The Silent Hand of Driver "Optimization" (spinoff)

[Davros]

What is with all this conspiracy talk?

what conspiracy talk It actually happened...
as for changing ihv's is that because amd would never do such a thing see arandomguy's post (I mistakenly attributed that to nvidia)

Now if you want a bit of conspiracy talk
There currently exists several upscaling methods, DLSS is considered to have the best image quality now is that because it's the superior technique or are AMD sacrificing image quality for performance?

 

[pharma]

what conspiracy talk It actually happened...
as for changing ihv's is that because amd would never do such a thing see arandomguy's post (I mistakenly attributed that to nvidia)

​

I am aware it happened in the past and elated @Albuquerque created a new thread to properly discuss driver optimizations from all angles.
The changing IHVs question was due to issues about Nvidia "lying?" about not being able to fix a game bug even though a modder was able to hack a fix.
As you mentioned AMD did not have any issue with that game. You also seem to have problems with how Nvidia game profiles are setup as well as the physical driver size so wondered why you did not try another IHV?

 

[Davros]

I think nvidia make the best hardware, (and i must admit I got caught up in the ray tracing hype ooh shiny me wants. dlss - upscaling eww.. funny how opinions change) their business practices are shitty as is their ethics imho
amd have also lied to me, cant speak for intel but they are well known as a bastion of honesty and integrity
as for driver sizes there all big

ps: the nvidia size in the pic includes geforce experience thats why it looks bigger than sizes reported in the nvidia drivers thread

 

[DegustatoR]

This pic is outdated. Nvidia's driver is ~670MB right now, AMD's ~720MB.

 

[techuse]

I think the driver default should be rendering as the developer intended. I have no problem with an IHV offering shader replacement or other driver side optimizations as an option in that games profile.

 

[DegustatoR]

I think the driver default should be rendering as the developer intended. I have no problem with an IHV offering shader replacement or other driver side optimizations as an option in that games profile.

Developer doesn't "intend" anything about many things which are being used by the code like for example h/w texture filtering which is provided by the driver+h/w in some form which is acceptable visually but that's about it.

 

[techuse]

Developer doesn't "intend" anything about many things which are being used by the code like for example h/w texture filtering which is provided by the driver+h/w in some form which is acceptable visually but that's about it.

I was referring to the game/benchmark specific changes ATI and Nvidia got caught doing in the past. I think those are fine as a driver side option for gamers willing to accept possible changes to the rendering, but should not be enabled by default. If done in this way, I'd prefer them to come back actually.

 

[DegustatoR]

I was referring to the game/benchmark specific changes ATI and Nvidia got caught doing in the past. I think those are fine as a driver side option for gamers willing to accept possible changes to the rendering, but should not be enabled by default.

Well, this I can agree with.

Does AMD still defaults to "optimized" tessellation on a clean driver install btw?

 

[techuse]

Well, this I can agree with.

Does AMD still defaults to "optimized" tessellation on a clean driver install btw?

Quick googling says no, but I can't confirm it myself.

 

[Davros]

This pic is outdated.

Was January 2023 the clue

 

[Davros]

Just remembered another type of profile that used to be in nvidia drivers
they used to have a bit of code that went a bit like this :

get motherboard model
has manufacturer give us money
yes
do nothing
no
Disable sli

 

[DavidGraham]

Does AMD still defaults to "optimized" tessellation on a clean driver install btw?

According to AMD, yes it's still in the driver and is set to "AMD optimized" by default. It's widely considered a cheat by many, NVIDIA attacked AMD over this.

https://www.amd.com/en/resources/support-articles/faqs/DH-012.html#DH-012-Tessellation

NVIDIA attacked AMD for a second time over their degradation of image quality in certain games by using lower precision render targets.

for months AMD had been performing a background optimization for certain DX9 applications where FP16 render targets are demoted to R11G11B10 render targets, which are half the size and less accurate. When recently exposed publicly, AMD finally provided a user visible control panel setting to enable/disable, but the demotion is enabled by default

Nvidia Points Finger at AMD's Image Quality Cheat

Are there shenanigans under the hood?

www.tomshardware.com

It's called Surface Format Optimization, and it's still enabled in AMD drivers by default.

https://www.amd.com/en/resources/support-articles/faqs/DH-012.html#DH-012-Surface

NVIDIA also attacked AMD for a third time over using bad Anisotropic Filtering levels in their drivers to boost up performance, AMD rectified that later.

We have had internal discussions as to whether we should forego our position to not reduce image quality behind your back as AMD is doing. We believe our customers would rather we focus our resources to maximize performance and provide an awesome, immersive gaming experience without compromising image quality, than engage in a race to the IQ gutter with AMD.

Nvidia accuses AMD of cheating performance tests - Update from AMD 26/11/10

Catalyst AI settings on the HD 68xx and 58xx are claimed to artificially lower image quality as of Catalyst 10.10. Nvidia won't 'engage in a race to the IQ gutter' Now with a response from AMD

www.vortez.net