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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-18-02, 02:30 PM   #1
legion88
WhatIfSports.com Junkie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 135
Default 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.
legion88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-02, 05:30 PM   #2
Acid Rain
What a sweet little...
 
Acid Rain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: West Coast, USA.
Posts: 1,248
Default

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.
__________________
MY PIG
MB: GA-EP45-UD3P
CPU: Q6600 (SLACR)
RAM: 4GB KHX6400D2LLK2
3D Porkware: Radeon HD 4890
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64 with MSE
Aux Equipment: Phase-B Nanocycloptics
Acid Rain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-02, 09:37 PM   #3
thcdru2k
Registered User
 
thcdru2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Milpitas, CA
Posts: 1,142
Send a message via ICQ to thcdru2k Send a message via AIM to thcdru2k
Default

who the **** gives a **** if its missing a shadow. they're making some big ass discussion over a missing shadow
__________________
Athlon XP 1.58GHz | MSI KT3 Ultra2 | 256MB DDR PC-3000 | GeForce 4 ti4200 64mb @ 310/533 | IBM 120GXP 40.0GB | Det. 41.09 | DX 9 RC2 | Win XP SP1

11118 3DMarks
thcdru2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-02, 07:07 PM   #4
legion88
WhatIfSports.com Junkie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 135
Default

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.
legion88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-02, 10:30 PM   #5
Matthyahuw
Registered User
 
Matthyahuw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 919
Send a message via ICQ to Matthyahuw Send a message via AIM to Matthyahuw Send a message via Yahoo to Matthyahuw
Default

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...
__________________
Shalom!
Matthyahuw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-02, 08:29 AM   #6
ErrorS
Registered User
 
ErrorS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: indiana
Posts: 77
Default

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 ****
ErrorS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-02, 09:41 AM   #7
Matthyahuw
Registered User
 
Matthyahuw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 919
Send a message via ICQ to Matthyahuw Send a message via AIM to Matthyahuw Send a message via Yahoo to Matthyahuw
Default

yep
__________________
Shalom!
Matthyahuw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-02, 10:47 PM   #8
DaveW
Its me! Hurray!
 
DaveW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Brit in USA
Posts: 1,203
Default

Its due to DXTC1 compression artifacts in the lightmaps.
DaveW is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-02, 11:25 AM   #9
legion88
WhatIfSports.com Junkie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 135
Default

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.
legion88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-02, 01:12 PM   #10
ErrorS
Registered User
 
ErrorS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: indiana
Posts: 77
Default

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
ErrorS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-02, 01:16 PM   #11
Megatron
Powered by 6800GT
 
Megatron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 239
Default

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.
__________________
Athlon64 3200+
1Gb PC3200
BFG 6800GT
Windows XP
Megatron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-02, 06:37 PM   #12
legion88
WhatIfSports.com Junkie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 135
Default

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.
legion88 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
Modding my old EVGA GeForce 8800 GT video card's fan to blow heat from the PC case? ant NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 23 07-09-13 12:26 PM
Modding my old EVGA GeForce 8800 GT video card's fan to blow heat from the PC case? ant NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 0 12-23-12 03:04 PM
In bid for patent sanity, judge throws out entire Apple/Motorola case News Archived News Items 0 06-22-12 11:20 PM
Thief: Deadly Shadows, Splinter Cell, Anomaly: Warzone Earth and Legacy of Kain: Soul News Archived News Items 0 05-04-12 11:00 AM
Check out my new PC Case! LORD-eX-Bu General Hardware 13 09-17-02 12:48 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 PM.


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