3DMark05 and certain websites

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by Reverend, Sep 24, 2004.

  1. mrbill

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Marlborough, MA
    Scali's preference for "bilinear weighted" is a personal preference. It's not universally recognized to be higher quality.

    So some folks prefer the "bilinear weighted" implementation.
    Other folks prefer the original PCF algorithm as specified by Reeves et al.

    See:
    [Reeves1987] William T. Reeves, David H. Salesin, and Robert L. Cook. Rendering Antialiased Shadows with Depth Maps. SIGGRAPH 1987
    pp. 283–291.

    I'm a purist who argues that there is no meaning to how far you are from a passed or failed sample, therefore the unadulterated PCF is more correct. (For example, if one out of four samples passes, with unadulterated PCF the answer is 0.25, with bilinear weights the answer varies between 0.0-1.0.)

    Either way, four samples will be poor quality. (Reeves noted that they normally used at least 16 samples.) So both will look not so good. But four samples is probably a good quality/performance tradeoff right now.

    -mr. bill
     
  2. Spaceman-Spiff

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    .bc.ca
  3. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Hexus screenshot takes a situation where there is a large sampling problem anyway. But what I dislike about the regular method is the noisy, grainy edges, which are clearly visible in the Hexus screenshot aswell.
    The DST edges are smooth. In this case the sampling problem is more or less disguised by the noise, which Hexus classifies as better.
    But in cases where there is not such an obvious sampling problem, I suppose most people will prefer a smooth edge to the noisy grainy stuff. I know I do anyway. I consider noise to be bad quality.
    I suppose in the case of Hexus' screenshots, I'm more worried about the sampling problem itself, than about the smoothness of the edges.

    So now the 'better' is more qualified, I suppose ;)
     
  4. Rys

    Rys Graphics @ AMD
    Moderator Veteran Alpha

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Likes Received:
    1,579
    Location:
    Beyond3D HQ
    I did wonder about that while sitting in the cinema this afternoon, after I'd written the article! I didn't think about whether it was a worst case scenario in GT3 in 05, which is where the edge stepping is most visible, while I was writing it.

    Now that I think about it, I can't really say PCF = worse quality in all cases (it's obviously not), but it's worse (for me anyway) in GT3 in 05, and of course there's the issues about its use when comparing to cards that don't support it.

    Rys
     
  5. Neeyik

    Neeyik Homo ergaster
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    45
    Location:
    Cumbria, UK
    I'm working on getting the entries into the next update for the vocab (on FM's site) but it's well down on a long list of things I've got to do right now. Plus I get to moan about the help file too, since I didn't write this one!
     
  6. GraphixViolence

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    2
    The shadow aliasing in those screenshots is pretty nasty. As Scali said, it's tough to argue the quality of different PCF implementations when it's overshadowed (no pun intended) by such obvious artifacts. I hope this isn't representative of what we will see in future games, because it's a step backward from Doom 3's stencil shadows if it is.
     
  7. tEd

    tEd Casual Member
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    switzerland
    there are sure solutions for the aliasing around the shadows
     
  8. ERP

    ERP
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    Really? Just wondering what solutions you've seen that don't resort to stencil volumes or very large numbers of shadow maps.

    I think you can address some of the aliasing issues, but I'm still not convinced you can resolve all of them in the general case.
     
  9. tEd

    tEd Casual Member
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    switzerland
    using 16x filtering samples or higher(nobody said anything about performance ;))
     
  10. ERP

    ERP
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    That still wouldn't resolve the extreme undersampling that occurs at surface angle close to the light angle and covers a large portion of the screen. In these cases literally 100's of pixels in screen space map to a single depth map texel.
     
  11. Smurfie

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hmm, my 9600 has texture flashing that gets really bad in Founder's Falls and Brickstown. The texture shimmering seems to occur in both my 6800 and 9600 though. My 6800 should be back soon though.

    I am still running the Catalyst 4.8 though, so if 4.9 or 4.10 does resolve that problem, let me know, I will go update my drivers.
     
  12. tEd

    tEd Casual Member
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    switzerland
    I'm no expert on the subject just what i read from experiences from people currently using shadow maps , that 16x sample should already give you much much better quality than what we see in 3dmark05 now. I guess there won't be a perfect solution anytime soon. There are always new optimized shadow map algorithm to improve the situation. PSM vs TSM?
     
  13. WaltC

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    BelleVue Sanatorium, Billary, NY. Patient privile
    Yes, exactly, and this is the fact that undermines in my view any argument which attempts to rationalize why 3dMK should not be used in a hardware review--because the proper way to use 3dMK in a review is among a wide range of tests, including shipping 3d game-engine performance tests.

    The argument used by the "no 3dMk in hardware reviews" crowd is to me essentially dishonest as it argues only why 3dMK shouldn't be used exclusively at the expense of the other kinds of testing that should be done at the same time, such as "real game" testing. But to my knowledge no one's ever recommended or suggested that 3dMk be used exclusively in a hardware review, to the exclusion of everything else, or to the exclusion of "real games" testing. Hence the entire "argument" as to why 3dMk shouldn't be used in hardware reviews is actually a straw man and always has been.

    The question that pleads an answer from the "no 3dMK in reviews" crowd is this: What, precisely, is the point to excluding 3dMK testing from 3d-hardware reviews since using 3dMk in no way prohibits the reviewer from running any other testing software he may wish to use and using those results in his review along with the 3dMk results?

    It's the one question I've often directly posed to anti-3dMK positions that to my recollection has never been answered when I've asked it. (Though it is certainly easy to see why questions that have no reasonable answers are ignored...;))

    Interesting to note as well that some hardware sites which exclude 3dMk testing from their reviews on the purported basis that "it's not a real game" often have no qualms at all about including items like the UT2kx fly-by benchmark scores in their reviews although it is not remotely indicative of actual UT2kx gameplay (and was never intended to be.) Then there's the "ShaderMark is A-OK for reviews but not 3dMk" crowd, etc.

    Since there's no reason to use 3dMk in a review while excluding ShaderMark and real game testing, or any other testing software, it would appear that the actual objection to the use of 3dMk in reviews is simply that a site simply doesn't like the results the benchmark generates, and the rest of their arguments are essentially spurious fluff designed to obscure the real reason they exclude 3dMk completely, which is that they object to its conclusions.
     
  14. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Futuremark didn't use TSM because it is patented. It remains to be seen if there will be games using TSM. Carmack is not using it anyway. Each solution has its own problems though, it seems.
     
  15. martrox

    martrox Old Fart
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida USA
    ATI knows about the texture problem - it's still there - and says they will be fixing it in a future update. For me, though, the ailising textures are far more annoying and widespread.....
     
  16. Randell

    Randell Senior Daddy
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    London
    and for me too in certain games :(
     
  17. martrox

    martrox Old Fart
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida USA
    It's bad enough that a X800 has replaced the 6800 in my main machine......
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...