So this thread went from a bad interpretation of a screenshots to the "bias" of a mod...oh boy, how constructive *chough*
Unfortunately your WKing for nVidia remained constant throughout!So this thread went from a bad interpretation of a screenshots to the "bias" of a mod...oh boy, how constructive *chough*
Unfortunately your WKing for nVidia remained constant throughout!
Anyways, I still believe that if there is anyone to blame here, it's Crytek. The fact that these "enhancements" didn't ship with the game and came out with an update makes me believe that they rushed the patch.
Heck, if AMD gets to write the synthetic benches and other software, a Phenom II might came out better than the i-5 2500K.
I did?! I either have memory loss, or you're making more things up... D:
It isn't. Saying that someone is condescending for showing how ridiculous an argument is, doesn't automatically make it so.
Again, lets not make this personal. Don't worry about how I feel, etc. etc. Don't worry about what makes me believe my opinion matters.
Whether I am biased or not, and I've made it plainly know forever and a month of Sundays now, that I much prefer Nvidia products. And not by just a little. Dude, you should know by now, that during an argument, one person suddenly goes after the other personally (my feelings, My opinion doesn't count, you're condescing, etc. etc.) you've lost. It means you have nothing left and it's a last resort. Can't best the argument, then let me go after his credibility. Well, fine. I'll accept that. It's a natural course of action when backed into a corner. But don't think it goes without a price.
Be well.
Keys
I am not blind, but I do know a bit about graphics. The believe is that it is a waste to build a city on top of an ocean where the ocean itself is dynamically tessellated and not visible, and thus wasting computation. The inherent believe is that performance will be better if the ocean was not there if it is not visible. The problem is, most of the posters here lack the ability to generate the scene in question. In fact, most do not even know how to generate a scene, let alone a dynically tessellated scene. Because people do not have an idea of how it is done, they will not have the idea of the amount of computation needed between methods. Those who have the expertises can criticizes the method, but so far, all I see is laymen talks and conspiracy theroies.
I can go on and start explaining how things work, but then it will simply turn into senseless arguements as it really does not answer the question, is it actually a waste of build a city on top of a tessellated ocean. The only real way of killing this debate is to recreate the entire scene with another method and compare the performance and quality, which is not the direction where the debate is going. Nvidia attackers are claiming that either Nvidia paid crytek or TWIMTBP inserted code/ideas kills ALL video card except GTX 570/580/590 in crysis 2. In fact, everytime where AMD cards underperform, it is because of Nvidia. Really, if AMD suck because of Nvidia and Nvidia do not suck because of AMD, then clearly, Nvidia wins. If video cards of AMD lack the tessellation capacity compare to video cards Nvidia, then eventually Nvidia will beat AMD on newer games as tessellation is such a big thing now. Sorry, the tessellation level is going to increase as time goes by and if tessellation is a weakness of AMD, then eventually, they will under perform until AMD fixes it through new hardware or software. Sorry, IMO telling game dev to reduce the use of tessellation is not the way to go and the spread of conspiracy theory is getting really old.
What are you going on about? I'm not making it personal. You're the one trying to belittle people. I'm just asking you why you have to do that. It's not necessary.
This is what I'm "on" about 3DVagabond.
"Again, why so condescending to people? Does it make you feel like you got one over on someone? What makes you believe your opinion matters when you get free stuff from the accused? It's not like you could in any way be considered unbiased."
I'm going to assume that when you look at your own words here, you cannot see what I'm "on" about.
I'm not belittling people. However, I am absolutely belittling their arguments because they are lacking in any sort of substance. If you can't, or won't acknowledge this difference, that really isn't a concern of mine. Defend your argument if you can, but be prepared to get called if it's unsubstantiated or unfounded.
It does waste computation. This has been proven by altering the water quality setting and observing a performance change in areas where no water is visible.The believe is that it is a waste to build a city on top of an ocean where the ocean itself is dynamically tessellated and not visible, and thus wasting computation. The inherent believe is that performance will be better if the ocean was not there if it is not visible.
No, it's called a mistake. It was SirPauly. I'm not sure how I confused who posted it. Sorry about that.
You call it belittling their argument, I see it different. No need for us to carry on about it. Positions aren't going to change.
Wtf is behind the developers back you keep on spewing?,i could understand your point if this wasnt optional.http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32262440&postcount=365
Actually, I wasn't the originator of the link and data.
Just like Dragon Age 2 with nVidia, that needed some time to get performance equal or close to AMD; with some AMD driver work and getting the tessellation double throughput working on HD 6900 series cards (according to Behardware), performance may go up.
I don't see the problem really, AMD has a tessellation slider for the customers that desire more performance. Can understand the positives here from the AMD side even though I don't like going behind the developers back, no matter how subtle.
It's not the levels or amount of tessellation that bother me a bit -- personally desire more tessellation and if your hardware can do it - where is the problem? It is some areas chosen, specifically the street curbing -- more care in where in placing the tessellation to have more of a visual impact would be welcomed. Certainly not ideal placement and not all ideal examples of showcasing tessellation but still very welcomed as a whole to me because they were trying and achieving to some, raising the bar - steps forward.
except that it makes nVidia cards win in benches.
In a perfect world we would obviously prefer these issues simply to be technical or artistic ones
Wtf is behind the developers back you keep on spewing?,i could understand your point if this wasnt optional.
You didnt answer my question*laughs*,what exactly is behind the developers back?...If you can't understand trading image quality for performance behind the developers back and how this may be a slippery slope -- there isn't much I can do for you. Some have the ability -- enjoy the feature.
i wont comment on the above as its off topic,(new thraed perhaps?)im still struggling to undertand why you are against options for the gamer with settings.its baffling tbhThe developer's application.
The main beef was AMD was lowering quality with FP 16 render targets, not only behind the developers back but behind the gamers back. Thankfully, they allowed the gamer to choose after it was exposed and a feature in CCC, and at least it's not behind the gamers back anymore.
I'm not a fan of these kinds of optimizations obviously, and never have been and was very vocal and tough on nVidia in the past as well. Going behind the developers back to replace image quality for performance is a slippery slope and depends on how far each IHV desires to slide down. To me these kinds of optimizations are added because the hardware has trouble competing in certain aspects.
I realize some like to blame but for some of this is just one side of blame -- their tessellation is not as efficient; their drivers are not using the double throughput in the 69XX series, according to Behardware. I couldn't believe that point wasn't raised.
How about some balance?
,
So what you are saying is that AMD can actually improve this in their driver? So their driver isnt using the double throughput it should? So they could actually get 2x the tessellation through the driver?
when DA2 was fudged i was like wtf nvidia. eventually after some time they got a driver that i was waiting for and it was all good. But if AMD can fix this by as much as 2x then i see no reason why everyone is acting like this. calling nvidia sabotage when it should be "AMD??? fix this!!!"
besides it would be a lot better if i get a hd6950 too!
i wont comment on the above as its off topic,(new thraed perhaps?)im still struggling to undertand why you are against options for the gamer with settings.its baffling tbh
I'm not alone nVidia agrees to some of it. They don't offer a tessellation slider or a surface optimization setting. I'm all for features for gamers; the ones that add image quality.
I asked Caveman Jim at Rage3d, he has a close relationship with AMD to expand on it but so far pretty quiet. I'm a regular at Rage3d and was a high-end ATI gamer from 2001-2007, wonderful gaming there.
What bothered me is no one bothered to post that nice data point discovered by Behardware. Damien is one of my favorite reviewers.
WIth the new tessellation, designer choose "What" to tessellate dynamically, but not "when" or "which part" to tessellate dynamically. I am not capable of explain this more clear than this, but you can not partially tessellate an object. You can construct one big object with multiple objects and selectively tessellate them, but it really isn't easy. This however is not the core of this problem.How about putting it where it will count? Why have invisible tessellated objects? There has to be a script call made for the ocean model to be in the scene, doesn't there? Why have it there? It's not too much tessellation, it's tessellation that serves no purpose, except that it makes nVidia cards win in benches. There is no good reason to tessellate the curbing around the sidewalk. A lot of what people are crediting as tessellation in this game is actually POM, not tessellation. Most of the tessellation serves no real visual benefit, that I can see. I've seen nobody come up with a reason to justify the way tessellation was done in this game. Tom's is the only site I've seen report on it that didn't come to the same conclusion as this thread has put forward.
If it is okay for you, you can swich tesselation on and off while you play. If you have quick fingers, the average FPS will increase by switching it manually.It does waste computation. This has been proven by altering the water quality setting and observing a performance change in areas where no water is visible.
We don’t see invisible ground and building meshes in the ocean do we? Of course not, because the map data doesn’t contain it. They don’t stick ground and buildings into the ocean areas when they build the maps. The same should apply for the ocean in ground areas.