Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

DOOM 3 Benchmarks Follow-up

Team Radeon has comments from ATI about the recent spate of DOOM 3 benchmarking (story), pointing out the game is not yet available, taking a stab at NVIDIA's precision (in spite of their own "fudging" being questioned by Carmack during the testing), and saying they should have new drivers "available in the coming weeks." There is also a raging Rage3D Discussion on the possibility of an ATI DOOM 3 bundle, supported by some blurry camera phone shots of the associated promotional materials. This rumor is one of those they run through their magic 8-ball in the latest GameSpot Rumor Control/(Mongering) column.

137. Re: WaltC & Hellbinder Jul 27, 2004, 12:27 WaltC
Waltc while you do point out some very relevent facts I have to question one bit. If ATi has admitted to using a different algorith as compared to "true" trilinear, why can't we have an option to shut it off just like the Nvidia boards. I understand that it is a smart algorith that turns on and off accordingly, however the user should be given the option over the hardware at anytime. Also, it can tell when colored mip map tests are taking place, and then uses the true trilinear mode, it is not representive of the actual in game performance and image quality.

Please explain to me why ATi has opted not to give the end user control over their hardware. I am not saying Nvidia handled the situation well, but at least now the user has control over their equipment.

The answer to this question is so apparent, at least to me, that I'm surprised it gets asked so much...;) Most people who ask the question, I think, just haven't taken a moment to think it through from a practical standpoint.

Let's say that you are running the nVidia drivers in their default state with trilinear opts ON, and you're playing a game through a scene in which the trilinear opts become apparent and you begin to see mipmap boundaries, or other instances of rendering IQ anomalies, which you suspect are related to the trilinear optimizations turned ON in your drivers. If you wish to replay the game scene with nVidia's tri opts turned OFF, what is there to do except to (a) shut down the game, (b) go to the desktop and open the nVidia control panel, (c) check the trilinear opts OFF check box, (d) apply the change, (e)reboot the game and (f) replay the scene? Conversely, if you want to turn the trilinear opts back ON later in the game you have to repeat the process in reverse to turn them back ON. Rinse & repeat, endlessly.

Pretty impractical, it seems to me, and that's the whole problem with nVidia's "dumb" (manual) ON/OFF approach to trilinear opts. At the best the scheme is inconvenient and distracting to game play.

And that's why, in my opinion, ATi opted to go with the automatic approach to programmed switching of the trilinear opts on and & off during all 3d games. In most all 3d games I'm aware of, there are scenes within those games where trilinear opts may be used with no observable detriment to trilinear rendering IQ, and scenes where the optimization is not enough and standard trilinear needs to be used in order to maintain the desired IQ. ATi's on-off automatic, "intelligent" method provides an end user with that level of support--nVidia's manual method does not, as I've described.

People are, I think, not seeing the issue clearly because they are thinking of it in terms of either running a game with them off or running a game with them on (like vsync or FSAA or AF, etc.) But the case for trilinear optimizations is different by nature, because the goal of them is that they be indistiguishable in IQ from standard trilinear filtering while providing additional performance. Since practically all 3d games contain scenes in which trilinear optimization is appropriate and may be used without IQ degradation, and scenes where this is not the case and standard trilinear is required to maintain IQ, then the only method for implementing trilinear opts *that is of value to the end user* is the method ATi has employed of the automatic on-off, self-switching trilinear optimization. So, there's a very persuasive practical reason why ATi's doing what it's doing, imo.

By comparison, what's nVidia doing here? When nV first began using trilinear opts they built it into their drivers last year with *no* manual turn-off switch (never mind that nVidia never told a soul about it in advance.) For awhile, in UT2K3 exclusively, there was *no way* to get trilinear filtering on detail textures at all--either from the nVidia control panel *or* through the game itself--you always got the optimization in the case of UT2K3.

Later, nVidia expanded this trilinear optimization to all 3d games, again, sans any OFF switch anywhere. Still later yet, nVidia built in an OFF switch for the optimizations in its control panel, but if you'll remember the first stab or so at doing that, nV reported the OFF switch was broken and simply didn't function. That indicated to me that it wasn't as easy for nVidia to actually turn off these optimizations in its drivers as the on/off cpanel check box implies it should be (evidently it was easier for nVidia to put the tic box into the Cpanel GUI than it was to make it functional)--else the OFF switch would have worked in all of its drivers from the start, and nVidia would have had an OFF switch built in from day one. The thing to remember is that originally nV's tri-opts driver implementation was never meant to be turned off, either by manual control from the cpanel, or from within a game itself.

Presumably, now, all of that has been fixed at last, and the tri-opts off switch in the nV Cpanel is functional. Even if true, and the nV tri-opts OFF Cpanel switch does indeed turn all of them off in every 3d game, this still does not alleviate the practical problems in nV's manual on-off approach as I relate above.

Last, I want to reiterate that my complaint about Carmack's presentation was not just that I think he completely mischaracterized what ATi's doing, but my complaint primarily about his remarks is that he didn't even *mention* nVidia's "filtering fudging" (as he puts it), even to the point of saying something like this:

"nVidia's implementing trilinear filter fudging, too, in its drivers by default. But nVidia provides a manual tri-opts OFF switch via its control panel and, while not as eloquent perhaps as ATi's intelligent switching algorithm, it does at least allow the user to turn them all off. In the current D3 build on which this test is based, with the nVidia drivers I've tested, I have personally verified that the OFF switch works in D3 and the nV drivers do not do trilinear optimizing in D3, so long as they are turned off via the control panel before running the game."

Instead of saying anything remotely like this--Carmack is as silent as a tomb concerning even a *mention* of nV's "filter fudging." Doesn't mention it at all.

I found that remarkable, and of course it certainly cannot be because JC doesn't *know* nV's drivers do trilinear optimization by *default*--certainly not...:D He knows it --of that I have absolutely no doubt. So why the silent treatment--especially when he did bother to mention ATi's trilinear opts approach and bothered to characerize it as "fudging"?

Heh...;) To know the answer to that I'd have to be a fly on the wall of JC's mind, and I certainly am not that...;) But I do have a charitable theory as to why he was as silent as the grave on the subject of nVidia's trilinear opts, which is:

[Charitable Theory /ON]

He did personally test the nV-control panel trilinear opts OFF switch for D3 during these tests, and found that it did not disable all of the trilinear optimizations the nV drivers force for D3. He may well have found that it disabled some, but not all of them. I would imagine that next he would have asked nVidia about it, and that nVidia would have given him the predictible answer that, "It's a bug that we'll address in upcoming drivers," and that Carmack simply chose to let it go and say *nothing* about nVidia's trilinear optimizations at all simply to avoid a public confrontation with nVidia over the issue, since he could not be 100% sure himself that a "bug" was not indeed responsible for the behavior he observed.

[Charitable theory /OFF]

Still, even this theory leaves unanswered the central question as far as I'm concerned: why mention ATi's trilinear opts in any capacity whatever if you're not going to mention nV's trilinear optimizations in any capacity? Which brings me to an uncharitable theory:

[Uncharitable theory /ON]
This was a nV-sponsored, TWIMTBP exercise and was never meant to do anything except to appear as an objective test (much like the [H] 2003 Doom 3 Preview), the actual purpose of which was to serve as a marketing platform for nV 3d-cards, and it was known as a foregone conclusion that nV would either win, or be made to win the benchmarks. This would certainly explain why Carmack would mention ATi's trilinear-filtering optimizations in a negative light (as "fudging"), while not mentioning nV's fudging at all, wouldn't it?

I mean, for Carmack to state he didn't see any "egregious cheating" going on certainly doesn't rule out that he detected some non-egregious cheating--but then we'd have to understand what JC means by "egregious cheating" in the first place, which he doesn't define for us. But I have to question how much stock we might put into such a definition, seeing as how the fact that nV drivers by default engage in the same general kind of "filter fudging" as the ATi drivers, but Carmack only notices the ATi optimizations in his remarks pertinent to this event.

[uncharitable theory /off]

People will have to decide it for themselves, certainly.

Avatar 16008
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Previous Post Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
    Date Subject Author
  1. Jul 24, 12:47 No subject gulo
  15. Jul 24, 14:51  Re: No subject jienn
  26. Jul 24, 15:55   Re: No subject Ratty
  2. Jul 24, 12:48 Poor Ati Tony!!!
  3. Jul 24, 12:51 Bundle kanniballl
  4. Jul 24, 13:15 Re: Holy Grail of Spyware... Overon
  6. Jul 24, 13:49  Money... Isus_in_Black.
  5. Jul 24, 13:46 Frightening Reality Hunterzyph
  7. Jul 24, 13:57  Re: Frightening Reality gulo
  8. Jul 24, 14:21   Re: Frightening Reality Krovven
  9. Jul 24, 14:23 Very Happy with my 6800 GT jomisab
  10. Jul 24, 14:30  No subject Riker
  12. Jul 24, 14:37   Re: No subject gulo
  28. Jul 24, 16:13    Re: No subject Camaro76
  13. Jul 24, 14:37   Re: No subject Ray Marden
  14. Jul 24, 14:50    Re: No subject Isus_in_Black.
  18. Jul 24, 14:58     Re: No subject Ray Marden
  19. Jul 24, 15:03      Re: No subject Tango
  20. Jul 24, 15:04     Re: No subject Marksman
  16. Jul 24, 14:54    Re: No subject Nyarlathotep
  11. Jul 24, 14:34 Well... Ray Marden
  17. Jul 24, 14:56 No subject Acleacius
  21. Jul 24, 15:10  Re: No subject Surfer
  22. Jul 24, 15:18 No subject JuLES
  23. Jul 24, 15:22 Money :( Nibs
  24. Jul 24, 15:33  Re: Money :( osmium
  29. Jul 24, 16:28   Re: Money :( nin
  25. Jul 24, 15:45  Re: Money :( Hunterzyph
  27. Jul 24, 16:01   Re: Money :( SmyTTor
  34. Jul 24, 16:42    Re: Money :( Hellbinder
  30. Jul 24, 16:30 A couple points... Smoove
  31. Jul 24, 16:33 reviews Robert
  32. Jul 24, 16:40  Re: reviews Hellbinder
  40. Jul 24, 16:52   Edit: Deleted (Double post - N/T) Ray Marden
  41. Jul 24, 16:52   Re: reviews Ray Marden
  43. Jul 24, 16:56   Re: reviews kyleb
  58. Jul 24, 17:46    Re: reviews Ihya
  59. Jul 24, 18:09     Re: reviews qster
  92. Jul 24, 22:43    Re: reviews Surfer
  93. Jul 24, 22:46     Re: reviews ZzeusS
  46. Jul 24, 17:08   Re: reviews Mr. Couch
  48. Jul 24, 17:11    Re: reviews TheNarcis
  51. Jul 24, 17:33   Re: reviews Alan_Grey
  62. Jul 24, 18:28    Re: reviews WaltC
  64. Jul 24, 18:36     Re: reviews TheNarcis
  66. Jul 24, 18:50      Re: reviews WaltC
  68. Jul 24, 18:51     Re: reviews Enahs
  70. Jul 24, 19:10      Re: reviews WaltC
  71. Jul 24, 19:22       Re: reviews Enahs
  72. Jul 24, 19:34       Re: reviews ZzeusS
  61. Jul 24, 18:24   Re: reviews Lanz
  63. Jul 24, 18:32    Re: reviews Ray Marden
  65. Jul 24, 18:42   Re: reviews Enahs
  67. Jul 24, 18:50    Re: MyRealName
  89. Jul 24, 22:19     Re: 4D-Boxing
  90. Jul 24, 22:29      Re: nier
  94. Jul 24, 23:00      Re: Ray Marden
  116. Jul 25, 09:31      Re: MyRealName
  119. Jul 25, 09:40       Re: Shai
  35. Jul 24, 16:44  Re: reviews Brym
  37. Jul 24, 16:47  Re: reviews Propagandhi
  38. Jul 24, 16:47  Re: reviews MachineMk2
  44. Jul 24, 16:59   Re: reviews TheNarcis
  49. Jul 24, 17:12    Re: reviews kyleb
  50. Jul 24, 17:16     Re: reviews TheNarcis
  73. Jul 24, 19:38     This thread so far & where it will go Zephalephelah
  77. Jul 24, 19:56      Re: This thread so far & where it will g Tango
  80. Jul 24, 20:16       Re: This thread so far & where it will g ProdigyXL
  33. Jul 24, 16:41 why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? REMF
  36. Jul 24, 16:45  Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? Hellbinder
  39. Jul 24, 16:51   Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? Propagandhi
  42. Jul 24, 16:53   why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? REMF
  45. Jul 24, 17:00    Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? Propagandhi
  47. Jul 24, 17:09     why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? REMF
  53. Jul 24, 17:36     Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? Alan_Grey
  54. Jul 24, 17:38   Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? JoeCool
  56. Jul 24, 17:43    Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? REMF
  57. Jul 24, 17:45     Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? Alan_Grey
  60. Jul 24, 18:14     Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? JoeCool
  102. Jul 25, 00:08   Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? John
  103. Jul 25, 00:40    Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? rkone
  104. Jul 25, 00:42     Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? JoeCool
  105. Jul 25, 00:44      Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? JoeCool
  108. Jul 25, 00:57       Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? rkone
  109. Jul 25, 01:05        Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? JoeCool
  110. Jul 25, 01:19         Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? rkone
  117. Jul 25, 09:33         Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? Shai
  111. Jul 25, 01:46       Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? HIGH_PING
  125. Jul 25, 13:51       Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? JoeCool
  107. Jul 25, 00:47      Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? rkone
  120. Jul 25, 09:52      Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? Shai
  106. Jul 25, 00:45     Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? Ray Marden
  112. Jul 25, 02:15     Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? John
  118. Jul 25, 09:37    Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? pob
  133. Jul 25, 22:39     Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? John
  134. Jul 26, 01:16      Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? gerauchertes
  135. Jul 26, 17:57       Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? Gandhi
  136. Jul 26, 19:50       Re: why is D3 faster on 6800 cards? John
  52. Jul 24, 17:36 nonsense! HIGH_PING
  55. Jul 24, 17:39  Re: nonsense! Alan_Grey
  69. Jul 24, 18:52 I recommend the following... Management
  74. Jul 24, 19:39 Fanboys Baudkarma
  75. Jul 24, 19:41 No subject Maxx
  76. Jul 24, 19:55  Re: No subject SmyTTor
  78. Jul 24, 19:56 No subject kanniballl
  79. Jul 24, 20:12  Re: No subject TheNarcis
  81. Jul 24, 20:25 No subject Acleacius
  83. Jul 24, 20:42  Re: No subject TheNarcis
  88. Jul 24, 22:09  Re: No subject Marksman
  82. Jul 24, 20:31 looking for a good forum VampiricuS
  84. Jul 24, 20:48  Re: looking for a good forum Ray Marden
  86. Jul 24, 21:47  Re: looking for a good forum badtrip
  87. Jul 24, 22:04   Re: looking for a good forum ZzeusS
  85. Jul 24, 21:42 No subject Pete
  91. Jul 24, 22:30 No subject Acleacius
  95. Jul 24, 23:15 No subject Acleacius
  96. Jul 24, 23:20 No subject Acleacius
  97. Jul 24, 23:30  Re: No subject Ray Marden
  98. Jul 24, 23:41 No subject Acleacius
  99. Jul 24, 23:45  I just love... Ronin
  100. Jul 24, 23:46   oo, oo... Ronin
  101. Jul 24, 23:49    Re: oo, oo... Ray Marden
  113. Jul 25, 05:02 WaltC & Hellbinder vacs
  124. Jul 25, 10:54  Re: WaltC & Hellbinder WaltC
  126. Jul 25, 14:36   Re: WaltC & Hellbinder TheNarcis
  127. Jul 25, 16:37   Re: WaltC & Hellbinder ProdigyXL
  128. Jul 25, 16:54    Re: WaltC & Hellbinder kyleb
  129. Jul 25, 17:48     Re: WaltC & Hellbinder JoeCool
  130. Jul 25, 20:02      Re: WaltC & Hellbinder Gandhi
  131. Jul 25, 20:15       Re: WaltC & Hellbinder nin
  132. Jul 25, 22:32        Re: WaltC & Hellbinder ZzeusS
>> 137. Jul 27, 12:27    Re: WaltC & Hellbinder WaltC
  114. Jul 25, 07:00 No subject Acleacius
  115. Jul 25, 09:30 Ladies and Gentlemen it is time... Flo
  121. Jul 25, 09:54  Re: Ladies and Gentlemen it is time... Ray Marden
  122. Jul 25, 10:04  Re: Ladies and Gentlemen it is time... Satyric0n
  123. Jul 25, 10:40   Re: Ladies and Gentlemen it is time... Flo


Blue's News logo