Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 64

Thread: OpenGL3.2 on Catalyst Wine-GL-Exstansion

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,603

    Default

    I mostly meant that if I'd make the driver lie its version number, who would ever know the difference? It's impossible to say something is or is not a fake just by how it looks.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,630

    Default

    The version number does not matter for me. But the results are not that phenomenal that it would require faking.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    I mostly meant that if I'd make the driver lie its version number, who would ever know the difference? It's impossible to say something is or is not a fake just by how it looks.
    I wonder if it's possible for PTS to somehow verify the video card... maybe matching the video BIOS checksum against a database? Modified BIOSes will then show up as "unverified".

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,630

    Default

    Maybe think of some other normal solutions without a fake

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Maybe think of some other normal solutions without a fake
    Other normal solutions like a conspiracy theory instead of there just being some attention-seeking user? Yeah, that always makes more sense.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Other normal solutions like a conspiracy theory instead of there just being some attention-seeking user? Yeah, that always makes more sense.
    If somebody faked it, it would make much more sense to fake the results as well so that it looked like the graphics card performed very fast. It would also make more sense to name the graphics card somewhat clearer (HD5870 would be clearer than EG Cypress).

    Anyway... we'll probably never know for sure.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Yeah, strange as in makes me be even more convinced in that they were fake.
    there is no fake!

    amd' put this pts profiles online.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heiko View Post
    Or not and it is all a big cover up (that is much more fun to believe ). How could Phoronix know whether the results were fake or not? Why weren't they removed yesterday when Michael responded in this topic (if they were fake he could have removed them back than).

    I think somebody messed up (could be Phoronix, an AMD guy or some lucky guy who got his hands on a sample) and now they try to cover everything up.
    Its an amd guy! ...

    phoronix do not have an sample.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    Its an amd guy! ...
    ...running tests on a Core2 Duo box? LOL

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tuxdriver View Post
    ...running tests on a Core2 Duo box? LOL
    ATI has many test systems with intel cpus!

    and in the past ati only test on intel systems...

    i know a bug catalyst 8.11 8.12 9.1 9.2 on 64bit systems with more than 2gb ram...

    does not work becourse an bug only on amd cpu bases systems and in the internal testing they do not found the bug becourse of the intel testing maschines...

    2 years ago wen AMD Buy ATI there was 90% of intel test-systems in ATI!

    today amd systems come up in "ATI"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •