"Rydermark" Cheating Allegations Discredited
Anh Tuan Huynh
July 19, 2006 4:54 AM
comment(s) - last by
An alleged screen capture of the ATI version of Rydermark (saved and reposted to preserve metadata)
An alleged screen capture of the NVIDIA version of Rydermark (saved and reposted to preserve metadata)
A difference map of the two images
"Rydermark developers" make bold claims which turn out to be nothing more than a Photoshop hoax
It would appear
was quick to jump the gun on a story
accusing NVIDIA of lying about full DirectX 9 support
. The story accused NVIDIA of not allowing developers to use 24-bit or 32-bit shader precision. Instead it claims NVIDIA forces developers into using 16-bit shader precision as the technique is faster. This is a problem as DirectX 9 compliancy requires 24-bit shader precision or better. "Rydermark" is not a commercially shipping application yet, and has had very little information published to confirm its authenticity.
The original story lacked any type of physical evidence and
claimed its sources were developers for the program.
Images allegedly proving that NVIDIA forces developers into using 16-bit shader precision were posted on
. The posted images compared a rendered scene in Rydermark 2006 between
It turns out the images "proving" NVIDIA’s wrongdoings were nothing more than poorly done Photoshopped images. The NVIDIA rendered image appeared to have blurrier water while the ATI rendered image had sharper water detail. However, the ATI rendered image just didn’t look right with poor cut offs and a creation date three minutes after the NVIDIA rendered image. A difference image of the two JPG files can be seen to the right, with the outline of the modified area clearly visible in the ATI image. This would suggest the NVIDIA image was the original source image, and that the ATI version was modified afterwards.
A difference of the metadata from both images reveals that the NativeDigest delimiter is identical for both images, but has two different InstanceIDs. This would be consistent with an image that was modified and saved twice. In the author's defense, images that are created and saved on his computer have distinct metadata tags that are very easily identifiable. These are not present in the two images supplied by
for "Rydermark" -- suggesting the images may not have been modified by the author.
There’s been an outcry of
images on various forums including
something resembling a rebuttal to this article
. Incredibly, a user from the
forums managed to track down some of the stock art used in the screen renders, and believes
the entire image is actually fraudulent
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: I see this site is full of graphics experts...
7/20/2006 8:06:45 PM
Pixel shaders, as the name implies, operate on pixels. Specifically, when applying a pixel shader to selected areas of a pre-rendered image, the shader will affect the areas defined by the mask. That mask can be based on the original material IDs, on a mathematically defined shape, or it can be a simple grayscale mask created using... a brush in a paint program.
If the benchmark author was claiming that the whole water effect was the direct product of a pixel shader, applied to a 3D scene, I'd say "bullshit". But he isn't. For all you or I know, the "pixel shader" might be running on a pre-rendered image (a 2D bitmap), based on a hand-drawn mask.
Do I think the images in question came straight out of a 3D engine? No. In fact, I'm 99.9% sure they didn't. But, AFAIK, the benchmark author never claimed that they had.
Maybe the pixel shader in question
a lot like a sharpen filter (pixel shaders can and do run on screen data, not just mapped textures), and maybe the benchmark author simply drew a basic mask to define where the shader would run.
Without more information about what the benchmark is doing (or what it's
to be doing), there's simply no way to tell.
Like several people have pointed out, even a five year old can follow the water's outline better than whoever drew that mask over the image (hell, Photoshop's magnetic lasso will do it automatically for you). So I think it's perfectly possible that what we're seeing as signs of a "fake" are simply signs that the "shader" was something applied to a bitmap, with a quickly-drawn mask, and not to textures mapped onto polygons on a 3D scene.
Until the benchmark author makes it clear what that image is
to be, both possibilities remain valid.
And none of this has anything to do with the fundamental issue of the pipeline precision. Even if the images turn out to be mock-ups made by a 4 year old, that still doesn't prove anything about the shader precision, one way or the other.
"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein
Quick Note: Whoops, Microsoft Pushed Unwanted Windows 10 to Some Users
October 15, 2015, 9:04 PM
Quick Note: Windows 10 Insider Preview Build 10565 Fixes Boot Camp 6.0 Issues
October 13, 2015, 11:39 AM
Microsoft's HD-500 ("Display Dock"), the Magic Sauce Behind Continuum
October 6, 2015, 5:30 PM
Quick Note: Windows 10 Hits 110 Million Devices, VMs
October 6, 2015, 4:30 PM
Windows 10 on Raspberry Pi, IoT Devices Sees Developer Debut
August 12, 2015, 2:41 PM
Sony Issues Bizzare "Do Not Update" Edict to VAIO PC Owners
August 11, 2015, 9:42 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information