nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   The case of the disappearing shadows (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=877)

legion88 08-18-02 02:30 PM

Case of the Disappearing Shadows
 
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2126

New accusation against NVIDIA for cheating. And we are told that these non-shadows would lead to a significant performance advantage. In other words, NVIDIA is accused of not rendering everything to beef up frame rates.

Quote:

Don't think these texture renders can be neglected since they are full 128x128 texture renders and there are more than 10 of them... rendering ten 128 by 128 pixel textures is quite a bit of fillrate ! Not to mention the potential impact of changing render target, and the fact that texturing from a render target is usually slower than from a twiddled uploaded texture.
Whatever.

Now for the truth, these shadows were missing even on the GF3s. Anyone remember that article I posted up at http://www.geocities.com/legion88/? It has those same pictures and it shows clearly that the shadows were missing. Compare the screenshots of the GF3 using the 12.00 drivers and the same video card using the 21.83 drivers. The 12.00 drivers didn't like shadows very much.

I even had this conclusion:

Quote:

On the contrary, not only did NVIDIA keep the level of detail the same but they also fixed graphical anomalies. In two of the four image quality tests, the deviation from the reference image actually went down. This means that the image quality actually improved in two of the four tests.
The game 1 test was one of them.

These were posted last year in November 2001.

With the 21.83 drivers, the shadows were there. The performance in that game test using the 21.83 drivers went up by 25% in the low-detail setting, up a small 1.8 FPS at the high-detail setting.

Judging from the scores with and without shadows on the GF3, these shadows meant very little in the overall scheme of things when it comes to performance.

With the GF4s, it looks like those anomalies in the game 1 test are back (though not as bad as it was with the GF3). I just do not support the notion that these shadows anomaly enhances the performances significantly when there are no facts to support it and facts to dispute it.

We can always deny the obvious like the 21.83 drivers had a 1000 3DMark2002 score advantage over the 12.00 drivers just to support the notion that those shadows are important to performance. We can do that.

Acid Rain 08-19-02 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by legion88
We can always deny the obvious like the 21.83 drivers had a 1000 3DMark2002 score advantage over the 12.00 drivers just to support the notion that those shadows are important to performance. We can do that.
Yeah, I could deny it, but I'd have to be a complete and total idiot.

Since I'm nowhere near that description, I will simply thank you for bringing this to the less enlightened. ;)

thcdru2k 08-19-02 09:37 PM

who the **** gives a **** if its missing a shadow. they're making some big ass discussion over a missing shadow

legion88 08-20-02 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thcdru2k
who the **** gives a **** if its missing a shadow. they're making some big ass discussion over a missing shadow
Well, they were claiming that NVIDIA was cheating by not rendering the shadows to boost the speed.

My point is that (a) the disappearing shadows is an old problem with the drivers, not some new one and (b) the shadows meant squat to performance.

Their accusation was wrong on at least two levels.

And looks like the little thread over at Beyond3D no longer exists as the link no longer works. Remove the evidence I guess.

Matthyahuw 08-20-02 10:30 PM

if nVidia was going to cheat, they'd have done it when it would actually be in their favor, like when the 8500 came out...nVidia has nothing to prove. They know they can't compete against the 9700 (but some benchies are DAMN close!). It just doesn't make sense...

ErrorS 08-21-02 08:29 AM

hey now.. the quake3 BS that affected all Radeons, didn't improve benchmark scores or anything else.. WTF about that? people werent saying the same things about R8500 with its quack bull****.. it was "ATI CHEATS NVIDIA RULES"

now nvidia has a problem displaying shadows.. affects all nvidia cards.. doesnt improve performance.. yet its a bug?

holy ****

Matthyahuw 08-21-02 09:41 AM

yep :p

DaveW 08-21-02 10:47 PM

Its due to DXTC1 compression artifacts in the lightmaps.

legion88 08-22-02 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ErrorS
hey now.. the quake3 BS that affected all Radeons, didn't improve benchmark scores or anything else.. WTF about that? people werent saying the same things about R8500 with its quack bull****.. it was "ATI CHEATS NVIDIA RULES"

now nvidia has a problem displaying shadows.. affects all nvidia cards.. doesnt improve performance.. yet its a bug?

holy ****


The "quack" cheat boosted the ATi Radeon 8500 scores in Quake III benchmarks. To claim otherwise (like you did) would be a lie. But that is not the full story anyway.

The "quack" cheat can be deactivated by simply changing the reference name in the drivers from "Quake III" to "quack" (hence the "quack" name) using a hex editor. The only way this modification can work is if and only if the drivers were programmed to recognize a certain game application called Quake III.

Both are facts and I noticed you are quick to deny one of the facts already.

The combination of both these facts (not just one but both) shows that ATi attempted to cheat. These cheat-capable ATi drivers were used in previews and early reviews of the Radeon 8500. Those enhanced Quake III scores were one of the selling points of the Radeon 8500. Having the drivers "fixed" a month later after the full reviews were published was a month too late.

ErrorS 08-22-02 01:12 PM

a lie? how about you go look at the quack articles.. the benchmarks that go along with them.. then the benchmark for the driver set that fixed the quack thing.. then tell me how much it helped performance

Megatron 08-22-02 01:16 PM

Lol..why do people still need to mention Quack. Water over the bridge, over a year old..why bother.

Now if you want to talk of things more current, how about the nice Nvidia /Gf4 3DMark "bug". When run under default conditions(Splash Screens on), this "bug" results in more points than what one should get with a Gf4.
This is anothe similar stupid little bug. Not worth getting upset over. Just like "quack" this was fixed, and should be just chalked up to a mistake.
However we can keep dwelling on Quack, and pretend 3DMarks bug doesnt exist...we can do that.:rolleyes:

legion88 08-22-02 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ErrorS
a lie? how about you go look at the quack articles.. the benchmarks that go along with them.. then the benchmark for the driver set that fixed the quack thing.. then tell me how much it helped performance
Yes, it is a lie and you continue to lie. As already stated, the quack cheat can be disabled. That is how we all know that the quack cheat boosted Quake 3 performance--contrary to what you want us to believe.

Example: at 1280x1024, Quack: 136 FPS, no Quack: 115.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEx

It is not exactly a huge difference in performance (18% boost). But it is enough to cover ATi's rear-end in Quake III benchmarks until they got HyperZ working (at least in Quake III).

Oh, did you conveniently forget that HyperZII wasn't working out of the box on the Radeon 8500 in OpenGL? Oh, how convenient. Typical but convenient.

And your response conveniently ignores the obvious fact that ATi had routines in the drivers that specifically recognizes Quake III and Quake III only--a game application widely used in benchmarks. So rather than treat Quake III like any other OpenGL game, ATi's drivers run specialized routines just for Quake III and Quake III only. This was not a "Quake 3 engine" job like you people pretend it was, this was a "Quake III only" job. That is why these specialized routines didn't work with Return to Castle Wolfenstein. How convenient of you to forget these facts.

People with integrity would never knowingly accept results where specialized routines were used to boost up performance at specific benchmarks unless, of course, they can show that the competition was also using specialized routines.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.