• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel IGPs Use Murky Optimisations for 3DMark Vantage

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,199 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Apart from being the industry's leading 3D graphics benchmark application, 3DMark has had a long history of 3D graphics hardware manufacturers cheating with their hardware using application-specific optimisations against Futuremark's guidelines to boost 3DMark scores. Often, this is done by drivers detecting the 3DMark executable, and downgrading image quality, so the graphics processor has to handle lesser amount of processing load from the application, and end up with a higher performance score. Time and again, similar application-specific optimisations have tarnished 3DMark's credibility as an industry-wide benchmark.

This time around, it's neither of the two graphics giants in the news for the wrong reasons, it's Intel. Although the company has a wide consumer base of integrated graphics, perhaps the discerning media user / very-casual gamer finds it best to opt for integrated graphics (IGP) solutions from NVIDIA or AMD. Such choices rely upon reviews evaluating the IGPs performance at accelerating video (where it's common knowledge that Intel's IGPs rely heavily on the CPU for smooth video playback, while competing IGPs fare better at hardware-acceleration), synthetic and real-world 3D benchmarks, among other application-specific tests.

Here's a shady trick Intel is using to up its 3DMark Vantage score: the drivers, upon seeing the 3DMark Vantage executable, change the way they normally function, ask the CPU to pitch in with its processing power, and gain significant performance according to an investigation by Tech Report. While the image quality of the application isn't affected, the load on the IGP is effectively reduced, deviating from the driver's usual working model. This is in violation of Futuremark's 3DMark Vantage Driver Approval Policy (read here), which says:
With the exception of configuring the correct rendering mode on multi-GPU systems, it is prohibited for the driver to detect the launch of 3DMark Vantage executable and to alter, replace or override any quality parameters or parts of the benchmark workload based on the detection. Optimizations in the driver that utilize empirical data of 3DMark Vantage workloads are prohibited.
There's scope for ambiguity there. To prove that Intel's drivers indeed don't play fair at 3DMark Vantage, Tech Report put an Intel G41 Express chipset based motherboard with Intel's latest 15.15.4.1872 Graphics Media Accelerator drivers, through 3DMark Vantage 1.0.1. The reviewer simply renamed the 3DMark executable, in this case from "3DMarkVantage.exe" to "3DMarkVintage.exe", and there you are: a substantial performance difference.



A perfmon (performance monitor) log of the benchmark as it progressed, shows stark irregularities in the CPU load graphs between the two, during the GPU tests, although the two remained largely the same during the CPU tests. An example of one such graphs is below:



When asked for a comment to these findings, Intel replied by saying that its drivers are designed to utilize the CPU for some parts of the 3D rendering such as geometry rendering, when pixel and vertex processing saturates the IGP. Call of Juarez, Crysis, Lost Planet: Extreme Conditions, and Company of Heroes, are among other applications that the driver sees and quickly morphs the way the entire graphics subsystem works. A similar test run on Crysis Warhead yields a similar result:



Currently, Intel's 15.15.4.1872 drivers for Windows 7 aren't in Futuremark's list of approved drivers, none of Intel's Windows 7 drivers do. For a complete set of graphs, refer to the source article.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,190 (1.12/day)
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
Thanks for the news. That's real dirty. Class action, anyone?
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
145 (0.02/day)
System Name Little Bear
Processor Inten 3770K @4.4Ghz 1.2v
Motherboard ASRock Extreme4-M
Cooling Thermalright Macho120 Rev.A
Memory 4x4GB Samsung LP DDR3 @ 1866MHz 9-9-9-28
Video Card(s) Radeon R9 290
Storage 256GB Samsung SSD 830 + 1TB SSD 840 EVO + 2.5in 1TB Hitachi
Display(s) Dell U2711
Case Silverstong SG10
Audio Device(s) USB SB Omni
Power Supply Enermax Modu 82+ 620w
Software Windows 8.1 x64
Bla, bla, bla. But do they change image quality?
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,199 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Bla, bla, bla. But do they change image quality?

It detects the application and changes vertex processing settings. Such a thing is prohibited under Futuremark's policy too. The GPU (IGP) itself isn't getting the graphics processing load it should be getting for the test to be fair and valid.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
5,965 (0.99/day)
Location
New York
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5950x, Ryzen 9 5980HX
Motherboard MSI X570 Tomahawk
Cooling Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro 4(With Noctua Fans)
Memory 32Gb Crucial 3600 Ballistix
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 3080, Asus 6800M
Storage Adata SX8200 1TB NVME/WD Black 1TB NVME
Display(s) Dell 27 Inch 165Hz
Case Phanteks P500A
Audio Device(s) IFI Zen Dac/JDS Labs Atom+/SMSL Amp+Rivers Audio
Power Supply Corsair RM850x
Mouse Logitech G502 SE Hero
Keyboard Corsair K70 RGB Mk.2
VR HMD Samsung Odyssey Plus
Software Windows 10
Bla, bla, bla. But do they change image quality?

it says it right there

this is done by drivers detecting the 3DMark executable, and downgrading image quality, so the graphics processor has to handle lesser amount of processing load from the application, and end up with a higher performance score.



:laugh:
 
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
1,970 (0.36/day)
Location
Bulgaria
System Name penguin
Processor R7 5700G
Motherboard Asrock B450M Pro4
Cooling Some CM tower cooler that will fit my case
Memory 4 x 8GB Kingston HyperX Fury 2666MHz
Video Card(s) IGP
Storage ADATA SU800 512GB
Display(s) 27' LG
Case Zalman
Audio Device(s) stock
Power Supply Seasonic SS-620GM
Software win10
Why? Isn't the driver's job to provide the best possible experience, while utilizing all possible recourses? If so, then this is exactly what intel have done.

Now, on the other hand, if it does indeed lower the quality of the final product, and this wasn't stated anywhere, then by all means they should get sued.

The thing that really bugs me here, is how deppressingly and catastrophically bad intel's igps are in reality.
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,199 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
No, that's not the way it should work. NVIDIA or AMD's drivers don't leave the CPU to do the parts of the graphics processing the Intel drivers are making the CPUs do. The IGP itself is weaker than it's appearing to be. Offloading work to the CPU isn't even a standard model for Intel's drivers, proven by running the applications renamed.
 

1Kurgan1

The Knife in your Back
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
10,421 (1.87/day)
Location
Duluth, Minnesota
System Name My Comp | Fiancees Comp
Processor i7 5820k @ 4.6Ghz 1.285v| i5 2500k
Motherboard MSI x99 SLI Plus | AsRock Z77 Pro 3
Cooling Watercooled
Memory 16GB DDR4 2400 @ 2666 | 12GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) AMD R9 290x | MSI 5850 OC
Storage 128gb SSD + 2x 2TB | 2TB
Display(s) Asus 27" LCD | 25" Hanns G
Case CM Storm | CM Elite 430
Audio Device(s) Creative Recon 3D PCIe
Power Supply Enermax Galaxy 1250W | Rosewill 630w
Mouse Logitech G700s | Logitech G100s
Keyboard Logitech G901 | Logitech G105
Software Win 8.1 Ultimate x64 | Win 8.1 Ultimate x64
Benchmark Scores 3D Mark - Fire Strike Extreme - 4403
Why? Isn't the driver's job to provide the best possible experience, while utilizing all possible recourses? If so, then this is exactly what intel have done.

Now, on the other hand, if it does indeed lower the quality of the final product, and this wasn't stated anywhere, then by all means they should get sued.

The thing that really bugs me here, is how deppressingly and catastrophically bad intel's igps are in reality.

It's not providing the best expirence. It's downgrading the image to get a better score, and thats only in Futuremark apps. So you think "wow this IGP is amazing" then you hit some games and get slapped in the face as the Futuremark products score led you to believe it was far more powerful.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
7,662 (1.25/day)
Location
c:\programs\kitteh.exe
Processor C2Q6600 @ 1.6 GHz
Motherboard Anus PQ5
Cooling ACFPro
Memory GEiL2 x 1 GB PC2 6400
Video Card(s) MSi 4830 (RIP)
Storage Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320 GB Perpendicular Recording
Display(s) Dell 17'
Case El Cheepo
Audio Device(s) 7.1 Onboard
Power Supply Corsair TX750
Software MCE2K5
the bastards!
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
2,490 (0.40/day)
Location
Your house.
System Name Jupiter-2
Processor Intel i3-6100
Motherboard H170I-PLUS D3
Cooling Stock
Memory 8GB Mushkin DDR3L-1600
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1050ti
Storage 512GB Corsair SSD
Display(s) BENQ 24in
Case Lian Li PC-Q01B Mini ITX
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair 450W
Mouse Logitech Trackball
Keyboard Custom bamboo job
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Finished Super PI on legendary mode in only 13 hours.
So... Intel's IGP's are so astoundingly shitty that their drivers actually offload processing to the CPU to help out?

I'm... almost willing to let them have that, solely out of pity.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
4,012 (0.75/day)
Location
Sarasota, Florida, USA
System Name Awesomesauce 4.3 | Laptop (MSI GE72VR 6RF Apache Pro-023)
Processor Intel Core i7-5820K 4.16GHz 1.28v/3GHz 1.05v uncore | Intel Core i7-6700HQ @ 3.1GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-X99-UD5 WiFi LGA2011-v3| Stock
Cooling Corsair H100i v2 w/ 2x EK Vardar F4-120ER + various 120/140mm case fans | Stock
Memory G.Skill RJ-4 16GB DDR4-2666 CL15 quad channel | 12GB DDR4-2133
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1080 Ti Hybrid SC2 11GB @ 2012/5151 boost | NVIDIA GTX 1060 6GB +200/+500 + Intel 530
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 500GB + Seagate 3TB 7200RPM + others | Kingston 256GB M.2 SATA + 1TB 7200RPM
Display(s) Acer G257HU 1440p 60Hz AH-IPS 4ms | 17.3" 1920*1080 60Hz wide angle TN notebook panel
Case Fractal Design Define XL R2 | MSI
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z | Realtek with quad stereo speakers and subwoofer
Power Supply Corsair HX850i Platinum | 19.5v 180w Delta brick
Software Windows 10 Pro x64 | Windows 10 Home x64
I will always hate Intel IGPs. Drivers suck, and they are outdated by the time they are released.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
7,662 (1.25/day)
Location
c:\programs\kitteh.exe
Processor C2Q6600 @ 1.6 GHz
Motherboard Anus PQ5
Cooling ACFPro
Memory GEiL2 x 1 GB PC2 6400
Video Card(s) MSi 4830 (RIP)
Storage Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320 GB Perpendicular Recording
Display(s) Dell 17'
Case El Cheepo
Audio Device(s) 7.1 Onboard
Power Supply Corsair TX750
Software MCE2K5
Intel IGP's arent even good nuff for nettops
 

WarEagleAU

Bird of Prey
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
10,812 (1.67/day)
Location
Gurley, AL
System Name Pandemic 2020
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 "Gen 2" 2600X
Motherboard AsRock X470 Killer Promontory
Cooling CoolerMaster 240 RGB Master Cooler (Newegg Eggxpert)
Memory 32 GB Geil EVO Portenza DDR4 3200 MHz
Video Card(s) ASUS Radeon RX 580 DirectX 12 DUAL-RX580-O8G 8GB 256-Bit GDDR5 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video C
Storage WD 250 M.2, Corsair P500 M.2, OCZ Trion 500, WD Black 1TB, Assorted others.
Display(s) ASUS MG24UQ Gaming Monitor - 23.6" 4K UHD (3840x2160) , IPS, Adaptive Sync, DisplayWidget
Case Fractal Define R6 C
Audio Device(s) Realtek 5.1 Onboard
Power Supply Corsair RMX 850 Platinum PSU (Newegg Eggxpert)
Mouse Razer Death Adder
Keyboard Corsair K95 Mechanical & Corsair K65 Wired, Wireless, Bluetooth)
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Yet when you see computers or notebooks on those home shopping channels, you got some really retarded nerd touting the 128mb of share ram being dedicated to the intel G(I suck gP) graphics. Really retarded.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,255 (4.66/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
FutureMark just needs to have their installer randomize the executable's name.
 

Regeneration

NGOHQ.COM
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
3,076 (0.46/day)
Nvidia and AMD are doing the same thing for years now - just with better techniques. If they are allowed, I don’t see any reason why Intel won’t be allowed too. It’s either everyone or nobody.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2004
Messages
1,956 (0.27/day)
Location
The Kingdom of Norway
Processor Ryzen 5900X
Motherboard Gigabyte B550I AORUS PRO AX 1.1
Cooling Noctua NB-U12A
Memory 2x 32GB Fury DDR4 3200mhz
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 5700 XT Red Dragon
Storage Kingston FURY Renegade 2TB PCIe 4.0
Display(s) 2x Dell U2412M
Case Phanteks P400A
Audio Device(s) Hifimediy Sabre 9018 USB DAC
Power Supply Corsair AX850 (from 2012)
Software Windows 10?
Intel IGPs has allways been called integrated crapstics, even 2 generation old AMD IGPs outclass intel finest :nutkick:
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,472 (4.25/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Yes, it detects the application and changes vertex processing settings. Such a thing is prohibited under Futuremark's policy too. The GPU (IGP) itself isn't getting the graphics processing load it should be getting for the test to be fair and valid.

Yes, it is against Furturemark's rules, but is it morally wrong to do it this way? I've always said, fuck benchmarks, all I care about is game performance, and it seems Intel was more worried about improving performance in games, and did simply applied the same optimizations to Futuremark's tests.

it says it right there

:laugh:

Funny how when you leave off that one word "often" it changes the whole sentence meaning. If only the original sentence was the one you editted it to...

Why? Isn't the driver's job to provide the best possible experience, while utilizing all possible recourses? If so, then this is exactly what intel have done.

Now, on the other hand, if it does indeed lower the quality of the final product, and this wasn't stated anywhere, then by all means they should get sued.

The thing that really bugs me here, is how deppressingly and catastrophically bad intel's igps are in reality.

Agreed, as far as I've read, the article mentions nothing about Intel actually lowering image quality. It seems their mistake was offloading the work to the CPU, which is also against the rules. This has nothing to do with lowering the quality of the final product.

If it helps the shitty performance of Intel's IGPs, I say let them do it, but they should remove the optimization from the Furturemark exes, just to adhere to the rules.

It's not providing the best expirence. It's downgrading the image to get a better score, and thats only in Futuremark apps. So you think "wow this IGP is amazing" then you hit some games and get slapped in the face as the Futuremark products score led you to believe it was far more powerful.

Maybe I missed something in the article, where does it say that it is downgrading the image to get a better score?
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,516 (0.64/day)
System Name Money Hole
Processor Core i7 970
Motherboard Asus P6T6 WS Revolution
Cooling Noctua UH-D14
Memory 2133Mhz 12GB (3x4GB) Mushkin 998991
Video Card(s) Sapphire Tri-X OC R9 290X
Storage Samsung 1TB 850 Evo
Display(s) 3x Acer KG240A 144hz
Case CM HAF 932
Audio Device(s) ADI (onboard)
Power Supply Enermax Revolution 85+ 1050w
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Logitech G710+
Software Windows 10 Professional x64
Intel IGPs has allways been called integrated crapstics, even 2 generation old AMD IGPs outclass intel finest :nutkick:

I always get a laugh when Intel gpus are talked about in reference to gaming.
 

h3llb3nd4

New Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
3,323 (0.60/day)
Location
Durban, South Africa
System Name My mobo is Laughing at me
Processor E7400
Motherboard P5KPL-E Bios flashed to 0601 (Piece of poo!!)
Cooling Thermalright Ultra 120a
Memory GENERIC 2 GB DDR2 800
Video Card(s) NONE!! Beat that!!
Storage 500GB SAMSUNG SATAII, 250GB SAMSUNG SATAII and o'l crappy 4gb maxtor
Display(s) ACER X223W Q
Case AEROCOOL ZERODEGREE (planning to mod)
Audio Device(s) REALTEK ONBOARD
Power Supply GIGABYTE 460W
Software Win 7 x86 build 7022
Benchmark Scores Super Pi 1m 17.000 :(
doesn't really matter guys, it's not like your gonna play COD with an IGP
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
5,239 (0.75/day)
Location
Ikenai borderline!
System Name Firelance.
Processor Threadripper 3960X
Motherboard ROG Strix TRX40-E Gaming
Cooling IceGem 360 + 6x Arctic Cooling P12
Memory 8x 16GB Patriot Viper DDR4-3200 CL16
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Ventus 2X OC
Storage 2TB WD SN850X (boot), 4TB Crucial P3 (data)
Display(s) 3x AOC Q32E2N (32" 2560x1440 75Hz)
Case Enthoo Pro II Server Edition (Closed Panel) + 6 fans
Power Supply Fractal Design Ion+ 2 Platinum 760W
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Logitech G613
Software Windows 10 Professional x64
This would be understandable if Intel IGPs were any good, but they aren't, so all this does is make Intel look stupid. It would, however, go a long way to explaining why Intel's IGP drivers are consistently a pile of suck.

And for heaven's sake, they use the EXE filename to detect when to make their IGP look better... a half-decent first-year university student wouldn't use such a simplistic approach...
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,472 (4.25/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
And for heaven's sake, they use the EXE filename to detect when to make their IGP look better... a half-decent first-year university student wouldn't use such a simplistic approach...

EXE name based optimization is a pretty common practice for ATi and nVidia... How many times do we see the suggestions of renaming the EXE to get better performance or Crossfire/SLi support when a new game comes out? You want to know why that works? Because the drivers detect the EXE name and applies optimizations.

It just happens to be against Futuremark rules. Though logically, I have to wonder how much that rule makes sense. I mean, they are allowed to do it in real games, and 3DMark is supposed to be a benchmark to measure game performance....so why can't they apply the same optimizations to 3DMark as they do to real games?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
356 (0.06/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 3 1200 @ 3.7 GHz
Motherboard MSI B350M Gaming PRO
Cooling 2x Dynamic X2 GP-12
Memory 2x4GB GeIL EVO POTENZA AMD PC4-17000
Video Card(s) GIGABYTE Radeon RX 560 2GB
Storage Samsung SSD 840 Series (250GB)
Display(s) Asus VP239H-P (23")
Case Fractal Design Define Mini C TG
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar U3
Power Supply CORSAIR CX450
Mouse Logitech G500
Keyboard Corsair Vengeance K65
Software Windows 10 Pro (x64)
so why can't they apply the same optimizations to 3DMark as they do to real games?

Because the idea is to benchmark the GPU only. If you're benchmarking the GPU + CPU, how are users supposed to know which is doing more of the work? The idea of the synthetic benchmark is to take all other elements out of the equation and analyze the GPU's raw power, which is why we still run them instead of only game benchmarks. What if Intel doesn't optimize for a game you play? Well, you're out in the cold, because you bought an IGP which you thought performed 25% better than it really does.
 

Jakl

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
515 (0.09/day)
Location
Home
System Name AMD Fun Rig | Intel Lil' Gaming Rig
Processor 720BE x4 3.4ghz 1.375v | E8400 4ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte 790FXT-UD5P | eVGA 780i
Cooling Scythe Mugen | TRUE
Memory G.Skill 2x2gb 1600 | 4x1gb Crucial 800
Video Card(s) ATI 3870 | eVGA 9800GTX
Storage 1TB Seagate | 1TB Seagate
Display(s) 24" ASUS VK246H | 28" Acer LCD TV | 40" Sony V4100
Case Lian Li | Cosmos 1000
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar D2X | Onboard
Power Supply Thermaltake 1200W | PC Silencer 750
Software Win7 64
Intel... How am I not surprised... Trying to exceed every other companies by these little tweaks to make them better...
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,472 (4.25/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Because the idea is to benchmark the GPU only. If you're benchmarking the GPU + CPU, how are users supposed to know which is doing more of the work? The idea of the synthetic benchmark is to take all other elements out of the equation and analyze the GPU's raw power, which is why we still run them instead of only game benchmarks. What if Intel doesn't optimize for a game you play? Well, you're out in the cold, because you bought an IGP which you thought performed 25% better than it really does.

Well...that isn't really the idea behind benchmarking. Yes, that is what they have become thanks to Futuremark turning it into more of a competition than a true benchmark. However, benchmarking is supposed to give you an idea of game performance, that is what 3DMark started out as. If the benchmark was truly all about raw GPU power, then there wouldn't be CPU tests included in it.

And we all know the various cards perform different for various games. So the argument that you bought something because you thought it performed better based on one benchmark doesn't work. Just an example of the flaws in your logic: What if I went and bought a HD4890 because it outscores a GTX260 216 in 3Dmark06...but if I went and fired up Far Cry, the GTX260 performs better... It is all about optimizations these days, and no one should be buying a card based on 3DMark scores...to do so is silly.

Now, if they applied this optimization to just 3DMark, I would say it is wrong, however it has been applied to most games as well. So, IMO, it isn't really that wrong.
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
26,936 (3.72/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
you would be surprised what else, other than exe name, you could use for app detection - that pretty much nobody on the planet is ever gonna figure out
 
Top