Lucid Virtu MVP: Revolution in benching?

[Patagonian]

I vote allow.

 

you guys vote against, can I ask why? Are you too lazy to OC the iGPU and to configure this program? You guys allow so many other tweaks to be used, but not one that actually revolutionizes gaming?

 

There is not point in using any of the sub-par Intel overclocking systems released in the past year, just to send a direct message to Intel please don't give us CPUs that don't OC to 6GHz, and cost more than we should be paying, and which clock so differently, it makes OCing less fun.

 

So when SB came out was there this much cry to not let SB be used b/c it would overtake the rankings?

 

http://www.lucidlogix.com/download/WP-Eliminating%20Graphics%20Pipeline%20Redundancies%20181011.pdf

 

I see what you mean you will lose points to software, but it is more than software, as the iGPU is being used. it is like Hybrid CF with Intel.

 

Agree

[I.nfraR.ed]

To me MVP is more like ramdisk and disk cache programs. It's definitely good for daily usage and speeds things up (at least in theory), but doesn't represent the actual speed of the hardware.

[FM_Jarnis]

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

[sin0822]

yea iGPU oc nor memory allotment affect the program, but the fact that it uses the iGPU for the output buffer in itself is pretty smart. True it isn't like hybrid CF, but there is a lot of microstutter caused by the fact that the iGPU does have an impact. IDK for me it is like z-culling.

 

BTW if it makes anyone feel better, manufactures can use MVP still, and then say they have the WR, because they infact do have the WR as the WR is the top score, with or without certain things. i am just saying, that alone is reason enough to allow it. doesn't matter if they can submit it to HWBot or FM ORB, sure users might come to HWBot to compare, but what they ill find will further instill that its a WR. only we will know it isn't, meaning like 3/4 of TPu traffic wont lol, and that is just TPU, not HardOCP, or 1/4 of OCN, or Tom's, or andands, or other large overclocker communities not in the extreme. I am just saying you should make a separate ranking for MVP.

Edited April 1, 2012 by sin0822

[gnidaol]

yea iGPU oc nor memory allotment affect the program, but the fact that it uses the iGPU for the output buffer in itself is pretty smart. True it isn't like hybrid CF, but there is a lot of microstutter caused by the fact that the iGPU does have an impact. IDK for me it is like z-culling.

 

BTW if it makes anyone feel better, manufactures can use MVP still, and then say they have the WR, because they infact do have the WR as the WR is the top score, with or without certain things. i am just saying, that alone is reason enough to allow it. doesn't matter if they can submit it to HWBot or FM ORB, sure users might come to HWBot to compare, but what they ill find will further instill that its a WR. only we will know it isn't, meaning like 3/4 of TPu traffic wont lol, and that is just TPU, not HardOCP, or 1/4 of OCN, or Tom's, or andands, or other large overclocker communities not in the extreme. I am just saying you should make a separate ranking for MVP.

 

I posted some times the same as you, I think as Futuremark the bot should have a separate ranking, with no global points or only mvp global boints that don't mess up with current leagues but allows OCers to keep their records for comparison with "normal people".

 

Anyway, I saw In a lot of places that hyperperformance only works at I-mode, but I only have it working at D-mode, (tryed Z68 and Z77 with different cpus)... In fact, it only boosted heaven and 3d11 at D-mode, all other benchs got worse scores.

[Trouffman]

Actually i wonder how... game developer will flag this tools.. as it basically work the same way as wall-hack, ghost mode, AI bot etc... I mean for the more advanced ones.

 

Basically we could do it on anything... Sadly, there is no way to check if it's running or not expect analyzing everyframe and... this is not an option in term of performance / reliability...

 

So yes, we can detect if the Lucid Virtu is running, but actually the way benchmarks calculates score is going to be biased because... depending on the validation process... you could hack it...

 

Lucid Virtu / MVP are HACKs that are packaged and developed for business I'm saying that... it is usefull in a lot of number of case. Software-based is possible to detect and interact. while once the hardware chip is ready (and it is already but not implemented in any consumer card yet...) this will be like a Border custom office in front of the GPU to let enter just the requested draw needed.

 

Detect it, flag it, ban it

 

NB : my point here is... some game developer will have to adjust they anti-cheat detection because Lucid MVP might be flagged as a cheat

[FM_Jarnis]

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)

[FM_Jarnis]

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)

[FM_Jarnis]

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/

[Kal-EL]

Uh, limited understanding here but, is the process of determining redundantly rendered frames something that can only be done via another "seperate" gpu/processor(igpu)?

Can the process be handled by the cpu?

Can the process be handled by the same GPU already doing the rendering?

 

Good read, been a while. I'm wondering if I'm getting this right...

 

Lucid Virtu MVP= Serves the user with the requested image quality rendered really fast in low power environment via better efficiency. Awesome Sauce.

 

Driver Manufacturer = wears dunce hat?

 

Hi guys/gals!

[FM_Jarnis]

Uh, limited understanding here but, is the process of determining redundantly rendered frames something that can only be done via another "seperate" gpu/processor(igpu)?

Can the process be handled by the cpu?

Can the process be handled by the same GPU already doing the rendering?

 

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)

[kentavr777]

Hi all.

Sorry, is lucid virtu banned for testing?

The same program is adapting graphics core processor.

[Hondacity]

You can test the software.

 

Submissions with lucid virtu is not accepted I think because it skews the results without lucid virtu.

[kentavr777]

How to determine if the new record holders are not using it.

[Christian Ney]

You used it, I blocked all your results

 

but if you find suspicious results, feel free to use the report button then we (the staff) will check them.

[kentavr777]

How do you check that it was used ...

If the screenshots that are not visible.

[Christian Ney]

because I am god, I know everything

[Turrican]

because I am god, I know everything

:nana:

[Gunslinger]

because I am god, I know everything

 

sig'd

[l0ud_sil3nc3]

because I am god, I know everything

 

QFT lol

[michaelrw]

because I am god, I know everything

 

lol

[FM_Jarnis]

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")

[Luconosa]

Hi all, my 1st post here.

 

Now about Lucid Virtu. I think it should be allowed.

 

I will say the most important reason, and that is the fact that charts are already messed up with LV. Today I tried to confirm my suspicions and I think that I am right.

You will be the judge.

 

Here is what I got, and if that is detectable (not suspicious but detectable and with proof that LV is used) I will cover myself with my ears and never post anything here.

 

The problem is I don't believe I am the 1st who managed how to do this. We can't know how many results are already Virtu results. Unles someone is ready to revise all. And even then it is all by feeling, no proof at all.

All that can be done is to check every single result with LV capable CPUs, or adapt and allow it. Other ways will always be suspicions by members that they are losing points by "illegal" means. Then make it legal and remove those suspicions.

 

OK, let’s see

 

1st bench - LV off, proof with verification link, all by the rules.

 

 

Ver. link: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3568007

 

2nd bench - LV on, proof with verification link (detected by 3DM), easy to notice if posted and report

 

 

Ver. link: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3567902

 

 

3rd bench - what do you think? I would say suspicious (that if I look at all the specs, not suspicious for quick look at GTX 680 scores), also with all verifications by the book it must be regular. I would never report score like this, even if it is not legit I can't prove anything. No one can. All left is just suspicion. I do not want to make fool of myself and risk raising false alarm. That is how most of us think, and that is why I think that charts are already having many results which are gone under the radar.

 

 

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3568117

 

SS are not edited by any means.

 

If any of mods of HWB want to know (if already don't) how I've done this please let me know. Same is for people from 3DM, because they have big flaw in system which they are not aware of.

I think it is not clever to go public with guide how to "cheat". Wasn't even sure should I public this. I've decided to show what can be done so the people do not live in belief how everything is OK, when most probably isn't. As I said above, I do not believe that I am 1st person in the world who get idea how system works.

If I am the 1st, and this can be solved before damage is done I will be happy.

 

Now, my personal opinion about LV.

 

It is new technology, we all agree that. What ppl do not agree is, is this software tweak or hardware improvement. I say is it really matter?

 

What are we doing here on HWBOT? We are competing who can show SS of bigger or smaller number on the screen with machine he have.

With HW/SW evolving the numbers are bigger or smaller (depends on bench we are doing).

I think there is no big difference between LV and tweaking comp in BIOS. If you know how to change IDE to AHCI you will have better results.

The point is to use everything you can to get better numbers, no one even asking you to have everyday working rig, just be able to take SS and that is all.

Ironically LV is technology incorporated in fully functional (still to see how it will work in everyday life, but obviously it has effect on benchmarks), everyday machines and it is not allowed.

Especially if you look at PCMark05. My God it's a tweak fest. Whole hardware tweaks in PCM05 are enabling RAID.

Of course, to achieve crazy score you must tweak your OS to almost non working conditions, and do some very questionable steps during test (anyone stuck on 0.1 Pixel shader after big jump in TW with Flashdesktops )))))) ) . If you ask me, boints earned that way are better candidates to be erased.

 

Sorry for big post, and please excuse me my spelling and grammar, English is not my native language.

 

Enjoy

 

..........Luconosa is putting his antiflame coat and raiding into sunset )))))))))))))

 

p.s. sorry for the 2nd SS, now I noticed that all 3 CPU-Zs are opened at CPU tab, but it is all the same as other 2.

[FM_Jarnis]

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.

Edited June 3, 2012 by FM_Jarnis

[Christian Ney]

@ Luconosa

 

Okayyyy, let me double check all your scores

 

As for the ''there is no way to tell if LV was on or not'' we (Moderators at hwbot) are supergods (omniscient and full of powers)... we are like... let's say Chuck Norris in an Iron Man suit

 

(no kidding)