Thursday, October 30th 2008

Catalyst Hotfix 71310 Restores Visual Elements at Expense of Performance

AMD had released an updated hotfix to its ATI Catalyst 8.10 drivers the other day, with hotfix 71310. It succeeded hotfix 70517 for the said version of Catalyst. Hotfixes specific to certain games, are intended to selectively improve hardware performance and/or visual quality. When AMD released the older hotfix for version 8.10 of Catalyst, it aimed to improve performance in general. It was later found by keen observers, that the hotfix manipulated with visual elements of the game in an attempt to gain performance. A popular example of this, was noted in the "lost rocks" issue in Far Cry 2, where the hotfix 70517 caused the texture and/or geometric loss of certain rocks along a track from a scene, presumably reducing load on the graphics processor(s).

With hotfix 71310 issued yesterday, AMD seems to have fixed the issue. Expreview put the hotfix to test, where it was found that the "lost rocks" issue was fixed. The larger issue was of the driver interfering with visual elements the game has to offer. The fix however, came at the expense of performance. Expreview used a test-bed consisting of Core 2 Extreme QX9650 CPU, ATI Radeon HD 4870 graphics, 2x 1 GB of DDR3 1066 MHz memory, all seated on an ASUS Striker II Extreme motherboard, running Windows Vista 32-bit operating system. The testers used Driver Sweeper to make sure a new variant of the driver installed on a purged environment. Testing Far Cry 2 revealed that the issue was addressed, but at a performance loss. The frame-rate dropped from 48.12 fps to 43.20, which is roughly a 10% loss in frame-rate.
Source: Expreview
Add your own comment

90 Comments on Catalyst Hotfix 71310 Restores Visual Elements at Expense of Performance

#76
erocker
*
Cool your jets fellas. It's obvious you guys aren't going to come to an agreement anytime soon on this thread, so before it escalates any more just leave it. Thanks.
Posted on Reply
#77
El Fiendo
-OT-
newconroerWhy can't we have such thorough posts with this kind of high level grammar and punctuation all the time?

Why does it only reveal itself in serious arguements!?!?
========================

ONE MORE POST DARKMATTER ! 1k!
We should start a revolution of the interwebs. A grammatically friendly revolution, though it has to be very, very violent. No coup d'etat has ever satisfied the masses.
Posted on Reply
#78
EastCoasthandle
ShogoXTAnyone have any windows crossfire BSOD troubles?
Try changing fracry2.exe to AFR-FriendlyD3D.exe and see if that helps.
Posted on Reply
#79
Wile E
Power User
EastCoasthandleNo, I am not missing the point but stated an opinion. You can agree or disagree but the point does stand on it's on merit within the content that I explained it. The post in which I left regarding the pic were directed more so towards the amount of information presented not about actual frame rates specifically. You can agree or disagree but lets not reinvent what was stated.
Ok, fair enough. In order to eliminate any possible confusion on our part, can you say, in layman's terms, what point it is you are trying to make, as many of us seem to be misunderstanding.
Posted on Reply
#80
EastCoasthandle
Wile EOk, fair enough. In order to eliminate any possible confusion on our part, can you say, in layman's terms, what point it is you are trying to make, as many of us seem to be misunderstanding.
erocker has already issued the warning in this forum. It's better to just let it go IMO.
Posted on Reply
#81
Wile E
Power User
EastCoasthandleerocker has already issued the warning in this forum. It's better to just let it go IMO.
Oh, I'm not gonna argue. I'm just genuinely interested in what point is is you are trying to make. I seem to be misunderstanding.
Posted on Reply
#82
Binge
Overclocking Surrealism
I am pretty sure that before the peeps like El Fiendo were posting up and down E Coast's face there were people using the screens as reference for the fps of the bench and E Coast was saying these screens have nothing to do with the benchmarking... This is so stupid because they're all talking about the same thing.
EastCoasthandleThere you have it folks, it was intentionally done that way to skew results. Anyone who's played this game knows that the fps counter can fluctuate. :rolleyes:
On the internet it is especially hard to put across sarcasm in a few sentences. Seriously this is where it all started. He's saying that the screens shouldn't have a fraps mark on them because they skew the concept of the screenshot. What's with the extra information? I think if people would have read his posts we would be saved an argument over nothing.
Posted on Reply
#83
ShogoXT
Fixed itself after a while of messing with it.
Posted on Reply
#84
DarkMatter
Ok I wanted my 1k post to be somehow special, so let's make a little bit of fun now.

A resume of the discussion:

"The first day of the weekend, the safety car did an average speed of 200 km/h."



"But in the second day it rained and the car was only able to attain an average of 150 km/h."



"We provide the screenshots so that you can compare the different conditions."


EasCoastHandle: "Duh! The skewed the results by taking tha photos in a different spot of the race."

Pretty much everybody else: "WTF?? :twitch:"
Posted on Reply
#85
Wile E
Power User
Well, I didn't want to egg that on. Guess I should've just shut up after all. Sorry erocker.
Posted on Reply
#86
Binge
Overclocking Surrealism
Yeah I'm really sorry too... Sorry Dark Matter...
Posted on Reply
#87
Trizmatic
Wow, anyway...look at my screen shots to see what I was talking about in my previous post that got buried by pointless FPS crap. The road texture acts like a fog effect or water...it comes up over objects and you can still see them below the road.

The rocks aren't gone, they are just under the road texture. This isn't some strange plot to get better FPS by leaving out a few random rocks next to the road.



Here the tires of the car "vanish" to improve FPS. Or the road is too high...:rolleyes:



Here you can see how the road texture acts as water/fog almost. You can see the car door below the surface. This is where the rocks went.
Posted on Reply
#88
DarkMatter
TrizmaticWow, anyway...look at my screen shots to see what I was talking about in my previous post that got buried by pointless FPS crap. The road texture acts like a fog effect or water...it comes up over objects and you can still see them below the road.

The rocks aren't gone, they are just under the road texture. This isn't some strange plot to get better FPS by leaving out a few random rocks next to the road.



Here the tires of the car "vanish" to improve FPS. Or the road is too high...:rolleyes:



Here you can see how the road texture acts as water/fog almost. You can see the car door below the surface. This is where the rocks went.
:( You couldn't find a lighter place?

From (the few) what I can see, it seems the engine has some sort of feature that makes objects transparent when they are covered by others or something like that?
Then there's an issue with the displacement in the ground too, which is what it makes objects to be below the road? Might be something like that? Maybe the bad hotfix just somehow changed the heigh at which the objects start to be transparent or simply the amount of displacement...
Posted on Reply
#89
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
wow, what just happened :twitch:

- I'm glad the argument didn't go [too] far

- I'm glad things were genuinely discussed

- I'm glad people with histories of building up good arguments were involved


But I'm not happy things didn't fall into an agreement, there's nothing we can disagree on. The fps provided is the net result of the in-game benchmark, not of the scene rendered to show the "lost rocks" anomaly. Since the in-game bench follows a defined path along a map, its results cannot be manipulated internally, unless the reviewers had minimised a media player window playing HD Anime...or prettymuch anything that can mess with the results. Expreview is a very credible source, who have a long-standing reputation of neutrality with their news.
Posted on Reply
#90
Hayder_Master
EastCoasthandleAll I did was back up :).



Correct, the images are not in the same spot.
i think it is just in not same game time
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jun 10th, 2024 20:20 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts