I will be really interested to see more of your works .. specially with dual gpu solution if you do some..,
Last edited by a moderator:
AMD: Southern Islands (7*** series) Speculation/ Rumour Thread
- Thread starter UniversalTruth
- Start date
I will be really interested to see more of your works .. specially with dual gpu solution if you do some..,
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3714721
Benchmark tessellation load modified by AMD Catalyst driver, result invalid.
boxleitnerb
Regular
Kind of silly, since they improved the tessellation performance of the HD7000 series. They should remove this silly cheat thing already from the CCC.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Ridiculous levels of tesselation also put the videocards to their knees, thus tending to artificially and intentionally make some not so weak cards appear weaker than they are in reality.
This should push sales of more expensive ones.
Crysis 2 is a very ugly example. Fair optimisation of software should be the main priority.
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3714721
Benchmark tessellation load modified by AMD Catalyst driver, result invalid.
That surely is only the invidiual setting of the linked user, right? Not a default function of CCC.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Yes, that one crossed my mind, that he somehow rewrote the code in order to offload and increase the score.
boxleitnerb
Regular
Well, we still don't exactly know what happened with Crysis 2, so I wouldn't point the finger too quickly. But to change a given workload and an artists vision is a cheat, there is no way to sugarcoat that. To AMDs credit, they never released profiles for this thing. But then you have to wonder why the AMD optimized setting exists at all. You have to be careful with AMD as in the past 6 years they were the only ones "optimizing", so keep an eye on them.
We have a pretty good idea of what's going on with Crysis 2: it tessellates the hell out of everything, even flat surfaces. It even tessellates the sea in areas where there is no sea, i.e. all the geometric calculations are done, and tossed away.
boxleitnerb
Regular
I know, the question is why and what the artists and programmers thought when doing that. If people want to go for the easy answer and see a conspiracy everywhere, fine. But I could imagine there is more to it than that.
He probably only abused the Tessellation slider in CCC - but that's not intended for competitive benchmarking i guess.
boxleitnerb
Regular
I know that article, thank you. Still doesn't answer the questions, just makes assumptions as to why they did it.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
NV optimises too but with the difference that they are doing it somehow more "legally". Their team members work in cooperation with game developers thus in some cases you have games which are "accidently" more NV cards characteristics friendly.
I agree that assumption is one thing, conspiracymight be another but the end result shows exactly that. NV cards benefit because of their beefier tesselators.
So, NV did it to highlight something.
This silly cheating is absolutely not effective on games .. at the same time it provide the possibility to some user to work on the tesselation level if their hardware is not enough ( low end card ) .
Modify the tesselation on 3Dmark11 for HWBOT is legal and approved by them. This is a single rules who apply there, what you can modify with driver panel setting is legal .. All scores so far in HWBOT have been made with tesselation disabled .. For this type of competition, the brand, the card is not so important, they are not there for say one card is better of the other, just their score is better.
Beefier tessellators back then. Pretty sure AMD's are better now.
I agree that assumption is one thing, conspiracymight be another but the end result shows exactly that. NV cards benefit because of their beefier tesselators.
So, NV did it to highlight something.
boxleitnerb
Regular
While I generally welcome the possibiliy to change the tessellation factor, the AMD optimized setting has to go, especially at default - no matter if profiles exist or not. If they were to exist, it would be cheating, if they don't as it is now it is a useless option. I strongly suspect AMD implemented this with cheating in mind but when they were able to improve on their tessellation, they simply abandoned it.
As for 3Dmark11 and benchmarking in general I don't really see the reason for modifying the workload. Why not disable other things while they're at it? Where do you draw the line? Just my 2 cents.
Do you bench ? i think we use absolutely all is possible to do for get a score.. disable mipmap, put AF off, put AA off...
Nvidia have even some harder setting who let you use bilinear filtering instead of trilinear, play on LOD etc etc .. ( when AMD have not ). I have start bench with the 9700Pro ( Maya edition ), then i have use 2x 6600GT in SLI and 6800, i have then use a X1900XTX+ a X1950XTX in CFX and continue years after years to use Nvidia or AMD for do it ... For bench i have not a preference, i like use what can give some good score.. I have even use 2x 2900XTX for bench in Crossfire, as this setup was absolutely unbeatable by Nvidia cards. ( for bench, so without AA ofc and with high OC ).
Im not completely right with it, personally i will have vote on Hwbot for dont let this setting be used ... but now i have no choice, cause if i dont use it, my score will look miserable against other 7970's . ( who is not so much important for me now, as i have stop since a while to bench ( anyway on extreme level, i still like release some little score time to time, if you are not pay for do it, benching cost really too much money now .. )
As for Tesselation setting.. as you know, it is absolutely not effective in games..
I have never see anyone claim yet the tesselation level is used in profile..
Dont forget this is ATI who have invented the tesselation, at start this was a technic for increase the number of triangle on the frame without decreasing the performance, so ATI/AMD with Miscrosoft have fix a maximum level for it .... AMD ATI have keep this level for DirectX11 ... they have not try to get higher of it, it was normally not needed.
When you have 80%+ of the workload of a gpu who is dedicated for "render" tesselation, this is absolutely not why this technic have been designed for. Specially when this is for render planar surface who dont need to be tesselated.
Last edited by a moderator:
boxleitnerb
Regular
Are you kidding me?
If you do a contest of any kind, do it right. For example if you run, you run - you don't shorten the length of the track just to be "faster". If you want to run 100m, run 100, not 90 or 80 or 50. In my mind this is absolutely stupid and defeats the purpose of benchmarking completely. Fastest score yes. But be honest about your methods.
Btw Nvidia does trilinear in DX11 by default, AMD does not always. And AMD allows you to change the filtering quality as well, not only Nvidia.
Don't get me wrong - to have additional options is always a good thing. But to have an optimization setting enabled by default is not right. If the AMD optimized setting does nothing, why is it (still) there? It only raises questions. With every new driver you have to wonder "are there finally profiles or not? If so, for which games, to what extent is the tess factor being optimized?" etc. Transparency is completely missing.
What is "needed" lies in the eyes of the beholder, i.e. the artist and the consumer. Does DX11 define a maximum tessellation factor? I doubt it. And where do you get your 80% number? While I agree that the Crysis 2 implementation is suboptimal, we still don't know the reasons for the way it was done. The only one that can really answer this is Crytek themselves.
Anyway, for my part I would like to see alot more tessellation in games. Not just characters but fine details on objects and in landscape features like rocks, stone walls, the ground etc. If it looks good, it may very well decrease performance, why not? And if card A can handle it but card B cannot, well too bad.
If you do a contest of any kind, do it right. For example if you run, you run - you don't shorten the length of the track just to be "faster". If you want to run 100m, run 100, not 90 or 80 or 50. In my mind this is absolutely stupid and defeats the purpose of benchmarking completely. Fastest score yes. But be honest about your methods.
Btw Nvidia does trilinear in DX11 by default, AMD does not always. And AMD allows you to change the filtering quality as well, not only Nvidia.
Don't get me wrong - to have additional options is always a good thing. But to have an optimization setting enabled by default is not right. If the AMD optimized setting does nothing, why is it (still) there? It only raises questions. With every new driver you have to wonder "are there finally profiles or not? If so, for which games, to what extent is the tess factor being optimized?" etc. Transparency is completely missing.
What is "needed" lies in the eyes of the beholder, i.e. the artist and the consumer. Does DX11 define a maximum tessellation factor? I doubt it. And where do you get your 80% number? While I agree that the Crysis 2 implementation is suboptimal, we still don't know the reasons for the way it was done. The only one that can really answer this is Crytek themselves.
Anyway, for my part I would like to see alot more tessellation in games. Not just characters but fine details on objects and in landscape features like rocks, stone walls, the ground etc. If it looks good, it may very well decrease performance, why not? And if card A can handle it but card B cannot, well too bad.
Similar threads
