Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-23-03, 07:16 AM   #25
Hanners
Elite Bastard
 
Hanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 984
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreal 'optimization' a non-issue?

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruined
So I assume you'd agree that every review with the R9800PRO vs FX5900Ultra should include a disclaimer that the ATI's scores only are done at FP24, possibly inflating the score over the FX5900Ultra which can do FP32, which is more work, and therefore ATI may have an inflated score?
When the differences between two cards are in hardware, and thus hard-wired into them, then that kind of information should already be in the technical specifications that are listed at the beginning of both reviews.

The problem comes when changes are made in drivers, particularly when these changes are forced regardless of what settings the user has requested. This is the big issue here as far as I'm concerned - Not the differences in image quality so much (although it's not a good precedent to set), but the fact that even if a user explicitly requests trilinear filtering, he doesn't get it in this game. There's no point giving users a control panel full of options if you are going to choose for them anyway.

As for the image quality differences not being discernable is concerned, that seems to be a very subjective filtering. While some people don't seem to notice at all, others have verified that 'once you've noticed it once, you'll spot it all the time'. It's unfair for me to give my own opinion as to how noticeable it is, seeing as I don't actually have a GeForceFX card to hand (although I am working on it ), but from Beyond3D's screenshots (even without coloured mip-maps) it seems pretty obvious.

I also would ask people not to confuse the AMDMB.com article with the discussion at [H] too much - To my mind they are looking at different issues. [H] are looking at bi/trilinear filtering issues, and AMDMB are looking at an aniso (or lack of) issue.
__________________
Owner / Editor-in-Chief - Elite Bastards
Hanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-03, 07:29 AM   #26
Ruined
Registered User
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,447
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreal 'optimization' a non-issue?

Quote:
Originally posted by Hanners
When the differences between two cards are in hardware, and thus hard-wired into them, then that kind of information should already be in the technical specifications that are listed at the beginning of both reviews.

The problem comes when changes are made in drivers, particularly when these changes are forced regardless of what settings the user has requested. This is the big issue here as far as I'm concerned
Well what about the Doom3 UltraShadow example? Not drawing shadows that are out of the line of sight is something that Raedon cards should be able to handle, but they will not be able to do so in their drivers since Nvidia has patented the technology, a technology that will likely be application specific and rely on drivers for this subjectively non-discernable optimization - there certainly isn't an 'ultrashadow chip' on nvidia cards. There is no option to disable Ultrashadow either. Is this new feature also a big problem?
__________________
We're all in it together.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz CPU | Intel G965WH mobo | 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667mhz CAS5 RAM (1066MHz FSB) | BFG GeForce 285 GTX OC 1GB | Dell E228WFP 22" DVI-HDCP LCD Monitor | 1TB Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Main Drive | 500GBx2 Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Scratch Drives in RAID0 | Western Digital RE3 1TB SATA2 Media Drive | External 2TB Western Digital MyBook Backup Drive | Adaptec eSATA 3.0gbps PCI-E interface | Sandisk External 12-in-1 Flash Card Reader | LG GGC-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD writer | LG GGW-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD/BD writer | Microsoft E4000 Ergonomic Keyboard | Logitech Trackman Wheel | Antec P182 ATX Case | Thermaltake ToughPower XT 850w modular PSU | KRK RP-8 Rokit Studio Monitors | Windows Vista Ultimate x64
Ruined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-03, 07:32 AM   #27
Hanners
Elite Bastard
 
Hanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 984
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreal 'optimization' a non-issue?

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruined
Well what about the Doom3 UltraShadow example? Not drawing shadows that are out of the line of sight is something that Raedon cards should be able to handle, but they will not be able to do so in their drivers since Nvidia has patented the technology, a technology that will likely be application specific and rely on drivers for the optimization - there certainly isn't an 'ultrashadow chip' on nvidia cards. There is no option to disable Ultrashadow either. Is this new feature also a big problem?
UltraShadow is a hardware feature on NV35, not a software feature as far as I'm aware. Just look at it as another form of HSR, which doesn't degrade image quality at all and therefore isn't important in the context of this discussion.

If we carried on at this rate we'd end up saying 'Hyper-Z and Tile-based rendering are bad, because they remove pixels'.
__________________
Owner / Editor-in-Chief - Elite Bastards
Hanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-03, 08:16 AM   #28
euan
Fully Qualified FanATIc
 
euan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 387
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreal 'optimization' a non-issue?

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruined
Well what about the Doom3 UltraShadow example? Not drawing shadows that are out of the line of sight is something that Raedon cards should be able to handle, but they will not be able to do so in their drivers since Nvidia has patented the technology, a technology that will likely be application specific and rely on drivers for this subjectively non-discernable optimization - there certainly isn't an 'ultrashadow chip' on nvidia cards. There is no option to disable Ultrashadow either. Is this new feature also a big problem?
Not a problem as the patent will either have expired by the time Doom 3 comes out, or 3D acceleration will be so advanced, it's not even a slight burden on the processing power of the GPU...

And why the change of subject? Running out of backup arguments?
__________________
Sys.txt

Last edited by euan; 07-23-03 at 08:20 AM.
euan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-03, 08:44 AM   #29
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Not, only did Brent miss the boat, he missed the port and the whole damn city!
StealthHawk is Dig's long-lost son

Anyway, Hanners and Stealth have said everything I wanted to say. And they did it while I was asleep! Yaaaaay!
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-03, 09:12 AM   #30
creedamd
 
creedamd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 597
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Matthyahuw
well, since nVIDIA's Bilinear looks better than ATi's Trilinear, I think it's just fine to me...
I can't believe that a technical editor made such a blind comment. Wow. Just wow.
__________________
System 1: 2500xp@3200|1gigHyperXPC4000|AbNF7s|Fortissimo7.1|SonyDJV700|DvdR+&CDRW|160gbHD
|9800pro|21"IBM-P260

System2: 2500xp@3200|abitNF7-s|512XMS|9700pro|160Gbhd

System3: 2400xp|512xms|Epox 8rda+|9500pro
creedamd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-03, 09:58 AM   #31
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
So I assume you'd agree that every review with the R9800PRO vs FX5900Ultra should include a disclaimer that the ATI's scores only are done at FP24, possibly inflating the score over the FX5900Ultra which can do FP32, which is more work, and therefore ATI may have an inflated score?
Yea they should. But show me were the FX is running at FULL32 bits in just one reveiw please. Its not. We have found out from a number of places that it drops down to lower settings and even FP12 for some of its work. So your right, we need a disclaimer but for ATI as they are always 24 bits.


Quote:
Or, when Doom3 benchmarks are released, since Nvidia's cards have the new Ultra Shadow feature that the ATI cards lack, which allows them to not draw parts of shadows that aren't being seen onscreen without affecting IQ thereby increasing fps, the reviewer should add a disclaimer that Nvidia is doing less work due to this and therefore may have an inflated score?
No thats only gonna happen when they use the NV30 code path which JC has said is faster but slighly lower IQ than the ARB2 path. Now JC said that the average person may not be able to see this, but that the job of a reivew. To compare two products with same task with the same IQ. Change one or the other and you have comparison thats not apples vrs apples.

The point is the user selects the highest settings. The NV drivers ignore what the user wants and gives lower IQ. Is it fair to benchmark one card doing full tri-linear vrs another thats only doing it part of the time with lower IQ (HardOCP even said that it lowers IQ)? I mean come on Tri-linear filtering is been around for last 4 years standard on almost all cards. Why does a card that cost 500 dollars have to change my setting for Tri-linear? The fact that Brent/Kyle can not see it does not mean squat as others like Dave at B3D can (sorry I trust Dave as he has been in the video card review business a lot longer and knows a lot more). Its like a scratch on your car. Sure others can not see it, but once you know where to look you can see that scratch accross the lot (you know what I mean).
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-03, 10:01 AM   #32
Cool Barn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by creedamd
I can't believe that a technical editor made such a blind comment. Wow. Just wow.
Yeah, between that and Peter Glaskowhatshisname's decision to award the 5800 best graphics card of 2002, I don't think I'll trust a technical editor as long as I live.

(Except for the editors at NVNews of course, I'd trust them with my life!!!)
Cool Barn is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-03, 10:08 AM   #33
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jbirney
Yea they should. But show me were the FX is running at FULL32 bits in just one reveiw please. Its not. We have found out from a number of places that it drops down to lower settings and even FP12 for some of its work. So your right, we need a disclaimer but for ATI as they are always 24 bits.
perhaps fx12 ?



integer.. not floating point...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-03, 10:11 AM   #34
Hanners
Elite Bastard
 
Hanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 984
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by creedamd
I can't believe that a technical editor made such a blind comment. Wow. Just wow.
I'm glad you said that, so I didn't have to.
__________________
Owner / Editor-in-Chief - Elite Bastards
Hanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-03, 10:22 AM   #35
extreme_dB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 337
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unreal 'optimization' a non-issue?

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruined
Well what about the Doom3 UltraShadow example? Not drawing shadows that are out of the line of sight is something that Raedon cards should be able to handle, but they will not be able to do so in their drivers since Nvidia has patented the technology, a technology that will likely be application specific and rely on drivers for this subjectively non-discernable optimization - there certainly isn't an 'ultrashadow chip' on nvidia cards. There is no option to disable Ultrashadow either. Is this new feature also a big problem?
Can you explain why the 9800Pro was faster than the 5900U in Doom3 high-quality mode wih older, unoptimized drivers that only used half its memory? The 9800Pro is competitive with a lower clock and less memory bandwidth. Does ATI's architecture sound less impressive when it's even rendering at higher precision?

Anyway, the argument you brought up is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what method an architecture uses to render an image. What does matter is that it's rendering what an application asks to the best of its ability (you'd know its limitations before you buy it) and that you're not being artificially limited by what you can do to finetune the image to your liking. If ultrashadow has zero effect on IQ, then there's no need to enable a user-option for it if it's only beneficial.

Nvidia advertises FP32 and cinematic computing, but then does everything they can to lower precision so it runs acceptably on their architecture. The NV30-34 goes below the industry-standard DX9 requirement for full-precision by translating everything to half-precision. This is the kind of thing we're talking about.

ATI does not advertise FP32 and then fail to deliver it. ATI did falsely advertise supersampling and piss off a lot of people, but they're not fooling people by making them think that SSAA is actually now available and then doing something else when the user selects it, as what Nvidia is doing with trilinear filtering.

Nvidia misleads reviewers by demonstrating that they do full trilinear with a synthetic test, all the while having it disabled in UT2003. Most consumers wouldn't notice if it hadn't been discovered by certain people investigating IQ. The fact that it's not noticeable is not the point. Most (all?) people didn't notice the Quack issue either until Nvidia tipped off review sites. ATI users wouldn't be aware that the IQ is supposed to be better than it actually was.

Last edited by extreme_dB; 07-23-03 at 10:27 AM.
extreme_dB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-03, 02:09 PM   #36
Filburt
Jeimei Frugiunglagią
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 105
Send a message via ICQ to Filburt Send a message via AIM to Filburt
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Matthyahuw
well, since nVIDIA's Bilinear looks better than ATi's Trilinear, I think it's just fine to me...
Shouldn't you preface this with it being your opinion given...well...a rather limited number of people would agree with this statement, especially those who've reviewed the cards side by side?
Filburt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NVIDIA Responds to Reports of Kepler V-Sync Stuttering Issue Rieper NVIDIA GeForce 600 Series 13 03-03-13 11:56 PM
Gorgeous Unreal Engine 4 brings direct programming, indirect lighting News Archived News Items 0 06-08-12 10:20 PM
Star Wars 1313 running on Unreal Engine 3 on PC at E3, will be linear and light on Je News Archived News Items 0 06-08-12 06:20 AM
Intel's Ivy Bridge Core i7 3770K Overheating Issue Detailed News Archived News Items 0 05-16-12 11:40 AM
Does anyone like the cool water reflection effect in unreal 2003? imtim83 Gaming Central 15 09-20-02 11:18 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:53 PM.


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