Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenGL3.2 on Catalyst Wine-GL-Exstansion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    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.

    Comment


    • #52
      The version number does not matter for me. But the results are not that phenomenal that it would require faking.

      Comment


      • #53
        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".

        Comment


        • #54
          Maybe think of some other normal solutions without a fake

          Comment


          • #55
            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.

            Comment


            • #56
              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.

              Comment


              • #57
                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.

                Comment


                • #58
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    Its an amd guy! ...
                    ...running tests on a Core2 Duo box? LOL

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      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"

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X