Borsti said:
for HQ that´s correct. I did not test minimal
I know you didn't test minimal, I misspoke.
The last one is correct. If you change the Doom III setting from MediumQuality to HighQuality it will use Aniso automaticly. I can´t tell what level of aniso but I´ll ask JC about that. It will use Aniso no matter if you disabled Aniso in the driver or not. That´s what I meant when I said that there are issues with the driver settings.
Then you don't understand how these driver settings work. These driver settings don't force OFF aniso. They either force on a certain setting, or they let the application choose the filtering method.
The only question is, if you force on one type of setting, "performance 4x" for example, and you also "turn on aniso" in the game, what happens? That can vary depending on the driver.
And that´s the reason why I did not like to post AF numbers (means driver forced AF settings).
You should be safe posting "forced" AF numbers, as long as you ran Doom3 in medium quality mode. (Though you should be checking the quality of the Aniso that results.)
Doom3 I ran some tests with the NV35. With 8x AF (Quality forced in the driver) the perfomance droped from 83 to 80,8 (in medium quality). And it droped from 55,0 to 54,5 in HQ (all in 10x7). So there´s more going on than only Aniso. That´s why I did not post more results on that.
Don't follow you. There IS more going on than aniso when going from medium to the HQ game setting. TC is turned off. The fact that the Radeon doesn't take nearly as large a performance hit when going from medium to high quality suggests any number of things:
1) ATI simply handles non compressed textures and aniso with less performance impact
2) There's a bug in nVidia's drivers causing slower than expected performance in high quality mode.
3) There's a bug in ATI's drivers that are causing incorrect (lower) quality, and faster than expected performance in high quality mode
4) There's a bug in nVidia's drivers causing faster than expected performance in medium quality mode.
5) There's a bug in ATI's drivers causing slower than expected performance in medium quality mode.
I just don't see why option 2 (the most favorable to nVidia) was laid out as "the" possibility in your article, and not option 1...or any of the other options which the data supports. In other words, your article reads like the high quality scores are an anomoly, when the truth is we don't know.
Let´s see it with numbers:
Medium Quality, 10x7
NV 35 no AF: 83,0
NV 35 forced 8x AF Quality in the drivers: 80,8
High Quality, 10x7
NV 35 no AF (in the drivers): 55,0
NV 35 forced 8x AF Quality in the drivers: 54,5
For reference, do you have benchmarks with ATI hardware with the same settings (forced on or not?)
So it looks that the performance drop of NV35 in Quality mode has nothing to do with Aniso at all.
Possibly....
or that driver forcing on Aniso with the GeForce doesn't do anything at all in Doom3. (Did you check the image quality?)
It is very surprising to see almost no performance drop with 8X "quality" aniso on the FX. This is unlike any other situation I know of. Look at your own UT benchmarks.
In short....looking at your data (the medium quality numbers), I would be more suspect that nVidia has a driver bug that DOESN'T ACTUALLY TURN ON aniso with the control panel, or perhaps turns on a different setting (performance) than selected. And that the performance drop between medium and high quality doom3 settings is in fact a combination of proper aniso actually being turned on, and higher quality (more bandwidth sucking) textures.
Seems to be a trouble with the textures or whatsoever. I feel very bad that I did not run more HQ tests with the R350. That would make things much clearer now.
Again, I more suspect that "forcing on" Aniso isn't properly working with Doom3.
Specifically, I would ask him what ATI driver build he was basing his "should be representative of performance" comments on.
You think there´s a parallel development in the drivers? There are MANY games outside...
For a game/benchmark as important as Doom3? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
If one company knows that the game / demo is going to be released by date X, THEN shame on that company if they don't get drivers out to support it. If one company is blindsided by an unknown public display, SHAME ON ANYONE involved. This includes ID, NVIDIA, and yes, you.
i see this a little bit different.
Apparently!
If id says that´s the case.... !?
That's right. Even if ID says that's the case. Unless you know that ID has the same drivers that are available to the public. There's a very easy retort to your argument:
Fact 1: Latest ATI drivers are 3.4
Fact 2: 3.4 drivers suck for Doom3
There is no way you can reconcile those two facts, and believe that Carmack only has access to the latest public drivers, and also believes performance comparisons are fair.
That all depends on the circustances surrounding the test!
What circumstances?
circumstances fully outlines earlier: like are all parties aware that there will be a public benchmark release?
I´ll try to get some information from JC on that. But as I said: If id feels ready for a perfomance testing why should I rrefuse it?
See above.
Ask yourself: why did you not just use the 3.4 cats then? ID said everything was cool....so there's "no reason" then to have any issue with the Cat 3.4 drivers, right?
That ATIs marketing is not pleased with what happened is no surprise for me. They have to find something against NV35. That´s their job!
You are deluded by your own results, which is the problem. (EDIT: Inserted smiley here!
) From what I can gather..the 9800 Pro is ALREADY good enough to go up against the NV35. They are pretty much equal in terms of performance. With the
possible exception of Doom3.
But the Doom3 scores are basically useless because of how the benchmarking was sponsored and done.
So I certainly haven't concluded that ATI needs to "find something"...and the problem is, that's pretty much what every review
that tested Doom3 concluded. Check the reviews that didn't bench Doom3, and it's a much different conclusion. Usually along the lines of "in some cases NV35 is faster, but not by much, and the overall image quality of the 9800 makes it an overall better deal."
To be clear...if the Doom3 benchmarks are in fact truly representative, then there is a clear case to be made for NV35 superiority. (It comes down to a preference between performance or image quality.) Problem is, we really have no idea if they are representative or not.
I´ll let you guys know if I get some info from JC on the ATI driver.
Lars
Thanks...it is appreciated!
