious cycles eaten up by the apic trying to divide the work between the two.
 
Of course we all know nVidia and ATI has never cheated on their performance :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by EdHunter
Maybe we should applaud them for following trends. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

*cough* Erm, you did get that was sarcasm, right?

Remember the quake3.exe thing?
 
Originally posted by Nazo
*cough* Erm, you did get that was sarcasm, right?

Remember the quake3.exe thing?
Click to expand...

Which only meant they were detecting the .exe, not actually cheating. Nothing in that entire debacle was ever conclusive, and, besides, that was years ago. On the other hand, the evidence against a certain other IHV cheating this past year has been rather overwhelming (clip planes, color buffers, shader replacement, lower precision, detecting not only .exe but timedemos, etc.) while ATI has kept their nose relatively clean.
 
Originally posted by John Reynolds
Which only meant they were detecting the .exe, not actually cheating. Nothing in that entire debacle was ever conclusive, and, besides, that was years ago. On the other hand, the evidence against a certain other IHV cheating this past year has been rather overwhelming (clip planes, color buffers, shader replacement, lower precision, detecting not only .exe but timedemos, etc.) while ATI has kept their nose relatively clean.
Click to expand...

Be careful with what you say. The nVidia Clan will come and smite you!
 
Originally posted by John Reynolds
Which only meant they were detecting the .exe, not actually cheating. Nothing in that entire debacle was ever conclusive, and, besides, that was years ago. On the other hand, the evidence against a certain other IHV cheating this past year has been rather overwhelming (clip planes, color buffers, shader replacement, lower precision, detecting not only .exe but timedemos, etc.) while ATI has kept their nose relatively clean.
Click to expand...

The image quality noticeably improved when you renamed the exe. On the other hand, ATi later fixed it without losing IQ or speed
 
Holy jebus... this evidence makes Nvidia look like a saint. I see a trashbin in this video chip's future. The XGI name will only carry it so far...
 
Originally posted by SanGreal
The image quality noticeably improved when you renamed the exe. On the other hand, ATi later fixed it without losing IQ or speed
Click to expand...

I know. ATI had just switched to a unified driver base and the only thing affected in Q3 was 4-5 textures. They could've been cheating since the 8500's launch was such a mess, but I just don't think the evidence was ever strong enough to shout it to the heavens like certain people are so apt to do. They were also cheating a bit in 3DMark2001, which they've admitted to, so I'm certainly not arguing that ATI is perfect; it's just tiring to constantly see the Quack issue being brought up and I certainly hope I'm not seeing ATI zealots still moaning about 3DMark2k3 in 2006.
 
It's probably only a temporary fudge on XGIs part to get the card running games that are unplayable otherwise. If you look at some of the games that it performs OK in like UT2k3 you see no optimisations. However either way the performance of the drivers at the moment is quite awful.

If the optimisations made it the fastest card on the market when they weren't needed I might care :eek:
 
hopefully this doesn't ruin XGI's chance I want to see 3-5 competive card makers in our nere future so we can have some real competition and innovation.
 
Yea I think XGI has some work to do. I remember all of the EXE the power vr (k2) cards had to detect in thier drivers. None were cheats just mostly game work around to help fix issue with their cards and some games (like the CS flash light bug). I think some of XGI detection are there to help make sure their card runs that game (while I am sure others are to improve proformance). Remember that when games are developed on one IHVs hardware, then the other IHVs usally have a bug or two to fix. And how many games do you think were developed on XGI's stuff :)
 
All the companies cheat, its a fact of life...

The company who is in the lead will cheat less because they dont need to, but it still occurs, performance of cards is different in each game and even cards which are on average slower will still beat another card in certain games.

Better get used to it, Nvidia and ATI are caught all the time and still continue to cheat.
 
And the truth shall set you free.

If true XGI is definitely off my list for heavy cheating. I would have given them a chance if they had just a poorly performing card, even maybe a minor .ini or .exe tweak might be passable.

But 4x worse performance by just renaming files, you have to ask yourself is this a localized .exe fix for a few scattered problems or a major .exe overhaul. Yeow..
 
Yea that cheating with the XGI cards is just sad...:(

Make it so bad, without the optimizations those cards have no place in todays market. :(
 
Originally posted by Princess_Frosty
Better get used to it, Nvidia and ATI are caught all the time and still continue to cheat.
Click to expand...

Link, please. I would love to see evidence from 2003 that supports such a claim, because despite your strident claims to the contrary there is a massive disparity in the amount of evidence found on one company's cheating last year compared to the other.
 
Theres plenty of links to all the "abnormalities" that all the companies show, however they are blown of as "bugs", so believe what you will.

Stop by Tomshwardwareguide, there last look at the new FX card 5950 Ultra, also took a look at questionable optimisations in ATI's drivers.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphi...ml#questionable_optimizations_in_atis_drivers

Several accounts, all which cause increased frame rates and decreased quality, to some extent. Blow it off however you want, its all the same, decreased quality - increased frame rate, now matter how you present it. They're all just as bad as each other. Theres many other "bugs" aswell causing similar performance increases due to not rendering things correctly, anyone who things any of the companies are clean from this sort of this is just ignorant.
 
Originally posted by Princess_Frosty
Theres plenty of links to all the "abnormalities" that all the companies show, however they are blown of as "bugs", so believe what you will.

Stop by Tomshwardwareguide, there last look at the new FX card 5950 Ultra, also took a look at questionable optimisations in ATI's drivers.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphi...ml#questionable_optimizations_in_atis_drivers

Several accounts, all which cause increased frame rates and decreased quality, to some extent. Blow it off however you want, its all the same, decreased quality - increased frame rate, now matter how you present it. They're all just as bad as each other. Theres many other "bugs" aswell causing similar performance increases due to not rendering things correctly, anyone who things any of the companies are clean from this sort of this is just ignorant.
Click to expand...

Yeah because everything Tom says is pure gold.:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Princess_Frosty
Theres plenty of links to all the "abnormalities" that all the companies show, however they are blown of as "bugs", so believe what you will.

Stop by Tomshwardwareguide, there last look at the new FX card 5950 Ultra, also took a look at questionable optimisations in ATI's drivers.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphi...ml#questionable_optimizations_in_atis_drivers

Several accounts, all which cause increased frame rates and decreased quality, to some extent. Blow it off however you want, its all the same, decreased quality - increased frame rate, now matter how you present it. They're all just as bad as each other. Theres many other "bugs" aswell causing similar performance increases due to not rendering things correctly, anyone who things any of the companies are clean from this sort of this is just ignorant.
Click to expand...

Your link is dead but I found the review anyways. The only "evidence" that hasn't been accounted for (UT2K3 texture issue was the ini files not set correctly, and the AM3 overdraw issue is indeed a minor bug in ATI's R3xx hardware that allows a 1-bit error in rendering alpha textures) is Randy Pitchford stating ATI were lowering IQ in Halo. Lars basically took Nvidia's claims and failed to thoroughly investigate them (in fact, ATI employees stated that at no time did Lars even attempt to contact ATI over these apparent issues).

This link was already pointed out to you at B3D, but I'm not sure you bothered to read it: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8282&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
 
Originally posted by John Reynolds
Which only meant they were detecting the .exe, not actually cheating. Nothing in that entire debacle was ever conclusive, and, besides, that was years ago. On the other hand, the evidence against a certain other IHV cheating this past year has been rather overwhelming (clip planes, color buffers, shader replacement, lower precision, detecting not only .exe but timedemos, etc.) while ATI has kept their nose relatively clean.
Click to expand...

And changing the exe name (to quack3), on the SAME drivers, resulted in the graphics cleaning up. These were BIG BIG differences. ATi cheated. They admitted it, they fixed it.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
And changing the exe name (to quack3), on the SAME drivers, resulted in the graphics cleaning up. These were BIG BIG differences. ATi cheated. They admitted it, they fixed it.
Click to expand...
or maybe they added optimizations for "quack3" as well as "quake3":p

okay, bad joke, bad joke...
 
And changing the exe name (to quack3), on the SAME drivers, resulted in the graphics cleaning up.
Click to expand...

That's true, but only for the specific textures John Reynolds already mentioned. In terms of plausability it looked a lot more like it could have been accidental then the vast majority of shenanagains nvidia has pulled in the last year alone.
The texture problems were cleared up after a certain website went public with their allegations with no loss of performance, which seemed to validate ATi's position.

And I don't recall ATI ever admitting any "cheating" with this issue. They admitted to 3DMK "cheats", which is not suprising given the level of "optimization" seen in that applcations by certain other GPU manufacturers.

edit:
Anyway, the current XGI line looks downright pathetic given this review. I have always had doubts about the ability of AFR cards to work at good speed, and this does nothing to dispel them.
 
As i said, ATI claim that this that and the other are all bugs, they're not going to admit they're cheating and that only occurs with solid proof, something thats not easy to get.

The biggest joke is that a lot of ATI users when commenting on recent Nvidia findings state that cheating is cheating and it doesnt matter how much you cheat or how badly, then they find out about ATI's past and everything goes quiet.

Everyone will eventually learn they're all as bad as each other.

Especially after you've been around when certain companies have gone from being ahead to behind, and vice versa.
 
Originally posted by Princess_Frosty
As i said, ATI claim that this that and the other are all bugs, they're not going to admit they're cheating and that only occurs with solid proof, something thats not easy to get.

The biggest joke is that a lot of ATI users when commenting on recent Nvidia findings state that cheating is cheating and it doesnt matter how much you cheat or how badly, then they find out about ATI's past and everything goes quiet.

Everyone will eventually learn they're all as bad as each other.

Especially after you've been around when certain companies have gone from being ahead to behind, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

show me proof of ATI cheating since you claim they are

and

show me proof of NVIDIA cheating

I'd like to see what info you find on both....
 
Neat, another nVidia/ATi cheating thread! Thought this thread was about the XGI.
Not only is the horse dead, its buried, decomposed and reborn as worm feces.

On another note, the s3 looks promising, and no optimisations in its current beta drivers.
 
Originally posted by ambiguicom
Neat, another nVidia/ATi cheating thread!
Not only is the horse dead, its buried, decomposed and reborn as worm feces.
Click to expand...

now thats a visual description :D
 
Originally posted by ambiguicom

Not only is the horse dead, its buried, decomposed and reborn as worm feces.
Click to expand...

I only wish that were true, but it's not when the cheating on a certain company's part continues in full force.
 
Originally posted by jagec
or maybe they added optimizations for "quack3" as well as "quake3":p

okay, bad joke, bad joke...
Click to expand...

I rename all my game exe's to notepad.exe....


















ok....not really...I need all the optimisations/cheats I can get with my ol' vid card.
 
Originally posted by John Reynolds
I only wish that were true, but it's not when the cheating on a certain company's part continues in full force.
Click to expand...

The reason it IS a dead horse is that zealots from both sides of the camp cannot admit to their holy grail making questional optimisations, or if they can, justify them by the fact that the OTHER camp has.
And its a bunch of fucking bullshit.
 
On another note, the s3 looks promising, and no optimisations in its current beta drivers.
Click to expand...

It looks much more promising than the XGI cards, that's for sure. Problem is, by the time it gets on the damn shelf it'll probably be obsolete and possibly overpriced relative to the competition.
With the current price of 9600XT's and 5900XT/SE's, the S3 is going to have to come in quite cheap to justify its performance.
I really hope they get it out the door soon with beefed up drivers, the XGI parts just arent competition to anything half their price.
 
Originally posted by ambiguicom
The reason it IS a dead horse is that zealots from both sides of the camp cannot admit to their holy grail making questional optimisations, or if they can, justify them by the fact that the OTHER camp has.
And its a bunch of fucking bullshit.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't care about the company fanb0ys and their eternal bickerings. What I do care about is the fact that I now automatically discount any benchmark scores that're derived from in-game timdemos. Why? The evidence is that at least one of the major graphics companies is cheating their asses off with any game timedemo that becomes popular as a benchmark with reviewers. That's definitely one area I'll give [H] credit in is taking the time to create and use their own demos to avoid the above situation.

I'm also concerned that with the level of rampant cheating when it comes to shader replacement and precision level hackery that it might be very hard to get a fair and accurate handle on the next generation of cards and how they perform in relation to each other. A reviewer may specifiy a certain level of FP precision and filtering and they are now not guaranteed that their benchmark will run with those settings. And THAT is most definitely a "bunch of fucking bullshit".
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, the s3 looks promising, and no optimisations in its current beta drivers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is sadly in OpenGL support. I'm worried it will take them much time to bring the performance to avarage level
 
I was looking forward to having a new competitor on the market, but that appears worse than anything nvidia did, course remember the xabre :X
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
And changing the exe name (to quack3), on the SAME drivers, resulted in the graphics cleaning up. These were BIG BIG differences. ATi cheated. They admitted it, they fixed it.
Click to expand...

Gods above, you have enough posts you really should know better.

But, since you are apparently too stupid to figure it out (or have forgot), let me recap AGAIN.

1) ATI release the Radeon 8500 with 'unified' drivers
2) ATI puts a tweak in the Radeon 64DDR to speed up Quake3 with no image quality loss. It works great on the 64DDR! It's faster, no image quality is lost, it's all good!
3) The Radeon 8500 ends up using this tweak at the same time due to an unforseen driver bug in the 'unified' drivers. This causes the same performance boost, but it doesn't have mature driver support the 64 DDR has (it's just been released, after all), and the texture quality suffers. THIS IS A BUG - IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE USED THIS OPTIMIZATION, WHICH WAS ONLY FOR THE 64 DDR.
4) ATI figures out a way to get it to work on the Radeon 8500 anyway, and releases a patched driver that makes everything look and run great.

How is this a cheat?

Guys, keep in mind that the ATI driver that had this 'cheat' in it, was SO BETA that it DIDN'T EVEN HAVE WORKING ANTI-ALIASING OF ANY KIND!

I mean, think about that! How can you acuse something of being a cheat instead of a bug, when 1) ATI claimed it was a *bug* and immediately fixed it and 2) the driver in question still had MAJOR sections missing or simply not working! and 3) The product wasn't even available on store shelves yet! (the shipping driver worked)

Keep in mind, ATI *has* admitted to cheating before (some tweaks with 3dMark2001 - only 'cheating' because 3dMark has specifically said 'no application specific tweaks'), and they removed them - but Quake/Quack was a BUG, not a cheat.
 
Originally posted by ambiguicom
The reason it IS a dead horse is that zealots from both sides of the camp cannot admit to their holy grail making questional optimisations, or if they can, justify them by the fact that the OTHER camp has.
And its a bunch of fucking bullshit.
Click to expand...

I think it comes to which one admits to being caught, and which one doesn't. My beef with Nvidia comes from their response to the accusations.
 
Originally posted by dderidex
Gods above, you have enough posts you really should know better.

But, since you are apparently too stupid to figure it out (or have forgot), let me recap AGAIN.

1) ATI release the Radeon 8500 with 'unified' drivers
2) ATI puts a tweak in the Radeon 64DDR to speed up Quake3 with no image quality loss. It works great on the 64DDR! It's faster, no image quality is lost, it's all good!
3) The Radeon 8500 ends up using this tweak at the same time due to an unforseen driver bug in the 'unified' drivers. This causes the same performance boost, but it doesn't have mature driver support the 64 DDR has (it's just been released, after all), and the texture quality suffers. THIS IS A BUG - IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE USED THIS OPTIMIZATION, WHICH WAS ONLY FOR THE 64 DDR.
4) ATI figures out a way to get it to work on the Radeon 8500 anyway, and releases a patched driver that makes everything look and run great.

How is this a cheat?

Guys, keep in mind that the ATI driver that had this 'cheat' in it, was SO BETA that it DIDN'T EVEN HAVE WORKING ANTI-ALIASING OF ANY KIND!

I mean, think about that! How can you acuse something of being a cheat instead of a bug, when 1) ATI claimed it was a *bug* and immediately fixed it and 2) the driver in question still had MAJOR sections missing or simply not working! and 3) The product wasn't even available on store shelves yet! (the shipping driver worked)

Keep in mind, ATI *has* admitted to cheating before (some tweaks with 3dMark2001 - only 'cheating' because 3dMark has specifically said 'no application specific tweaks'), and they removed them - but Quake/Quack was a BUG, not a cheat.
Click to expand...

I remember reading the news bits that said they admitted to cheating, and there were articles that showed the issue, from reviewers, so it was in some form of shipping product. Thanks for the correction, but are you 100% sure?
 
Meh. Regardless of the level of their cheating, Nvidia and ATi both still have solid products out. The 5900/5950 are solid cards, and obviously the 9500/9600/9700/9800 have been an extremely successful series.

XGI doesn't have this. They need to redesign their card if they expect anyone to use it.

So regardless of cheating or not, if you make an overall shitty product, then don't expect people to buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top