ati's Doom3 results

[nvnews-reader]

Is there any proof that ati's drivers weren't optimized for Doom3 or that ID intentionally held back performance of ati cards?

Why after having their product on the market for 10 months have the drivers not been fully optimized for DX9 games?

I think people are giving ati way too much slack when it comes to Doom 3 test results vs the 5900

It’s ridiculous ati should get their act together so at least people can play the alpha version at reasonable speeds. Or could it be it’s the hardware that’s the problem?

[Hanners]

Originally posted by nvnews-reader
Is there any proof that ati's drivers weren't optimized for Doom3 or that ID intentionally held back performance of ati cards?

Why after having their product on the market for 10 months have the drivers not been fully optimized for DX9 games?

I think people are giving ati way too much slack when it comes to Doom 3 test results vs the 5900

It’s ridiculous ati should get their act together so at least people can play the alpha version at reasonable speeds. Or could it be it’s the hardware that’s the problem?

Doom III isn't a DirectX 9 game. Plus, ATI haven't even seen the current version of Doom III in any shape or form, so it's difficult to optimise and find problems with software you've never seen.

I'm sure it'll all be resolved by the time the game ships, and if it isn't, ATi can expect one hell of a backlash from users....

[ZoinKs!]

The fact that the latest drivers ran at a constant 10 fps at all resolutions from 10x7 up to 16x12 is proof that the drivers were unoptimised.

The fact that using older drivers limited the 9800pro to 128 megs instead of 256 should be another clue.

If those aren't enough proof that ati's drivers were unoptimised (heck, forget about being "unoptimised" for Doom3, they weren't even tested) then consider this (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33685071&perpage=20&pagenumber=2) from CATALYST Maker: All I can say at this point is that we have not had that particular benchmark before the review sites started using it. What a shame that people are getting to look at something that we havent had a chance to play around with a bit.

Anyways please dont pay any attention to that benchmark. It is on an unfinished product that we have not looked at yet. Wait till it really comes out and we will be ready to rock. Pretty hard for ati to optimise for something they haven't even seen yet...That "benchmark" is invalid and far from an "apples-to-apples" comparison.

[ZoinKs!]

I just took another look at your post and there are some other things I just gotta comment on.

Originally posted by nvnews-reader
Is there any proof that ati's drivers weren't optimized for Doom3 or that ID intentionally held back performance of ati cards? See my prior post regarding optimized drivers. Although ati was blindsided by this "benchmark," I don't think ID intentionally held back ati's performance.



Why after having their product on the market for 10 months have the drivers not been fully optimized for DX9 games? Probably because there aren't any dx 9 games. And the word from developers regarding dx 9 is that ati's drivers are better than nVidia's, at least for dx 9. nVidia is having trouble implementing some of dx 9's fundamental features in their drivers.



I think people are giving ati way too much slack when it comes to Doom 3 test results vs the 5900 I disagree, see my previous post for the reasons.


It’s ridiculous ati should get their act together so at least people can play the alpha version at reasonable speeds. So you want them to optimise their drivers to work with stolen, unfinished, incomplete, alpha code? Wow...all I can say is "wow." (Except I'll add in that, based on what I've heard, the alpha runs at reasonable speeds on r300 cards...)



Or could it be it’s the hardware that’s the problem? Not a chance. Not even a shadow of a chance. If you want to talk about broken hardware and dx 9, the only thing to talk about is the nv3x and it's many problems.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by nvnews-reader
Is there any proof that ati's drivers weren't optimized for Doom3 or that ID intentionally held back performance of ati cards?

Why after having their product on the market for 10 months have the drivers not been fully optimized for DX9 games?

I think people are giving ati way too much slack when it comes to Doom 3 test results vs the 5900

It’s ridiculous ati should get their act together so at least people can play the alpha version at reasonable speeds. Or could it be it’s the hardware that’s the problem?

Sheesh. This has been covered extensively in the Doom3 threads in the nvidia forum. But I guess it could use a spotlight out in the open :)

Anand (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=21) said this: We actually ended up using ATI's Catalyst 3.2 instead of 3.4 for our Doom3 tests simply because the Catalyst 3.4 drivers we had were significantly slower in Doom3 and were much more unstable than the 3.2 release.

[H]'s (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDc0) results speak for themselves. The r9800Pro 256MB using the newest Catalyst drivers, 3.4, scores 10fps in all resolutions across the board.

[bloodbob]

Few comments

1. I was suprised the 5900 card did so well its a good sign for all those 5800 owners.

2. Nvidia is still currently focusing on DX8 generation speed which means its fast today slower tomorrow but they do have the future feature set thats all I would care about cause you can yank down all the ingame settings and set res to like 640x480 and play games in a few years.

3. Ati was using a generic render pathway where as nvidia was using a special pathway if I recall there is also a ati pathway. The big question is how is the X-BOX gonna look??? if I recall its just a GF2 with a second vertex proccessor.

I'm happy that my 9500 pro will do better then 30 fps so meh.

[ChrisRay]

3. Ati was using a generic render pathway where as nvidia was using a special pathway if I recall there is also a ati pathway. The big question is how is the X-BOX gonna look??? if I recall its just a GF2 with a second vertex proccessor

Xbox GPU has a Pixel Shader and Multi Sample Anti Aliasing. It's a Geforce 3 with an aditional Vertex Shader

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by bloodbob
1. I was suprised the 5900 card did so well its a good sign for all those 5800 owners.

No, not really. I don't think NV35 users have too much to worry about using full FP32 precision. NV30 users on the other hand...

[MrNasty]

I'm sure when ATi get their drivers sorted out and then swift retribution shall be at hand.

Maybe not in nvidia optimized doom3 but a swift beating across the board in other games such as quake3 and half life2 which don't seem to have such specific nvidia coding :)

ATi was caught with their pants down and it's bit of a non representitive benchmark imo.

[bloodbob]

Well which card is the speed king using integer paths is yet to be decided because there is the NV25 pathway and the R200 pathway carmack hasn't given us any clues on what the NV25 pathway looks like or speed wise. He has stated some where that quality in the R200 pathway is slightly above that of the NV25 if no scaling is done in the shaders ( i.e. lowering the value then doing some operations and raising it again ) but I don't know if he scaling in both pathways or not. But the R200 pathway ( more passes but less cycles ) + R3X0 is faster then the NV30 + NV30 pathway.

Just to note something the ATI integer pathways on a R3X0 far exceed those of a 5800 FX in quality ( not looking at AA or AF ). I'm gonna get flamed for that but hey its true. Now I just whish they both would move to 64 bit frame buffers and DACs ( well 48bit DACs ) cause the banding on 32 bit colour sucks :/

[MrNasty]

Up up !

[rokzy]

Originally posted by nvnews-reader
Is there any proof that ati's drivers weren't optimized for Doom3 or that ID intentionally held back performance of ati cards?

Why after having their product on the market for 10 months have the drivers not been fully optimized for DX9 games?

I think people are giving ati way too much slack when it comes to Doom 3 test results vs the 5900

It’s ridiculous ati should get their act together so at least people can play the alpha version at reasonable speeds. Or could it be it’s the hardware that’s the problem?

people on these boards are funny. they see the 3dmark2003 hack and give nvidia the benefit of the 1-in-10,000,000,000-chance doubt that it was a coincidence. and they see the obviously BS Doom3 results and think it must be an accurate representation of ATI performance until someone can conclusively prove otherwise.[/sweeping_generalisation]

:rolleyes:

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by rokzy
people on these boards are funny. they see the 3dmark2003 hack and give nvidia the benefit of the 1-in-10,000,000,000-chance doubt that it was a coincidence. and they see the obviously BS Doom3 results and think it must be an accurate representation of ATI performance until someone can conclusively prove otherwise.[/sweeping_generalisation]

:rolleyes:

I guess you guys with problems just suck at computers... ?

(btw I tried the FX5900 in my Duron 400MHz rig - it's a total POS, all games are unplayable, nvidia suck )

I don't think I have to say anymore.

[Dazz]

Duron 400MHz? Sorry m8 there no such thing. Besides there is a thing called CPU bottlenecked :D The fastest components are only as fast as the slowerest one.

[Hellbinder]

If you look at Tomshardare Doom-III numbers ATi wins 2 of the 3 Tests. The difference? Tom ran the test is High Quality mode. Where The other 2 sites ran in medium Quality mode.

Now you tell me who REALLY won the matchup.

Secondly. ATi is the ONLY company with fully compatable, fully functional, Bug free DX9 drivers. Nvidia is still Missing a Good portion of their DX9 feature set, and the rest are still getting there.

This isfo is easy to find if you read B3D and a few other sites.

[StealthHawk]

What I found more interesting was that Anand claimed there was no real performance difference between medium and high quality
The only options that we could change in game were the quality settings which we could set to low, medium or high. We benchmarked medium and high, but on the fastest cards the performance drop in high quality mode was negligible so we stuck to reporting the medium detail level scores due to time constraints.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=21

[Dazz]

Yeah i saw that also, it is said that the FX may have driver problems when running in high quilty mode.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Dazz
Yeah i saw that also, it is said that the FX may have driver problems when running in high quilty mode.

Laff :p Excuses, excuses.

[Dazz]

Yeah i just reread that i must say it's impressive the ATi cards lost only 4~6fps by going from med to high Quality mode.