ati and ut 2003 "cheat"
- Thread starter olivier
- Start date
THe_KELRaTH
Regular
If you delete DetailTexMipBias in the UT2003.ini then go and set a graphics preference the above command is re-added and then set to........
DetailTexMipBias=0.000000
Which is then the same setting in openGL, WinDrv.WindowsClient, and SDLDrv.SDLClient
DetailTexMipBias=0.000000
Which is then the same setting in openGL, WinDrv.WindowsClient, and SDLDrv.SDLClient
THe_KELRaTH
Regular
Nick said:
I think the point is that the performance difference between setting High Performance Mipmap quality and High Quality is very small indeed, in 3DMark 2001 there's less than 100 points difference.
WaltC said:RussSchultz said:
Exactly. Statistically, it's irrelevant. I think web sites like to make mountains out of molehills like this hoping to gain a bit more than a .9% increase in site traffic...
Well, if you listen to Evan Lieb, sites like AT or THG never would do exclusives and get used by IHVs for marketing purposes just to get hits. They do this for the noble purpose of informing their readers.
olivier said:
Sorry, olivier, but your brief account of what was reported by hardware.fr is hardly an accurate depiction.
This is precisely what was stated in that last (and most relevant) paragraph:
Is it a “cheat� Settling the matter is rather simple and requires testing performances with LOD configured to 0.4 in UT2003, this setting yielding the same results for ATI and NVIDIA. On a Radeon 9800XT the measured performance drop is … 0.9%, and it is 2.3% on a GeForce FX 5950. Going down to LOD 0 on ATI does not cause any further performance drop. In short, if this were an optimization on the part of ATI, it would be a poor one. One question remains … what compelled Epic to lend credence to NVIDIA’s claims when a simple parameter in the configuration of their game can solve the problem?
It's rather obvious (unless the author claims otherwise) that the intent of such comments was to raise serious doubts as to whether ATI did indeed cheat, rather than to support such an interpretation.
P.S. Really hate to be a nag, Dave, but you use the word often enough that I just can't hold it in any longer. It's spelled response.
kemo, as olivier stated a few posts later, he used quotes around "cheats" to indicate that he also wasn't convinced of nV's and Epic's claim that ATi was cheating. And his short summation was an almost exact overview of your full translation.
I also think the King's/Queen's/dog's English may allow for a 'c' in response. Think of the alternate spelling as a way of adding colour to our great, shared language.
I also think the King's/Queen's/dog's English may allow for a 'c' in response. Think of the alternate spelling as a way of adding colour to our great, shared language.
Ahhhh, but we're not dealing with the Queen's English here, this is Daves English that sometime bears little resemblance to any other English and is usually made up totally on the fly!
The writing must be small then. How do you get it to sit still long enough to read it?DaveBaumann said:
On 2nd thoughts, if you can have "writing on the wall" and "fly on the wall" I guess some of it can rub off.
Note to self: Must drink less coffee.
beyondhelp
Newcomer
actually wouldn't the possesive form be spelled "Daves' English"?
Edit: Never mind. My mistake. I just looked in my usage guide and that form is used for Plural Noun possesive. Your right.
Edit: Never mind. My mistake. I just looked in my usage guide and that form is used for Plural Noun possesive. Your right.
beyondhelp
Newcomer
I didn't remember my Favorite caveat..."Caution Be Sure Brain is engaged before putting Mouth in Gear" It was late and I was being stupid....It's sooo hard being "God Like" 24/7. Once in a while you slip up! 8)