FM_Jarnis

We know that 03 suddenly claims drivers not approved and we're in progress of fixing that. Technically driver approval no longer applies for 03 and 05. Beyond that, if you get submission failures, contact FM and list the "Problem ID" that is shown and we'll investigate. You can use the GetSatisfaction system (at http://support.futuremark.com) or just email to info [at] futuremark.com

Note that this was a very early build showing just a small part of one scene. Much more unfinished than the builds used for early 3DMark 11 showings / videos. But yeah, it's coming...

Yep. I work for Futuremark. Officially I'm responsible for QA of our benchmarks and I also run the YouGamers site and spend quite a bit of time on doing tech support on FM forums and on our support system (GetSatisfaction) The info [at] futuremark.com email address goes to me. If it makes you feel better, you can also email me at jarno.kokko [at] futuremark.com - I usually just offer the info email address because it is not person-specific. Just in case someone runs across the message say, five years from now and at that point perhaps someone else is handling such emails. At that point the info address would still go to the right person while the direct email might bounce.

We've investigated this "cheat" and duplicated it in-house. Effectively if you delete 3DMark 11 from the Lucid MVP application list, that causes the Lucid MVP API to just tell SystemInfo that "no, HyperFormance is not defined to be on for this executable" (which is technically true - it isn't listed) but at that point the global switch for HyperFormance takes priority. This is different from "it is on the list and set as HyperFormance off" in which case it overrides the global switch for that executable. We'll fix this later this week on 3dmark.com. Practical effect will be that no result that has HyperFormance global switch "on" will be accepted - even if App-specific switch for 3DMark 11 would be effectively disabling it. We'll have to discuss with Lucidlogix if we can further refine the detection later (would require update to SI and probably update to Lucidlogix software as well) As for the "3DMark 100% accurate" thing, we strive for a simple goal on this; 3DMark is designed to produce accurate benchmark results from any system that is configured as the user wants (flagging results that are not comparable because the configuration settings affect things - like LucidMVP and ATI/AMD Tessellation slider). 3DMark also includes enough encryption and server side validation to prevent casual score file tampering. However, it isn't hardened against deliberate attempts to game the score by modifying the OS or doing custom driver level (or hardware level) hacks. So if your goal is to produce a meaningless score on purpose and you are willing to go far enough to do so, we can't prevent it. However, you shouldn't be able to get such scores by accident through normal use. And just FYI: Futuremark is willing to investigate any cases where you think a score uploaded to 3dmark.com is tampered/invalid but 3dmark.com sees the file as valid. We can't automatically catch every single one but we are happy to investigate potential cases and improve our validation routines. Send any requests/information on such cases to info [at] futuremark.com

3DMark.com Lucid MVP detection is not even designed to be 100% foolproof. It is designed to catch cases where the user simply is using settings that shouldn't be used for getting proper comparable scores. I can immediately think a couple of ways to fool it, mostly due to the fact that the detection is tied to SI scan which is done before the actual benchmark run starts. Now if you have figured out some novel way, feel free to send email to info [at] futuremark.com with the details and we'll take a look. In a more general sense, the only way to truly prevent active cheating "on purpose" is either by installing some Punkbuster-grade background bit that snoops everything, or by doing estimate comparison ("score is too good to be true"). The third score stands out like a sore thumb on the "too good to be true" scale but at the moment we haven't implemented automated flagging based on that, mostly because CPU/GPU clock frequency detection isn't an exact science (especially with new hardware) and it is a key bit in making such determination. On a sidenote, we are considering adding further checks during the actual benchmark for some specific bits for the upcoming 3DMark but in the end it all boils down to "if you are determined to cheat in a benchmark, there is no practical way to prevent it". As for PCMark05, we've given up on trying to detect "tweaks" on it long time ago. PCMark benchmarks are designed to benchmark Windows functionality in action and Windows offers bazillion different ways to modify how the operating system works when it is used for common tasks, without any easy way to see what is being done. As for Lucid MVP itself, I'm still baffled why people don't seem to get it; It only inflates the numbers, it doesn't actually give any real benefits beyond a slight improvement in responsiveness (time it takes for the visuals to react to user inputs - as the the frames shown are rendered "later" than normal) and the reason you see bigger FPS numbers and bigger 3DMark numbers is because MVP effectively skips rendering calls while responding instantly "okay, rendered that, give next frame" and those non-rendered (partial) frames are given full credit in FPS counter and benchmark scores.

Just a note on this; Looks like Lucidlogix has released an update for their Virtu MVP software - 2.1.113 (May 21) includes support for Futuremark SystemInfo to detect Lucid MVP settings so any results benchmarked with that will show up without ambiguity on 3dmark.com ("if you used HyperFormance, the result is flagged. If not, it's fine")

I'm quite sure it is already being handled by the CPU. IGPU is used just because it gives a "free" framebuffer that can be locked to 60fps (for the Virtual Vsync)

Well, I internally re-ran the submit file (3DMark.com submit processor now looks for Lucid drivers and their version etc. but doesn't do it for older submits unless you re-submit them) and this is what it says this about that submit; In other words, Lucid MVP software is detected to be present when benchmark was running - as SystemInfo wasn't 4.8, we can't tell how the settings were. However, a comparable score would have required the user to manually go and disable HyperFormance, so...

3dmark.com updates are complete and Lucid Virtu MVP detection should work on all FM benchmarks. Let us know if this is not true or if something is wrong with it. Updated result troubleshooting page has details about the potential Anomaly messages that may show up on new submits; http://www.3dmark.com/support/troubleshooting-my-results/

SystemInfo 4.8 is out, available here; http://www.3dmark.com/support/systeminfo-updates/ In addition to the Lucid MVP detection, it also includes updates that should fix any outstanding Windows 8 compatibility issues. (This update applies to all recent FM benchmarks - 3DMark 03, 05, 06, Vantage, 11 and PCMark 05, Vantage and 7) Note that the 3DMark.com website side of the detection is not yet fully tested/working for all situations but it should be all sorted over the next couple of days. Note also that you'll need a new version of Virtu MVP software from Lucidlogix to get results that are flagged "okay" - current available Virtu version will be throwing a notification that the Virtu software is installed on the system is too old. This SystemInfo version will also become mandatory for Futuremark Hall of Fame in a couple of weeks (exact date to be determined, as soon as people have had enough time to upgrade)

[double post]

3DMark 03 key should give you ORB functionality. 03, 05, 06, Vantage and 11 are currently supported. Toss me a PM with details if you are having issues. 03 was gone temporarily when old ORB was replaced by 3dmark.com but it was re-implemented based on community feedback. Only 3DMark 2001 (SE) was retired for good - and even that was mostly because we had no other choice, the codebase for that was just simply too old. Granted, we are currently contemplating on potential retirement of 03 at some point but if we do so, sales of new keys will obviously cease before that and we'll give plenty of warning. It is almost ten years old and all that...

FYI: FM has completed the first version of our detection for 3dmark.com and it should go live early next week. Initially it will barf on every Lucid MVP result as they are done with an older version that doesn't have the API for knowing the configuration ("LucidMVP present but too old -> your result is invalid for comparisons and HoF as we can't know if HyperFormance was used or not") and when Lucid updates the MVP software they are offering, it will begin to detect properly as to under what settings the result was obtained with (and if HyperFormance is off, the result is then valid for comparison - similar to how 3dmark.com handles ATI/AMD Tessellation settings at the moment)

You can have a (single) result in 3dmark.com at no cost with basic edition. You also can have any number of results from any benchmarks in 3dmark.com as long as you have one valid license for any benchmark on your account. In other words, if you have, say, advanced 3DMark 11, you can submit as many results as you want with basic edition of Vantage or 06 - just a single paid license turns your 3dmark.com account into fully featured one. Considering for example how many Vantage and 11 keys have been bundled with video cards, this shouldn't be a huge issue... I'm sure anyone serious about latest hardware probably has one or two of those keys just lying around The only use case that really "fails" on the submit front is usage of pirated/keygenned 3dmark advanced/pro keys to get pretty screenshots of the score - you can't submit those to 3dmark.com since the run was not done with a valid key. Of course in theory this should be a non issue - you already have to show the result in a screenshot for hwbot, so you need a non-basic version for that on all benchmarks - basic edition shows the score only on the website. If you have that screenshot showing the result in 3DMark UI but "cannot submit to 3dmark.com because licenses are not free", then you are basically stating that you are using a pirated/keygenned 3dmark. It is up to the community to decide how "okay" that is - we know the realities of pirate use (heck, we have plenty of stats showing how many people attempt to submit with pirated copies every day) and have no illusions about everyone suddenly rushing to buy the application(s). We just won't provide the online service for illegitimate keys.

Confirming this, but 3DMark.com will barf if you try to submit them. So all you really can do is to have a 3dr file that can be opened in a benchmark but you still can't submit it. We have fairly recently hardened SystemInfo against result file tampering but like before, all the validation is server side. There is no way to do client side validation that isn't hackable, so we really aren't even trying to handle that. In other words, a result file that opens and shows you a number is NOT proof that the run was valid. Result file that opens and submits to 3dmark.com without the site throwing a fit about the file, however, is considered proof of a valid run. Any cases where you think this is not so, we are very very interested of hearing about (including example files etc.). Feel free to send any to info [at] futuremark.com with details about the problem. And yes, people have found loopholes in the past and we're committed into plugging them as they come up. Granted, we have no illusion about bulletproof security - it really isn't possible without something like "bundle Punkbuster with benchmarks" and that would really be overkill. But we have worked towards blocking any casual result file editing and the system should be able to detect tampering like that - but only on 3dmark.com submit because it is all server side.

iGPU overclocking won't affect it. iGPU is only used for frame buffer. It doesn't work the way you think it does.

Naah, 3DMark will still be 3DMark. Only the game dev section was sold. If anything, this means everyone is more focused in making the benchmarks (mostly the management side who previously juggled both divisions)

Update on Lucid MVP related to FM benchmarks; Our detection has been developed and it is currently in internal QA. Assuming no major showstoppers, we should have a new SystemInfo available over the next couple of weeks (so we're well in schedule to have it before the end of April). However, it also requires that Lucid releases new version of their driver/software to the public so we do not know how soon 3DMark.com will able to tell these results apart. In addition to Lucid MVP detection, it will also include updated CPUID module that fixes Win 8 compatibility problems (so it is the first step in validating FM benchmarks for Win8 - QA work on that will start soon).

Just a heads up; NVIDIA requested and FM approved the GTX 680 specific 301.10 drivers for 3DMark 06/Vantage/11 as of today.

We've made some changes to our driver approval process and we aim to get drivers now approved within 7 days of driver availability (assuming there are no issues that require, for example, contacting graphics card vendors for clarification over some anomaly - fairly rare these days).

Can you give a link to it and we'll investigate why it wouldn't show up. Edit: I'm blind, the link is above. Investigating... Reason: Only results with the latest version of the benchmark are qualified for HoF. Your run is with 3DMark 11 v1.0.1 while 1.0.3 is the latest. In fact, 3DMark.com will soon begin rejecting new submits of 3DM11 1.0.1 scores completely (we've accepted them for now to give a lengthy grace period to upgrade)

Note that you can (today) download the Virtu MVP software (asrock version is floating around on the net) and run it on any Z68 motherboard and (ab)use it for big numbers. So it may already be too late. Basically any board that has iGPU support for Sandy Bridge is suspect and the software doesn't seem to be motherboard chipset model or even motherboard vendor locked. We're working with Lucid to get detection to SystemInfo for FM benchmarks but it takes at least several more weeks to develop, test and deploy the update.

What we'd really need is all framerate counters to know when Virtu MVP discards something and not count the discarded bits.

Just as a heads up, the latest 12.2 Catalysts are now officially approved for Futuremark benchmarks so HD 7xxx series scores can now get to FM Hall of Fame as well. If you have already submitted a HD 7xxx series score with these drivers (dated 7th March) before the approval and it should have a high enough score for Hall of Fame but it doesn't show there yet, you can "refresh" it by clicking "hide" and then "unhide" so it gets re-processed for FM HoF. (In related news, new NVIDIA drivers that came out yesterday should also be approved by early next week) Edit: NVIDIA 269.10 drivers are also now approved.

The press release is out, for example here; http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lucidlogixr-and-futuremarkr-add-virtutm-mvp-support-to-3dmarkr-2012-03-13 (We'll get it on fm.com once guys at Finland wake up...) Our official statement on this to our users: Important note about LucidLogix Virtu MVP and 3DMark LucidLogix Virtu MVP is an exciting new technology that promises to boost your PC's responsiveness, reduce latency and eliminate visual tearing, all within a low power environment. It is designed for the Intel Sandy Bridge Z68/H67/H61, upcoming Intel 7-series motherboards as well as many AMD processor-based notebooks, all-in-one PCs and desktop motherboards, and will be shipping pre-installed on a wide range of new motherboards starting in April 2012. 3DMark works by measuring the process of rendering frames of 3D graphics using defined workloads. Lucid's Virtu MVP is designed to improve responsiveness through the intelligent reduction of rendering tasks. While 3Mark scores may increase with Virtu MVP enabled, scores from systems with and without Virtu MVP are not directly comparable because of its effect on the rendering process. We are working with Lucid to update 3dmark.com to clearly indicate whether Virtu MVP was running or not for each submitted score and to help you understand the performance benefits of Virtu MVP technologies as measured by 3DMark and our other PC performance benchmarks. The update is expected to be ready in April. Until then, we recommend that you manually add MVP information to the name and/or description of your 3DMark scores to help other users better understand your setup.