AMD has made an oversight in implementing their new technology that poses a significant issue for Counter Strike 2 players who have opted to utilize AMD’s AntiLag+. Recently, AMD introduced a new 23.10.1 driver allowing players to access this technology in the game. However, it has now been confirmed that utilizing this technology can lead to a ban.

Despite Counter Strike 2 being launched just this month, it has already earned attention from all major GPU manufacturers, each offering dedicated graphics drivers. AMD’s most recent release introduced Anti-Lag+, an exclusive feature for the Radeon RX 7000 series, aimed at enhancing responsiveness by optimizing frame alignment within the game’s code.

It has been discovered that manipulating DLL functions with AMD’s technology could result in a VAC ban. Valve may consider lifting the bans only when AMD provides an update for this technology. Until that happens, it is recommended not to enable this technology in the game.

The Anti-Lag+ technology is an improved tech that only works on Radeon RX 7000 series and RDNA3 based products. The tech is available in multiple games but Counter Strike 2 is the only that has reported problems with implementation. The game also supports NVIDIA Reflex technology, but Unlike Anti-Lag+ which works on a driver level, Reflex is incorporated into the game itself.

Tweet from @CounterStrike:

"AMD’s latest driver has made their “Anti-Lag/+” feature available for CS2, which is implemented by detouring engine dll functions.

If you are an AMD customer and play CS2, DO NOT ENABLE ANTI-LAG/+; any tampering with CS code will result in a VAC ban.

Once AMD ships an update we can do the work of identifying affected users and reversing their ban. @AMD"

    • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah you said name a solution and I did name one. Sure not flawless but pretty obvious that There’s more options than just a rootkit, the only point I was trying to disprove.

      Any other arguments I don’t have any bearing on ngl I’m not too emotionally attached to my counterpoint