A look at IQ at Firingsquad...

[WaltC]

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/imagequalityshootout/default.asp

I found this article to be a better one than the ET article, in that it simply does more to demonstrate "quality" because it uses screenshots from actual games which compare products at like IQ settings to make its points and completely ignores framerates...but I found it far too abbreviated to really explore the subject in the depth it deserves.

Are 0xFSAA and 0xAF, 4x FSAA and 8x AF the only IQ settings possible with either product? (rhetorical question.)

To that end this article, too, fails to live up to its title: "Image Quality Showdown: ATi vs. nVidia." Instead, we get a semi-detailed, but very incomplete and very small slice of the real IQ picture between the two.

A positive was that it included comments on the topic of IQ in general from both companies which were fully attributed--I liked that a lot! It's so much better and more professional than merely saying "nVidia/ATi told me blah, blah, blah..." Now we can hang Tony Tomasi out to dry if the next set of Dets doesn't relinquish control of Trilinear in UT2K3 back to the end user...Angelini does well to include names along with such promises.

However, Angelini loses points for this unattributed statement: "Though ATI has been guilty of the same aggressive optimizations NVIDIA has recently taken flak for, ...". I would say that nowhere has it been demonstrated in the last several months that ATi has done the "same thing" as nVidia with regard to either UT2K3 or 3dMK03. In fact, it would be difficult at best to even generally compare the two in this regard because the things the companies have done respectively are so very different.

Taken together, though, I'm wondering if the problem with these articles is that the authors decided to title them after they'd written them...;)

[Hanners]

I found the difference between ATi and nVidia's attitude towards optimisations very interesting... I was actually suprised to see ATi seem to be going down the road of no application specific optimisations at all.

[micron]

It is sooo tough to be an Nvidia fan on these forums.....

[WaltC]

I found the difference between ATi and nVidia's attitude towards optimisations very interesting... I was actually suprised to see ATi seem to be going down the road of no application specific optimisations at all.

This is kind of what they've said from the start, though...at least it seems so to me. I believe that within the first week of ATi's very minor optimization (which affected neither IQ or workload) being discovered in in 3dMk03 the company stated that future drivers would no longer target benchmarks for recognition and special-case optimization. I also think it's refreshing to see them looking differently at actual 3d games, as well. nVidia's view, of course, has been consistently that they will continue their version of "optimization" in any game or benchmark they choose.

Approaching this from a slightly more technical angle, I think this is something nVidia has discovered it must do in order to have its products appear competitive in applications and benchmarks they deem key to sales targets. They're having to spend a lot of time teaching developers "workarounds" for various things in order to do this, which they call "optimized code paths" and so on, which will vary depending on the API.


It is sooo tough to be an Nvidia fan on these forums.....

I agree--but it doesn't have to be. It's the constant rationalizing and slanting of the facts that are often engaged in that make it difficult for them (for those of them who engage in those approaches, that is.) The worst such example of this case is the "Ati did it, too," syndrome...;) ATi has done certain things, and nVidia has done certain things, and it doesn't pay to lump them together in the same stewpot, IMO.

[Quitch]

However, Angelini loses points for this unattributed statement: "Though ATI has been guilty of the same aggressive optimizations NVIDIA has recently taken flak for, ..."

It's things like that that scare me. I mean, did every reviewer come in late, miss most of the "optimisation" incidents, then shout to their editor "I got the gist of it!" before filing an article?

How can anyone claim to truly understand the issue while writing statements like that, a clear indication of NOT understanding the issue... or not having followed it.

[crazipper]

Greetings,

Chris Angelini here - just wanted to check in with you guys to answer the questions that have been raised. Yes - the article was particularly short. Yes - there is a follow up planned already, as this one was to focus on comparing apples to apples, not NVIDIA's best settings to ATI's best settings. And the statement about optimizations was in regard to the 3D Mark03 optimizations ATI has admitted to making and later removing. Then, there's still the quasi-trilinear filtering used in UT2003. It may not be on the same level as NVIDIA's "optimizations," but they are optimizations nonetheless. I appreciate the feedback and thanks for keeping it constructive. Have a good weekend all,

Chris

[digitalwanderer]

Thanks for coming by to help clear up the confusion/answer questions....here's one for ya:

Then, there's still the quasi-trilinear filtering used in UT2003. It may not be on the same level as NVIDIA's "optimizations," but they are optimizations nonetheless
The "quasi-trilinear filtering" used in UT2003 IS one of nVidia's optimizations...what are you talking about? :?

[Hanners]

Thanks for coming by to help clear up the confusion/answer questions....here's one for ya:

Then, there's still the quasi-trilinear filtering used in UT2003. It may not be on the same level as NVIDIA's "optimizations," but they are optimizations nonetheless

The "quasi-trilinear filtering" used in UT2003 IS one of nVidia's optimizations...what are you talking about? :?

He's talking about ATi only doing trilinear on the first texture stage when AF is forced in the ATi Control Panel. :)



Thanks for joining us Chris.... Just one question - Do you have any plans to start including these kind of image quality tests in all future reviews, or are you going to keep it as a separate issue for now?

[WaltC]

Greetings,

Chris Angelini here - just wanted to check in with you guys to answer the questions that have been raised. Yes - the article was particularly short. Yes - there is a follow up planned already, as this one was to focus on comparing apples to apples, not NVIDIA's best settings to ATI's best settings. And the statement about optimizations was in regard to the 3D Mark03 optimizations ATI has admitted to making and later removing. Then, there's still the quasi-trilinear filtering used in UT2003. It may not be on the same level as NVIDIA's "optimizations," but they are optimizations nonetheless. I appreciate the feedback and thanks for keeping it constructive. Have a good weekend all,

Chris

Chris,

The thing that struck me about the AF comparison is that "apples-to-apples" you used nVidia's best-quality AF settings but didn't use ATI's best setting. I had no objection to you comparing 8xAF to 8xAF--none at all, except that, again, it's nVidia's best but not ATi's, that's all. Would have been fine for you to do both 8x & 16x AF in comparison to nVidia's 8x AF, surely.

You said: "So there you have it, ATI tops NVIDIA in anti-aliasing quality while NVIDIA bests ATI in anisotropic filtering. As I mentioned, since you didn't test 16x AF for the ATi product, there's really no basis here on which you could make the above statement. Right? I'm sure you realize that no ATi user is going to refuse to run 16xAF simply because nVidia's limited to an 8xAF setting...?

I also have no objection to a direct comparison between nVidia's 8xFSAA and ATi's 6xFSAA, for the same reasons. Hopefully we'll see that in the follow-up article (as well as 2x, etc.)

In regard to the 3dMk03 optimizations, here are the major distinctions:

(1) According to FM, ATI's optimization was limited to a single test and affected the total score of the bench by < 2%, did not eliminate benchmark workload nor alter image quality. nVidia, though, optimized through several tests, eliminated portions of the benchmark workload, sacrificed IQ, and affected the total score of the bench by >26%.

(2) ATi admitted to what it did. nVidia has never done so.

(3) ATi pledged to no longer target benchmarks for optimizations. nVidia has pledged to keep on optimizing for them.

I see many more differences here than similarities, and I see nothing that would justify your statement that: ""Though ATI has been guilty of the same aggressive optimizations NVIDIA has recently taken flak for..."

The optimizations were not the same and the aggressiveness was not the same. Hopefully you'll clear that up in part two. Yes, there were optimizations by both companies--not nearly "the same" optimizations, however.

Then, there's still the quasi-trilinear filtering used in UT2003.

By nVidia, I'm assuming you mean, since full trilinear is fully supported in the Cats from within the application--but turn it on in the Dets from within the application, and it's still quasi-trilinear, as the Dets don't support full trilinear in the game regardless of where you attempt to turn it on.

Looking forward to part two!...;)

[crazipper]

I'd like to make it standard in the major tech releases - it can be covered comprehensively when R360/420/NV40 etc. launches. I don't think it is something that necessarily needs to be rehashed for every odd NV35/R350 card, do you? Perhaps keeping tabs on IQ as new drivers are released would be good as well?

[crazipper]

Chris,

The thing that struck me about the AF comparison is that "apples-to-apples" you used nVidia's best-quality AF settings but didn't use ATI's best setting. I had no objection to you comparing 8xAF to 8xAF--none at all, except that, again, it's nVidia's best but not ATi's, that's all. Would have been fine for you to do both 8x & 16x AF in comparison to nVidia's 8x AF, surely.

You said: "So there you have it, ATI tops NVIDIA in anti-aliasing quality while NVIDIA bests ATI in anisotropic filtering. As I mentioned, since you didn't test 16x AF for the ATi product, there's really no basis here on which you could make the above statement. Right? I'm sure you realize that no ATi user is going to refuse to run 16xAF simply because nVidia's limited to an 8xAF setting...?

I also have no objection to a direct comparison between nVidia's 8xFSAA and ATi's 6xFSAA, for the same reasons. Hopefully we'll see that in the follow-up article (as well as 2x, etc.)

In regard to the 3dMk03 optimizations, here are the major distinctions:

(1) According to FM, ATI's optimization was limited to a single test and affected the total score of the bench by < 2%, did not eliminate benchmark workload nor alter image quality. nVidia, though, optimized through several tests, eliminated portions of the benchmark workload, sacrificed IQ, and affected the total score of the bench by >26%.

(2) ATi admitted to what it did. nVidia has never done so.

(3) ATi pledged to no longer target benchmarks for optimizations. nVidia has pledged to keep on optimizing for them.

I see many more differences here than similarities, and I see nothing that would justify your statement that: ""Though ATI has been guilty of the same aggressive optimizations NVIDIA has recently taken flak for..."

The optimizations were not the same and the aggressiveness was not the same. Hopefully you'll clear that up in part two. Yes, there were optimizations by both companies--not nearly "the same" optimizations, however.

Looking forward to part two!...;)

Hey Walt,

Indeed, the next piece will have both companies' settings maximized and a few settings in between (I'd like to get a better idea of what ATI setting equals a comparable NVIDIA setting, and vice versa).

To be completely honest, the conclusion was added by my editor after submission. That's not a cop-out - I think adding "in these tests" after the "NVIDIA bests ATI in anisotropic filtering" would make the statement more accurate. Of course, when I play on my 9800 Pro, it's 16x all the way. We're in complete agreement there.

Further, I understand the distinctions in the 3D Mark03 optimizations, and it is commendable that ATI has taken a stance in that regard. It doesn't, however, change the fact that shaders were optimized for enhanced performance in a sythetic benchmark. There are other bugs that could have been fixed in the time it took the driver writers to make 3D Mark03 go a little faster. Of course, I know WHY it was done, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. At any rate, I'll do what I can do be more specific in the second part.

Oh, and as always, thanks for the constructive feedback. I'm off to my lab in Bakersfield - have a great weekend!

*Edit in response to Walt's edit - yes, that is what I was referring to - and I made it a point to mention to NVIDIA about the AF control issue in UT2003. Has anyone checked to see if the same thing happens in Unreal II?

Chris

[Malo]

WaltC,

The thing that struck me about the AF comparison is that "apples-to-apples" you used nVidia's best-quality AF settings but didn't use ATI's best setting. I had no objection to you comparing 8xAF to 8xAF--none at all, except that, again, it's nVidia's best but not ATi's, that's all. Would have been fine for you to do both 8x & 16x AF in comparison to nVidia's 8x AF, surely.

how is 8x v 16x apples-to-apples? If the point of the article was to compare each cards best rendering then sure, I would compare 8x to 16x. But Chris was trying to compare the two cards with exactly the same settings and try and state which card did the exact same process better. Sure they might have different sampling techniques for their MSAA but if one wants to compare two products, and Nv wants to call their 8x... 8x then compare with ATI's 8x (which beats Nv pants down...)

[WaltC]

how is 8x v 16x apples-to-apples? If the point of the article was to compare each cards best rendering then sure, I would compare 8x to 16x. But Chris was trying to compare the two cards with exactly the same settings and try and state which card did the exact same process better. Sure they might have different sampling techniques for their MSAA but if one wants to compare two products, and Nv wants to call their 8x... 8x then compare with ATI's 8x (which beats Nv pants down...)

It should have been included because of Chris's conclusion at the end of the article, "So there you have it, ATI tops NVIDIA in anti-aliasing quality while NVIDIA bests ATI in anisotropic filtering."

Without an examination of 16x AF inluded, the statement has no foundation in the article. I see that in a follow-up response Chris says that his conclusion was written by his editor, apparently, and that he would have qualified it to the scope of the tests he ran.

Anyway, it's no big deal--I'm sure he'll test both cards more fully in the upcoming installment.

[Malo]

WaltC I can see what you mean now, there should have been a slight addendum on that sentence you quoted, "... at exactly the same settings, though ATI can push the filtering even further."

[digitalwanderer]

Thanks for coming by to help clear up the confusion/answer questions....here's one for ya:

Then, there's still the quasi-trilinear filtering used in UT2003. It may not be on the same level as NVIDIA's "optimizations," but they are optimizations nonetheless

The "quasi-trilinear filtering" used in UT2003 IS one of nVidia's optimizations...what are you talking about? :?

He's talking about ATi only doing trilinear on the first texture stage when AF is forced in the ATi Control Panel. :)

Doh! Thanks Hanners.

Sorry Chris, my bad. Please ignore my ignorance this morning.

Thanks again for coming by, I'll try and be quiet now and just lurk 'til the grey matter kicks into gear. ;)

[WaltC]

...
*Edit in response to Walt's edit - yes, that is what I was referring to - and I made it a point to mention to NVIDIA about the AF control issue in UT2003. Has anyone checked to see if the same thing happens in Unreal II?

Chris

Sorry about that...;) I was hoping I could get it in there before anyone responded...ah, well...I did think that was what you meant when I read the article, btw...I have read people with GFFX's report that full trilinear is alive and well in U2, and everything else I'm aware of--so the consensus seems to be that nVidia has specifically targeted UT2K3 in this regard. (I think that's at least part of why KB over at [H] blew his top recently on this subject...nVidia had apparently assured him differently as to the recent Det release.) Interestingly, as I saw in another thread here based on a 3dgpu editorial about the matter, 3dgpu says that Brian Burke has said that the quasi-trilinear issue is going to stay as nVidia doesn't understand how it affects image quality...;) But Tony Tomasi --as you know--states it will be fixed in an "upcoming" driver release...so who knows?...:) Maybe in '04 when they field some hardware they think won't need the crutch...?

Good weekend to you, too, Chris...!

[CosmoKramer]

Well, 16X AF does not in any way improve upon the weakness of ATI's
AF, so don't expect miracles in the follow up.

[Brandon]

But Tony Tomasi --as you know--states it will be fixed in an "upcoming" driver release...so who knows?... Maybe in '04 when they field some hardware they think won't need the crutch...?


Walt, it's funny that you brought that up because Rev directly questioned KB on this matter (UT filtering and which driver release it would be resolved in) on his own forums no less than a month or so ago (in the thread where Kyle basically slams B3D and Rev personally). I wish I could say more, but clearly lets just say that Kyle wasn't the only one talking to NVIDIA over this matter. NVIDIA's stance hasn't changed at all and KB shouldn't have been shocked when the optimization was still there in 45.23. Obvisouly Rev saw this one coming and directly questioned him about it!

[Brent]

Further, I understand the distinctions in the 3D Mark03 optimizations, and it is commendable that ATI has taken a stance in that regard. It doesn't, however, change the fact that shaders were optimized for enhanced performance in a sythetic benchmark.

Has anyone checked to see if the same thing happens in Unreal II?

Chris

I just wanted to point out that optimizations in shaders are OK IMO as long as the IQ remains the exact same as the developer intended, that is a TRUE optimization.

While we agree though that optimizing such things in a synthetic benchmark is what is debatable, the difference is the fact that ATI's optimization in 3dmark did not change IQ, while NVIDIA's optimization (and i say that word loosely here) did.

I've looked at Unreal II and do not see the same quasi-trilinear with the 44.03's. I haven't checked with the 45.23's though.

[Hanners]

I'd like to make it standard in the major tech releases - it can be covered comprehensively when R360/420/NV40 etc. launches. I don't think it is something that necessarily needs to be rehashed for every odd NV35/R350 card, do you? Perhaps keeping tabs on IQ as new drivers are released would be good as well?

That sounds spot on to me. :)

[Doomtrooper]

Well, 16X AF does not in any way improve upon the weakness of ATI's
AF, so don't expect miracles in the follow up.

How do you figure that, the filtering is pushed back much further at 16X AF which gives better depth perception, something AF is supposed to do.

This review was a joke, the lack of 16 X AF on the ATI cards was a major mistake, as the shots shown here would have shown the filtering on the track racing lines, especially the yellow 'groove' to be much more pronounced into the distance.

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/imagequalityshootout/page4.asp

You can't race from that angle BTW, and doing a review of IQ should always be from the 'view' of the gamer (in car, or rear camera is most popular) :roll:

[Forbidden Donut]

My guess was that Cosmo was referring to ATI cards not doing filtering at all angles. I'd tend to agree with him there, in that some of the screenshots provided looked like the GFFX card was simply crisper, even relatively close to the camera.

[CosmoKramer]

Well, 16X AF does not in any way improve upon the weakness of ATI's
AF, so don't expect miracles in the follow up.
How do you figure that, the filtering is pushed back much further at 16X AF which gives better depth perception, something AF is supposed to do.


Since you are a known ATI supporter I assume you know that ATI's AF algorithm is angle dependant? By angle dependant I don't mean in the way all AF is angle dependant, so don't bring that up.

I assume that you also have read the articles here at B3D and/or tried the aniso tester software? If not, do that. You will find that the only difference between 8X and 16X AF is an improvement very strictly in the 0, 90, 180, 270 angles. Other angles have the same (poor) AF.

Did you notice the screenshots FS used? Especially the one where you look out the window of an airplane taking off? I doubt more than 2X effective AF is taking place there and I predict that it will look exactly the same with 16X as with 8X (or even 4X).

[Doomtrooper]

Angle dependent yes, but the filtering is applied to the view plane at 16X does give better depth perception.

Looks fine to me where I drive :lol:

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/radeon9700pro/nas2.jpg

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/radeon9700pro/nas3.jpg

[Doomtrooper]

I already agreed in the other thread about finding flaws in ATIs implementation, BUT I already have proven that 8XAF when not hacked into their old 'BALANCED MODE' takes far to much of a performance hit, which requires the user to lower the filtering to 4X AF.

So lets ensure we compare useable AF modes when doing reviews, and not ones that make pretty pictures, as I can gurantee at 1600 x 1200 8X AF on a FX card would be a slide show with a full field.

[CosmoKramer]

Look at the audience slightly below the rear view mirror on that second pic.

[Doomtrooper]

I see it :wink:

Doesn't bother me, as I get much better filtering in front of me. In fact I compared a Ti4400 to a 9700 on this exact game, and I could read the labelling on the walls and on the cars much further on a 9700.

Something I prefer.

I don't think people quite understand here what I'm saying, lets take BF 1942, show the Frame Counter.

Take a 9800 and 5900, 1600 x 1200 with 4X AA and 8X AF, well right away the end user must lower the AF on the FX card to make the game playable, while the 9800 will be able to execute 16X.
Now compare screen shots at Playable frame rates (12 is not), lets see the filtering comparisons now ?? Real World.

[crazipper]

I just wanted to point out that optimizations in shaders are OK IMO as long as the IQ remains the exact same as the developer intended, that is a TRUE optimization.

While we agree though that optimizing such things in a synthetic benchmark is what is debatable, the difference is the fact that ATI's optimization in 3dmark did not change IQ, while NVIDIA's optimization (and i say that word loosely here) did.

I've looked at Unreal II and do not see the same quasi-trilinear with the 44.03's. I haven't checked with the 45.23's though.

While I'd agree that hand-optimizing shaders has its merits, just like any other driver optimization ATI or NVIDIA makes (a compression algorithm, for instance), doing so on a per-applicaiton basis raises concerns about how much of that any given company can do, especially when DX9 games proliferate. Obviously, the benchmarked games will receive the most attention, so it really becomes necessary to diversify test suites so as not to paint in accurate picture. Would you agree? The difference I see right now is that NVIDIA is pledging to go forward with these "tough to track" optimizations and ATI is pulling away from them, reportedly. Guess we'll see what happens, eh?

Thanks for the info on UII - I think that helps show that full trilinear isn't being used in order to augment scores.

Cheers!
Chris

[OpenGL guy]

I've looked at Unreal II and do not see the same quasi-trilinear with the 44.03's. I haven't checked with the 45.23's though.
What happens if you rename the application to "ut2003.exe"? :D

[Myrmecophagavir]

Thanks for coming by to help clear up the confusion/answer questions....here's one for ya:Then, there's still the quasi-trilinear filtering used in UT2003. It may not be on the same level as NVIDIA's "optimizations," but they are optimizations nonetheless
The "quasi-trilinear filtering" used in UT2003 IS one of nVidia's optimizations...what are you talking about? :?
He's talking about ATi only doing trilinear on the first texture stage when AF is forced in the ATi Control Panel. :)

Doh! Thanks Hanners.

Sorry Chris, my bad. Please ignore my ignorance this morning.

Thanks again for coming by, I'll try and be quiet now and just lurk 'til the grey matter kicks into gear. ;)
But that isn't a UT2003-specific thing, it happens in all apps. In fact, since you can choose AF from UT2003 instead of using the control panel, UT2003 is exactly one of the apps that can easily be made not to exhibit this behaviour!

[WaltC]

Since you are a known ATI supporter I assume you know that ATI's AF algorithm is angle dependant? By angle dependant I don't mean in the way all AF is angle dependant, so don't bring that up.

I would probably call it "angle deliberate", instead...as the angles of coverage are deliberate.

I assume that you also have read the articles here at B3D and/or tried the aniso tester software? If not, do that. You will find that the only difference between 8X and 16X AF is an improvement very strictly in the 0, 90, 180, 270 angles. Other angles have the same (poor) AF.

To me it's somewhat similar to the differences between rotated grid and ordered grid FSAA--ordered looks fine until you hit the near horizontals and near verticals--where it really falls apart. What ATi is doing is applying 16x AF to the angles at which AF is most noticeable in relation to the camera. I can't see criticising it for that anymore than I'd criticize a rotated grid for providing superior FSAA when lines hit certain angles relative to the camera. I think criticising it as "angle dependent" equates to looking at the picture from...well, the wrong angle...;)

Did you notice the screenshots FS used? Especially the one where you look out the window of an airplane taking off? I doubt more than 2X effective AF is taking place there and I predict that it will look exactly the same with 16X as with 8X (or even 4X).

Well then, what we should do is to compare the GFFX's 4x AF to the R9800P's 8x AF, and see what develops...;) That way we'd avoid using the "best" setting for either card and be looking at "apples to apples" from another point of view.

[CosmoKramer]

I would probably call it "angle deliberate", instead...as the angles of coverage are deliberate.

Whatever floats your boat... :)

What ATi is doing is applying 16x AF to the angles at which AF is most noticeable in relation to the camera.

That is a very general statement, no? I'd say is dependeant on the geometrical complexity of the game. Recently I played through the fantastic game Gothic II, and ATI's algorithm really fell apart in that game.

No, I'd say ATI's AF implementation was governed by "the games that the clueless reviewers (ie the majority) are most likely to use TM". Like Quake 3 and serious Sam (never show me a review that uses SS to display AF again!).

I can't see criticising it for that anymore than I'd criticize a rotated grid for providing superior FSAA when lines hit certain angles relative to the camera.

The difference is that (in the case of 4X AA) every pixel still has 4 subsamples. I doubt that ATI use the same amount of "subelements" to calculate the pixel colour at 22.5 degrees as it does at 90 degrees.

Thinking about it I may be wrong about that, though...

Well then, what we should do is to compare the GFFX's 4x AF to the R9800P's 8x AF, and see what develops...;) That way we'd avoid using the "best" setting for either card and be looking at "apples to apples" from another point of view.

Imo (owning cards with both types of AF) that is actually not such a bad idea.

[Doomtrooper]

I hope you are as critical about the angle dependecny of Nvidias AA methods, I also think alot of people are making smoke into fire on this subject.

The people I see complaining must not have owned Nvidia products before, where you almost need a desktop hotkey for the AF slider.

I will take 'real world' filtering anyday over the 'pretty sceen shot' mode with 60% perfomance hits.

I'd like to see somone run the 'true trilinear quality mode' on a 5900 on one of my UT 2003 clan matches, now that would be funny.

[CosmoKramer]

I hope you are as critical about the angle dependecny of Nvidias AA methods, I also think alot of people are making smoke into fire on this subject.

Absolutely. ATI's AA is clearly superior imo.

The people I see complaining must not have owned Nvidia products before, where you almost need a desktop hotkey for the AF slider.

That used to be true but i t seems like the newer cards are much faster at AF than NV2X.

I will take 'real world' filtering anyday over the 'pretty sceen shot' mode with 60% perfomance hits.

Most of the time I'd agree.

[OpenGL guy]

I assume that you also have read the articles here at B3D and/or tried the aniso tester software? If not, do that. You will find that the only difference between 8X and 16X AF is an improvement very strictly in the 0, 90, 180, 270 angles. Other angles have the same (poor) AF.
You are incorrect. Please be sure to check your sources.

[CosmoKramer]

You are incorrect. Please be sure to check your sources.

My sources? My own eyes. I do own a 9500 Pro... ;)

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r350/texture/16x_qual.gif
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r350/texture/8x_qual.gif

[StealthHawk]

I've looked at Unreal II and do not see the same quasi-trilinear with the 44.03's. I haven't checked with the 45.23's though.
What happens if you rename the application to "ut2003.exe"? :D

Nothing, that doesn't work in the new drivers :lol:

[Dave Baumann]

My sources? My own eyes. I do own a 9500 Pro... ;)

Animated:

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/radeon9700pro/8-16x.gif

[Quitch]

Oh dear, we've gone from one extreme to the next.

First we had the framerate, and it was good... nothing else mattered, a good framerate meant the card was good.

Then reviewers looked down on the framerate, and it was bad. So, along came IQ and it was good... nothing else mattered, a good IQ meant the card was good.

Where's the balance? What good is framerate without the IQ on a high-end card? What good is IQ without framerate? One of the first thing reviewers should do after concluding which AA and AF methods are better, is then push them in games to which which ones are actually playable. If nVidia 8x AF is better than ATI 16x AF, yet isn't usable in-game, that's like having the most sleek plane ever, without giving it the necessary engines for take-off.

The way the article was written, a GeForce 2 could have taken on a GeForce FX in AF, and they would have scored pretty close... never mind the fact that the GeForce FX can push its AF to far higher settings, no, we want a (in such cases) meaningless so-called "apples to apples" comparison. Best setting Vs. Second best setting is not "apples to apples", and you should remember than 8x AF by itself means nothing. Best setting, second best setting... these having meaning. In the end, the true meaning is "Who gives me better theoretical IQ? Who gives me the best playable IQ?"

Let's not lose track of what these cards are used for: gaming. 95% of players will be seeing a game from the view of the player, and it is from THERE that these things should be compared.

[StealthHawk]

Let's not lose track of what these cards are used for: gaming. 95% of players will be seeing a game from the view of the player, and it is from THERE that these things should be compared.

Unfortunately, screenshots have been posted, and they exhibit the same angle dependency issues :!: Saying that it is really a non-issue when it clearly exists in a real game from the gamer's perspective is silly.

First we have claims of "I don't see this in any game I play. Then, "well, I admit it's there, but it doesn't detract from gameplay." Jesus, this is the same "logic" that has been thrown around by defender's of NVIDIA's optimizations. And I think we all agree that was flawed logic. It's great to see that the double standard is alive and well.

[deflate]

First we have claims of "I don't see this in any game I play. Then, "well, I admit it's there, but it doesn't detract from gameplay." Jesus, this is the same "logic" that has been thrown around by defender's of NVIDIA's optimizations. And I think we all agree that was flawed logic. It's great to see that the double standard is alive and well.

The differentiation being this has been known about since day one from the 9700 reviews (or at least, the good ones) and the public have gone in with their eyes wide open when they make thei purchasing decision on this matter - the came can't be said for NVIDIA's optimisations until sites like this unearthed them.

[Althornin]

First we have claims of "I don't see this in any game I play. Then, "well, I admit it's there, but it doesn't detract from gameplay." Jesus, this is the same "logic" that has been thrown around by defender's of NVIDIA's optimizations. And I think we all agree that was flawed logic. It's great to see that the double standard is alive and well.
What double standard?
Everyone i know admits that ATI could have better Aniso filtering - even DoomTrooper!
Everyone i know admits that in some cases, the degenerate angles make ATI's aniso look worse than nVidias.

There would only be a double standard IF full non angle dependant aniso was displayed by the aniso tester, but the angle dependency was turned on in games for extra perf - regardless of what the user wanted. As it is, there is no deceit - what you see is what you get!

[Doomtrooper]

First we have claims of "I don't see this in any game I play. Then, "well, I admit it's there, but it doesn't detract from gameplay." Jesus, this is the same "logic" that has been thrown around by defender's of NVIDIA's optimizations. And I think we all agree that was flawed logic. It's great to see that the double standard is alive and well.

There is no flawed logic, I prefer useable AF at high filtering levels, even if if drops down to 4X on rotation. Could it be better YES, is it as bad as some people make it out to be in a majority of games NO.

What else do you want, email ATI and ask them to improve it...getting old as this is not a 'driver' limitation.

I also find the double standards quote hilarios Stealth considering this review:

http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/gffx5800u/gffx_5.htm

:roll: :lol:

[CosmoKramer]

even if if drops down to 4X on rotation.

Just to clarify; I believe it drops down to 2X.

[Doomtrooper]

Not according to Daves animated Anisotropic Tester image. :?:

[croc_mak]

Chris Angelini wrote

"Thanks for the info on UII - I think that helps show that full trilinear isn't being used in order to augment scores."


Just to make sure I understoon this clearly..Is chris saying the quasi-trilinear is only being used to augment ut2003 scores..since ut2003 is a "benchmark" used by many web sites and PC OEMs?
And this quasi-trilinear trick is not a great image quality/performance trade-off that Nvidia is providing for their end users?

If this quasi-trilinear thing is so good, why doesn't Nvidia enable it by default? Why do they have to app-detect and not help many other games that use trilinear by default too?

It appears to me that in-order for the gamer to get the best experience possible on his favourite games, his favourite games must be "benchmarks" too...If not your app gets no "special" preference from the video card drivers

For all those enthusiasts who argue app detect and direct shader detect optimizations are ok..Think again

[CosmoKramer]

Not according to Daves animated Anisotropic Tester image. :?:

Eh, yes.

2X and 16X compared:

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r350/texture/2x_qual.gif
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r350/texture/16x_qual.gif

[StealthHawk]

First we have claims of "I don't see this in any game I play. Then, "well, I admit it's there, but it doesn't detract from gameplay." Jesus, this is the same "logic" that has been thrown around by defender's of NVIDIA's optimizations. And I think we all agree that was flawed logic. It's great to see that the double standard is alive and well.

The differentiation being this has been known about since day one from the 9700 reviews (or at least, the good ones) and the public have gone in with their eyes wide open when they make thei purchasing decision on this matter - the came can't be said for NVIDIA's optimisations until sites like this unearthed them.

Exactly, it is supposedly well known. Which makes it all the worse when people start saying there is no difference in real games, it doesn't only do 2x AF at certain angles, etc, etc.

Just to make it clear what I'm getting at, as people seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying ATI is deceiving people like NVIDIA is. I am not saying ATI is culpable for providing AF the way they do either. What I am saying is that the line of apologetics between defenders of NVIDIA and proponents of ATI seems very similar.

I would have thought someone as vocal as Doomtrooper would have his ATI facts straight, but look at these quotes:

Well, 16X AF does not in any way improve upon the weakness of ATI's
AF, so don't expect miracles in the follow up.

How do you figure that, the filtering is pushed back much further at 16X AF which gives better depth perception, something AF is supposed to do.

16x absolutely does not help ATI's AF at the off angles compared to 8x while DT says otherwise.

Angle dependent yes, but the filtering is applied to the view plane at 16X does give better depth perception.

Looks fine to me where I drive :lol:

He then posts screenshots saying that there is no off angle problems when playing games when his shots illustrate the problem.

I see it :wink:

Doesn't bother me, as I get much better filtering in front of me. In fact I compared a Ti4400 to a 9700 on this exact game, and I could read the labelling on the walls and on the cars much further on a 9700.

Something I prefer.

I don't think people quite understand here what I'm saying, lets take BF 1942, show the Frame Counter.

Take a 9800 and 5900, 1600 x 1200 with 4X AA and 8X AF, well right away the end user must lower the AF on the FX card to make the game playable, while the 9800 will be able to execute 16X.
Now compare screen shots at Playable frame rates (12 is not), lets see the filtering comparisons now ?? Real World.

Backpedaling? Overgeneralizations about NVIDIA parts? Just because AF performance tanks in one game it means AF on NVIDIA cards is automatically "unplayable" in all situations? Please.

One more edit.There is no flawed logic, I prefer useable AF at high filtering levels, even if if drops down to 4X on rotation.

False.

[StealthHawk]

First we have claims of "I don't see this in any game I play. Then, "well, I admit it's there, but it doesn't detract from gameplay." Jesus, this is the same "logic" that has been thrown around by defender's of NVIDIA's optimizations. And I think we all agree that was flawed logic. It's great to see that the double standard is alive and well.

There is no flawed logic, I prefer useable AF at high filtering levels, even if if drops down to 4X on rotation. Could it be better YES, is it as bad as some people make it out to be in a majority of games NO.

What else do you want, email ATI and ask them to improve it...getting old as this is not a 'driver' limitation.

I also find the double standards quote hilarios Stealth considering this review:

http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/gffx5800u/gffx_5.htm

:roll: :lol:

:roll: You keep linking to old reviews when the IQ provided sucked. No one is disputing that IQ with old drivers is horrible. Things change, it's time to move on.

Your blanket statements of NVIDIA's AF being unusable are just as ridiculous as those statements from people who say ATI isn't doing real AF because it's algorithms are angle dependent.

[Doomtrooper]

Exactly how do you explain the 'new improved' IQ :roll:

There is a company intentionally lowering their AF filtering method with detection of UT 2003, once you figure out why...come back. :!:

[StealthHawk]

Exactly how do you explain the 'new improved' IQ :roll:

Exactly as reviewers have explained it. They wanted driver settings from NVIDIA that matched what ATI was doing, and guess what, they got it. Notice how Quality AF now does trilinear and Performance AF now does bilinear, just like ATI's control panel options.

I don't see what you're getting at with your eye rolls and your skepticism. It is proven that NVIDIA's hacked filtering is isolated to UT2003. All other modes have better quality than they did with old drivers, where's the problem? I interpret your comment as meaning that NVIDIA is not in fact, providing better IQ in 99% of situations compared to older drivers. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There is a company intentionally lowering their AF filtering method with detection of UT 2003, once you figure out why...come back. :!:

No kidding. This is what I see.
1) ATI scores higher, so NVIDIA optimizes until their scores are at the same level.
2) ATI's global AF optimization degrades quality and increases scores in UT2003. NVIDIA follows suit.

[Doomtrooper]

Then obviousally we see things differently, Nvidias AF is superior in IQ when it is allowed to run at 8X Trilinear, but is too SLOW, ATIs is flawed at certain angles but delivers good speed.

Nvidias option requires constant tweaking, and 80% of time will require the end user to lower to 4X, ATIs allows you to stay at 16X all of the time....

I stand by my opinion that I would rather have useable AF, all of the time..

There was 70 applications being detected in Detonator drivers stealthawk...you are naieve if you think UT 2003 is the only 'optimization'.

A complaint I see all the time, 8X AF=:

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=3a559bef92962086fa0c3d1d0aaf9a59& threadid=16729&pagenumber=1

[StealthHawk]

Then obviousally we see things differently, Nvidias AF is superior in IQ when it is allowed to run at 8X Trilinear, but is too SLOW, ATIs is flawed at certain angles but delivers good speed.

Nvidias option requires constant tweaking, and 80% of time will require the end user to lower to 4X, ATIs allows you to stay at 16X all of the time....

Where is this 80% number coming from? What data are you drawing your conclusion from? I see you talk a lot about the horrid performance in one of BF1942's expansion packs. How you extrapolate that to be something you see "all the time" makes no sense, as it is a new complaint and exhibits itself in one expansion pack for one game.

I stand by my opinion that I would rather have useable AF, all of the time..

There's nothing wrong with that opinion. I never said there was. There is a problem with you trying to "cover up" the deficiencies of ATI's AF. Maybe it was just an honest mistake.

There was 70 applications being detected in Detonator drivers stealthawk...you are naieve if you think UT 2003 is the only 'optimization'.

Prove it. I have not seen a single report or claim that NVIDIA is hacking up their AF in other games. You would think that someone on the internet would notice the degraded quality, wouldn't you?

[Doomtrooper]

Where is this 80% number coming from? What data are you drawing your conclusion from? I see you talk a lot about the horrid performance in one of BF1942's expansion packs. How you extrapolate that to be something you see "all the time" makes no sense, as it is a new complaint and exhibits itself in one expansion pack for one game.

Hmmm I play with about 60 people on the UT 2003 server I play with...some use FX cards, I hear their 'pain'...I also have a friend with a 5600 U and I played with it :wink:
Umm, I play the expansion pack fine with 16X AF with my 9700, so did AnteP in that thread with a 9800....go figure eh :twisted:

REAL WORLD :wink:


Prove it. I have not seen a single report or claim that NVIDIA is hacking up their AF in other games. You would think that someone on the internet would notice the degraded quality, wouldn't you?

Ummm, I'll let the evidence speak for itself. :D

[Exxtreme]

A new version of AF Tester for D3D is avaiable:

http://demirug.bei.t-online.de/D3DAFTester.zip

This version has a new function. It can count how much filtered texels are used.

My R9700 Pro is using 4395179 texels at 16x tri-AF.

And here are some GFFX numbers:


tri
SUM MAX P TAB
1xAF 3281571 8 296.779 G 6.837
2xAF 3839185 15 556.249 G 7.998
4xAF 4585321 26 841.022 G 9.553
8xAF 5390039 44 1056.263 G 11.229


Look at the numbers at 4X AF and above. This means, that Nvidia's 4X Tri-AF is superior to ATi's 16x Tri-AF. :)

[Dave Baumann]

Try that with 4 faces and a rotation of 45 degrees! ;)

[digitalwanderer]

Look at the numbers at 4X AF and above. This means, that Nvidia's 4X Tri-AF is superior to ATi's 16x Tri-AF. :)
Doesn't that just mean that nVidia's 4x does more work than ATi's 16x? I don't see how the numbers really reflect quality. :|

[Exxtreme]

Look at the numbers at 4X AF and above. This means, that Nvidia's 4X Tri-AF is superior to ATi's 16x Tri-AF. :)
Doesn't that just mean that nVidia's 4x does more work than ATi's 16x? I don't see how the numbers really reflect quality. :|
This number is a sum of all filtered texels in this one 3d scene. Higher number means more texels are used... more work and higher image quality.

[Doomtrooper]

And much slower performance :wink:

[Exxtreme]

And much slower performance :wink:
True.

But Nvidia's 4x AF and ATi's 16x AF are equal when you looking at this numbers. Of cource it can vary from game to game. In a simple 3d shooter like Serious Sam ATi's AF-implementation should be better, in a rpg like gothic Nvidia's implementation should produce better results.

A switch in the control panel, which allows you to switch between the different implementations, would be the best solution for everyone... IMHO.

[Dave Baumann]

But Nvidia's 4x AF and ATi's 16x AF are equal when you looking at this numbers.

I assume that you are using the default settings for this app? In which case, are there that many games that occur in a tube?

[Exxtreme]

But Nvidia's 4x AF and ATi's 16x AF are equal when you looking at this numbers.

I assume that you are using the default settings for this app? In which case, are there that many games that occur in a tube?
Do you know Half life 1? ;) ;)

I have some games, which use natural terrains. In this games you can see the angle-dependence of ATi's AF-implementation.

[Dave Baumann]

Of course there are, however Saying "But Nvidia's 4x AF and ATi's 16x AF are equal when you looking at this numbers" is fairly meaninless since it doesn't relate to any gaming situation - its going to be highly dependant on the scene, not a lot of which are going to be similar to what is displayed here. I just think this number from this test is fairly inane since I could just as easily show you other numbers from that test show ATI equalling or besting NVIDIA's numbers with some setups that just as equally don't relate to any gaming environments.

We can all see what the limitation is, however how it is actually represented is far too variable within gaming environments.

[deflate]

Then reviewers looked down on the framerate, and it was bad. So, along came IQ and it was good... nothing else mattered, a good IQ meant the card was good.

Where's the balance?

Well, while there clearly is an issue with ATI's filtering solution does that outweight the issues with the FX's shader rendering performance (http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/index.php?p=3)? Not for me - these results were shocking...

[K.I.L.E.R]

I would rather play games at 1fps with NV's QCX mode and bilinear filtering than Ati's 6xAA and 16xAF at 60fps.

[digitalwanderer]

I would rather play games at 1fps with NV's QCX mode and bilinear filtering than Ati's 6xAA and 16xAF at 60fps.
Well you're either a very, very, VERY silly little manchild or a complete "enthusiasts-of-one-brand-over-the-facts" with that attitude K.I.L.E.R. ;)

EDITED BITS: I forgot that B3D's word filter blanks out fanboy, so I went and changed it to avoid offense. :roll:

[Althornin]

Do you know Half life 1? ;) ;)

funnily, the "tubes" in half life 1 are really not very tube like (6 or 8 sided, IIRC), and might end up looking better on ATI hardware...

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I would rather play games at 1fps with NV's QCX mode and bilinear filtering than Ati's 6xAA and 16xAF at 60fps.
Well you're either a very, very, VERY silly little manchild or a complete "enthusiasts-of-one-brand-over-the-facts" with that attitude K.I.L.E.R. ;)

EDITED BITS: I forgot that B3D's word filter blanks out fanboy, so I went and changed it to avoid offense.
:roll:

I'm pretty sure K.I.L.L.E.R is being sarcastic there. :roll:

[WaltC]

This number is a sum of all filtered texels in this one 3d scene. Higher number means more texels are used... more work and higher image quality.

Take the issue of occluded pixels in a scene--the graphics card which renders more of them is doing more work, rendering more pixels, however there is no improvement whatsoever in IQ, because the occluded pixels are not visible (because they are "occluded"--Heh..;))

If the texelized pixels rendered in your example above are at an angle relative to the camera such that the filtering can't be seen in a frame, then the principle is the same as it would be with occuded pixels and overdraw. The performance test for occluded pixels revolves around how many of them are *not* rendered in the frame--the more occluded pixels correctly not rendered the faster the performance--which everybody agrees is desirable. You seem to be stating an opposite preference for AF texeled pixels in a scene.

[Doomtrooper]

A user on R3D has made a new discovery with Nascar and ATI cards...

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=1332195017#post1332195017


This image is with limited (Auto configured) testure memory and auto configured (4X) AF. The quality is worse than the 0X AF shot, not because of filtering, but because the game automatically lowers the level of mipmap detail in order to run on what it incorrectly detected was a 32MB video card (9800 PRO 128).

[Quitch]

Isn't this "it does more work so it's better image quality" the same thing that was shot down in the trilinear argument, when it was pointed out that you could do work on texture levels that weren't visible, and while this would increase the workload, it wouldn't improve the image quality.

[StealthHawk]

Isn't this "it does more work so it's better image quality" the same thing that was shot down in the trilinear argument, when it was pointed out that you could do work on texture levels that weren't visible, and while this would increase the workload, it wouldn't improve the image quality.

I don't see how this is the same thing at all. NVIDIA's AF method is doing more work because it filters at all angles, while ATI does not. ATI is saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles when those angles are present.

So as others have pointed out already, at worst case, with all angles present NVIDIA's 4x can be doing as much work as ATI's 16x. This is a gross overstatement, of course, because most games are not made up of such scenes. It obviously does affect image quality when off angles are not filtered entirely, and work that would otherwise be done is avoided.

[K.I.L.E.R]

I really do like QCX AA over ANY AA mode I have seen.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I really do like QCX AA over ANY AA mode I have seen.

At 1 fps as you previously stated? :roll:

[kyleb]

sure, just one fps; but that blur effect makes everything seem more fluid. :D

[K.I.L.E.R]

I really do like QCX AA over ANY AA mode I have seen.

At 1 fps as you previously stated? :roll:

I always did state, the lower the framerate the more time I have to enjoy the scenary. :D

[Bambers]

r3xxs AF does drop to ~2x at the off angles.
However the 45 degree angles also benifit from 16xAF against 8x, look at the green mip level, it moves inwards as do all except the red one if you run the app for yourself.

not nessecarily, both cards take the same number of AA samples at 4x but one is clearly better than the other in final output...

[demalion]

Isn't this "it does more work so it's better image quality" the same thing that was shot down in the trilinear argument, when it was pointed out that you could do work on texture levels that weren't visible, and while this would increase the workload, it wouldn't improve the image quality.

I don't see how this is the same thing at all. NVIDIA's AF method is doing more work because it filters at all angles, while ATI does not. ATI is saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles when those angles are present.

AFAIK, ATI is not saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles, but by the method they use to calculate samples. Not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles is just another result of that method (alongside greater performance).

The performance difference between the GF AF and ATI's method is still apparent in scenes without surfaces at odd angles, and I don't recall the performance difference associating with the amount of "full AF" angle surfaces present in the scene.

[StealthHawk]

AFAIK, ATI is not saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles, but by the method they use to calculate samples. Not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles is just another result of that method (alongside greater performance).

I was under the impression that not using the maximum number of samples(adapative technique which is employed by all IHVs) and limiting the number of maximum samples(off-angle problem) were mutually exclusive.

The performance difference between the GF AF and ATI's method is still apparent in scenes without surfaces at odd angles, and I don't recall the performance difference associating with the amount of "full AF" angle surfaces present in the scene.

That really doesn't say anything, even if it is true. All it tells us is that ATI's algorithm is different or possibly more aggressive than NVIDIA's.

From memory, the performance hit of R300's Performance AF is very small, just like R200's AF. R300 has less of an angle problem, because it does maximum filtering at 45 degrees whereas R200 didn't. As far as I'm aware this doesn't seem to decrease performance much at all, which leads me to believe that performing the "correct" filtering at every angle and taking a variable number of samples is mutually exclusive and not inclusive.

[Dave H]

AFAIK, ATI is not saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles, but by the method they use to calculate samples. Not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles is just another result of that method (alongside greater performance).

I agree. (I'm not sure if you were the one who put this idea in my head in the past, or if I figured it out on my own, but this makes a good deal of sense when you consider how AF sample points would be calculated.)

The performance difference between the GF AF and ATI's method is still apparent in scenes without surfaces at odd angles, and I don't recall the performance difference associating with the amount of "full AF" angle surfaces present in the scene.

:? Why wouldn't there be a relative performance advantage by virtue of using higher mipmap levels on the off-angle surfaces?

[demalion]

AFAIK, ATI is not saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles, but by the method they use to calculate samples. Not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles is just another result of that method (alongside greater performance).

I was under the impression that not using the maximum number of samples(adapative technique which is employed by all IHVs) and limiting the number of maximum samples(off-angle problem) were mutually exclusive.

"Mutually exclusive"? I'm not sure what you mean by that in this context.

Your phrasing, as part of the rest of your comments, don't seem accurate to me: "limiting the number of maximum sample" as you are saying indicates that you are proposing that the "off angle issue" is the intent of ATI's AF implementation, that reducing the effective sampling is what it does to gain performance, and therefore Quitch's comparison is invalid. As I was referring to, AFAIK it is an effect of ATI's AF implementation...it fails to detect where it should sample for more detail at the "off angles", and the R300 implementation corrects some of that detection failure while still reducing performance penalty. IOW, I think it is actually failing to sample effectively, rather than failing to sample, and the performance comparisons discussed after this seem to support that.

The performance difference between the GF AF and ATI's method is still apparent in scenes without surfaces at odd angles, and I don't recall the performance difference associating with the amount of "full AF" angle surfaces present in the scene.

That really doesn't say anything, even if it is true.

Yes, it does tell us something. It tells us that the performance gain isn't a result of the image quality issues of the ATI AF implementation. Which makes sense as far as Quitch's comparison, as far as it was taken, AFAICS.

My point is that this contradicts this statement of yours you proposed in disagreement to Quitch's analogy: "ATI is saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles when those angles are present", because it is "saving work" when those angles are not present, as well.

All it tells us is that ATI's algorithm is different or possibly more aggressive than NVIDIA's.

And something about how it is different.

From memory, the performance hit of R300's Performance AF is very small, just like R200's AF.

Right, further indicating that the "off angle" problem is a side effect of the methodology that is used to offer increased performance, rather than being the means of the performance gain. Matters a lot when making global statements regarding the performance and image quality of ATI's AF implementation, though it doesn't seem to matter much when just looking at a tunnel test as one specific tunnel test.

R300 has less of an angle problem, because it does maximum filtering at 45 degrees whereas R200 didn't.

And why does it retain the minimal performance impact if it is doing more sampling? My understanding is that it is sampling more effectively, and I think what we've discussed support this. Which would indeed debunk "it does more work so it's better image quality", at least in the way the application's results were being proposed as saying "16x ATI = 4x GF".

As far as I'm aware this doesn't seem to decrease performance much at all, which leads me to believe that performing the "correct" filtering at every angle and taking a variable number of samples is mutually exclusive and not inclusive.

OK, your phrasing still confuses me. Would I be understanding you correctly if I took that as saying "they are two different things"? Because they can occur at the same time and affect each other (i.e., inclusively). If so, my above discussion should cover this, I think.

[demalion]

Dave H,

Well, there isn't enough to cause it to perform like the GF aniso, or in flight simulators the performance would jump to higher levels when the plane banked in relation to a textured flat "surface", and dip to GF levels when orientation was returned to level. AFAIK, this doesn't happen.

As I clarified, I believe this is completely because of sampling selection.

However, it is possible that it does get a benefit in these "off angle" cases even though the performance increase during the "level flying" are due to gains offered by the methodology alone. The latter aspect is my main point, and the information I know of seems to both support the latter quite clearly and contradict the former, though not necessarily as clearly (it could just be that with the lesser performance hit in the first place, the performance gains from less sampling doesn't have a significant impact on the performance results).

If I recalled a clear analysis of this, I'd refer to it.

[Bjorn]

And why does it retain the minimal performance impact if it is doing more sampling? My understanding is that it is sampling more effectively, and I think what we've discussed support this. Which would indeed debunk "it does more work so it's better image quality", at least in the way the application's results were being proposed as saying "16x ATI = 4x GF".


Can't the performance impact have to do with a lot of other things (available fillrate vs bandwidth ?........) than just how many samples it takes ?

As an example (Beyond3d reviews), Serious Sam SE, 1600*1200:

Radeon 9800 Pro: 0x AF: 99.8 fps 16x AF: 83.2 fps
= 17 % drop

Radeon 9700 Pro: 0x AF: 93.8 fps 16x AF: 74.3 fps
= 21 % drop

Radeon 9600 Pro: 0x AF: 61 fps 16x AF: 33 fps
= 46% drop

And to spice it up a bit:

Radeon 9000 Pro: 0X AF: 37.9 fps 16x AF: 35.8 fps
< 6% drop

Now, i don't know if B3D used the same demos and drivers here which might make a lot of difference. But assuming that this is somewhat correct, i think we can say that it's not only Ati's sampling methods (if they are the same for the 9800 and 9600 which of course might be completely wrong but they do exhibit the same behaviour with regards to z-rotation afaik) that leads to the small performance drop since it definitely isn't a small performance drop on the 9600 Pro. And the lowest drop is on the low end Radeon 9000 Pro which uses the old implementation.

[StealthHawk]

"Mutually exclusive"? I'm not sure what you mean by that in this context.

Your phrasing, as part of the rest of your comments, don't seem accurate to me: "limiting the number of maximum sample" as you are saying indicates that you are proposing that the "off angle issue" is the intent of ATI's AF implementation, that reducing the effective sampling is what it does to gain performance, and therefore Quitch's comparison is invalid. As I was referring to, AFAIK it is an effect of ATI's AF implementation...it fails to detect where it should sample for more detail at the "off angles", and the R300 implementation corrects some of that detection failure while still reducing performance penalty. IOW, I think it is actually failing to sample effectively, rather than failing to sample, and the performance comparisons discussed after this seem to support that.

Ok, this is how I understand what you are saying:

ATI is taking a maximum number of samples depending on what degree of AF is selected. But it does not always take the maximum number of samples. As a consequence, we have a maximum of 2x AF being performed on off angles.

I am saying that the two are totally unrelated. Sure, ATI cards gain some extra performance by not performing full AF at all angles. But since most games don't have that many off angles they aren't saving that much work, and are not gaining a significant amount of performance either.

AFAIK NVIDIA's implementation does not always use the same amount of samples in each scene either. AF is adaptive by nature.

Yes, it does tell us something. It tells us that the performance gain isn't a result of the image quality issues of the ATI AF implementation. Which makes sense as far as Quitch's comparison, as far as it was taken, AFAICS.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. If there is a tunnel scene where ATI is doing 50% less work than NVIDIA because it is not filtering certain angles of course they are gaining a great deal of performance at a loss of image quality. I would assume that when the game is doing just 90 degree angles which can be fully filtered by both NVIDIA and ATI's implementations, that the work done by each would be much closer than in a tunnel scene.

From memory, the performance hit of R300's Performance AF is very small, just like R200's AF.

Right, further indicating that the "off angle" problem is a side effect of the methodology that is used to offer increased performance, rather than being the means of the performance gain. Matters a lot when making global statements regarding the performance and image quality of ATI's AF implementation, though it doesn't seem to matter much when just looking at a tunnel test as one specific tunnel test.

How does that prove that? As stated, most games don't feature off angles in large quantity. As expected, performance is not going to take a nose dive because it is filtering a few more textures.

R300 has less of an angle problem, because it does maximum filtering at 45 degrees whereas R200 didn't.

And why does it retain the minimal performance impact if it is doing more sampling? My understanding is that it is sampling more effectively, and I think what we've discussed support this. Which would indeed debunk "it does more work so it's better image quality", at least in the way the application's results were being proposed as saying "16x ATI = 4x GF".

See above. Another thing which I didn't point out in my last point was that ATI's Quality AF does take a much bigger hit than ATI's Performance AF. The only difference between them is that one is using trilinear filtering.

OK, your phrasing still confuses me. Would I be understanding you correctly if I took that as saying "they are two different things"? Because they can occur at the same time and affect each other (i.e., inclusively). If so, my above discussion should cover this, I think.

Yes, I am saying that they are two different things.

[demalion]

Your initial observation seems valid, and that seems a good approach for a start, Bjorn, but as for your 9000 comparison, aren't you comparing the percent drop from trilinear -> trilinear + A AF to trilinear -> bilinear + AF? And is this with the same test setups/driver versions, etc? Which review(s) are you referencing?

[Bjorn]

Your initial observation seems valid, and that seems a good approach for a start, Bjorn, but as for your 9000 comparison, aren't you comparing the percent drop from trilinear -> trilinear + A AF to trilinear -> bilinear + AF? And is this with the same test setups/driver versions, etc? Which review(s) are you referencing?

The numbers are all from the latest Beyond 3D reviews. And i also mention that the benchmarks might use different drivers and tests so these nr's might not be entirely correct. And yes, the old implementation (<= 9200) uses bilinear filtering which means that it's not exactly comparable but it's still rather interesting imo.

But the point was that we do not know if the new implementation is as effective as the old one with regards to low performance drop. Especially since there are such a large difference in performance drop depending on the version of the 9500+ series, although they use the same implementation.

Edit: the reviews

9600 Pro (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/sapphire/9600pro/)

9800 Pro (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/sapphire/9800pro/)

9700 Pro (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/sapphire/9700proue/)

9200 (+9000 Pro) (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/sapphire/9200/)

I also have to say that i was rather surprised to see the 46% drop for the 9600 Pro. I thought that the performance drop was rather consistent throughout their whole lineup. It's much lower at lower resolutions though so it's not as bad as the 46% indicates.

[demalion]

If I miss anything significant in the dropped text, just point it out.

...

Ok, this is how I understand what you are saying:

ATI is taking a maximum number of samples depending on what degree of AF is selected. But it does not always take the maximum number of samples. As a consequence, we have a maximum of 2x AF being performed on off angles.

I am saying that the two are totally unrelated. Sure, ATI cards gain some extra performance by not performing full AF at all angles. But since most games don't have that many off angles they aren't saving that much work, and are not gaining a significant amount of performance either.

So now you're saying that in games without off angles, ATI's AF performance hit is like that of nVidia doing the same degree of AF? We need to be clear on this: does ATI's performance hit being reduced depend on the off angles being present, or not?

AFAIK NVIDIA's implementation does not always use the same amount of samples in each scene either. AF is adaptive by nature.

AFAIK, as well.

Yes, it does tell us something. It tells us that the performance gain isn't a result of the image quality issues of the ATI AF implementation. Which makes sense as far as Quitch's comparison, as far as it was taken, AFAICS.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. If there is a tunnel scene where ATI is doing 50% less work than NVIDIA because it is not filtering certain angles of course they are gaining a great deal of performance at a loss of image quality.

But what if they are gaining a great deal of performance even when image quality is not lost? Perhaps this indicates that the determing factor for the performance increase is not the lost image quality? That was Quitch's comparison, AFAICS...what do you propose is showing that this does not apply? AFAIK, this is exactly what is shown, though texture stage/trilinear issues (from both vendors) does cloud the issue.

I would assume that when the game is doing just 90 degree angles which can be fully filtered by both NVIDIA and ATI's implementations, that the work done by each would be much closer than in a tunnel scene.

Ok, and how are you proposing the performance penalties would compare in scenes made up of such surfaces? I'm simply pointing out that AFAIK the performance penalty for ATI would still be less (and I believe it has been where "custom adaptations" are not in effect), and that I believe this is due to the ATI AF implementation gaining its performance from the way its methodology always works, not just the way it manifests at the "off angles".

From memory, the performance hit of R300's Performance AF is very small, just like R200's AF.

Right, further indicating that the "off angle" problem is a side effect of the methodology that is used to offer increased performance, rather than being the means of the performance gain. Matters a lot when making global statements regarding the performance and image quality of ATI's AF implementation, though it doesn't seem to matter much when just looking at a tunnel test as one specific tunnel test.

How does that prove that?

Because the GF still has a larger performance hit with bilinear AF than ATI does, even in the many games we agree don't have much manifestion of the "off angles"?

As stated, most games don't feature off angles in large quantity.

Right, and does ATI have less performance hit for AF in most games when doing AF compared to nVidia doing AF in the same circumstances (using trilinear, applying to all the same texture stages, etc)?

...
Another thing which I didn't point out in my last point was that ATI's Quality AF does take a much bigger hit than ATI's Performance AF. The only difference between them is that one is using trilinear filtering.

:?: So, trilinear fitering is responsible for the large performance hit then...right? Were you meaning to say something else?

[StealthHawk]

So now you're saying that in games without off angles, ATI's AF performance hit is like that of nVidia doing the same degree of AF?

No, that's not really what I'm saying. I'm saying that in games without off angles ATI is doing more work than in games with off angles.

We need to be clear on this: does ATI's performance hit being reduced depend on the off angles being present, or not?

Yes, I think so. While I have admitted that ATI's algorithm is more efficient/aggressive than NVIDIA's, when there are off angles present that workload is going to decrease even more in comparison to the work being done by NVIDIA.

But what if they are gaining a great deal of performance even when image quality is not lost? Perhaps this indicates that the determing factor for the performance increase is not the lost image quality? That was Quitch's comparison, AFAICS...what do you propose is showing that this does not apply? AFAIK, this is exactly what is shown, though texture stage/trilinear issues (from both vendors) does cloud the issue.

It is apparent that ATI is gaining a lot of performance in UT2003 and IQ is lost. There are also people who think that ATI's AF has more texture aliasing than NVIDIA's AF. This would be lower quality.

Show me where else ATI is gaining a great deal of performance by not doing trilinear on certain texture stages where IQ is not affected :!: Nobody has been able to do that yet. Aquanox2(does this game have an AF slider? Is IQ affected?) gains some 10%, Max Payne gains 5%. Other games I've seen tested don't gain anything.

I would assume that when the game is doing just 90 degree angles which can be fully filtered by both NVIDIA and ATI's implementations, that the work done by each would be much closer than in a tunnel scene.

Ok, and how are you proposing the performance penalties would compare in scenes made up of such surfaces? I'm simply pointing out that AFAIK the performance penalty for ATI would still be less (and I believe it has been where "custom adaptations" are not in effect), and that I believe this is due to the ATI AF implementation gaining its performance from the way its methodology always works, not just the way it manifests at the "off angles".

I am proposing quite simply that the performance hit between AF on NVIDIA and ATI hardware would be closer when there are no off angles, and bigger when there are off angles. I think we can both agree that regardless, ATI's performance hit is lower than NVIDIA's.

From memory, the performance hit of R300's Performance AF is very small, just like R200's AF.

Right, further indicating that the "off angle" problem is a side effect of the methodology that is used to offer increased performance, rather than being the means of the performance gain. Matters a lot when making global statements regarding the performance and image quality of ATI's AF implementation, though it doesn't seem to matter much when just looking at a tunnel test as one specific tunnel test.

How does that prove that?

Because the GF still has a larger performance hit with bilinear AF than ATI does, even in the many games we agree don't have much manifestion of the "off angles"?

Are you sure that this isn't just a coincidence?

A new version of AF Tester for D3D is avaiable:

http://demirug.bei.t-online.de/D3DAFTester.zip

This version has a new function. It can count how much filtered texels are used.

My R9700 Pro is using 4395179 texels at 16x tri-AF.

I have my own numbers from 2x AF and 4x AF, taken with a r9500Pro. 2x AF is using 3918231 texels and 4x AF is using 4274985 texels. In real world games, do you see 16x AF having essentially the same performance hit as 4x AF?

As stated, most games don't feature off angles in large quantity.

Right, and does ATI have less performance hit for AF in most games when doing AF compared to nVidia doing AF in the same circumstances (using trilinear, applying to all the same texture stages, etc)?

Yes.

...
Another thing which I didn't point out in my last point was that ATI's Quality AF does take a much bigger hit than ATI's Performance AF. The only difference between them is that one is using trilinear filtering.

:?: So, trilinear fitering is responsible for the large performance hit then...right? Were you meaning to say something else?[/quote]

The whole mythos of ATI's free AF seems to have started because NVIDIA had big hit trilinear AF while ATI had low hit bilinear AF. The thing is, once ATI cards start using trilinear too, AF doesn't seem to be as free.


You're making a case, but I'm not convinced yet with the evidence provided. It just doesn't make sense to me why the adaptivity of ATI's AF needs to be dependent on the angle.

[demalion]

So now you're saying that in games without off angles, ATI's AF performance hit is like that of nVidia doing the same degree of AF?

No, that's not really what I'm saying. I'm saying that in games without off angles ATI is doing more work than in games with off angles.

OK, but that still doesn't mean that representing the image quality as uniformly weighted purely by one angular orientation factor allows you to say two implementations are offering the same image quality. I.e., the 4x versus 16x example.

We need to be clear on this: does ATI's performance hit being reduced depend on the off angles being present, or not?

Yes, I think so.

How does that coincide with your commentary concerning games not having significant off angles, but still performing with less performance hit for ATI cards?

While I have admitted that ATI's algorithm is more efficient/aggressive than NVIDIA's,

I'm asking for one clear answer, but this appears to be two contradicting ones...to my understanding, this is a different answer than you just gave.

This contradicts what you just said unless you are asserting that the off angle image quality reduction and performance efficiency are the same thing, yet...

when there are off angles present that workload is going to decrease even more in comparison to the work being done by NVIDIA.

...you are again saying that the performance increase you are proposing from the off angles is in addition to this efficiency. Well, if there is a performance gain from the off angle image quality degradation, it has to be the only method of reducing performance penalty for Quitch's comment to be contradicted.

Are you simply proposing that the image quality degradation is resulting in performance gain, but no longer stating you disagree with Quitch's commentary with regard to the 16x versus 4x comparison?

...

The point of Quitch's commentary was that "it does more work so it's better image quality" is an invalid precept. Your assertion was "NVIDIA's AF method is doing more work because it filters at all angles, while ATI does not. ATI is saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles when those angles are present.", which counters this proposal (as you stated by "I don't see how this is the same thing at all." in conjunction with this) if the performance difference is due only to the image quality being degraded...it does not do so if there is a performance difference outside of that which is resulting from the image quality reduction (because then it is apparent that it is saving work even without reducing image quality).

Again: is the performance due to the occurrence of image quality degradation, or due to the methodology (which also happens to sometimes result in image quality reduction)?

But what if they are gaining a great deal of performance even when image quality is not lost? Perhaps this indicates that the determing factor for the performance increase is not the lost image quality? That was Quitch's comparison, AFAICS...what do you propose is showing that this does not apply? AFAIK, this is exactly what is shown, though texture stage/trilinear issues (from both vendors) does cloud the issue.

It is apparent that ATI is gaining a lot of performance in UT2003 and IQ is lost.

When is IQ is lost? When is it gaining a "lot" of performance? If there isn't a dependency of the second on the first, this observation doesn't address these questions.

There are also people who think that ATI's AF has more texture aliasing than NVIDIA's AF. This would be lower quality.

Well, then atleast you are evaluating the image quality in the scene by the results instead of making a proposal of comparing a count in a completely different scene to represent the image quality of an implementation... :-?

This was my point.

Show me where else ATI is gaining a great deal of performance by not doing trilinear on certain texture stages where IQ is not affected :!:

SH...ATI doesn't seem to have a higher performance trilinear filtering implementation that I know of. So...this doesn't seem to relate clearly to my commentary and proposals...?

...

...
I am proposing quite simply that the performance hit between AF on NVIDIA and ATI hardware would be closer when there are no off angles, and bigger when there are off angles. I think we can both agree that regardless, ATI's performance hit is lower than NVIDIA's.

This seems fairly unambiguous(?), and I think I've explained how this agreement you mention supports Quitch's commentary...

...
Because the GF still has a larger performance hit with bilinear AF than ATI does, even in the many games we agree don't have much manifestion of the "off angles"?

Are you sure that this isn't just a coincidence?

I thought we were both sure it wasn't?

Again, do you know of bilinear AF performance data for applicable nVidia cards and with complete AF application? I know "Balanced" mode inflicts a significantly greater penalty, and I have the impression that this performance is close to the performance of bilinear filtering. Also, how do nVidia's current "Performance" and ATI's "Performance" mode compare in performance penalties?
I can establish with greater clarity that I know of the performance hit for ATI for bilinear filtering and 16x AF ranging from 89% of no AF, and sometimes reaching even higher performance efficiency.

A new version of AF Tester for D3D is avaiable:

http://demirug.bei.t-online.de/D3DAFTester.zip

This version has a new function. It can count how much filtered texels are used.

My R9700 Pro is using 4395179 texels at 16x tri-AF.

I have my own numbers from 2x AF and 4x AF, taken with a r9500Pro. 2x AF is using 3918231 texels and 4x AF is using 4274985 texels. In real world games, do you see 16x AF having essentially the same performance hit as 4x AF?

Well, I presume you didn't mean to compare a 9500 Pro to a 9700 Pro and you meant some type of GeForce card, but this logic seems to be broken in several ways unless both completing an AF pixel is identical latency for each architecture and the tunnel case is a suitable universal representation. And, again, this assertion on your part seems to contradict what you said earlier and propose again later...?

As stated, most games don't feature off angles in large quantity.

Right, and does ATI have less performance hit for AF in most games when doing AF compared to nVidia doing AF in the same circumstances (using trilinear, applying to all the same texture stages, etc)?

Yes.

Wait, maybe you don't construe "more efficient" as indicating "less work is done even when results are similar" (i.e., you are considering the "work" to be the result alone, and universally pertinent, and not the process)?

...
Another thing which I didn't point out in my last point was that ATI's Quality AF does take a much bigger hit than ATI's Performance AF. The only difference between them is that one is using trilinear filtering.

:?: So, trilinear fitering is responsible for the large performance hit then...right? Were you meaning to say something else?

The whole mythos of ATI's free AF...

Who said free AF here?

...seems to have started because NVIDIA had big hit trilinear AF while ATI had low hit bilinear AF.

But I don't think that was the only performance issue with nVidia's AF, SH, and you seem to be agreeing sometimes.

The thing is, once ATI cards start using trilinear too, AF doesn't seem to be as free.

True, because ATI doesn't have a more efficient methodolgy of (full) trilinear implementation at this time AFAIK. I wasn't ever proposing that they did, AFAICS.

You're making a case, but I'm not convinced yet with the evidence provided. It just doesn't make sense to me why the adaptivity of ATI's AF needs to be dependent on the angle.

Nor will it until we reinvent or reverse-engineer ATI's "secret" AF algorithm, which I think is a bit more than detecting off angles and reducing workload for them...or else ATI could fairly trivially just remove the detection criteria used to decide to reduce quality and get their non-off angle performance gains while retaining flawless image quality (or switch it off for aniso tester applications... :-?).

[StealthHawk]

but that still doesn't mean that representing the image quality as uniformly weighted purely by one angular orientation factor allows you to say two implementations are offering the same image quality. I.e., the 4x versus 16x example.

I never said the 4x vs 16x example was realistic or correct. I'm sure the poster(Exxtreme) was only kidding when he said that.

We need to be clear on this: does ATI's performance hit being reduced depend on the off angles being present, or not?

Yes, I think so.

How does that coincide with your commentary concerning games not having significant off angles, but still performing with less performance hit for ATI cards?

Like I said, ATI's alogrithms are obviously more efficient/aggressive. Hence the texture aliasing that some people claim, right?

...you are again saying that the performance increase you are proposing from the off angles is in addition to this efficiency. Well, if there is a performance gain from the off angle image quality degradation, it has to be the only method of reducing performance penalty for Quitch's comment to be contradicted.

Are you simply proposing that the image quality degradation is resulting in performance gain, but no longer stating you disagree with Quitch's commentary with regard to the 16x versus 4x comparison?

Absolutely not. I assume Quitch was looking at the 4x vs 16x filtered texels when he was saying that less work does not mean less IQ. Which is absolutely not true. If 16x AF was being applied on the off angles are you saying that the same amount of texels would be filtered compared to the
"2x/16x" that you current get?

The point of Quitch's commentary was that "it does more work so it's better image quality" is an invalid precept.

This can be true, however...

Your assertion was "NVIDIA's AF method is doing more work because it filters at all angles, while ATI does not. ATI is saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles when those angles are present.", which counters this proposal (as you stated by "I don't see how this is the same thing at all." in conjunction with this) if the performance difference is due only to the image quality being degraded...it does not do so if there is a performance difference outside of that which is resulting from the image quality reduction (because then it is apparent that it is saving work even without reducing image quality).

Again: is the performance due to the occurrence of image quality degradation, or due to the methodology (which also happens to sometimes result in image quality reduction)?

I don't think Quitch was applying the statement to normal realworld operation, but rather to the results of the synthetic test. In this case, again, it seems apparent that the total number of filtered texels IS affected by the off angles, and this is "degrading" IQ, at least in comparison to NVIDIA's methods.

But what if they are gaining a great deal of performance even when image quality is not lost? Perhaps this indicates that the determing factor for the performance increase is not the lost image quality? That was Quitch's comparison, AFAICS...what do you propose is showing that this does not apply? AFAIK, this is exactly what is shown, though texture stage/trilinear issues (from both vendors) does cloud the issue.

It is apparent that ATI is gaining a lot of performance in UT2003 and IQ is lost.

When is IQ is lost? When is it gaining a "lot" of performance? If there isn't a dependency of the second on the first, this observation doesn't address these questions.

:?: Clearly ATI is gaining a lot of performance in UT2003 when not performing full trilinear filtering in all texture stages. And this happens to affect IQ negatively. Is performance being gained when IQ is NOT lost? If so, is this the exception or the rule?

Do you agree that IQ is lost and performance is gained in UT2003?

Show me where else ATI is gaining a great deal of performance by not doing trilinear on certain texture stages where IQ is not affected :!:

SH...ATI doesn't seem to have a higher performance trilinear filtering implementation that I know of. So...this doesn't seem to relate clearly to my commentary and proposals...?

I was talking about the texture stage optimization. Same thing with UT2003 above. It seems since you do not dispute the legitimacy of my statements, but only the relevance, that you do not disagree?

A new version of AF Tester for D3D is avaiable:

http://demirug.bei.t-online.de/D3DAFTester.zip

This version has a new function. It can count how much filtered texels are used.

My R9700 Pro is using 4395179 texels at 16x tri-AF.

I have my own numbers from 2x AF and 4x AF, taken with a r9500Pro. 2x AF is using 3918231 texels and 4x AF is using 4274985 texels. In real world games, do you see 16x AF having essentially the same performance hit as 4x AF?

Well, I presume you didn't mean to compare a 9500 Pro to a 9700 Pro and you meant some type of GeForce card, but this logic seems to be broken in several ways unless both completing an AF pixel is identical latency for each architecture and the tunnel case is a suitable universal representation. And, again, this assertion on your part seems to contradict what you said earlier and propose again later...?

Why not, shouldn't the number of filtered texels be similar or the same between a r9500Pro and a r9700Pro? In fact they aren't :P I just tested 16x AF and the number of filtered texels is 4560753.


Wait, maybe you don't construe "more efficient" as indicating "less work is done even when results are similar" ?

No, that is how I interpret it.

.......


Here's the original quote:

Isn't this "it does more work so it's better image quality" the same thing that was shot down in the trilinear argument, when it was pointed out that you could do work on texture levels that weren't visible, and while this would increase the workload, it wouldn't improve the image quality.

I already tried to debunk the trilinear comparison, stating that a lot of performance is gained in UT2003, while IQ is decreased. And questioning where the performance increases occur where there is no IQ loss. The texture stage optimization does not globally increase performance.

Back to the main point of Quitch's post. We both agree that he was talking about NVIDIA's 4x workload vs ATI's 16x workload. Ok, I will ask this question once again. I think it will solve our disagreement which seems to have become a misunderstanding. If ATI did full filtering on all angles, do you think that the number of filtered texels would increase for 4x AF, 8x AF, and 16x AF? ie, instead of doing 2x AF at certain angles, full degree AF would be done. If the work done does not increase, then Quitch's comments are correct as you interpret them.

[WaltC]

....:?: Clearly ATI is gaining a lot of performance in UT2003 when not performing full trilinear filtering in all texture stages. And this happens to affect IQ negatively. Is performance being gained when IQ is NOT lost? If so, is this the exception or the rule?...


I was talking about the texture stage optimization. ...

There is no "texture stage optimization" in the ATi drivers relative to UT2K3. If there was such an application-specific optimization coded into the drivers, then setting the cpanel to Application Preference and turning on trilinear in the game would result in...no change (just as is true with the Dets.) But in fact, full trilinear texture-stage treatment (on all applicable stages) does occur in UT2K3 with the Cats. You are confusing a global setting in the force option in the Cat cpanel (which forces trilinear on the same texture stage in all 3d games) with an application-specific optimization in the Cats relative to UT2K3 and single-stage texture treatment. No such optimization exists in the Cats.

[StealthHawk]

There is no "texture stage optimization" in the ATi drivers relative to UT2K3. If there was such an application-specific optimization coded into the drivers, then setting the cpanel to Application Preference and turning on trilinear in the game would result in...no change (just as is true with the Dets.) But in fact, full trilinear texture-stage treatment (on all applicable stages) does occur in UT2K3 with the Cats. You are confusing a global setting in the force option in the Cat cpanel (which forces trilinear on the same texture stage in all 3d games) with an application-specific optimization in the Cats relative to UT2K3 and single-stage texture treatment. No such optimization exists in the Cats.

It's a global texture stage optimization...which only seems to affect UT2003 performance. And Max Payne by 5%. And Aquanox2 by ~10%. And everything else by 0%(in benchmarks I have seen. I have not seen benchmarks which show performance gains in any other games. Not to say they don't exist, but I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary). The question has always been, for me at least, to these two other games that get increased performance lose any IQ?

Does Aquanox2 have an AF slider?

edit: some clarification. People seem to be under the impression that this global optimization is meant to help CURRENT games, which makes no sense to me. The evidence isn't there or hasn;t been presented yet. I find this theory by Hellbinder to be much more plausibleHeres the deal.

It currently only impacts performance on newer UT based engines. It will likely increase performance for other newer engines on the way. Like source and Doom.

If it does not hurt IQ in older and current games, but holds the promise for better performance in newer games. Then it makes sense to make it a full time non Application specific Global optimization.

This was from nV News BTW.

[demalion]

StealthHawk,
You still have causality confused, AFAICS.

What you are disagreeing with is "less image quality does not mean less 'work'", where work is the results in measured texel representation in the final image.

What was said was "it does more work doesn't mean it's better image quality", and his example directly corresponds to 'work' meaning the processing, not the result ("when it was pointed out that you could do work on texture levels that weren't visible, and while this would increase workload, it wouldn't improve the image quality"), and, by my discussion at the least, the time taken by the process.

This is akin to arguing that all cards do things the same way to get the same image, so that measuring the difference in the images indicates how efficiently they generated them.

This is the briefest way I can address your commentary on "what you never said", as well as clarifying my references to your text's contradictions.

...

Specific points:

...
Like I said, ATI's alogrithms are obviously more efficient/aggressive. Hence the texture aliasing that some people claim, right?

Now you're making up "facts" and causality as you go along. Why wouldn't the texture aliasing "people claim" be related to a higher level of detail for textures (the default for Direct3D is "highest" last I checked)? What about people who "claim" otherwise?

...
Are you simply proposing that the image quality degradation is resulting in performance gain, but no longer stating you disagree with Quitch's commentary with regard to the 16x versus 4x comparison?

Absolutely not. I assume Quitch was looking at the 4x vs 16x filtered texels when he was saying that less work does not mean less IQ. Which is absolutely not true.

Covered this, but moving on to my own discussion additions:

If 16x AF was being applied on the off angles are you saying that the same amount of texels would be filtered compared to the "2x/16x" that you current get?

The applicable part of my own initial proposal was looking only at the processing, where sampling the same data redundantly would leave you with reduced image quality without reducing work done for it. However, this presumes something like a high degree of texture cache effectiveness (which, as Bjorn and Dave H referred to, I cannot necessarily do so blithely) based on a lack of manifestation of performance variation manifesting for off angle occurrence (which I propose is born out by our discussion of games having off angles rarely occur and the performance difference indicating performance hit difference even without off angles) and the discussion of "work" provided several times now.

The point of Quitch's commentary was that "it does more work so it's better image quality" is an invalid precept.

This can be true, however...

But this is what he said. When you said "absolutely not" above you directly contradict this statement of yours.

...
Again: is the performance due to the occurrence of image quality degradation, or due to the methodology (which also happens to sometimes result in image quality reduction)?

I don't think Quitch was applying the statement to normal realworld operation, but rather to the results of the synthetic test. In this case, again, it seems apparent that the total number of filtered texels IS affected by the off angles, and this is "degrading" IQ, at least in comparison to NVIDIA's methods.

But what about his example, which is outside of this synthetic test and demonstrably means something different by "work" (i.e., not just "results" as I would describe your usage in this context)?

Please note that AFAICS your trilinear discussion can either be answered by performance comparisons of App Pref versus forced AF (where all stage trilinear would obviously be slower...), or fits into my above discussion.

As far as your proposal as far as what Quitch's trilinear discussion refers to, I believe he is referring to cases where the trilinear filtering isn't offering benefit, or at least that is how I understand his reference to it not being visible... :?: This is exactly why it is desirable for applications to control their own AF and trilinear/bilinear applications.

The issue with ATI's bi/tri mixture implementation (and nVidia's bi/tri intermediate) is it being represented as something else universally applicable, not when it offers improved efficiency but doesn't degrade image quality as Quitch seems to be discussing (You're saying otherwise? Why?).

To your last question:

Back to the main point of Quitch's post. We both agree that he was talking about NVIDIA's 4x workload vs ATI's 16x workload.

Well, no, actually I said he was disagreeing with it and stating it can't be applied universally, the distinction with what I understand you to mean here covered above.

Ok, I will ask this question once again. I think it will solve our disagreement which seems to have become a misunderstanding. If ATI did full filtering on all angles, do you think that the number of filtered texels would increase for 4x AF, 8x AF, and 16x AF?

As measured by this application, in this scene, and as representing unique texel samples, yes. As representing what the methodology processed, and how much processing took place to achieve that result, no.

ie, instead of doing 2x AF at certain angles, full degree AF would be done. If the work done does not increase, then Quitch's comments are correct as you interpret them.

What was unclear about my "fails to detect where it should sample" for effective filtering proposal at the beginning, and my continued distinct discussion of methodology, such that you still don't recognize that your usage of "work" does not fit this?

[StealthHawk]

What was said was "it does more work doesn't mean it's better image quality", and his example directly corresponds to 'work' meaning the processing, not the result ("when it was pointed out that you could do work on texture levels that weren't visible, and while this would increase workload, it wouldn't improve the image quality"), and, by my discussion at the least, the time taken by the process.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Processing AKA work is the filtered texels, is it not? The result is the IQ. Are you saying something different? If you are, what exactly are you saying processing and result are?

Now you're making up "facts" and causality as you go along. Why wouldn't the texture aliasing "people claim" be related to a higher level of detail for textures (the default for Direct3D is "highest" last I checked)? What about people who "claim" otherwise?

You can go back to ATI/NVIDIA discussions from the R200 and NV20 era about AF. Some people say ATI's AF offers better quality than NVIDIA's because it's sharper. Others say ATI's IQ is worse because it introduces texture aliasing. Do I really need to name names here? Chalnoth has been one of those who has said that ATI's AF introduces texture aliasing. Even B3D has talked about this argument. If LOD is being changed, it is done to "increase" IQ to coverup for the lack of samples being taken by AF, right? To me, the cause here is irrelevant. Something is affecting IQ, whether positive or negative, and that something is at least influenced by the way ATI performs AF. Therefore I conclude that AF is responsible.


As to Quitch's statements and their applicability, I think you're overevaluating them. Or I'm not reading enough into them. Either way, it's senseless to argue about it, the only person who really knows what message was supposed to be conveyed is Quitch himself, and he isn't commenting.

[fallguy]

Now THAT is a lot of quoting!

[demalion]

What was said was "it does more work doesn't mean it's better image quality", and his example directly corresponds to 'work' meaning the processing, not the result ("when it was pointed out that you could do work on texture levels that weren't visible, and while this would increase workload, it wouldn't improve the image quality"), and, by my discussion at the least, the time taken by the process.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Processing AKA work is the filtered texels, is it not?

If you average A and B, you can do a specific amount of processing, (A+B)/2 is the result. If you did this by adding A and B, and then divided by two, then that is the processing...those 3 steps, and the required set up to arrange the values to be processed.

If you average a set of 100 numbers, that indicates you did more processing, yes? But if A and B are represented equally in that set, (A+B)/2 is still the result. That doesn't mean your processing consisted of just the steps of setting up and adding A and B and then dividing by 2, nor does counting the number of unique values tell you the only way you could have processed values to reach this result.

...

You are looking at the result, which can be said to be (A+B)/2, and saying that this is the same thing as the processing, even in the latter case.

The result is the IQ.

Yes, and the texel count is a measure related to the detail in the specific scene (in the sense of counting distinct colors in a picture tells you how detailed it is). They represent the effect of the process, not the process.

Anyways, have you decided whether you are sticking with:


I don't see how this is the same thing at all. NVIDIA's AF method is doing more work because it filters at all angles, while ATI does not. ATI is saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles when those angles are present.

:?: When you keep saying "work is the result", you seem to be returning to this, even though you say you agree with "work is the process" and have indicated something that seems to contradict what I initially replied to. I'm still not clear.

Are you saying something different? If you are, what exactly are you saying processing and result are?

:?: How many ways should I say that the result and processing are not the same, and how what you've specified is saying that they are?

Now you're making up "facts" and causality as you go along. Why wouldn't the texture aliasing "people claim" be related to a higher level of detail for textures (the default for Direct3D is "highest" last I checked)? What about people who "claim" otherwise?

You can go back to ATI/NVIDIA discussions from the R200 and NV20 era about AF. Some people say ATI's AF offers better quality than NVIDIA's because it's sharper. Others say ATI's IQ is worse because it introduces texture aliasing.
Isn't this the same thing you were saying when I asked the question in the first place?

Do I really need to name names here?

:?: Why would you need to? I'm not challenging that people have stated both things.

Chalnoth has been one of those who has said that ATI's AF introduces texture aliasing. Even B3D has talked about this argument. If LOD is being changed, it is done to "increase" IQ to coverup for the lack of samples being taken by AF, right?

Is this the answer to my question?

That's one possible result of changing LOD, as far as still screen shots, yes. But that is not what increasing LOD (negative bias) specifically does. Witness: you can turn up AF filtering, and increase the negative bias for textures, at the same time...i.e., without "covering up" for the lack of samples of AF.

To me, the cause here is irrelevant.

OK, then as far as I understand it, your stipulation is incompatible with communicating clearly about the characteristics of hardware functionality at all. :-?

Something is affecting IQ, whether positive or negative, and that something is at least influenced by the way ATI performs AF.

Yes.

Therefore I conclude that AF is responsible.

Yes, but there is the organization of the process as well as the processing itself, as far as hardware implementation, clock cycles, and the time it takes to reach the result. Again: what if the cause is the organization or some other characteristic that saves the work and time? Don't the performance characteristics indicate exactly that? Please consider this in relation to the commentary of yours I mentioned again above.

As to Quitch's statements and their applicability, I think you're overevaluating them.

Well, I provided a pretty direct set of commentary that seems to closely correlate with exactly what he did actually say. How am I "overevaluating"? I also asked specific questions along these lines when I discussed his comments, along with quoting him verbatim.
Where are you getting your conclusions about his statements?

Or I'm not reading enough into them. Either way, it's senseless to argue about it, the only person who really knows what message was supposed to be conveyed is Quitch himself, and he isn't commenting.

Well, AFAICS, you are skipping over the rest of my discussion as well, which refers to your words as well as Quitch's, for no reason apparent to me associated with making progress. For example, my initial example in the last post which I specificly proposed as encapsulating the issue.

[StealthHawk]

If you average A and B, you can do a specific amount of processing, (A+B)/2 is the result. If you did this by adding A and B, and then divided by two, then that is the processing...those 3 steps, and the required set up to arrange the values to be processed.

If you average a set of 100 numbers, that indicates you did more processing, yes? But if A and B are represented equally in that set, (A+B)/2 is still the result. That doesn't mean your processing consisted of just the steps of setting up and adding A and B and then dividing by 2, nor does counting the number of unique values tell you the only way you could have processed values to reach this result.

...

You are looking at the result, which can be said to be (A+B)/2, and saying that this is the same thing as the processing, even in the latter case.

The result is the IQ.

Yes, and the texel count is a measure related to the detail in the specific scene (in the sense of counting distinct colors in a picture tells you how detailed it is). They represent the effect of the process, not the process.

So what is the process then, the number of sample points?

Anyways, have you decided whether you are sticking with:


I don't see how this is the same thing at all. NVIDIA's AF method is doing more work because it filters at all angles, while ATI does not. ATI is saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles when those angles are present.

:?: When you keep saying "work is the result", you seem to be returning to this, even though you say you agree with "work is the process" and have indicated something that seems to contradict what I initially replied to. I'm still not clear.

You are saying that the result is not the same thing as the work. How do you meaure the work then? How can you determine how much work is being done, and if the amount of work increases or not? Earlier you stated that if ATI AF did full degree filtering that the result would be increased texels filtered, but that the work would not increase. What data proves this, and how do you know for sure? Surely some concrete irrefutable numbers exist which support this theory and have been interpreted to form this theory.

:?: How many ways should I say that the result and processing are not the same, and how what you've specified is saying that they are?

Honestly it would help a lot if you cut down on the rhetoric, weren't as long winded, and just got to the point. No offense, but you write a lot, and it's not easy to sift through it. I see now that if I don't read everything over carefully I can miss a lot. Which is not a fun or enjoyable process.

OK, then as far as I understand it, your stipulation is incompatible with communicating clearly about the characteristics of hardware functionality at all. :-?

I think debating over something that is intangible and inscrutable is a waste of time. If there is no evidence that supports or refutes or can be interpreted then what are we to dwell on? Either there is evidence which can be presented(which thus far has not been), or everything is complete speculation.

Yes, but there is the organization of the process as well as the processing itself, as far as hardware implementation, clock cycles, and the time it takes to reach the result. Again: what if the cause is the organization or some other characteristic that saves the work and time? Don't the performance characteristics indicate exactly that? Please consider this in relation to the commentary of yours I mentioned again above.

You have as much admitted that the organization of the process and the process are unknown to us and cannot be proven! So how can you be so sure you are correct?

[Bjorn]

Again: what if the cause is the organization or some other characteristic that saves the work and time? Don't the performance characteristics indicate exactly that?


Just curious, but which performance characteristics is it that you talk about here ?

[WaltC]

It's a global texture stage optimization...which only seems to affect UT2003 performance. And Max Payne by 5%. And Aquanox2 by ~10%. And everything else by 0%(in benchmarks I have seen. I have not seen benchmarks which show performance gains in any other games. Not to say they don't exist, but I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary). The question has always been, for me at least, to these two other games that get increased performance lose any IQ?



I am surprised by what convolutions people can make out of something as simple as Cpanel options....;)

Cpanel options are not meant to replace in-game options settings. They exist to *force* options in games which do not offer internal control for those options through their respective game engines. The proper way to use the Cpanel in the case of games which include their own settings is to turn the Cpanel control *off* by way of setting it to Application Preferences, and using the in-game controls, instead. When this is done with the Cats in UT2K3 the game displays full trilinear. There is no optimization in the Cats which prevents the proper texture-stage treatment when the user turns on full trilinear in the game (unless the user fails to set the Cpanel to AP, in which case the global texture-stage treatment is forced, instead.)

When an IHV forces something through the Cpanel, by nature it is not application-specific. Neither is it an "optimization" in any sense of the word. The Cpanel forces texture-stage treatment on a single stage simply because that is the "best fit" for 99% of the 3d games in existence which do not offer their own in-game controls for such settings.

To call it a "global optimization" is in error because it was not implemented to benefit the 2-3 games you mention, but rather it was implemented to serve the dozens of 3d games for which the treatment of a single texture-stage is all that is required. The key to understanding it is not looking at the 2-3 exceptions, but rather looking at the dozens of 3d games for which it works perfectly.

A good 3d game will include internal controls for all of its IQ settings. A good set of IHV drivers will respond correctly to those in-game controls. A poor 3d game will include few, if any, in-game controls for IQ, which forces the user to drop back to an attempt to force them through the IHV control panel. This is an imperfect solution and so it should not be surprising that settings forced through the Cpanel only work properly 95% of the time, depending on the specific game engine in which they are trying to force those settings.

IMO, the IHVs have done such a good job of forcing IQ settings through their Cpanels that some end users have reached the erroneous conclusion that the Cpanel is the proper place to set up IQ for a game, and many software developers have decided to let the IHV handle IQ settings instead of doing it themselves like they should be doing. I would hope that going forward the IHVs would begin to forcefully stress to developers the importance of doing their own engine settings for IQ in their games, and that the IHVs would provide the help many of these developers obviously need in doing it.

[Bjorn]

I would hope that going forward the IHVs would begin to forcefully stress to developers the importance of doing their own engine settings for IQ in their games, and that the IHVs would provide the help many of these developers obviously need in doing it.


Sign me up on this. These things should be in the games since the usable settings can differ so much depending on the game.
I think even you lucky Radeon 9800 Pro users will notice this when HL2 and Doom3 comes out :-)

The other thing is that i can be rather annoying to test what settings you prefer when you have to restart the game and go to the CP everytime you want to change something. I remember that it was a joy to set up the FSAA in Neverwinter Nights since you could change and test the settings within the game. And the result was immedietly visible when moving the slider. Don't remember if you could do the same with AF though.

[WaltC]

Sign me up on this. These things should be in the games since the usable settings can differ so much depending on the game.
I think even you lucky Radeon 9800 Pro users will notice this when HL2 and Doom3 comes out :-)

The other thing is that i can be rather annoying to test what settings you prefer when you have to restart the game and go to the CP everytime you want to change something. I remember that it was a joy to set up the FSAA in Neverwinter Nights since you could change and test the settings within the game. And the result was immedietly visible when moving the slider. Don't remember if you could do the same with AF though.

Yes, it would be great if we could simply set the drivers to AP and leave them there!....;) I agree that having to go back and forth to the Cpanel in a game is cumbersome, and to have to do it several times among several different games can be downright annoying.

NWN does do it somehwat better than most--but still...if you go into the NWN.ini you'll see the on/off entry for "Enable AnisotropicFiltering=1/0"...First, why couldn't they put this in the GUI along with their FSAA settings...and second, why couldn't they use 4x/8x/16x in the GUI (as they do for FSAA)--instead of just turning on AF or turning it off...? What does this tell me about the behavior of the engine in relation to how it handles AF...? Not much, right? Yep, developers could do a lot better, even the ones who allow you to set IQ from within their games--the included documentation on these things is so scant as to make them useless in most cases.

[StealthHawk]

It's a global texture stage optimization...which only seems to affect UT2003 performance. And Max Payne by 5%. And Aquanox2 by ~10%. And everything else by 0%(in benchmarks I have seen. I have not seen benchmarks which show performance gains in any other games. Not to say they don't exist, but I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary). The question has always been, for me at least, to these two other games that get increased performance lose any IQ?



I am surprised by what convolutions people can make out of something as simple as Cpanel options....;)

Cpanel options are not meant to replace in-game options settings. They exist to *force* options in games which do not offer internal control for those options through their respective game engines. The proper way to use the Cpanel in the case of games which include their own settings is to turn the Cpanel control *off* by way of setting it to Application Preferences, and using the in-game controls, instead. When this is done with the Cats in UT2K3 the game displays full trilinear. There is no optimization in the Cats which prevents the proper texture-stage treatment when the user turns on full trilinear in the game (unless the user fails to set the Cpanel to AP, in which case the global texture-stage treatment is forced, instead.)

Right. How many times do I have to say I am *not* saying this is an UT2003 specific optimization and *not* a thinly veiled attempt at an UT2003 optimization before you believe me? I don't know *what* it is. That is what I have been trying to determine.

When an IHV forces something through the Cpanel, by nature it is not application-specific. Neither is it an "optimization" in any sense of the word. The Cpanel forces texture-stage treatment on a single stage simply because that is the "best fit" for 99% of the 3d games in existence which do not offer their own in-game controls for such settings.

To call it a "global optimization" is in error because it was not implemented to benefit the 2-3 games you mention, but rather it was implemented to serve the dozens of 3d games for which the treatment of a single texture-stage is all that is required. The key to understanding it is not looking at the 2-3 exceptions, but rather looking at the dozens of 3d games for which it works perfectly.

Ok, I am not sure which party line you subscribe to. This seems to be the prevailing theory though: performance will be lower if trilinear is done in all texture stages when it is not needed, and IQ will *not* subsequently increase, therefore why do trilinear if bilinear is all that is required. The control panel should be used for legacy applications which do not offer AF options, and when doing tri/bi these legacy applications will not lose IQ.

Sure, that sounds good on paper. This is why it has been called a global optimization. But it can only be called an optimization if performance increases. Furthermore, it only makes sense to do this globally if a) most applications benefit from such behavior and/or b) no application suffers from this behavior.

Where are the applications that gain performance but do not lose IQ? If there are no such applications, then why implement this AF method at all? Why not just do trilinear in all stages? It really makes no sense.

This is what we are seeing, again:
1) almost all games are unaffected by doing trilinear, it seems.
2) some games gain a lot of performance by doing tri/bi, but IQ is lost.
3) an equally small number of games may gain performance but not lose IQ.

A good 3d game will include internal controls for all of its IQ settings. A good set of IHV drivers will respond correctly to those in-game controls. A poor 3d game will include few, if any, in-game controls for IQ, which forces the user to drop back to an attempt to force them through the IHV control panel. This is an imperfect solution and so it should not be surprising that settings forced through the Cpanel only work properly 95% of the time, depending on the specific game engine in which they are trying to force those settings.

IMO, the IHVs have done such a good job of forcing IQ settings through their Cpanels that some end users have reached the erroneous conclusion that the Cpanel is the proper place to set up IQ for a game, and many software developers have decided to let the IHV handle IQ settings instead of doing it themselves like they should be doing. I would hope that going forward the IHVs would begin to forcefully stress to developers the importance of doing their own engine settings for IQ in their games, and that the IHVs would provide the help many of these developers obviously need in doing it.

I entirely agree with you. Games should offer controls for IQ aspects.

[demalion]

...

You are looking at the result, which can be said to be (A+B)/2, and saying that this is the same thing as the processing, even in the latter case.

The result is the IQ.

Yes, and the texel count is a measure related to the detail in the specific scene (in the sense of counting distinct colors in a picture tells you how detailed it is). They represent the effect of the process, not the process.

So what is the process then, the number of sample points?

No, the method used to arrive at the anisotropically filtered pixel output. The number of sample points is...a count of the number of sample points.

"If you average a set of 100 numbers, that indicates you did more processing, yes? But if A and B are represented equally in that set, (A+B)/2 is still the result. That doesn't mean your processing consisted of just the steps of setting up and adding A and B and then dividing by 2, nor does counting the number of unique values tell you the only way you could have processed values to reach this result."

Anyways, have you decided whether you are sticking with:


I don't see how this is the same thing at all. NVIDIA's AF method is doing more work because it filters at all angles, while ATI does not. ATI is saving work by not using the maximum degree of AF at certain angles when those angles are present.

:?: When you keep saying "work is the result", you seem to be returning to this, even though you say you agree with "work is the process" and have indicated something that seems to contradict what I initially replied to. I'm still not clear.

You are saying that the result is not the same thing as the work. How do you meaure the work then?

:?: Well, there are plenty of different ways to measure work. If you have an inefficient shader, and an efficient one, and they have the same output, you can measure the output (equal), or you can measure the number of steps or time taken, etc. Also, you can analyze different measurements and come up with another measure like efficiency. If you understand this, I believe your question is answered...?

For reference: I tried to cover this exactly in the post if I asked you whether you meant "work" as the result or the process. At the time, you indicated "process" in reply to me, but your usage continues to be "result". You continue to arbitrarily switch the specific meaning of work you are using to say how the "process" and the "result" are the same thing by virtue of "work" being the same word as "work", regardless of meaning.

This seems to be summarized by your saying you're not caring about the cause, as I've addressed.

How can you determine how much work is being done, and if the amount of work increases or not?

Well, defining the process allows you complete knowledge with regard to the result, but defining the result doesn't allow you complete knowledge of the process. Causality, as I've mentioned more than a few times.

Earlier you stated that if ATI AF did full degree filtering that the result would be increased texels filtered, but that the work would not increase.

No, I stated that a measure of process (time taken) demonstrably did not increase in accordance with considering only the measure of the result (i.e., even with off angles being rarely present) in comparison to a different process, and that this indicates that there is a problem with only measuring one set of results for characterizing the process.

What data proves this, and how do you know for sure?

SH, I've answered this question for what I actually did say, including what I am sure of and not sure of, and what I think is reasonably indicated, and what is not. If you understand you've missed some things as you later indicated, this would be a good time to revisit some of my shorter posts earlier.

...optional "rhetoric" relating to specific details of your commentary...feel free to disregard if the above is sufficient answer for understanding...

The rest of this post is an effort to offer every opportunity to move forward afforded by your own post. Your choice of whether to disregard the questions and explanations involved, if they are still still necessary after the above, is a response that is in your hands, not mine. Disregarding doesn't mean simply disagreeing, it means stating you disagree while treating what I've said and asked you exactly as if they had never been said or asked.

Surely some concrete irrefutable numbers exist which support this theory and have been interpreted to form this theory.

I don't subscribe to your list of adjectives (explained later here, as well as by prior statements), but I will point out you seemed to change your mind from agreeing that ATI's AF had a performance advantage even without off angles being present, and that it didn't result in changing to the GeForce AF performance penalty level in such a situation. I proposed the information I had, and asked you if you had something indicating otherwise than what I proposed and that I thought you had agreed with.

To restate this again:

I don't personally have a GeForce card to evaluate.
I do know where to find results for ATi using Performance mode, and to my knowledge this is one way to clearly resolve the issue of bi/tri mixtures as in issue with performance comparison for non-off angle filtering.
I presume I can find (but didn't find in quick searches) benchmarks with nVidia cards using Performance mode which I understand to perform closely to bilinear (and I ask if you have knowledge contradicting this). However, to my knowledge this does not resolve the issue of nVidia's full/2x AF mixtures and/or the issue of application detection for popular benchmarks, and I'd have to further find either a benchmark that there is proof indicating that these issues are not evident, or find specific anti-detect benchmarks comparing bilinear filtering AF performance penalty hits.

I don't think this uncertainty disproves my recollection, I think this uncertainty is related to my recollection being accurate and nVidia working to change the representation of it in benchmarking.

...

The situation with nVidia drivers prevents me from providing information fitting your set of adjectives, and your sometimes agreeing that ATi doesn't have the same performance penalty even without off angles being present led me to believe we could continue without it. This is something I've covered already.

I did find This example (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1157436,00.asp) of comparison of performance hit between a GF 4 using 40.41 and 9700 using Catalyst 2.3 (I believe that this was before the tri/bi issue for ATI was introduced, but if this is incorrect, I am sure this can be pointed out), in the UPT and Comanche 4. I do think this is the general indication of performance benchmarks even without depending on off angles for offering lesser performance hit.
I do also have recollection of at least one bilinear AF performance comparisons between vendor implementations in a scene with off angles not being in evidence as a determing factor from some time ago, though I did not keep a url address for reference tosuch threads or articles.

Again, if you have any information to the contrary, feel free to share. If you simply and clearly disagree, it would be nice to have it clearly stated, as I haven't even been able to get one clear answer on this point from you so far.

:?: How many ways should I say that the result and processing are not the same, and how what you've specified is saying that they are?

Honestly it would help a lot if you cut down on the rhetoric, weren't as long winded, and just got to the point.

It would help if you at least answered questions and brief examples proposed to progress conversation instead of requiring me to repeat explanations already offered...instead of ignoring them, asking me to explain again, and complaining when I do. I've "gotten to the point" I don't know how many times, but it hasn't done any good.

SH, the beginning of this post (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=160775&#160775l) covered the issue extremely briefly, and you completely bypassed the brief discussion to ask me to repeat things I'd already said.

No offense, but you write a lot, and it's not easy to sift through it.

You are failing to "sift through" both the brief statements and the "long" ones. Perhaps the long ones are not the problem, but simply your failing to sift through?
I can pose questions and provide opportunities for clarification, but you can also reply by asking me to explain something again, or repeating what I've proposed is an error without regard to my prior reply to it. I don't think that is a problem in asking you questions or providing an explanation.

I see now that if I don't read everything over carefully I can miss a lot. Which is not a fun or enjoyable process.

I didn't start out by, for example, explaining the difference between process and result, I spent words explaining it because you demonstrated that it was necessary for me to do so. I also asked you at each junction what you failed to understand about what I'd said, or if something I'd said was incorrect, and why. Why are you blaming me for your failures to answer these questions and define your statements and instead simply asking me to explain again?

OK, then as far as I understand it, your stipulation is incompatible with communicating clearly about the characteristics of hardware functionality at all. :-?

I think debating over something that is intangible and inscrutable is a waste of time.

Apparently what you mean is that anyone else responding to your statements in disagreement is a waste of time. Or you wouldn't have disagreed with Quitch, right? :-?

If there is no evidence that supports or refutes or can be interpreted then what are we to dwell on?

There is evidence, but there isn't the degree of certainty you've recently stipulated (at least, for what I've found). Why are your comments not subject to being evaluated for uncertainty? What do you think reasoning is, if not a way to work out which uncertainty is likely to be "certain"?

Either there is evidence which can be presented(which thus far has not been), or everything is complete speculation.

I'm not one who is fond of the "everything is speculation" defense of an argument when it is the conclusion of having simply disregard observations about flaws in your own statements that do have evidence. :-?

Yes, but there is the organization of the process as well as the processing itself, as far as hardware implementation, clock cycles, and the time it takes to reach the result. Again: what if the cause is the organization or some other characteristic that saves the work and time? Don't the performance characteristics indicate exactly that? Please consider this in relation to the commentary of yours I mentioned again above.

You have as much admitted that the organization of the process and the process are unknown to us and cannot be proven!

I keep asking where the things you assert are said, and you keep ignoring my question to pose new statements for me to address. What I said was that measuring the result does not measure the process, nor measure the "work" when "work" is referring to the process. I did not refer to organization of the process and the process as things that cannot be proven, but as things that are not proven by only measuring the result.

What was wrong with my explanation of "work", "process", and "result"?

So how can you be so sure you are correct?

Well, believing I am correct and being sure I am correct mean different things to me. I've answered why I do believe I am correct, assuming that is what you mean here...the questions I posed to you were not there as rhetoric to support that I was "certainly" right, but as opportunities for you to respond. You taking the opportunity to answer them or correct any errors in what I've said is part of my assumption in holding a conversation.

[StealthHawk]

:?: Well, there are plenty of different ways to measure work. If you have an inefficient shader, and an efficient one, and they have the same output, you can measure the output (equal), or you can measure the number of steps or time taken, etc. Also, you can analyze different measurements and come up with another measure like efficiency. If you understand this, I believe your question is answered...?

Oi. See, you are giving vague and general answers, instead of giving specific ones. You are saying "the process works like this...but I have no proof." How can you come to a conclusion without proof? There are two ways to make a postulate, through deduction or through induction. Hereby an induction is improbable or impossible, because we cannot know the exact nature of the process unless ATI tells it to us. So we are left with a deduction. What specific evidence is there that supports your premise?

This seems to be summarized by your saying you're not caring about the cause, as I've addressed.

I was saying this in regards to texture aliasing. As that was a side discussion and not what we were primarily talking about. Diverging off to delve on another topic when the one at hand is already lengthy is not prudent to me. Nor is it an issue I care about significantly enough to discuss as I am not one of those people who is bothered by claims of ATI's AF providing better or worse IQ at angles where full degree AF is applied.

How can you determine how much work is being done, and if the amount of work increases or not?

Well, defining the process allows you complete knowledge with regard to the result, but defining the result doesn't allow you complete knowledge of the process. Causality, as I've mentioned more than a few times.

In other words, it is indeterminable. Again though, you came to your theory by deduction. Now I am asking for specific evidence.

Earlier you stated that if ATI AF did full degree filtering that the result would be increased texels filtered, but that the work would not increase.

No, I stated that a measure of process (time taken) demonstrably did not increase in accordance with considering only the measure of the result (i.e., even with off angles being rarely present) in comparison to a different process, and that this indicates that there is a problem with only measuring one set of results for characterizing the process.

Isn't this what you said? "As measured by this application, in this scene, and as representing unique texel samples, yes. As representing what the methodology processed, and how much processing took place to achieve that result, no. " Isn't this the same thing as saying, the number of filtered texels would increase but the work will not?

What data proves this, and how do you know for sure?

SH, I've answered this question for what I actually did say, including what I am sure of and not sure of, and what I think is reasonably indicated, and what is not. If you understand you've missed some things as you later indicated, this would be a good time to revisit some of my shorter posts earlier.

You have never given specific evidence where off angles are isloated from full AF angles and vice versa.

The situation with nVidia drivers prevents me from providing information fitting your set of adjectives, and your sometimes agreeing that ATi doesn't have the same performance penalty even without off angles being present led me to believe we could continue without it. This is something I've covered already.

Hold on a second. I have never disagreed that ATI's performance hit for AF is lower than NVIDIAs.

:?: How many ways should I say that the result and processing are not the same, and how what you've specified is saying that they are?

Honestly it would help a lot if you cut down on the rhetoric, weren't as long winded, and just got to the point.

It would help if you at least answered questions and brief examples proposed to progress conversation instead of requiring me to repeat explanations already offered...instead of ignoring them, asking me to explain again, and complaining when I do. I've "gotten to the point" I don't know how many times, but it hasn't done any good.

Apparently what you mean is that anyone else responding to your statements in disagreement is a waste of time. Or you wouldn't have disagreed with Quitch, right? :-?

Not at all. I have not seen results that support your theory. That is what I have been saying since the beginning.

If there is no evidence that supports or refutes or can be interpreted then what are we to dwell on?

There is evidence, but there isn't the degree of certainty you've recently stipulated (at least, for what I've found). Why are your comments not subject to being evaluated for uncertainty? What do you think reasoning is, if not a way to work out which uncertainty is likely to be "certain"?

Let me rephrase. I can see how AF results may tend to support your theory. But this seems like something after the fact. Like I said, if the evidence led me to believe the same thing that you do we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we :wink: In other words, the theory supports the evidence, more than the evidence supports the theory.

I keep asking where the things you assert are said, and you keep ignoring my question to pose new statements for me to address. What I said was that measuring the result does not measure the process, nor measure the "work" when "work" is referring to the process. I did not refer to organization of the process and the process as things that cannot be proven, but as things that are not proven by only measuring the result.

You said it right here:

You're making a case, but I'm not convinced yet with the evidence provided. It just doesn't make sense to me why the adaptivity of ATI's AF needs to be dependent on the angle.

Nor will it until we reinvent or reverse-engineer ATI's "secret" AF algorithm, which I think is a bit more than detecting off angles and reducing workload for them...or else ATI could fairly trivially just remove the detection criteria used to decide to reduce quality and get their non-off angle performance gains while retaining flawless image quality (or switch it off for aniso tester applications... ).

What was wrong with my explanation of "work", "process", and "result"?

Nothing is wrong with your explanation of "result." You still haven't told me what "work" or the "process" actually are. The "process" is AF, but what does that consist of. You refer me back to your hypothetical illustrative equations with sample sets of numbers, but what are these numbers supposed to represent?


A little backtracking then. Please agree or disagree. Elaborate on your answer if you feel it is necessary.

Whether or not off angles are in the scene, the process is the same.

Whether or not off angles are in the scene, the work done is the same.

When off angles are present, the process and the work done are the same as when off angles are not present, but the result changes.

If full degree AF was used at all angles then:

a) performance would globally decrease, whether or not former off angles are present.

b) performance would only decrease when off angles are present.

[Bjorn]

I did find This example of comparison of performance hit between a GF 4 using 40.41 and 9700 using Catalyst 2.3 (I believe that this was before the tri/bi issue for ATI was introduced, but if this is incorrect, I am sure this can be pointed out), in the UPT and Comanche 4. I do think this is the general indication of performance benchmarks even without depending on off angles for offering lesser performance hit.


On the other hand, the 9600 Pro can take as much as a 46% performance hit in UT2003. But as you, i had a hard time finding any good comparisions of performance and quality AF (although this time for the R9500+ series) which is rather annoying. And unfortunetly, even then we wouldn't really know if the "difference in differrence" is caused by the new AF implementation or something else. But i would still be interested to see the performance hit for f.e UT2003, 1600*1200 performance AF on a 9600 Pro.

And another thing, going back to the results i posted earlier.
The R9000 Pro takes a 6% perf hit in UT2003, 16 X AF, the 9600 Pro takes a 46% perf hit in the same game and resolution (again, not knowing if B3D used the same benchmark). The 9000 Pro even outperforms the 9600 Pro by a couple of fps with those settings.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this indicate that the massive difference in AF performance between the GF3 and the R8500 series was much more related to the 8500 not doing trilinear then it's "adaptive samling" ?

[WaltC]

....
Where are the applications that gain performance but do not lose IQ? If there are no such applications, then why implement this AF method at all? Why not just do trilinear in all stages? It really makes no sense.

This is what we are seeing, again:
1) almost all games are unaffected by doing trilinear, it seems.
2) some games gain a lot of performance by doing tri/bi, but IQ is lost.
3) an equally small number of games may gain performance but not lose IQ...

I think we are really in agreement about the main points...but it seems to me the above comments might be where we disagree. I think you are basing your opinions on the one benchmark test you referenced in another post. I'm skeptical of that testing, its methodology, and its results.

I think that generally speaking in most cases if you apply trilinear filtering to texture stages the game engine doesn't render such that they are visible to the camera you will definitely lose performance while gaining nothing in IQ. This is obviously the central and only motivation for nVidia to make the Dets incapable of doing full trilinear in UT2K3--there exists no other motivation for nVidia to do this, aside from the performance they gain (which presumably they hope translates to UT2K3 benchmarks and results in more sales of their hardware.)

I think any testing which indicates that there's no performance difference relative to the number of texture stages treated with trilinear is erroneous. The question is not of how many stages should be treated, but of whether or not all the treated stages are visible when playing the game. If they are not visible, there's no reason to treat them with trilinear filtering. I would think that any testing which purports that it doesn't matter how many texture stages are treated with trilinear because performance won't be affected is inherently flawed in some way. It's not providing the correct results, in other words.

It's like you say--why implement it at all if there's no performance difference? Obvious answer is that there is such a performance difference, but that the tests you saw which maintained there isn't were themselves flawed.

[Quitch]

Isn't this "it does more work so it's better image quality" the same thing that was shot down in the trilinear argument, when it was pointed out that you could do work on texture levels that weren't visible, and while this would increase the workload, it wouldn't improve the image quality.

Woah! I've been away for a while, and thus unable to reply. Shame, I missed fierce debate over a tiny little statement I made. Nifty :)

I've had to read the whole topic again just to find what triggered this statement, and what exactly the issue was.

I believe it was this post:

ok at the numbers at 4X AF and above. This means, that Nvidia's 4X Tri-AF is superior to ATi's 16x Tri-AF.

This was a post that counted how many filtered texels were used. This was followed by a further post:

This number is a sum of all filtered texels in this one 3d scene. Higher number means more texels are used... more work and higher image quality.

I then posed my question, which StealthHawk followed up on, with what appeared to be the answer I wanted. However, do not the two companies use different AF routines... ones which work on these texels? Therefore would working on more texels mean you always had the best image?

I didn't think this was true, hence my statement.

[demalion]

:?: Well, there are plenty of different ways to measure work. If you have an inefficient shader, and an efficient one, and they have the same output, you can measure the output (equal), or you can measure the number of steps or time taken, etc. Also, you can analyze different measurements and come up with another measure like efficiency. If you understand this, I believe your question is answered...?

Oi. See, you are giving vague and general answers, instead of giving specific ones.

Pardon me? What exactly is vague there? This answer is very specific, it is just "not as simple as you believed". That is why I'm disagreeing with you.

You are saying "the process works like this...but I have no proof."

Pardon? I'm saying "the process isn't suitably characterized by your simplification, and here is the information I have". This information is something you've agreed with off and on, but continue to refuse to provide a specific and consistent answer to each time I ask.

How can you come to a conclusion without proof?

Are you ignoring the information I provided, or maintaining the information I provided isn't "proof" while proposing that you yourself are free to propose your own conclusions without it? Am I supposed to be taking your commentary a different way? What about your self contradiction, and the questions regarding it you simply continue to skip over? Could you perhaps begin to effectively answer the questions I pose to help with my understanding if I am misunderstanding you? There is a rather significant backlog at the moment. :-?

There are two ways to make a postulate, through deduction or through induction.

Which are you practicing with your conclusion? Or does this criteria not apply to yourself? Anyways, I don't think something like abduction should be ruled out as long as it isn't abused to propose certainty.

Hereby an induction is improbable or impossible, because we cannot know the exact nature of the process unless ATI tells it to us.

Eh? Another thing that doesn't make sense to me. Induction is specific->general, deduction is general->specific.

Just because these specifics aren't as simple as you'd like, and I don't like to automatically propose what I believe by reasoning as being a "certainty", doesn't mean that I am not performing inductive reasoning to arrive at what I believe. It just means I'm trying to hold a conversation that isn't one way.

So we are left with a deduction. What specific evidence is there that supports your premise?

Isn't deduction starting from a premise to make a re-statement that is defined by the stated premises (ack...this plural strikes me as odd), i.e., a specific observation indicated by the general premise propositions. It depends on these propositions being correct.
This fits your initial statement, with you simply continuing to propose that I can't say that your premise and reasoning is incorrect without providing evidence fitting your criteria, while ignoring that you didn't provide such evidence for your own premise and reasoning in the first place, and have moved forward with providing less "specifics" than I have. :-?

There is some deduction in my own statements as well, and you are free to discuss how my premises or reasoning is flawed.

Proposing that induction is "impossible" simply works as a device to preclude disagreement by someone who doesn't blithely propose their premise as a given, or who introduces details you wish to ignore.

I've already listed exactly what "specific evidence" I offer. Where is your own to counter it?

This seems to be summarized by your saying you're not caring about the cause, as I've addressed.

I was saying this in regards to texture aliasing.

...

You were saying that in regards to not caring whether the texture aliasing was a result of AF or LOD, as part of "proving" that ATI's AF implementation demonstrated more texture aliasing. This is directly connected to a discussion about AF, yes?


Why wouldn't the texture aliasing "people claim" be related to a higher level of detail for textures (the default for Direct3D is "highest" last I checked)? What about people who "claim" otherwise?
...
To me, the cause here is irrelevant. Something is affecting IQ, whether positive or negative, and that something is at least influenced by the way ATI performs AF. Therefore I conclude that AF is responsible.

Did I miss text that changes the meaning, misunderstand, or do you just completely fail to hold yourself accountable to your own statements?

How can you determine how much work is being done, and if the amount of work increases or not?

Well, defining the process allows you complete knowledge with regard to the result, but defining the result doesn't allow you complete knowledge of the process. Causality, as I've mentioned more than a few times.

In other words, it is indeterminable.

Umm...no. It just isn't determined by only measuring the result you were looking at. How are confusing words like "complete", and my various phrasings of "there is more to look at", with saying this is "indeterminable"?

Again though, you came to your theory by deduction. Now I am asking for specific evidence.

I don't know why you keep proposing flawed statements to support your initial premise and conclusion, have me discuss the flaws in them, avoid engaging in that discussion, and then propose a new flawed statement...instead of beginning to consider that just maybe a different conclusion is warranted, or that something about your initial premise and proposed relationship might be invalid. Your stipulation about deductive and inductive reasoning is just the latest manifestation, AFAICS. :-?

Earlier you stated that if ATI AF did full degree filtering that the result would be increased texels filtered, but that the work would not increase.

No, I stated that a measure of process (time taken) demonstrably did not increase in accordance with considering only the measure of the result (i.e., even with off angles being rarely present) in comparison to a different process, and that this indicates that there is a problem with only measuring one set of results for characterizing the process.

Isn't this what you said? "As measured by this application, in this scene, and as representing unique texel samples, yes. As representing what the methodology processed, and how much processing took place to achieve that result, no. " Isn't this the same thing as saying, the number of filtered texels would increase but the work will not?

No, it is the same thing as saying I think that: in that specific application, scene, and measuring work by unique texels sampled, it would; as representing (universally, as I discussed at the time and in contrast to the first statement) what the methodolgy processed, and how much processing took place to achieve that result, it would not.

OK, I don't understand why I had to repeat myself here, so obviously I didn't get something across. At the risk of being "long winded": please look at your statement, which makes no distinction between specific example and universal applicability of it, then please look at mine, which does. How many ways should I have to say this?

Pardon me where I skip instances of where my replying to a question would consist of me repeating myself and pointing out something in this fashion.

...

The situation with nVidia drivers prevents me from providing information fitting your set of adjectives, and your sometimes agreeing that ATi doesn't have the same performance penalty even without off angles being present led me to believe we could continue without it. This is something I've covered already.

Hold on a second. I have never disagreed that ATI's performance hit for AF is lower than NVIDIAs.

We need to be clear on this: does ATI's performance hit being reduced depend on the off angles being present, or not?
Yes, I think so.

How am I supposed to deal with such self-contradiction? Upon your providing this reply, should I point out that it is only to reach this point that the evidence you ask for applies, and that I've provided reasoning from this point on already?

<snipped where, AFAICS, either you misquoted and left my reply to you embedded as if we were each other, or you quoted my own text at me and didn't realize you were replying to yourself>

Apparently what you mean is that anyone else responding to your statements in disagreement is a waste of time. Or you wouldn't have disagreed with Quitch, right? :-?

Not at all. I have not seen results that support your theory. That is what I have been saying since the beginning.

OK, which theory do you mean? The "theory" I proposed as providing support for my reasoning was that ATI's AF implementation retained lesser performance hit, even without off angles being present, which you, again, seem to have agree with above. The rest is reasoning, which the result you just said you agree with support. What are you asking for?

If there is no evidence that supports or refutes or can be interpreted then what are we to dwell on?

There is evidence, but there isn't the degree of certainty you've recently stipulated (at least, for what I've found). Why are your comments not subject to being evaluated for uncertainty? What do you think reasoning is, if not a way to work out which uncertainty is likely to be "certain"?

Let me rephrase. I can see how AF results may tend to support your theory.

OK, then. But it really confuses me with regard to what you just asked, as what you just asked confused me with regard to what you'd just agreed with before it. This is what I mean about self-contradiction, which you don't seem willing to address or resolve.

But this seems like something after the fact.

This phrase, "after the fact"...how do you mean it? Such results support the theory. You can't just agree they support the theory in one place, and then go on about my not having provided results that support the theory in another. :shock:

Like I said, if the evidence led me to believe the same thing that you do we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we :wink:

I've covered one problem in the direct answers to your questions about "measuring work". If you wish to abandon what appears to me to be clear self-contradiction, which I hope you understand is poor logic, and focus on resolving the issue with discussing the measurement of work, please do so.

In other words, the theory supports the evidence, more than the evidence supports the theory.

:?: This looks like a bass ackwards statement, like "That was true because you said it, more than you said it because it was true", in response to someone saying something like "it is raining". :-?

I keep asking where the things you assert are said, and you keep ignoring my question to pose new statements for me to address. What I said was that measuring the result does not measure the process, nor measure the "work" when "work" is referring to the process. I did not refer to organization of the process and the process as things that cannot be proven, but as things that are not proven by only measuring the result.

You said it right here:

You're making a case, but I'm not convinced yet with the evidence provided. It just doesn't make sense to me why the adaptivity of ATI's AF needs to be dependent on the angle.

Nor will it until we reinvent or reverse-engineer ATI's "secret" AF algorithm, which I think is a bit more than detecting off angles and reducing workload for them...or else ATI could fairly trivially just remove the detection criteria used to decide to reduce quality and get their non-off angle performance gains while retaining flawless image quality (or switch it off for aniso tester applications... ).

OK, pardon me for quoting fully, but could you highlight the part of this text that says "the organization of the process and the process cannot be proven" instead of "the organization of the process and the process cannot proven by only measuring the result", except as you continue to equate "result" with "process", ignoring everything I've said on the subject?! :-?

What was wrong with my explanation of "work", "process", and "result"?

Nothing is wrong with your explanation of "result." You still haven't told me what "work" or the "process" actually are.

Well, I'm only trying to get so far as to establish that they are not completely defined by counting texels, and that the count of texels is what is completed defined by counting texels.

You can view this as deduction, concerning progressing by establishing what the AF implementation is not, or as induction, concerning the various benchmarks and including such deductions in trying to continue define the AF process. Simply not having completed defining the process (which is what you are demanding is necessary to address your own commentary :shock:) does not serve to define the process as something else.

The "process" is AF, but what does that consist of.

You want a formula representation and analysis of how ATI implements their AF, then? What about your statements do you think requires me to specify such in order to be able to refute? What I've provided seems sufficient, and complaining that I haven't completed reverse engineering ATI's implementation doesn't do anything to address that.

You refer me back to your hypothetical illustrative equations with sample sets of numbers, but what are these numbers supposed to represent?

An example. Is there something I should explain about what an example is, now?

A little backtracking then. Please agree or disagree. Elaborate on your answer if you feel it is necessary.

Whether or not off angles are in the scene, the process is the same.

Sure.

Whether or not off angles are in the scene, the work done is the same.

As far as ATI applying the same process, and it being characterstically faster/more efficient than the GeForce method, yes. This is why comparing the GeForce method and ATI's method by counting texels is not a valid universal comparison, similar to trilinear/bilinear, or how 16 samples does not necessarily reduce edge aliasing more than 6.

As far as measuring the results by counting texels, no.

When off angles are present, the process and the work done are the same as when off angles are not present, but the result changes.

OK, you seem to understand then...:?:

If full degree AF was used at all angles then:

a) performance would globally decrease, whether or not former off angles are present.

If full degree AF was used at all angles by implementing things with the same process and implementation organization as the GeForce, yes.

b) performance would only decrease when off angles are present.

If full degree AF was formerly used at non-"off" angles by implementing things with the same process and implementation organization as the GeForce, and this was then changed to apply to off angles where it didn't before, yes.

[demalion]

Bjorn, I covered bilinear+AF versus trilinear+AF before, right?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this indicate that the massive difference in AF performance between the GF3 and the R8500 series was much more related to the 8500 not doing trilinear then it's "adaptive samling" ?

No, it indicates that the difference in performance hit between the 8500 and the 9600 is the result of trilinear filtering, as far as we know the AF implementations are otherwise related.

I could observe that a truck slows down a certain amount when pulling a certain weight in tow, another similar truck pulls a lighter load much faster, and a 3rd truck of different design pulls a load similar to the first and also slows down a lot. You can't just disregard the load and propose that the 3rd truck would pull the lighter load just as quickly as either the 2nd truck or first would. Engine and transmission designs, behavior on inclines, etc., in short, trucks, aren't necessarily that simple.

[StealthHawk]

....
Where are the applications that gain performance but do not lose IQ? If there are no such applications, then why implement this AF method at all? Why not just do trilinear in all stages? It really makes no sense.

This is what we are seeing, again:
1) almost all games are unaffected by doing trilinear, it seems.
2) some games gain a lot of performance by doing tri/bi, but IQ is lost.
3) an equally small number of games may gain performance but not lose IQ...

I think we are really in agreement about the main points...but it seems to me the above comments might be where we disagree. I think you are basing your opinions on the one benchmark test you referenced in another post. I'm skeptical of that testing, its methodology, and its results.[/b]

Ok, fair enough. What is specifically is wrong with that testing, its methodology, and its results?

I think that generally speaking in most cases if you apply trilinear filtering to texture stages the game engine doesn't render such that they are visible to the camera you will definitely lose performance while gaining nothing in IQ. This is obviously the central and only motivation for nVidia to make the Dets incapable of doing full trilinear in UT2K3--there exists no other motivation for nVidia to do this, aside from the performance they gain (which presumably they hope translates to UT2K3 benchmarks and results in more sales of their hardware.)

Hmm, this begs the question as to why NVIDIA is only doing what they are doing in UT2003 and not in all games then, doesn't it? Hypothetically in other games where IQ would not be affected by using bilinear, wouldn't they be able to gain a good deal of performance by only doing 2x bilinear AF instead of full degree trilinear AF? The optimization is hardly innocuous in UT2003, yet if I understand you right it should work well in other games with no IQ loss!

I think any testing which indicates that there's no performance difference relative to the number of texture stages treated with trilinear is erroneous. The question is not of how many stages should be treated, but of whether or not all the treated stages are visible when playing the game. If they are not visible, there's no reason to treat them with trilinear filtering. I would think that any testing which purports that it doesn't matter how many texture stages are treated with trilinear because performance won't be affected is inherently flawed in some way. It's not providing the correct results, in other words.

I agree that filtering things that you cannot see is pointless. What I'm trying to distinguish is how performance is affected.

Are you saying that rTool is not doing what it is alledging that it is doing? (allowing the possibility of trilinear to be used in texture stages where bilinear would normally be used when Quality AF is selected)

[StealthHawk]

Which are you practicing with your conclusion? Or does this criteria not apply to yourself? Anyways, I don't think something like abduction should be ruled out as long as it isn't abused to propose certainty.

Does it matter what I am doing? I am asking about your theory. If it is not clear yet, you have already debunked my evidence. I was using the filtered texels as evidence, but if work is the same regardless of how many texels are filtered then my use of evidence is flawed. So I have no evidence to prove or disprove my theory. The problem is, I don't see any evidence to prove or disprove yours either.

You were saying that in regards to not caring whether the texture aliasing was a result of AF or LOD, as part of "proving" that ATI's AF implementation demonstrated more texture aliasing. This is directly connected to a discussion about AF, yes?

Is LOD the same whether or not AF is enabled?

Umm...no. It just isn't determined by only measuring the result you were looking at. How are confusing words like "complete", and my various phrasings of "there is more to look at", with saying this is "indeterminable"?

Then what is it determined by?

We need to be clear on this: does ATI's performance hit being reduced depend on the off angles being present, or not?
Yes, I think so.

How am I supposed to deal with such self-contradiction? Upon your providing this reply, should I point out that it is only to reach this point that the evidence you ask for applies, and that I've provided reasoning from this point on already?

Ok, let me clarify what I mean. Yes, ATI's performance hit is lower than NVIDIA's. But it gets even lower when off-angles are present, that is my stipulation.

OK, which theory do you mean? The "theory" I proposed as providing support for my reasoning was that ATI's AF implementation retained lesser performance hit, even without off angles being present, which you, again, seem to have agree with above.

No, your theory is that the off angle problem stems from whatever process ATI uses when AF, is it not? That is a consequence of the algorithms being used, so that in fact, they are essentially one and the same.

There is evidence, but there isn't the degree of certainty you've recently stipulated (at least, for what I've found). Why are your comments not subject to being evaluated for uncertainty? What do you think reasoning is, if not a way to work out which uncertainty is likely to be "certain"?

Because I never said my theory wasn't wrong. You seem to be saying that your theory must be right and my theory must be wrong(because yours is right) :?:

This phrase, "after the fact"...how do you mean it? Such results support the theory. You can't just agree they support the theory in one place, and then go on about my not having provided results that support the theory in another. :shock:

General results support your theory, not specific ones. ie, you are looking at the lower performance hit of ATI's AF and saying that the off angles occur because of ATI's aggressive/efficient process. But we already agreed that most games don't use very many off angles, so using such data doesn't prove anything about off angles(to me).

In other words, the theory supports the evidence, more than the evidence supports the theory.

:?: This looks like a bass ackwards statement, like "That was true because you said it, more than you said it because it was true", in response to someone saying something like "it is raining". :-?

No, it is more like your theory does not fall apart when looking at general cases. But when looking at specific cases, it might. But we don't have an specific cases to look at! ie, where off angles are isolated, that is a specific case.

OK, pardon me for quoting fully, but could you highlight the part of this text that says "the organization of the process and the process cannot be proven" instead of "the organization of the process and the process cannot proven by only measuring the result", except as you continue to equate "result" with "process", ignoring everything I've said on the subject?! :-?

If it is not proven by looking at the result, then what is it proven by?

Well, I'm only trying to get so far as to establish that they are not completely defined by counting texels, and that the count of texels is what is completed defined by counting texels.

Ok, that's fine. So "work" and the "process" are not completely defined by filtered texels. I thought we covered that. I'm asking what "work" and the "process" are defined by. Do you not understand that?

You want a formula representation and analysis of how ATI implements their AF, then? What about your statements do you think requires me to specify such in order to be able to refute? What I've provided seems sufficient, and complaining that I haven't completed reverse engineering ATI's implementation doesn't do anything to address that.

No, I am asking for what variables(specifically, what these variables represent) would make up such formulas. Since you say that filtered texels have are the result and not part of the process, and that number of samples taken is not part of the process. What IS part of the process?

An example. Is there something I should explain about what an example is, now?

A more specific example that tells me how these arbitrary numbers used in your previous example are related to AF?

a) performance would globally decrease, whether or not former off angles are present.

If full degree AF was used at all angles by implementing things with the same process and implementation organization as the GeForce, yes.

b) performance would only decrease when off angles are present.

If full degree AF was formerly used at non-"off" angles by implementing things with the same process and implementation organization as the GeForce, and this was then changed to apply to off angles where it didn't before, yes.

So you are saying that it is possible to perform full degree AF at "off angles" where currently only 2x AF is performed, without losing performance in cases where such "off angles" don't exist.

You are also saying that it is possible to implement AF another way so that performance will globally decrease.

So....if it is possible to separate the off angle problem from the "normal" AF ATI is currently doing, why is it impossible that the off angle problem is unrelated to the way ATI is doing AF? I have said from the beginning that I thought the off angle problem was mututally exclusive from "normal operation" of AF, and you disagreed.

[Bjorn]

Found some numbers for both the 9600 Pro performance AF and the 9800 Pro with full trilinear. Both reviews had some rather annyiong problems though, despite being B3D reviews.
These problems might not be the actual reviews but they're annoying when you are supposed to look for the performance hit for AF.

Ati 9800 Pro review, B3D (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/9800_256/index.php?p=14)

This review has UT2003 numbers with full trilinear, problem is that it doesn't say if the review used the botmatch, flyby or a custom demo for the AF benchmarks. I guess that it wouldn't make that much sense to use the botmatch since it's so CPU limited in this case. On the other hand, 63% seems to be a rather large performance hit for the 9800 Pro but i guess Dave B can shed some light as for which demo was used. Maybe it's actually stated in the review but i missed it ?

Flyby, 0X AF: 121 fps
Botmatch, 0X AF: 69.5 fps
?? 16X AF: 44.7 fps

A nice 35% or 63% performance hit depending on what demo they used. Makes it easy to understand why Ati also is trying to avoid full trilinear if possble.

On to 9600 Pro performance AF:

Triplex Radeon 9600 Pro, B3D (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/triplex/redair9600pro/)

Shows a 14% performance hit going from 2X AF to 16X AF (UT2003, 1600*1200, performance AF). Annoyingly, there were no 0X AF numbers in the review. There were no numbers for full trilinear either, only for quality set through the CP. Again, don't know if the same demo's were used as in the 9000 Pro review, and we also know that these things can differ depending on the card (fillrate, bandwidh....) which means that it's not really hard evidence. But it seems to indicate that the new AF implementation has a larger performance hit then the old one, even when only doing AF + bilinear.

It would be nice if f.e B3D did some investigation into these things. Hopefully (but maybe not likely at this moment :-)), Nvidia will add some options for full trilinear in their CP. But it would be interesting to see the difference between full trilinear and bilinear even with only Ati cards. F.e between the 9000 Pro, 9200, 9600 and 9800.

[Dave Baumann]

Maybe it's actually stated in the review but i missed it ?

* cough (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/9800_256/index.php?p=10) *

[K.I.L.E.R]

LOL! Dave's coughing up reviews. :lol:

Maybe it's actually stated in the review but i missed it ?

* cough (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/9800_256/index.php?p=10) *

[Bjorn]

Maybe it's actually stated in the review but i missed it ?

* cough (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/9800_256/index.php?p=10) *

Same level that you used for the screenshots then i presume ?


The level used is a custom level built from the UT2003 Editor, by Beyond3D regular "jb", specifically to highlight the texturing properties.


I'm a bit lazy sometimes and it's just that both the other benchmarks (flyby and botmatch) had this clearly stated in the benchmarks (f.e UT 2003 (flyby) " but the AF had just "UT2003 - 16 x AF". So sorry if i'm missing the obvious :-)

Edit: Looked at the test setup page where it mentions two demos, standard and custom. So i guess you used the custom demo for AF then, or ? But as i said, it doesn't say which one you use when you look at the benchmarks which would have been a good thing to include.

[Dave Baumann]

As it says at the top of page 10, anything beyond there uses the custom demo. Its not the same as the screenshots since that is actually just a box, designed to show off the issue.

[Bjorn]

As it says at the top of page 10, anything beyond there uses the custom demo. Its not the same as the screenshots since that is actually just a box, designed to show off the issue.

Ok. This makes it a bit hard to check the performance hit when using AF though. So i suggest a upcoming article where you compare the AF performance on the whole 9000+ lineup, using f.e Half Life 2 as a benchmark :-)

PS I know that B3D doesn't like to have shootouts between different IHV's, that's why i suggested between Ati cards only DS

[Dave Baumann]

My Spidey senses are suggesting that the AF performance under HL2 may mirror TR:AOD somewhat...

[K.I.L.E.R]

My Spidey senses are suggesting that the AF performance under HL2 may mirror TR:AOD somewhat...

Is that bad?

[Bjorn]

My Spidey senses are suggesting that the AF performance under HL2 may mirror TR:AOD somewhat...

Is that bad?

No, more like AF comes for "free" because it'll be shader limited. (Dave has mentioned that HL2 will be mostly shader limited if i rember things correctly)

From the Triplex 9600 Pro review (TR:AOD):


Trilinear benchmarks are not provided because it is less than a frame faster than anisotropic at all resolutions and AA levels.

Will be very interesting to see if this will be the same for Doom3 also since it' supposedly not as shader heavy as HL2 (although it looks WAY better despite that, all imo of course and i'm probably biased since i've tried the Doom3 alpha and i've only watched videos of HL 2).

[WaltC]

[
Ok, fair enough. What is specifically is wrong with that testing, its methodology, and its results?

I would be skeptical of any results which purport that treating all texture stages with trilinear has no more of an impact on performance than treating a single stage. There may be instances--in cpu limited games, for instance--in which this might appear to be true, no doubt. But it wouldn't be true because there is no performance hit from treating 4 stages as opposed to 1...;) I'd think the same way about someone telling me that 4x FSAA exacts no more of a performance penalty than 2x FSAA--that might be true in certain games--but not because 4x isn't demanding a lot more overhead...

Hmm, this begs the question as to why NVIDIA is only doing what they are doing in UT2003 and not in all games then, doesn't it?

The other games aren't used nearly so much in web-site benchmarking...;) nVidia's looking to create dishonest appearances about its product performance, so picking UT2K3 is a specific, targeted choice in that regard. I would exect that if Doom3 were available at present we would see much the same thing in the Dets for that software, for the same reasons.

I agree that filtering things that you cannot see is pointless. What I'm trying to distinguish is how performance is affected.

What would make you think there is no performance difference? Why do you think that, relative to filtering, all IHVs make specific choices as to the texture stages they treat? If you can plainly see the difference in a game in performance between bilinear and trilinear filtering on the visible texture stages that are treated, why would you assume no such performance differential exists for the other texture stages?

Texture stages, texels, etc., are never rendered to the screen in the first place--only pixels are rendered with textures attached--such textures being called texels. But you can't see a texel--only a pixel to which a texel has been attached. If we divide the pre-rendering filtering processing for texels into four stages prior to them being applied to a pixel and rendered to the screen, it should be apparent that the more stages you process, the more work you do, and the lower your performance. This is only "bad" when you filter texture stages which are laid underneath the stage(s) actually visible to the camera (since you can't see them.) To me, as I've stated, the principle is the same as rendering occluded pixels--you simply don't want to render them. The more of them you render, the lower your performance, with no improvement in IQ in the frame.

Are you saying that rTool is not doing what it is alledging that it is doing? (allowing the possibility of trilinear to be used in texture stages where bilinear would normally be used when Quality AF is selected)

I'm saying it's certainly possible it isn't actually affecting the drivers like it thinks it's affecting them in certain stages--but I'm also saying that the bottleneck regarding this kind of performance in games might lie *elsewhere* in the processing pipeline, which would then make it appear in some cases that treating 4 stages is no more degrading to performance than treating a single stage.

[demalion]

Which are you practicing with your conclusion? Or does this criteria not apply to yourself? Anyways, I don't think something like abduction should be ruled out as long as it isn't abused to propose certainty.

Does it matter what I am doing?

If that is what I was addressing, well then, yes. And it was what I was addressing. A conversation, yes?

I am asking about your theory.

Well, actually, you're proposing that my theory doesn't successfully describe the flaw in your own statements. Which is what I was using it for. In this conversation.

And I'm answering why it is sufficient for what I was using it for. In this conversation. Where I was using it to point out the problem in your own statements.

Hence, your own statements are relevant.

If there is a flaw in this description, explain what it is If there is not, don't ignore my having established this to later make the same protestation again.

If it is not clear yet, you have already debunked my evidence. I was using the filtered texels as evidence, but if work is the same regardless of how many texels are filtered then my use of evidence is flawed. So I have no evidence to prove or disprove my theory.

Actually, you do have evidence to disprove the statement that the performance difference only occurred with the presence of off angles.

The problem is, I don't see any evidence to prove or disprove yours either.

I can't really control what you do or do not see at any particular moment, since I fail to find self-consistency in evidence in your statements, and you simply continue to refuse discussion about your demonstrating this inconsistency.

I provide evidence. You respond by saying that I didn't, or that it isn't incontrovertible and final and therefore doesn't count. I point out directly to you why such a comment doesn't seem valid. You change your statement to say there is evidence after all, or that you never disputed that I had evidence, but then you go on to ask me to provide evidence again.

I've tried repetition, highlighting (in color and formatting), direct questions, and all have been simply disregarded. :-?

You were saying that in regards to not caring whether the texture aliasing was a result of AF or LOD, as part of "proving" that ATI's AF implementation demonstrated more texture aliasing. This is directly connected to a discussion about AF, yes?

Is LOD the same whether or not AF is enabled?

Hmm? The bias value itself, but not its effects, right? Unless the LOD bias is adjusted along with AF being used, to, for example, increase texture detail without AF processing as I think we discussed, or reduce aliasing while increasing AF processing.

Umm...no. It just isn't determined by only measuring the result you were looking at. How are confusing words like "complete", and my various phrasings of "there is more to look at", with saying this is "indeterminable"?

Then what is it determined by?

By what it actually is, for your usage as far as specifying the methodology exactly. For my usage of addressing your commentary, by the things I listed in response to your queries about "measuring work", as a start.

We need to be clear on this: does ATI's performance hit being reduced depend on the off angles being present, or not?
Yes, I think so.

How am I supposed to deal with such self-contradiction? Upon your providing this reply, should I point out that it is only to reach this point that the evidence you ask for applies, and that I've provided reasoning from this point on already?

Ok, let me clarify what I mean. Yes, ATI's performance hit is lower than NVIDIA's. But it gets even lower when off-angles are present, that is my stipulation.

OK, but this statement, even with your stipulation, supports that "it does more work so it's better image quality" is an invalid precept, which was the point of my conversation.

OK, which theory do you mean? The "theory" I proposed as providing support for my reasoning was that ATI's AF implementation retained lesser performance hit, even without off angles being present, which you, again, seem to have agree with above.

No, your theory is that the off angle problem stems from whatever process ATI uses when AF, is it not?

Yes. You're asking me to prove this, beyond observing that it happens and there is a performance hit reduction even when it does not? Well, the alternative is that the off angle problem is separate from the methodology, which is conceivable, but doesn't seem reasonable right now with no evidence anywhere of it ever being separated, and indication to the contrary of it being separable.

That is a consequence of the algorithms being used, so that in fact, they are essentially one and the same.

I don't get why you just repeat phrases like this like I haven't addressed them before. The result is not the same as the process.

Again: one output is one indication of the characteristics of the process and its input, it doesn't define the process by itself.

There is evidence, but there isn't the degree of certainty you've recently stipulated (at least, for what I've found). Why are your comments not subject to being evaluated for uncertainty? What do you think reasoning is, if not a way to work out which uncertainty is likely to be "certain"?
Because I never said my theory wasn't wrong. You seem to be saying that your theory must be right and my theory must be wrong(because yours is right) :?:

I'm saying that specific indications that also happen to support my theory, as far I'm applying it, serve to work against your (sometime) theory that ATI only gains performance with the presence of off angles. This is not saying that your theory is wrong because mine is right, this is saying that something works to disprove that theory, and supports mine. There are other somethings that support both, or neither, as well.

This phrase, "after the fact"...how do you mean it? Such results support the theory. You can't just agree they support the theory in one place, and then go on about my not having provided results that support the theory in another. :shock:

General results support your theory, not specific ones. ie, you are looking at the lower performance hit of ATI's AF and saying that the off angles occur because of ATI's aggressive/efficient process.

You are abusing general and specific here. Consider the phrase "specific results generally support my theory".

Here is a contrasting "general" and "specific" case:

General: "The roof leaks when it rains".
Specific: "The roof is leaking right now, and it leaked saturday and sunday as well".

Now, you can say that the first statement is "general", and that the statement is "not specific". You can say that the first statement supports that you need to get your roof repaired. You can't pretend it never specifically rained for the "general statement", and propose that "specific cases" don't support that the same thing.

But we already agreed that most games don't use very many off angles, so using such data doesn't prove anything about off angles(to me).

I'm not sure why you continue to converse as if an indication can't serve to disprove your sometime theory about off angles. I.e., disprove that their presence is required to manifest a performance gain for AF.

In other words, the theory supports the evidence, more than the evidence supports the theory.

:?: This looks like a bass ackwards statement, like "That was true because you said it, more than you said it because it was true", in response to someone saying something like "it is raining". :-?

No, it is more like your theory does not fall apart when looking at general cases.

How did we arrive at these "general cases", then?

But when looking at specific cases, it might. But we don't have an specific cases to look at! ie, where off angles are isolated, that is a specific case.

This is what I mean about you continuing to demand that I provide "specifics" at one place, while agreeing with what you're demanding the "specifics" for, elsewhere. :-?

OK, pardon me for quoting fully, but could you highlight the part of this text that says "the organization of the process and the process cannot be proven" instead of "the organization of the process and the process cannot proven by only measuring the result", except as you continue to equate "result" with "process", ignoring everything I've said on the subject?! :-?

If it is not proven by looking at the result, then what is it proven by?

It isn't proven by looking at the one measure of the result in question. It is covered by looking at related information, and sitting down and thinking about it, and proposing a theory, and testing it. The entire logic thing.

Well, I'm only trying to get so far as to establish that they are not completely defined by counting texels, and that the count of texels is what is completed defined by counting texels.

Ok, that's fine. So "work" and the "process" are not completely defined by filtered texels. I thought we covered that.

OK, we did, for now.

I'm asking what "work" and the "process" are defined by. Do you not understand that?

Sure I understand that, which is why I gave you the answer before. Please note the word "complete" above, and seriously let it linger in your mind a bit...my making a point of it in various contexts, all having to do with why it is important, is related to this.

Since it seems necessary again:

You can measure a result of a process, and this defines that result completely (the texel count of a tunnel, for example). You can also measure different results of a process (the texel count of a "non off angle" surface). You can look at a different measure of some aspect of the process (for example, performance hit).

Now, you can pick one result you measured, and try to draw associations while ignoring other things that contradict them (for example, noting image quality degradation at off angles, ignoring whether performance hit depends on it, and concluding that performance hit is reduced solely by the presence of off angles, and therefore that measuring the work result for off angles represents how it gains performance). This is not complete.

You can look at other results, and if they include ones that invalidate the above associations, this consideration is complete as far as disproving those associations as they were stated. They were not, however, complete in defining the process...it is only complete in making progress towards doing so with the information considered so far.

Now, have I "defined" some characteristics of the process, and how they seem to apply to contradicting your initial statement? I think so. Have I defined the process? Not completely, but only so far. Is that a yes, or a no? As far as your requiring an answer justifying it as alternative to defining the process by looking at one specific result and failing to consider other aspects related to the process, it is a "yes".

You want a formula representation and analysis of how ATI implements their AF, then? What about your statements do you think requires me to specify such in order to be able to refute? What I've provided seems sufficient, and complaining that I haven't completed reverse engineering ATI's implementation doesn't do anything to address that.

No, I am asking for what variables(specifically, what these variables represent) would make up such formulas.

That would depend on how it calculates, but it would be related to representing the texture more correctly as perspective and orientation away from parallel to the screen plane change.

Since you say that filtered texels have are the result and not part of the process,

What if I looked at the results for "on" angles, and said that they defined the process? Does that mean that the Radeon AF always filters to provide more detail? I'm sure you'd say that outside of the "on" angle case behavior, this isn't the complete picture, and mention a tunnel test. I'm not sure why you have difficulty in grasping that outside of observing specific angle variance, the tunnel isn't complete either.

and that number of samples taken is not part of the process.

Hmm? Counting the samples taken as present in the output tells you the count of samples taken and then presented in the output, it doesn't define the process. It is part of evaluating the process, but not the end of evaluating the process. If you're measuring the samples evident in output, it doesn't even tell you directly the samples that were input, just the number of samples used as far as your methodolgy measures effectively.

What IS part of the process?

I'm not stating the mathermatical and organizational principles involved with ATI's AF implementation in particular, I'm describing characteristics about it and applying them to your statements that don't seem to fit.

An example. Is there something I should explain about what an example is, now?

A more specific example that tells me how these arbitrary numbers used in your previous example are related to AF?

They're not related to AF at all, they're related to the problems in your statements you continue to persist in. That is what I meant by asking if I had to explain what an example was.

If full degree AF was used at all angles then:
a) performance would globally decrease, whether or not former off angles are present.

If full degree AF was used at all angles by implementing things with the same process and implementation organization as the GeForce, yes.

b) performance would only decrease when off angles are present.

If full degree AF was formerly used at non-"off" angles by implementing things with the same process and implementation organization as the GeForce, and this was then changed to apply to off angles where it didn't before, yes.

So you are saying that it is possible to perform full degree AF at "off angles" where currently only 2x AF is performed, without losing performance in cases where such "off angles" don't exist.

This doesn't fit "a" at all, where performance "globally decreases", so you mean "b"? For "b", I'm saying that if the process calculated like the GF, but had a mechanism to specifically turn down the degree of aniso for off angles (i.e., it gained performance only by reducing image quality), that turning off the mechanism of detection would only decrease performance when off angles were present, because the calculation part of the process is the same, and the performance decrease would be the same when the detection mechanism wasn't in effect ("non off" angles).

You are also saying that it is possible to implement AF another way so that performance will globally decrease.

"a"? Yes, that is related to how some hardware does things more efficiently than others.

So....if it is possible to separate the off angle problem from the "normal" AF ATI is currently doing,

No, I stipulated that the answer to one of your questions was your initial proposition was the case. As we'd covered...?

why is it impossible that the off angle problem is unrelated to the way ATI is doing AF?

Ack!

I have said from the beginning that I thought the off angle problem was mututally exclusive from "normal operation" of AF, and you disagreed.

Double Ack! I'd have to repeat most of this post to dig out of this illogic, including covering things you'd already said you agreed with. If I can't even count on you to stick to your own statements, how can you hope to discuss anything in a non-circular fashion?

[StealthHawk]

I would be skeptical of any results which purport that treating all texture stages with trilinear has no more of an impact on performance than treating a single stage. There may be instances--in cpu limited games, for instance--in which this might appear to be true, no doubt. But it wouldn't be true because there is no performance hit from treating 4 stages as opposed to 1...;) I'd think the same way about someone telling me that 4x FSAA exacts no more of a performance penalty than 2x FSAA--that might be true in certain games--but not because 4x isn't demanding a lot more overhead...

Well, to be fair, in your example it is more like 1 stage trilinear 3 stages bilinear vs all 4 stages trilinear, rather than 1 stage vs 4 stages.

Has ATI ever commented on rTool/registry key that allows trilinear AF on all stages?

[StealthHawk]

If that is what I was addressing, well then, yes. And it was what I was addressing. A conversation, yes?

I have since stopped addressing it though :? If my position is fundamentally flawed, which according to you it is, why should we discuss it? My theory is reliant on less work being done on off angles, which you say is not true. Therefore, I am wrong. Nothing to discuss :idea:

Actually, you do have evidence to disprove the statement that the performance difference only occurred with the presence of off angles.

Are you reading my post in its entirety then responding? Because from the last few posts it looks like you are responding to it piecemeal, such as the above reponse. Later in my post, I already expanded and clarified on what I believe about ATI's AF performance.

I provide evidence. You respond by saying that I didn't, or that it isn't incontrovertible and final and therefore doesn't count. I point out directly to you why such a comment doesn't seem valid. You change your statement to say there is evidence after all, or that you never disputed that I had evidence, but then you go on to ask me to provide evidence again.

You have not provided evidence beyond conjecture and generalization. I have never asked for evidence that ATI's AF had a lower performance hit. I have always asked for evidence in relation to how ATI's AF does work, what it's process contains, or isolated conditions using off angles.

Hmm? The bias value itself, but not its effects, right? Unless the LOD bias is adjusted along with AF being used, to, for example, increase texture detail without AF processing as I think we discussed, or reduce aliasing while increasing AF processing.

So is LOD bias changing when AF is enabled or not :?:

OK, but this statement, even with your stipulation, supports that "it does more work so it's better image quality" is an invalid precept, which was the point of my conversation.

I am not arguing with that. I am saying that it is not fair to apply it because of off angles. To which, I have stated I believe less work is being applied, and IQ is visibly decreases. Whether or not most games use off angles heavily or not, they are there to some degree. In some games more off angles are present than in others. In other words, I don't think the phrase is totally accurate(because some people will use it as an excuse to say that off angle problems don't exist and that ATI's AF is 100% superior to NVIDIA's in all ways. Yes, there are people like that).

Yes. You're asking me to prove this, beyond observing that it happens and there is a performance hit reduction even when it does not? Well, the alternative is that the off angle problem is separate from the methodology, which is conceivable, but doesn't seem reasonable right now with no evidence anywhere of it ever being separated, and indication to the contrary of it being separable.

Well, in R200 45 degree angles did not receive full treatment. But in R300 they do. R300's bilinear AF seems to have the same almost free performance hit as R200 I think. In fact, I have raised this point before.

That is a consequence of the algorithms being used, so that in fact, they are essentially one and the same.

I don't get why you just repeat phrases like this like I haven't addressed them before. The result is not the same as the process.

Again: one output is one indication of the characteristics of the process and its input, it doesn't define the process by itself.

You have said clearly that the off angle "issues" are a result of the process. You're saying that the AF alogrithms are not the process :?

General results support your theory, not specific ones. ie, you are looking at the lower performance hit of ATI's AF and saying that the off angles occur because of ATI's aggressive/efficient process.

You are abusing general and specific here. Consider the phrase "specific results generally support my theory".

Here is a contrasting "general" and "specific" case:

General: "The roof leaks when it rains".
Specific: "The roof is leaking right now, and it leaked saturday and sunday as well".

We are playing a semantics game here. "specific" results refers to specific benchmark results, it does not mean that said results have the characteristics to make them specific to the topic at hand. So the results are "specific," but they are as they are related to off angles and ATI's AF, they are general.

I'm not sure why you continue to converse as if an indication can't serve to disprove your sometime theory about off angles. I.e., disprove that their presence is required to manifest a performance gain for AF.

I thought I already said that ATI had a lower performance hit :roll: I don't know where the hell you got the idea that I said ATI's performance hit wasn't lower. As far as I remember, I have NEVER said either of the following:

1) ATI has the same performance hit as NVIDIA when no off angles are present
2) ATI does the same amount of work as NVIDIA when no off angles are present

It seems you think I've said, one or both of these though :? Please show me where I said that.

How did we arrive at these "general cases", then?

Because there is no data where off angles are isolated or even meeasurably present, and that is what is under dispute. Hence, what you are providing is "general" evidence about ATI's AF.

I don't see what is so hard about this to understand. Suppose you have an apple orchard where you grow red and green apples. Suppose you pick 15 apples, 5 green and 10 red. You tell me that the red apples weigh twice as much as the green apples, and you ask me how much each green apple weighs. I can't tell you because I don't know the total weight of the 15 apples. In this case, I know some specific information about red apples, but this information is totally unhelpful in determining anything wrt all of the apples together or the green apples.

Double Ack! I'd have to repeat most of this post to dig out of this illogic, including covering things you'd already said you agreed with. If I can't even count on you to stick to your own statements, how can you hope to discuss anything in a non-circular fashion?

As said somewhere above, it seems that you think I've said quite a few things that I never did, and I have done the same to you.

Ok, another agree or disagree time; let's say that ATI changes their AF implementation:

1) ATI cannot perform full degree AF at all angles without losing performance even when "off angles" are not present relative to their old(current) method.

2) ATI can perform full degree AF at all angles without losing performance even when "off angles" are not present relative to their old(current) method.

[demalion]

If that is what I was addressing, well then, yes. And it was what I was addressing. A conversation, yes?

I have since stopped addressing it though :? If my position is fundamentally flawed, which according to you it is, why should we discuss it?

Because you continue to propose things based on it not being flawed.

My theory is reliant on less work being done on off angles, which you say is not true.

No, your theory is dependent on off angles being present being the only way to do less work. Are we on the same page? What does "performance difference only occured with the presence of off angles" mean to you? It is consistent with some of the things you say, but not others. The point of my conversation was addressing the things it is consistent with, already highlighted as part of the discussion about your self-contradiction. Yet again I ask, how much clearer can I be?

Therefore, I am wrong. Nothing to discuss :idea:

Then why do you keep proposing disagreement to my "theory" based on the same problems?

Actually, you do have evidence to disprove the statement that the performance difference only occurred with the presence of off angles.

Are you reading my post in its entirety then responding? Because from the last few posts it looks like you are responding to it piecemeal, such as the above reponse. Later in my post, I already expanded and clarified on what I believe about ATI's AF performance.

What don't you understand about the phrase "contradiction", and the associated demonstrations of it in your text that I've provided? Do you think by simply failing to respond to my discussion of it, as you've done several times, makes it go away? Alternatively, perhaps this self-contradiction is related to why I was correcting the statement you were making here, and why your bringing up a statement you made elsewhere is nonsensical?

:shock:

Self-contradiction and incorrect statements completely negates any ability for us to converse when you simply ignore them when I point them out to you, and then you continue conversation based on them.

For instance, the entire "General results support your theory, not specific ones" issue, where you just repeat that accepting the general case supporting something means that specific cases do not, and simply ignore that a "general case" does not exclude all specific cases because "general" and "specific" mean different things.

I provide evidence. You respond by saying that I didn't, or that it isn't incontrovertible and final and therefore doesn't count. I point out directly to you why such a comment doesn't seem valid. You change your statement to say there is evidence after all, or that you never disputed that I had evidence, but then you go on to ask me to provide evidence again.

You have not provided evidence beyond conjecture and generalization. I have never asked for evidence that ATI's AF had a lower performance hit.
...

Do you see the problem here? My actual quoting and discussion of your statements simply disappeared from the discussion. :shock:

Hmm? The bias value itself, but not its effects, right? Unless the LOD bias is adjusted along with AF being used, to, for example, increase texture detail without AF processing as I think we discussed, or reduce aliasing while increasing AF processing.

So is LOD bias changing when AF is enabled or not :?:
The bias can change when AF is enabled. The bias can remain unchanged when AF is enabled. The bias can change, even without AF being turned on or off. Your question confuses causality. We've had this conversation.

OK, but this statement, even with your stipulation, supports that "it does more work so it's better image quality" is an invalid precept, which was the point of my conversation.

I am not arguing with that. I am saying that it is not fair to apply it because of off angles.

Are you introducing some sort of "political logic"? What do you mean by "not fair"?

To which, I have stated I believe less work is being applied, and IQ is visibly decreases.

Image quality is visibly decreased, and less work can be said to be applied, yes, as long as you aren't proposing a specific relationship between them in this statement.

Whether or not most games use off angles heavily or not, they are there to some degree. In some games more off angles are present than in others. In other words, I don't think the phrase is totally accurate(because some people will use it as an excuse to say that off angle problems don't exist and that ATI's AF is 100% superior to NVIDIA's in all ways. Yes, there are people like that).

If preventing people from making incorrect statements were enough justification to exclude observations, it would be just as much justification for saying the ATI's AF doesn't have an off angle problem to prevent people from saying that image quality always results from doing more work. I know you see the problem with this, but I don't know why you don't see fit to prevent yourself from making statements based on this premise. Another conversation we've had before.

OK, skipping to more direct questions, in hopes of progress:

That is a consequence of the algorithms being used, so that in fact, they are essentially one and the sameI don't get why you just repeat phrases like this like I haven't addressed them before. The result is not the same as the process.

Again: one output is one indication of the characteristics of the process and its input, it doesn't define the process by itself.
You have said clearly that the off angle "issues" are a result of the process. You're saying that the AF alogrithms are not the process :?

No, I said clearly that the result of the AF alogrithm is not the process. :shock:

As far as I remember, I have NEVER said either of the following:

1) ATI has the same performance hit as NVIDIA when no off angles are present
2) ATI does the same amount of work as NVIDIA when no off angles are present

It seems you think I've said, one or both of these though :? Please show me where I said that.

Well, one place I've quoted already, with highlights, and you then just decided to skip over:


We need to be clear on this: does ATI's performance hit being reduced depend on the off angles being present, or not?
Yes, I think so.

Also, in your initial proposal in disagreement to Quitch, and throughout our conversation. How can you say I've debunked your theory in one place, and then say that you never had the theory in the first place in another? Are you just ignoring the majority of my discussion which establishes this, and then wondering why I say there is a problem with the way you're responding to my explanations and questions?

How did we arrive at these "general cases", then?

Because there is no data where off angles are isolated or even meeasurably present, and that is what is under dispute.

What data about off angles do I need to present to prove that ATI's being more efficient even without them, when you've agreed that it is already? This is one of your contradictions. Please take another look at our conversation, with more care than the first time, as I've requested several times.

Hence, what you are providing is "general" evidence about ATI's AF.

I don't see what is so hard about this to understand. Suppose you have an apple orchard where you grow red and green apples. Suppose you pick 15 apples, 5 green and 10 red. You tell me that the red apples weigh twice as much as the green apples, and you ask me how much each green apple weighs. I can't tell you because I don't know the total weight of the 15 apples.

Well, it is more like asking you how many green apples would be required to approach the weight of the 10 red apples. You could answer 20, based on the specific indications you have. We haven't established for sure that the next 15 green apples will weigh the same as the first 5, but that doesn't mean that the specific weight of the 5 green apples don't support this because we represented the information as "general".

In this case, I know some specific information about red apples, but this information is totally unhelpful in determining anything wrt all of the apples together or the green apples.

And this evaluation seems totally incorrect. What it is not is the end of determing the complete information about all of the apples together or of the green apples.

If someone pointed out that their relative weights corresponded to their relationship in size, you couldn't ignore it to propose that red things are heavier than green things, without also necessarily proposing other things that are not supported while simultaneously ignoring that the size determing the weight is a more reasonable statement with based on "general" information.

...
Ok, another agree or disagree time; let's say that ATI changes their AF implementation:

What is the point when you ignore my answers? Ok, as more one way courtesy...

1) ATI cannot perform full degree AF at all angles without losing performance even when "off angles" are not present relative to their old(current) method.

Well, they seem to have provided indication against this for 45 degree separated angles already. I can't define an answer that precludes them from doing so further in the future, or evaluating how it will compare to the current implementation. Disagree.

If they switched to doing it the same way as the GeForce has, which is one possibility, I'd agree.

2) ATI can perform full degree AF at all angles without losing performance even when "off angles" are not present relative to their old(current) method.

Hmm? If they changed their implementation, it is possible. It is also possible that they couldn't perform full degree AF at all angles without losing performance compared to their prior method. This would depend on what the new process, that achieved full degree aniso at all angles, was.

[Bjorn]

R300's bilinear AF seems to have the same almost free performance hit as R200 I think. In fact, I have raised this point before.

Well, there's actually some indications that it might have a larger performance hit. 2X -> 16X AF = 14% perf hit for a 9600 Pro vs 6% between 0X and 16X AF for the R9000 Pro. But this is not with the same demo (both are UT2003 though) and then there's of course other things that play a role in this as we have seen (diff between 9600/9800).

[StealthHawk]

So is LOD bias changing when AF is enabled or not :?:
The bias can change when AF is enabled. The bias can remain unchanged when AF is enabled. The bias can change, even without AF being turned on or off. Your question confuses causality. We've had this conversation.

This is not an answer. Is LOD bias changing when AF is enabled or isn't it? Here, just like other places, you seem to give me the runaround, rather than providing a straight answer.

Earlier you seemed to be saying that LOD was changing, or maybe you were just making a proposition :?: Why wouldn't the texture aliasing "people claim" be related to a higher level of detail for textures (the default for Direct3D is "highest" last I checked)?

[quute]That is a consequence of the algorithms being used, so that in fact, they are essentially one and the sameI don't get why you just repeat phrases like this like I haven't addressed them before. The result is not the same as the process.

Again: one output is one indication of the characteristics of the process and its input, it doesn't define the process by itself.
You have said clearly that the off angle "issues" are a result of the process. You're saying that the AF alogrithms are not the process :?

No, I said clearly that the result of the AF alogrithm is not the process. :shock:[/quote]

Where did I say in the first quote that the result is the process :shock: I don't see that at all.

As far as I remember, I have NEVER said either of the following:

1) ATI has the same performance hit as NVIDIA when no off angles are present
2) ATI does the same amount of work as NVIDIA when no off angles are present

It seems you think I've said, one or both of these though :? Please show me where I said that.

Well, one place I've quoted already, with highlights, and you then just decided to skip over:


We need to be clear on this: does ATI's performance hit being reduced depend on the off angles being present, or not?
Yes, I think so.

Way to selectively quote, here is what I said in its entirety.Yes, I think so. While I have admitted that ATI's algorithm is more efficient/aggressive than NVIDIA's, when there are off angles present that workload is going to decrease even more in comparison to the work being done by NVIDIA.

I have already clarified that as well. So again, where have I said that ATI's AF does not have a lower performance hit than NVIDIAs :roll: Because I'm pretty sure I've never said that. I don't understand why you keep insisting that is what I've been saying.

Also, in your initial proposal in disagreement to Quitch, and throughout our conversation. How can you say I've debunked your theory in one place, and then say that you never had the theory in the first place in another? Are you just ignoring the majority of my discussion which establishes this, and then wondering why I say there is a problem with the way you're responding to my explanations and questions?

Apparently yes I am ignoring it, since you like to play semantics and take quotes out of context. Either that, or my articulation is egregiously bad, to the point that every other word I type is being misconstrued.


I just don't understand how you expect me to seriously consider your theory when you refuse to give straight answers about it. Obviously you do not know exactly how ATI's AF works. But you must have some belief as to how you think it works.

Furthermore, when you just said that 45 degree angles are special cases. How then is this compatible with your theory that the same amount of work is being done at all angles. Doesn't a "special case" in and of itself imply that something different is being done when this type of case comes up...

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere, this is no longer enjoyable for me, and I am waiving my obligation to reply to any future posts on this subject unless something interesting comes up or I feel progress will be made. I thought at some points we were making progress but as you've said, we have come full circle already. You keep referring me to past posts and now I'm doing the same :shudder:

[WaltC]

Well, to be fair, in your example it is more like 1 stage trilinear 3 stages bilinear vs all 4 stages trilinear, rather than 1 stage vs 4 stages.

Has ATI ever commented on rTool/registry key that allows trilinear AF on all stages?

I'm thinking though that bilinear is the chip default for stage treatment (which might lead some to propose it's "free bilinear.") I haven't seen a point-sampling option in a long time...;) Not sure about that, however. As to rTool, I don't know that they generally comment on the efficacy (or lack thereof) of tweakers...

[demalion]

So is LOD bias changing when AF is enabled or not :?:
The bias can change when AF is enabled. The bias can remain unchanged when AF is enabled. The bias can change, even without AF being turned on or off. Your question confuses causality. We've had this conversation.

This is not an answer. Is LOD bias changing when AF is enabled or isn't it?

"Not necessarily" is my answer, even if you don't like it, or whatever your objection is. I definitively answered the question of whether "LOD bias setting HAS to change with AF", which is all that was required to address your contention that "LOD bias has to be part of AF and texture aliasing being present means it was an issue with ATI's AF"!
What is this game with ignoring that my answer already got my point across, to make up a new question defining some new tangent? The only point I see is to waste my time and ignore that I've already established the problem with your statement. :-?

"Will it be raining outside of my house at 8:00 AM tomorrow?" If you care about your answer being as true as you know how, perhaps you see the issue with your question if you try to answer this? In any case...according to you, what is the purpose of this new question?

For instance: I have a recollection sometime in the GeForce driver history, LOD bias did change with the AF level selected. I also have a recollection that some time in ATI driver history, LOD bias did change with something known as an "AF level" in the registry (the so called "32, 64, and 128x anisotropic filtering" options). Does this mean it changes now in the same way? Does this mean it does or doesn't change to reduce texture aliasing as part of an implementation? No, but these answer have nothing to do with pointing out that LOD bias being too aggressive might be the cause of aliasing, or change that you can turn down the LOD bias separately from the AF setting.

Here, just like other places, you seem to give me the runaround, rather than providing a straight answer.

Runaround!? SH, I don't know what your problem is. Are you really paying so little attention to what I'm saying? Maybe you honestly don't realize your initial comment was already addressed, and this was my entire point in...replying to your initial comment?! :shock:

Earlier you seemed to be saying that LOD was changing, or maybe you were just making a proposition :?: Why wouldn't the texture aliasing "people claim" be related to a higher level of detail for textures (the default for Direct3D is "highest" last I checked)?

Eh? Where do you get "LOD was changing" out of that?

"the default for Direct3D is "highest" last I checked". This means that the default for ATI is the "Highest" mip map level selection (and Highest texture quality, though I don't currently think this boosts LOD bias). The driver's behavior with this setting, as well as the game's LOD settings (for instance, UT2k3 commonly uses negative LOD settings), could be responsible for texture aliasing. Therefore, the result being texture aliasing, doesn't tell you what the cause was, and a possible cause is something besides the AF implementation.

OK, why did I have to explain that?

That is a consequence of the algorithms being used, so that in fact, they are essentially one and the sameI don't get why you just repeat phrases like this like I haven't addressed them before. The result is not the same as the process.

Again: one output is one indication of the characteristics of the process and its input, it doesn't define the process by itself.
You have said clearly that the off angle "issues" are a result of the process. You're saying that the AF alogrithms are not the process :?

No, I said clearly that the result of the AF alogrithm is not the process. :shock:

Where did I say in the first quote that the result is the process :shock: I don't see that at all.

Now we're playing games with "algorithm" and "That is a consequence".

First, both of your sentences: "No, your theory is that the off angle problem stems from whatever process ATI uses when AF, is it not? That is a consequence of the algorithms being used, so that in fact, they are essentially one and the same."

Hey, your "That" is referring to the off angle problem, which, as I've discussed, is a result. It seems pretty obvious that the AF algorithim is the process. It also seems pretty obvious what "one in the same" means. How you fail to see how this associates with "Result is the process", despite my explaining all of these items several times, is not obvious, and not even interesting. It is (IMO) rude, lazy, and/or associated with some agenda directed personally at me, or your perception of me.

Maybe you think I'm an "ATI zealot" or something, and got stuck on the idea that the issue was debunking things "ATI zealots" might do, as you alluded to earlier in your discussion on "fairness". I don't know, and I don't see the point in wasting more time in trying to find out if it could be something different when you so consistently seem to only be interested in focusing on issues that only make sense in some sort of political regard, instead of one that is logical or factual. :-?

To cover remaining highlights:

We need to be clear on this: does ATI's performance hit being reduced depend on the off angles being present, or not?
Yes, I think so.

Way to selectively quote,...

Yes, because I selected the contradiction.

...here is what I said in its entirety.Yes, I think so. While I have admitted that ATI's algorithm is more efficient/aggressive than NVIDIA's, when there are off angles present that workload is going to decrease even more in comparison to the work being done by NVIDIA.

Self-contradiction (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=self-contradiction).

contradiction (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contradiction).


What don't you understand about the phrase "contradiction", and the associated demonstrations of it in your text that I've provided? Do you think by simply failing to respond to my discussion of it, as you've done several times, makes it go away? Alternatively, perhaps this self-contradiction is related to why I was correcting the statement you were making here, and why your bringing up a statement you made elsewhere is nonsensical?

If you were consistent, the answer to my question, "does ATI's performance hit being reduced depend on the off angles being present, or not?", would have been "No. While...", instead of "Yes, I think so. While...", and the conversation (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=159985&#159985) could have progressed without there being confusion in how this answer of yours related the rest of your questions in that post.
Instead, we have one part of your conversation saying "No, ATi's doesn't depend on off angles being present for its performance hit being reduced", and another part saying "Yes, ATi depends on the off angles being present for its performance hit being reduced".

This is why I chose the word "self-contradiction", and similar issues are why I discussed it with you in several posts running. This is just one clear example...for others, pease actually read what I've said when I characterize something you've said as contradictory. :shock:
Perhaps the link to an explanation of the meaning of the words will help.
I have no interest in doing the work of finding every instance, and have you respond as you have consistently done to my efforts to answer your questions and provide explanations in this thread, so I also look forward to whatever alternative to that occurs.
If for some reason this reply finally sparks some recognition of what I've been saying, I can provide further details and references to things I've stated already in PMs.