said by Margolis :

intel didn't cheat. This is a VERY BIASED article. the original article snipped only a small part of the 3dmark rules that they thought would back up their biased claims.

The very first rule from 3dmark concerning cheating:

and they ignore the most important part of the quote they do use.

they are NOT replacing any quality parameters or any of the workload. They are just offloading parts to the cpu to help out.

In the early days of GPUs, application-specification performance optimizations in graphics drivers were viewed by many as cheating. Accusations were hurled with regularity, and in some cases, there was real cheating going on. Some optimizations surreptitiously degraded image quality in order to boost performance, which obviously isn't kosher. Optimizations that don't affect an application's image quality are harder to condemn, though, especially if you're talking about games. If a driver can offer users smoother gameplay without any ill effects, why shouldn't it be allowed?

The situation gets more complicated when one considers optimizations that specifically target benchmarks. Synthetic tests don't have user experiences to improve, just arbitrary scores to inflate. Yet the higher scores achieved through benchmark-specific optimizations could influence a PC maker's choice of graphics solution or help determine the pricing of a graphics card.

Futuremark's popular 3DMark benchmark has been the target of several questionable optimizations over the years. Given that history, it's not surprising that the company has strict guidelines for the graphics drivers it approves for use with 3DMark Vantage. These guidelines, which can be viewed here (PDF), explicitly forbid optimizations that specifically target the 3DMark Vantage executable. Here's an excerpt:

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.

No ambiguity there, then: Vantage-specific optimizations aren't allowed.

Intel may not be playing fair, though. 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.

said by knightry :

True, though only for a very very small subset of the games out there. I feel like it would be more fair if their offloading were something more generally applicable, not just for the few they've picked.

said by Margolis :

the thing is, ms is doing this for games also, not just benchmark programs like 3dmark. If they only did it for 3dmark and never helped other games it would be one thing, but they are helping other games perform better also.

said by elios :

also who says there detecting any thing?
ever think MAYBE thats just how the driver works high load on GPU -> off load to CPU?

really try it out rename the benchmark to some some thing random and see what it does

then try the same with a game if its still off loading its just how works

It is prohibited to for the driver to change the rendering quality level, rendering technique or replace or alter any shaders or other parts of the workload from that what is requested by 3DMark.

to alter, replace or override any quality parameters or parts of the benchmark workload based on the detection

said by knightry :

Look, I'm sorry to belabor the point, but Vantage is very clear about this. I quote again, my point being bold:

quote:

---

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.

---

Hell, I don't even care they they did it, but they broke the rules, which is cheating by my books.

said by Mchart :

Well, it has to do it based on detecting an application as they have written application specific profiles for each application.

If you say 'cheating' in these terms that specifically is implying that the graphics are being degraded to achieve better performance - Like nvidia and ATI did a while back. However, Intel is not doing this. They are offloading some of the work to the CPU.

End of discussion.

said by elios :

its only a cheat if it ONLY does it on the benchmark
if it does it with games to its not a cheap
its not a bad plan really with multicore cpus your going to 1-2 cores not fully loaded what not use that power for some thing?

said by knightry :

This isn't terribly game related, since no gamer in their right mind would use an integrated Intel chipset as their main graphics card, but it's still interesting.

»techreport.com/articles.x/17732

How do Intel's driver optimizations affect the competitive landscape? To find out, we assembled an AMD 785G-based system that's pretty comparable to the G41 rig we used for testing: Athlon II X2 250 processor, Gigabyte GA-MA785GPMT-UD2H motherboard, the same Raptor hard drive, and 4GB of DDR3 memory running at 800MHz with looser timings than the Intel system. We even disabled the board's dedicated sideport graphics memory, forcing the GPU to share system RAM like the G41.

With the Futuremark-approved Catalyst 9.9 drivers, the AMD 785G-based system scored 2161 in 3DMark Vantage—nearly the same score as the 2132 3DMarks the G41 gets when it's playing by the rules, but well below the 2931 the score the G41 posts with optimizations enabled. (Renaming the Vantage executable on the AMD system had no notable effect on benchmark scores.) The app-specific optimization gives the G41 a definitive lead in 3DMark Vantage.

Here's the tricky part: the very same 785G system managed 30 frames per second in Crysis: Warhead, which is twice the frame rate of the G41 with all its vertex offloading mojo in action. The G41's new-found dominance in 3DMark doesn't translate to superior gaming performance, even in this game targeted by the same optimization.

That's no great shock, really. We've seen Intel's integrated graphics solutions thoroughly outclassed by rivals from AMD and Nvidia on multiple occasions.

All of which brings us back to the perils of using 3DMark Vantage as a substitute or proxy for testing real games. Those perils are well established by now. PC makers and others in positions of influence would do well to re-train their focus on real applications—especially for testing integrated graphics solutions, which have no need of advanced graphics workloads based on the latest version of DirectX to push their limits. 3DMark's traditionally purported role as a predictor of future game workloads makes little sense in the context of these modest IGPs.