Luconosa Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) 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. Of course it is not. But let me give you an advice as someone who has quite expirience in psyshology of marketing. Never make claims like this in public about your company ( I assume you are working for 3DM, because you said " we'll take a look" ). It is like you've put big banner on 3DM page : " Use/buy our software, but do not mind the results, we are not designed to be 100% foolproof. " Your company is always the best, all problems are just small bugs, and of course you are already working on it. Sure, the cheats can not be stopped, there are no perfect protection, but my point was that "legit results" from 3DM are not so legit, and 3DM link on result is proof here on HWB. 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. Yes, it stands out, but just because I listed you all 3 results. It is not so unusual if you are looking just for GTX 680 and do not looking at CPU freq. For a average user even then with all 3 SS it would not be suspicious unless he know what are average results for rigs similar to mine, but then he is not so average user . 3DMs target group is average customer, not maniacs from here )))))) Correct me if I am wrong. @ Luconosa Okayyyy, let me double check all your scores Do that, but be aware of one thing, my parents live in St-Prex, from there it is easy to locate guy with LN2, and house which smells by burned components. )))))))))) 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) You can only be suspicious because you know which result is out of space, but you can not prove anything. Soner or latter that way without proof, wrong person is accused. If you do not mind about collateral damage that is OK. Ask yourself, what would Chuck do in your place? ))))))))))))) Best regards, Luconosa Edited June 3, 2012 by Luconosa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I would say: ''Respect my authoritah'' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luconosa Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I would say: ''Respect my authoritah'' :D Something like that yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FM_Jarnis Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) 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 Edited June 4, 2012 by FM_Jarnis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luconosa Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 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) Phishing ? Nice to see you are working on it, that is one way I guess (did not try it), but that is not my way. We will see will that fix block my way too. I'll tell you how I've done it of course, no matter if your fix work for me or not. But latter, now I am curious to see what will happened. Btw. I am still just asuming that you are 3DM employee, you did not confirm or negate. 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 Relax my friend. I know you are doing your best, to improve your service and to prevent cheating. I was just pointing in flaw in your system. No need for so many excuses. I do not have any "goal" or "mission" with your service. Info e-mails, sorry not in my adress book. Those emails are 95% neglected for various reasons, and I am too old to write unavailling emails. Company so big should care for their product and reputation, if they are doing it through you as their official here I'll tell you directly. But info emails, no ty. If you are really their official here they are doing good job, if you are here on your own, then they should pay you, and if they are already paying you but you are not 3DM official here, they should give you a raise. Best regards, Luconosa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Ney Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 FM_Jarnis is working for FutureMark the company behind 3DMark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FM_Jarnis Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited June 4, 2012 by FM_Jarnis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.