[jjayb]

Originally Posted by DadUm

I still want to know why none of the sites could get a meaningful number using the D3 using these "public" drivers.

Does it really matter? D3 isn't a "public" game yet.

[Reverend]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Just FYI, that info came from this thread:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5776

Please refer to my reply/comment in the same thread quoted above. I don't know what exactly is going on and until I do, I hope you guys won't speculate too wildly.

[Reverend]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Apparently, (according to what iD told Dave) NVIDIA and not iD is actually controlling the release of this benchmark. I guess the chances of the above happening are about nil.

At this point, I take back what I said at the very beginning of this thread about this being somewhat legitimate...

id corresponded with me, not Dave, regarding this and Dave's "Talk to NVIDIA" comment (link just above this post) should not be miscontrued, as is evident by Joe's thoughts/comments. I don't know what exactly is going on and if I don't, neither Joe, Dave nor anyone else can claim to know (based on the info in the link provided above).

Don't speculate about this.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Reverend

Don't speculate about this.

You need to get nvidia's permission to run / acquire a Doom3 benchmark. Full stop. Correct? No speculation there.

Asking us to not speculate WHY nVidia has a say in this is out of line, IMO. There would be no speculation involved, if id was "allowed" to release their own benchmark without nVidia's "blessing".

[BenSkywalker]

Asking us to not speculate WHY nVidia has a say in this is out of line, IMO. There would be no speculation involved, if id was "allowed" to release their own benchmark without nVidia's "blessing".

Perhaps nVidia will be the ones held accountable if there is a leak.

Edit-

Meant to post this and forgot, from Carmack-

"We have been planning to put together a proper pre-release of Doom for benchmarking purposes, but we have just been too busy with actual game completion. The executable and data that is being shown was effectively lifted at a random point in the development process, and shows some obvious issues with playback, but we believe it to be a fair and unbiased data point. We would prefer to show something that carefully highlights the best visual aspects of our work, but we recognize the importance of providing a benchmark for comparison purposes at this time, so we are allowing it to be used for this particular set of tests. We were not happy with the demo that Nvidia prepared, so we recorded a new one while they were here today. This is an important point -- while I'm sure Nvidia did extensive testing, and knew that their card was going to come out comfortably ahead with the demo they prepared, right now, they don't actually know if the demo that we recorded for them puts them in the best light. Rather nervy of them, actually.

The Nvidia card will be fastest with "r_renderer nv30", while the ATI will be a tiny bit faster in the "r_renderer R200" mode instead of the "r_renderer ARB2" mode that it defaults to (which gives some minor quality improvements). The "gfxinfo" command will dump relevant information about the functioning renderer modes and optimizations. At some point, after we have documented all of the options and provided multiple datasets, Doom is going to be an excellent benchmarking tool, but for now you can still make some rough assessments with it."

[Doomtrooper]

B3D: "Is there any way we could work together on a similar basis as per what was accorded to HardOCP and AnandTech?"
"

ID: "Anthony,

NVIDIA chose those outlets - we did not. It would be best to place this
request with them."


I see nothing about the Demo, I see asking for a meeting.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by BenSkywalker

Perhaps nVidia will be the ones held accountable if there is a leak.

What would id do to hold them accountable...give another build to ATI? :P

[OpenGL guy]

Originally Posted by andypski

When it comes to rendering in DirectX it is a general rule that the reference rasterizer is the specification. In Microsoft's own words the reference rasterizer "Supports every Direct3D feature".

Except Z bias! :? (Until DX9 that is.)

[Reverend]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

You need to get nvidia's permission to run / acquire a Doom3 benchmark. Full stop. Correct? No speculation there.

Asking us to not speculate WHY nVidia has a say in this is out of line, IMO. There would be no speculation involved, if id was "allowed" to release their own benchmark without nVidia's "blessing".

Incorrect. From the way I read id's reply to me, it meant id prefered I liase with NVIDIA to arrange for a benchmarking session. Big difference.

Again, you're either speculating or jumping the gun.

PS. 2AM, going to bed, so don't expect any further quick responses from me.

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by Doomtrooper

B3D: "Is there any way we could work together on a similar basis as per what was accorded to HardOCP and AnandTech?"
"

ID: "Anthony,

NVIDIA chose those outlets - we did not. It would be best to place this
request with them."


I see nothing about the Demo, I see asking for a meeting.

Holy crap! I'm in agreement with Doom! I think iD is thinking of it in terms of Beyond3d wanting to benchmark with equipment provided by NVIDIA. iD has no control over who gets the equipment, which is why he said: go ask NVIDIA if you want to meet here and use their equipment and run my 'demo'.

(I think you chicken little types are a bit off base on this one)

[Reverend]

One more quick note b4 bed :

Note that id chose to use the word "outlets" when they replied to me.

That, to me, means the websites NVIDIA chooses to arrange what [H] and Anand experienced. Again, refer to what I said at http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewto...=114825#114825

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Carmack

...The executable and data that is being shown was effectively lifted at a random point in the development process,

Translation: "nVidia picked a build from some point in the development process, and as far as we're concerned, that's random enough."

...but we recognize the importance of providing a benchmark for comparison purposes at this time, so we are allowing it to be used for this particular set of tests.

Translation: "We realize that for the past 10 months ATI has had the clearly superior hardware, so providing a .plan update that indicated that, or worse, providing a benchmark "during that time" to show it, wasn't important for comparison purposes. On the day that nVidia introduces a competitive part, the defintion of "important at this time" has been fulfilled."

We were not happy with the demo that Nvidia prepared, so we recorded a new one while they were here today.

Translation: "We're not COMPLETELY off our rocker and realize that we could not spin enough to justify actually using an nVidia created demo, and have the community accept that."

This is an important point -- while I'm sure Nvidia did extensive testing, and knew that their card was going to come out comfortably ahead with the demo they prepared, right now, they don't actually know if the demo that we recorded for them puts them in the best light. Rather nervy of them, actually.

Translation: "nVidia was not nervy enough to give ATI the heads up and some time to compete with tuned drivers."

At some point, after we have documented all of the options and provided multiple datasets, Doom is going to be an excellent benchmarking tool, but for now you can still make some rough assessments with it."

Translation: At some point, there will be a benchmark version that is actually useful. But for now, accept this as the marketing gimmick that it is.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Reverend

Incorrect. From the way I read id's reply to me, it meant id prefered I liase with NVIDIA to arrange for a benchmarking session. Big difference.

Not so big.

Why should anyone have to liase with any IHV for a benchmarking session using id's software?

It would not be an issue, if you can go to ATI and ask THEM for a "benchmarking session" as well. Go ahead and try it. (Serious request...if id allows ATI to also orchestrate a benchmarking session, then my concerns are in fact unfounded.)

Again, you're either speculating or jumping the gun.

Indeed...provided that ATI is allowed to arrange a similar benchmarking session with Id's blessing.

PS. 2AM, going to bed, so don't expect any further quick responses from me.

I'm more interested in a response from ATI and nVidia at this point.

[Humus]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Humus, I think Natoma is trying to say that the "ARB2 path" is utilizing ARB2 extensions, which are presumably blessed by the ARB/OpenGL guiding committee as the shader input mechanism for OpenGL.

There is no such thing as "ARB2 extensions" either. It's either ARB or non-ARB.

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Heh. I take that back. Searching opengl.org for "ARB2" yields nothing.

What is meant by ARB2? using GL2_xxxxxx functions? Or....? Could somebody fill us in and vanquish the perpetuated misunderstanding?

edit:sssss my precioussss

ARB2 is simply the name Carmack gave the second path using ARB extensions. The first ARB path he used is using other ARB extensions, such as GL_ARB_texture_env_combine, that is, fixed function (DX7 level) capabilities. The second path uses extensions such as GL_ARB_fragment_program and GL_ARB_vertex_program.

[BenSkywalker]

Why should anyone have to liase with any IHV for a benchmarking session using id's software?

To avoid leaks. nV has the bench with them when they arrive at the site. They take it with them when they leave.

It would not be an issue, if you can go to ATI and ask THEM for a "benchmarking session" as well.

Perhaps if you substituted S3 or Matrox that would be a good point. Throwing the demo up on a website likely wouldn't be the best way to avoid leaks if that is the reason they are doing it this way

[Ostsol]

I really hope Beyond3D gets a copy of the benchmark and an FX5900 board to take a look at. I'd love to see how much performance in ARB2 mode has been improved.

[Humus]

Originally Posted by Chalnoth

Oh, you mean like:
GL_ATI_separate_stencil
GL_ATI_texture_float
GL_ATI_vertex_array_object
GL_ATI_fragment_shader

Proprietary=vendor specific.

Proprietary != vendor specific

Prorietary = Owned and controlled by said company. To implement you need to licence it or otherwise be granted the rights.

Vendor specific = Controlled by said company. Others are free to implement. GL_ATI_vertex_array_object for instance is implemented by Matrox for the Parhelia.

Read the spec for any of those extensions, you wont find any note about them being proprietary. Open pretty much any GL_NV_ extension and you'll find "IP Status: NVIDIA proprietary" in them. These need to licenced to implement. 3DLabs has for instance licenced the GL_NV_register_combiners.

[andypski]

Originally Posted by BenSkywalker

Would you consider this a decent description of what they are doing in SC?-

My understanding is that Splinter Cell has two preferred modes for shadows in the game.

In the first mode they use the Shadow buffer technique, where the scene is rendered to a depth texture from the light source POV and then this depth value is transformed into the view space and used as a comparison with the rasterized depth to decide whether a given pixel object is in shadow. This is the mode used on GF cards since it was inherited from the XBox as I recall.

In the second mode they use normal stencil based shadow projection similar to what you describe above. This would be used by default on other vendors cards, such as ATI, Matrox, SIS etc.

I believe they also have a third mode where they just project a shadow texture of the object onto the other objects, so you get no self-shadowing, but I'll have to check.

[Joe DeFuria]

[quote="BenSkywalker"]

Perhaps if you substituted S3 or Matrox that would be a good point. Throwing the demo up on a website likely wouldn't be the best way to avoid leaks if that is the reason they are doing it this way

Already addressed. I'm sure ATI (assuming it was them) has taken measures to avoid further leaks and communicated those measures to id. Like any company would.

In any case, if id thought it was "important at this time" to have some benchmark comparisons, having an IHV sponsor those benchmarks, without the knowledge of the other competing IHVs is simply bad form, don't you agree?

[Humus]

Originally Posted by Natoma

For instance, R300 runs the ARB2 path, and from what I understand, ARB2 extensions are standard OGL2 extensions, meaning that any OGL2 card should be able to run ARB2 extensions just fine.

Gah! All these '2's. There are ARB extensions, no "ARB2 extension". OpenGL2 extensions are not yet finalized. DoomIII does not use OpenGL2, except for some experiments Carmack mentioned he did when he got his 3DLabs cards. Since then, GL2 specs has changed a lot.

[Ostsol]

Originally Posted by Humus

Proprietary != vendor specific

Indeed! All one has to do is look at the OpenGL extension registry. It says in NV extensions: "IP Status: NVidia Proprietary". No other company appears to do the same. . .

[BenSkywalker]

Andy-

From UbiSoft-

Splinter Cell shadow system is a major part of the game. On NV2x/NV3x hardware, it runs using a technique called Shadow Buffers. This technique is rendering the scene from every shadow casting light and store a depth buffer that represent each pixel viewed by this light source. Each pixel has an X, Y, Z coordinate in the light system and these coordinates can be transformed, per pixel, in the viewer coordinate system. It’s then easy to compare with the actual depth stored in the Z buffer to figure out if the pixel viewed by the camera is the same or is occluded by the pixel viewed by the light. If they are the same, it means the pixel is lighted, if the light pixel is in front of the viewer pixel, it means the pixel is in the shadow.

And for non nV hardware-

On all other current hardware, the game is using another technique called projected shadows (shadow projectors). The technique is somewhat similar, we render the scene from the light point of view but instead of storing the depth, we are storing the color intensity in a texture. That texture is then mapped per vertex on each object that is going to receive the shadow. To be able to have objects casting shadows on other objects that are themselves casting shadows, Splinter Cell is using a 3-depth levels shadow casting algorithm. In general, the first level is used to compute the shadow to be used on the dynamic actors like Sam. The second level is used to compute the shadow used by the static meshes like a table or boxes. The final level is used for the projection on the BSP. This system is allowing Sam to receive the shadow of a gate on him, then Sam and the gate can cast on a box and finally all three objects can cast on the BSP (ground). This system also has a distance check algorithm to determine if Sam’s shadow should be projected on a static mesh (like a box) or if it shouldn’t base on their relative position. Both systems have their own strength/weaknesses. The main advantage of the Shadow Buffer algorithm is how easy it is to work with. Shadow Projectors are tricky and difficult to use."

In the first mode they use the Shadow buffer technique, where the scene is rendered to a depth texture from the light source POV and then this depth value is transformed into the view space and used as a comparison with the rasterized depth to decide whether a given pixel object is in shadow.

In the second mode they use normal stencil based shadow projection similar to what you describe above. This would be used by default on other vendors cards, such as ATI, Matrox, SIS etc.

Another quote-

Stencil buffers are a depth-buffer technique that can be updated as geometry is rendered, and used again as a mask for drawing more geometry. Common effects include mirrors, shadows (an advanced technique), dissolves, and so on.

That isn't supported under DirectX?

[Doomtrooper]

Originally Posted by Humus

Gah! All these '2's. There are ARB extensions, no "ARB2 extension". OpenGL2 extensions are not yet finalized. DoomIII does not use OpenGL2, except for some experiments Carmack mentioned he did when he got his 3DLabs cards. Since then, GL2 specs has changed a lot.

ARB 2 *

[andypski]

Originally Posted by BenSkywalker

That isn't supported under DirectX?

I'm losing track of this discussion now...

To recap -

Initially the conversation about shadows in Splinter Cell was sparked by your assertion that nVidia cards produce higher quality shadows than ATI cards and are thus being penalised in the benchmarks.

I responded that the shadows are the same quality when using the same technique - in this case it appears that this will be projected shadows, and so the results should be comparable provided the sites make sure that both cards use this technique.

I thought that they also supported stencil shadows, but I guess maybe I was mistaken?

As an aside I added that the shadow buffer method on the nV cards actually uses a non-standard extension to DX, so it is unfair to refer to this as a 'missing feature' in ATI cards. Additionally I pointed out that true shadow buffers can be supported in a fully DX compliant way on ATI cards.

I think that provided that we agree on this then things are fine...

[LeStoffer]

After thinking a bit about the info we have so far - mainly John Carmack's remark on Anandtech - I would say that it is okay with Id and nVidia showing off the darn demo.

The problem, however, is that ATI's products was benchmarked as well when we don't have a clue about whether ATI was informed or accepted that this was taking place. There is no doubt that nVidia put a lot of driver focus into Doom III while ATI might have decided to wait a bit on the Doom III-optimizations.

My point is that we don't have a freakin' clue but nonetheless these benchmarks are seen as the final score on Judgement Day. Maybe the fault is really with the reviews this time aound? (Sorry the spoil the NV vs ATI war)