Without a reference picture we don't know who is doing things improperly now do we? What we are given is two snapshots of the scenes rendered by two different graphics cards. We do not know who is right. Maybe the nVidia card is messing up somewhere -- there's no way to prove it without any reference image for comparison.Originally posted by: Matthias99
For everybody trashing Tom's Hardware about accusing ATI of cheating... NVIDIA's the one that levelled the accusations against ATI at their press event a few days ago. Tom's was trying to see if there was anything to them, and they confirmed the presence of a few inconsistencies in the AM3 rendering on the 9800 vs. the 5950. In all likelyhood, it's a bug, or an optimization gone awry (OMG, it's not rendering almost-transparent layered textures that you usually never see, and their fog is slightly dimmer ). But even if it is a "cheat", why hasn't anyone else in the last two months noticed or made anything of this until NVIDIA put it under a magnifying glass? And I've seen several reviews using AM3 to do IQ analysis...
How about in games where the NV cards have to drop their pixel shader precision so they can run it properly? For 1-1 benchmark purposes, it may not be possible because basically you are comparing two totally different feature sets when it comes to DirectX. ATI's cards are fully DX-9 compliant, NVidia's are not. The result is an apples-oranges comparison that the industry is stuck with until NVidia gets their act together. Maybe if NVidia and ATI had an identical feature set one could postulate on the differences in rendering, but since they don't that form of guessing can't reliably yield any tangible results. As I said earlier, show me the proof with a reference pic, or on identically-capable hardware, not some half-assed attempt at proof.And as far as the whole cheat/vs. optimization thing... if it draws exactly the same thing on the screen, then it's an optimization*. If it's degrading image quality without telling you, then it should be labeled a "cheat" unless there's some way to turn it off. Otherwise there's no fair way to benchmark the cards from both companies against each other.
SOrry
Darn cut and paste
here's Hanner's findings at elite bastars
http://www.elitebastards.com/page.php?pageid=2397&head=1&comments=1
So Nvidia releases the final revision and "wow" the problems that were presented a month ago are gone, performance is still up, and nobody makes a word or admits to thier own stupidity in believing so many sites that said Nvidia is cheating on beta drivers when it was obvious the problems were bugs.
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
looks like ati took it one step farther and decided to not render things to their full quality in an attempt to gain performance rather than just not rendering stuff you don't see
were is ati doing that?
just saying it looks like it can be that way and it wouldn't suprise me if it was
i am just asking where you think it "looks like it".
Originally posted by: chsh1ca
Originally posted by: Matthias99
How about in games where the NV cards have to drop their pixel shader precision so they can run it properly? For 1-1 benchmark purposes, it may not be possible because basically you are comparing two totally different feature sets when it comes to DirectX. ATI's cards are fully DX-9 compliant, NVidia's are not. The result is an apples-oranges comparison that the industry is stuck with until NVidia gets their act together. Maybe if NVidia and ATI had an identical feature set one could postulate on the differences in rendering, but since they don't that form of guessing can't reliably yield any tangible results. As I said earlier, show me the proof with a reference pic, or on identically-capable hardware, not some half-assed attempt at proof.And as far as the whole cheat/vs. optimization thing... if it draws exactly the same thing on the screen, then it's an optimization*. If it's degrading image quality without telling you, then it should be labeled a "cheat" unless there's some way to turn it off. Otherwise there's no fair way to benchmark the cards from both companies against each other.
That was more of a theoretical statement than a practical one. Obviously, in situations where the cards differ in rendering capability, you're not going to be able to directly compare them. This may become more of an issue with the next generation of games, where DX9 pixel and vertex effects will be more heavily used, and details of which features are enabled on each type of card become increasingly important. But, in theory, both cards are *supposed* to be "DX9 Compliant", and *should* be able to render the same pixel shaders. If NVIDIA can't run it at the appropriate precision, then that should cause an effective loss of image quality, shouldn't it? At that point you have to start making decisions based on how well you think it should look versus how fast you want it to run, which are much more complicated.
Because nobody has been looking................on top of that what site would really go looking for problems with ATI?
Um... ones that really like NVIDIA? You'd think with all this hype about IQ lately that someone would have done a "Reference" vs. ATI vs. NVIDIA comparison... but maybe asking for unbiased journalism is a bit much.
Nvidia on beta drivers doesnt render fog. It was to be Nvidia cheating to get better performance.
ATI doesnt render the explosions correctly. It has to be a bug, ATI and Nvidia wont render the same, Nvidia made this up.
NVIDIA's beta drivers were obviously not rendering a lot of things properly, and yet they were asking that benchmarks be done with them rather than their older WHQL drivers (which worked correctly but were much slower). I understand their position, as their engineers were undoubtedly saying "we know what's wrong and it'll just take us a few more weeks to get it all fixed and tested", and the new drivers *do* seem to have fixed the problems without sacrificing speed as much, but they shouldn't have expected people to trust them that much at that point. ATI seems to have a few problems with AM3 (the article above makes it look like the fog problem is just a brightness/coloring issue, although the explosions do seem to not be rendering fully), and what is apparently a known issue with some textures in UT2K3, and now NVIDIA is suddenly on the offensive. It just seems to me like they should spend more time getting their own drivers and problems straightened out and less pointing fingers at ATI and saying "They're not perfect either!". Something about people in glass houses, you know?
Does ATI have problems with IQ in some places, maybe even some "cheats"? Probably. I want to know about them if they do, but there hasn't been a whole lot of evidence presented here yet -- as was stated, you really need reference images, and nobody's produced them yet.
NVIDIA, however, has lost a lot of credibility over the last year with its numerous beta driver issues and questionable optimizations in their release drivers. They seem to be cleaning up their act, and the new drivers show a lot of promise, but they still haven't redeemed themselves fully in my eyes.
If anyone was confused as to what Fanchimp Doublethink looked like, here's a good example of it.Originally posted by: Matthias99Does ATI have problems with IQ in some places, maybe even some "cheats"? Probably. I want to know about them if they do, but there hasn't been a whole lot of evidence presented here yet -- as was stated, you really need reference images, and nobody's produced them yet.
NVIDIA, however, has lost a lot of credibility over the last year with its numerous beta driver issues and questionable optimizations in their release drivers. They seem to be cleaning up their act, and the new drivers show a lot of promise, but they still haven't redeemed themselves fully in my eyes.
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
well anything is possable, but actual evedince makes accepting the possiblities a who lot easier.
ATI's cards are fully DX-9 compliant, NVidia's are not.
TI was hardwiring cheats into their drivers - QUACK!!!! - and screwing with filtering, but the moment the 9700 came out, it was time to drop to their knees and gorf the ATI shaft and mumble, "Nvidia is teh suX0r!" as if it never happened. Why so quick to forgive one and not the other? Hmmm?
But that's the thing - they didn't rant. Lars himself said he couldn't see any evidence of some of the alleged ATi cheating that was proposed by others.Did everyone miss the fact that while THG ranted about 'cheats' and 'optimizations' they offered no proof that these were in fact, cheats or optimizations, let alone specific to Aquamark/UT2K3/etc.?
Originally posted by: Genx87
I think you get the point...........People are just plain rabid in their hatred of Nvidia that they will create double standards to fit their opinions.
It is just amazing to see the feeding frenzy. I bet if ATI was caught tomorrow with something like Quack people would come up with an excuse. Nvidia comes out with something like Quack and they are cheaters.
Pathetic..................
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
ATI's cards are fully DX-9 compliant, NVidia's are not.
You are right about nVidia, but not ATi. None of the current boards have close to full DX9 support, we won't see that until next year at the earliest.
As for the general discussion, ATi has some bugs in their drivers. They have some filtering bugs and they have some rendering bugs. It isn't any different then the overwhelming majority of issues people saw with the FX boards and earlier drivers.
DirectX 9 is now on the scene and 3-D cards with DirectX 9 support are already on the market. The current ATI Radeon 9700 chipset has full DirectX 9 compliance, as will the forthcoming NVIDIA GeForce FX.
Originally posted by: BFG10K
But that's the thing - they didn't rant. Lars himself said he couldn't see any evidence of some of the alleged ATi cheating that was proposed by others.Did everyone miss the fact that while THG ranted about 'cheats' and 'optimizations' they offered no proof that these were in fact, cheats or optimizations, let alone specific to Aquamark/UT2K3/etc.?
It then goes on to the following three pages wherein they detail the 'accusations' that they have 'confirmed' (without proof?).Randy Pitchford of the Halo development team also mentioned that there were optimizations present in ATi's drivers which are detrimental to Halo's image quality. However, Randy didn't want to go into more detail here. Finally, Massive's new DX9 benchmark, AquaMark 3, also displayed some irregularities of ATi drivers in the overdraw test.
Here is a list of accusations we were able to confirm:
The fact that it's too late to say they don't want to comment aside, they seem pretty sure that they are optimizations. The page(s) remain uncorrected if indeed THG has changed their tune.For now, we don't want to comment on the optimizations found in ATi's drivers.
Because the Nvidia users having been sneering jackasses like the Fanchimps. You guys are so blind to your bias, you genuinely believe you're being fair. Trust me, you aren't.Originally posted by: PeteI notice you rail only against ATi and 3dfx proponents--why not nV fans?
Another typical Fanchimp response. To believe your rhetoric, Nvidia is on the verge of bankruptcy and ATI now has 99% of the market. The only thing "down" is that their top-end cards are only really, really fast when compared to the really, really, really fast ATIs, yet you claim crushing victory. I've called you Fanchimps "sore winners" in the past and it's still true.Are you trying to stick up for the "little guy," or the guy who's currently down (but definitely not out)?
Only an illiterate Fanchimp would read what I've posted over the last few months as a "defense" of Nvidia - I've criticized them for making bonehead moves and seeming out of touch, but because I don't use the Famchimp lexicon of "CHEATS!!!" and "NON-COMPLIANT", you interpret it as a defense. Learn to read, Bub.What's the reason for this whole post, other than to compete with Genx87 for the most irritating and groundless defense of nV? I can understand defending nV against the huge disappointment early drivers engendered in 3D fans, but I can't understand extending that defense blindly to all points, regardless of merit.
Um...who's shooting the messenger about ATI getting caught by people who they haven't bribed to code specifically for them? Who's attacking people who dare point out that ATI's pants are around their ankles at the moment, while mouthing the words that ATI cheats, but it's cheats are actually bugs, proving they don't mean what they say? (Hint: His initials are "Senor Fanchimp")Don't get angry at some people if they occasionally and correctly point out that the emperor is missing an article of clothing. If you must get angry, I don't see how shooting the messenger helps in any way.
In addition to everything else you've made up about my posts, you totally cross into Fantasyland with that one. Nvidia has had five great years and one so-so one; ATI has finally had a hot year after a history of sheer mediocrity (other than their AIW line) and you're demanding that history be ignored so that your chosen heroes can bask in their glory all by themselves, as if they invented the third dimension.As for your seeming desire to see people praise nV for their past glory, why should anyone do that? If the 3D world ran on past glory, 3dfx never would have crumbled under its lack of innovation.