這位大大說的個人深表認同!!!~
當然在商業前提之下誰不希望自己的顯示卡分數看起來漂亮?
所以說作弊這檔事是難免的,但分數究竟是分數,
也不能代表一切,重要的是用起來的那一種"起摩子"啦....

Candy 兄
你最近的標題太過聳動
而且皆是片面資料
一副要引起爭戰的樣子
而且也成功了
我相信這不是你本來的意思
你應該只是想看大家對這件事的反應
但是這種具爭論性的話題
還是應該小心處理
這種類型的討論串一個就夠了
其他相關資料放在同一個討論串即可
開好幾個會讓討論區的氣氛和水準降低
再這樣下去
遲早會劣幣驅逐良幣

這則資料已經在 ExtremeTech 上好幾天了
懶得說了
下面是 Sweeney 的看法（他是 unreal engine 的幕後人物）
http://www.beyond3d.com/#news6041

下面是 ATI 的「最佳化」方式
Dave Baumann:
Despite still being a full Futuremark Beta member, ATI did not make it out of the report entirely unscathed either. There is a performance difference of about 8% in Game Test 4, that accounts for about a 2% difference in the final 3DMark03 score, between the new and old versions, indicating that although not visually different something was occurring on this particular test.

ATI's Christ Evenden:
The 1.9% performance gain comes from optimization of the two DX9 shaders (water and sky) in Game Test 4 . We render the scene exactly as intended by Futuremark, in full-precision floating point. Our shaders are mathematically and functionally identical to Futuremark's and there are no visual artifacts; we simply shuffle instructions to take advantage of our architecture. These are exactly the sort of optimizations that work in games to improve frame rates without reducing image quality and as such, are a realistic approach to a benchmark intended to measure in-game performance. However, we recognize that these can be used by some people to call into question the legitimacy of benchmark results, and so we are removing them from our driver as soon as is physically possible. We expect them to be gone by the next release of CATALYST.

NV 的「最佳化」方式已經在 FutureMark 上的 pdf 有清楚的說明了