# Catalyst Hotfix 71310 Restores Visual Elements at Expense of Performance



## btarunr (Oct 30, 2008)

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.



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## VIPER (Oct 30, 2008)

Yes, same for me... Better graphics, worse framerate... I will get back to DX9 and the "normal" driver...


----------



## erocker (Oct 30, 2008)

Too busy blowing stuff up to notice any decrease in framerate.  At least the rocks are there (I guess) that I never bothered to pay attention to with the earlier driver.


----------



## ShadowFold (Oct 30, 2008)

The rocks are bigger. Whoopdy doo. Why would that lower fps?


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Oct 30, 2008)

Those screens aren't the same. Stupid Expreview.


----------



## VIPER (Oct 30, 2008)

But it is the same (approx) position on the road. And look at the missing stones... Needless to say that they used max settings so the view distance is not near. Ain't it?


----------



## ShadowFold (Oct 30, 2008)

Why are some missing rocks lowering the fps and why not just keep them removed?


----------



## VIPER (Oct 30, 2008)

I am not sure if the missing rocks lower the fps... But I installed this latest hotfix and it works like s**t...


----------



## J-Man (Oct 30, 2008)

I don't bother with these hotfix files... I'm happy as my game is without installing crap.


----------



## Duffman (Oct 30, 2008)

damn, i was wondering where those rocks went


----------



## AsRock (Oct 30, 2008)

InnocentCriminal said:


> Those screens aren't the same. Stupid Expreview.



Yeah and not just by a little bit either  DUMB asses.  Those screens are BS and no one should compare unless the same options and the pic is the same.

Like how hard is it to make a save game these days lol.


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 30, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> The rocks are bigger. Whoopdy doo. Why would that lower fps?



i dont see a difference at all... am i blind?

EDIT: ok i see it... that is not worth FPS... some dirt over some rocks.  Maybe if ubisoft spent more time on gameplay and not miniscule details of rocks and trees, then no one would even notice haha.


----------



## VIPER (Oct 30, 2008)

The problem is that I had problems  After 1hour of playing, the framerate is dropping and the game stutters (I hope this is the right word). I need to save, exit to the menu and enter again...


----------



## Duffman (Oct 30, 2008)

> i dont see a difference at all... am i blind?



the rocks farther back, the little ones.  There are more of them in the new hotfix screenshot


----------



## btarunr (Oct 30, 2008)

It's not _just_ about those rocks, it's about the driver manipulating with the game, which it shouldn't. The rocks might not be the only anomalies, sneak around to discover more. And it doesn't matter if the two screenshots show the scene from slightly different angles/camera positions/distance from objects; the density of rocks (read: visual elements) must be the same. It's not even like the draw-distance is too much that the engine eats up rocks.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

InnocentCriminal said:


> Those screens aren't the same. Stupid Expreview.





AsRock said:


> Yeah and not just by a little bit either  DUMB asses.  Those screens are BS and no one should compare unless the same options and the pic is the same.
> 
> Like how hard is it to make a save game these days lol.


There 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.


----------



## Voyager (Oct 30, 2008)

The new savana shooter  do not deserve it, the game has no good story at all.
We don't look at the graphics only :shadedshu


----------



## btarunr (Oct 30, 2008)

http://www.alienbabeltech.com/?p=1045

Click on the thumbs in that article to see the full-size screens. Thanks to wolf2009 for the link, and this news in general.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

Voyager said:


> The new savana shooter  do not deserve it, the game has no good story at all.
> We don't look at the graphics only :shadedshu




True, we cannot look at just graphics.  However, the frame rates in FC2 in those type of environments can change from one location to another.  Besides, because they reduced the size of the pic themselves makes it clear that their tests are flawed


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 30, 2008)

btarunr said:


> It's not _just_ about those rocks, it's about the driver manipulating with the game, which it shouldn't. The rocks might not be the only anomalies, sneak around to discover more. And it doesn't matter if the two screenshots show the scene from slightly different angles/camera positions/distance from objects; the density of rocks (read: visual elements) must be the same. It's not even like the draw-distance is too much that the engine eats up rocks.



They did this back in the day with missing mipmap textures in Quake 3.  I agree that they shouldnt manipulate the game engine to boost performance without the user knowing.  Its like when drug companies didnt tell you about sideffects of their drugs. 

"Lose weight fast!... (but you pee blood!)"


----------



## VIPER (Oct 30, 2008)

The funny thing is that FC2 is the only new game that is not working well on my actual machine... I cannot play it in full-resolution (1680x1050)... Bad optimization? Bad engine? I don't know...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

It's easy to mimic those results. 

You don't know what resolution I am using.
You don't know what DX version I am using.
you don't know what settings I am using.
And I can assume that most of you don't know where I am on the map.
ETC, Etc...
This is how I can get you to concentrate on the numbers only.  By eliminating all other variables that are crucial to the result.


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 30, 2008)

^^ The numbers have changed due to less things being rendered in 2nd image

The images are not the same


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> ^^ The numbers have changed due to less things being rendered in 2nd image



All I did was back up .




wolf2009 said:


> The images are not the same


Correct, the images are not in the same spot.


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Nope...
> Backing up doesn't necessarily mean less things are being rendered.



What do you have to say about first image rendering more shadows ?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> What do you have to say about first image rendering more shadows ?



Aren't there shadows further up the road  
Look to the right.


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Aren't there shadows further up the road
> Look to the right.



no i am talking about the big tree shadow at your feet


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> no i am talking about the big tree shadow at your feet



And I am talking about the shadows ahead to the right .  We already know that both images are not from the same spot.


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> And I am talking about the shadows ahead to the right .  We already know that both images are not from the same spot.



oh yes we do, but what i'm saying is that graphic card is rendering a shadow that covers about 40-50 % of the image in first image. and rendering shadows causes  a good decrease in fps in most games


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> oh yes we do, but what i'm saying is that graphic card is rendering a shadow that covers about 40-50 % of the image in first image. and rendering shadows causes  a good decrease in fps in most games



But when you step back and look at the few posts we exchanged this is all guess work is it not?  We can debate about shadows here, etc but in the end the important information is not found.  Thanks for participating


----------



## erocker (Oct 30, 2008)

How could they do this?!!!  Burn ATi.. BURN THEM!!!!  Honestly, I notice absolutely no difference in framerate between the two drivers.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 30, 2008)

erocker said:


> How could they do this?!!!  Burn ATi.. BURN THEM!!!!  Honestly, I notice absolutely no difference in framerate between the two drivers.



I wouldn't burn ATI, I would make note of this, to look up, the next time my wallet feels nauseated and I decide to take it to the store.


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 30, 2008)

erocker said:


> How could they do this?!!!  Burn ATi.. BURN THEM!!!!  Honestly, I notice absolutely no difference in framerate between the two drivers.



when did they say this was a fps increase driver . 

they do say that in the release notes, but it reduces fps from hotfix 1 .  This driver is merely to fix the image quality "optimization" in hotfix 1. 

Follow link in post 18, and you will see that performance decreases with these



EastCoasthandle said:


> But when you step back and look at the few posts we exchanged this is all guess work is it not?  We can debate about shadows here, etc but in the end the important information is not found.  *Thanks for participating*



ya nice way to increase post count, now lets find something else to discuss


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> ya nice way to* increase post count*, now lets find something else to discuss



LOL, and you are not?  I'm not posting just to post in the end there is enough information in this thread to take that review with a pinch of salt.


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> LOL, and you are not?



shhh , that's a secret, don't tell anybody about it !  


But seriously , just read something which makes me doubt if it was a bug or cheat ( "Optimization" ) in hotfix 1. 

Because with the same drivers, if you rename the farcry.exe file, the rocks appear back.  ( Thats what INQ said ). In that case it will be a case of Driver optimisation


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> shhh , that's a secret, don't tell anybody about it !
> 
> 
> But seriously , just read something which makes me doubt if it was a bug or cheat ( "Optimization" ) in hotfix 1.
> ...



Neither here nor there in this thread which discuss the performance impact between drivers.  People in this thread have already posted why they doubt those results, with good reason.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoastHandle, framerates (at least in the second link provided by btrunr) are the ones they got when running the built-in Ranch demo, it's not the framerate in that exact spot. 

Also it's not some missing rocks either, it's some missing/corrupted textures at some points and transparent textures that shouldn't be transparent on others. IQ is severely damaged in order to improve performance.

Anyway this news are very interesting for the kind of replies it's getting. When this same thing with drivers happened with Crysis and Nvidia's beta 169.04, Nvidia was cheating, was evil, was trying to fool everyone, was a desperate move, was so much things according to many people in TPU. Now that Ati did the same, everything is well, all the publications mentioning the issue (3 mentioned in the thread so far) have fabricated the news, "I can't see no difference in the SS", "and what if some rocks are missing?", etc. Speaks volumes about the neutrality of the forums.


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 30, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> Anyway this news are very interesting for the kind of replies it's getting. When this same thing with drivers happened with Crysis and Nvidia's beta 169.04, Nvidia was cheating, was evil, was trying to fool everyone, was a desperate move, was so much things according to many people in TPU. Now that Ati did the same, everything is well, all the publications mentioning the issue (3 mentioned in the thread so far) have fabricated the news, "I can't see no difference in the SS", "and what if some rocks are missing?", etc. *Speaks volumes about the neutrality of the forums*.



and how much we love the underdogs ( Although ATI is no longer that, but for past year was )


----------



## erocker (Oct 30, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> EastCoastHandle, framerates (at least in the second link provided by btrunr) are the ones they got when running the built-in Ranch demo, it's not the framerate in that exact spot.
> 
> Also it's not some missing rocks either, it's some missing/corrupted textures at some points and transparent textures that shouldn't be transparent on others. IQ is severely damaged in order to improve performance.
> 
> Anyway this news are very interesting for the kind of replies it's getting. When this same thing with drivers happened with Crysis and Nvidia's beta 169.04, Nvidia was cheating, was evil, was trying to fool everyone, was a desperate move, was so much things according to many people in TPU. Now that Ati did the same, everything is well, all the publications mentioning the issue (3 mentioned in the thread so far) have fabricated the news, "I can't see no difference in the SS", "and what if some rocks are missing?", etc. Speaks volumes about the neutrality of the forums.



Yeah, I came off as an ATi fan.  Fact of the matter is, I know both companies have done this before and it's kind of old news.  I'm sorry, let's burn both ATi and Nvidia to the ground!  I'm switching back to my old 3dfx card, what a travesty.  ATi cheated, got caught, immediately issued a new "Hotfix" to fix it.  Ignoring it is one thing, but is it necessary to make a really big deal out of it?  Mabye.  I can't say I feel cheated, since underhanded tactics are pretty much the norm with many companies.  My reaction to this news was pretty much.. "Oh!".  Then I went back to playing my games.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> EastCoastHandle, framerates (at least in the second link provided by btrunr) are the ones they got when running the built-in Ranch demo, it's not the framerate in that exact spot.
> 
> Also it's not some missing rocks either, it's some missing/corrupted textures at some points and transparent textures that shouldn't be transparent on others. IQ is severely damaged in order to improve performance.
> 
> Anyway this news are very interesting for the kind of replies it's getting. When this same thing with drivers happened with Crysis and Nvidia's beta 169.04, Nvidia was cheating, was evil, was trying to fool everyone, was a desperate move, was so much things according to many people in TPU. Now that Ati did the same, everything is well, all the publications mentioning the issue (3 mentioned in the thread so far) have fabricated the news, "I can't see no difference in the SS", "and what if some rocks are missing?", etc. Speaks volumes about the neutrality of the forums.



LOL this is not correct and let me explain why:
1. Those pics in my previous post are not in the same exact spot as you described
2. You can change the frame rate results if fps of each scene drawn is changed.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 30, 2008)

erocker said:


> Yeah, I came off as an ATi fan.  Fact of the matter is, I know both companies have done this before and it's kind of old news.  I'm sorry, let's burn both ATi and Nvidia to the ground!  I'm switching back to my old 3dfx card, what a travesty.  ATi cheated, got caught, immediately issued a new "Hotfix" to fix it.  Ignoring it is one thing, but is it necessary to make a really big deal out of it?  Mabye.  I can't say I feel cheated, since underhanded tactics are pretty much the norm with many companies.  My reaction to this news was pretty much.. "Oh!".  Then I went back to playing my games.



My point was not to say Ati cheated, because IMO that's not cheating. They just tried some optimizations with very little time to test them, that probably in no way should make textures disapear. I would even bet the optimizations had nothing to do with textures. They probably tested the things that their optimization should or would change and everything was OK, but "oh, sometimes things happen" and the optimization made some textures disapear. Nothing really to make a big deal out of it, you fix it and that's all.

BUT! It just happens that the EXACT same thing happened a year ago, this time was Nvidia, the potential IQ damage was not so big (some reflections on the water with bad angles) and back then a big deal was made out of it (big? try tremendous, desproportionate). Several threads were made about it and the thing lasted a lot of time, even after 169.09 drivers were released soon after the discovery completely fixing it. 

So I just ask what has changed in these months that now it's not something to make a deal out of it? Isn't it it's not time but the protagonist that has changed? Yes, it's that and sorry, but I do have a problem with that discrepancy.



EastCoasthandle said:


> LOL this is not correct and let me explain why:
> 1. Those pics in my previous post are not in the same exact spot as you described
> 2. You can change the frame rate results if fps of each scene drawn is changed.



Let me repeat it for you:

The framerates were calculated with the built-in benchmark, it's the average of that benchmark what changed.

Those SS's are only there to show what is the issue. Come on is easy to understand:

- They run the benchmark several times with both hotfixes. Tell you the performance difference of both.

- Then they open up the game and take an SS, where you can see what was the issue the new driver is fixing. Simple.


----------



## iLLz (Oct 30, 2008)

Uh lord, look at you ATi Fanboys shooting down a keen observation by expreview.  The fact is ATi simply used drivers to manipulate the game and that is horrible.  If nVidia did this, it would be the end of the world, lol.  I am sad it came to this and when ATi was caught again for this, they simply took the optimizations out of the driver with a "hotfix", lol.  

God you guys make me sick sometimes.  ATi screwed up yet again and got caught.  Damn take it for what it is.  

Oh and I am not bashing ATi, if nVidia did this, I would be just as aggravated by it.


----------



## Binge (Oct 30, 2008)

iLLz said:


> Uh lord, look at you ATi Fanboys shooting down a keen observation by expreview.  The fact is ATi simply used drivers to manipulate the game and that is horrible.  If nVidia did this, it would be the end of the world, lol.  I am sad it came to this and when ATi was caught again for this, they simply took the optimizations out of the driver with a "hotfix", lol.
> 
> God you guys make me sick sometimes.  ATi screwed up yet again and got caught.  Damn take it for what it is.
> 
> Oh and I am not bashing ATi, if nVidia did this, I would be just as aggravated by it.



People who think people that own ATi cards are fanboys?  Why?  Does that mean if you own nVidia you're a fanboy?  Please... Please do your homework before making posts like this.  Apparently the hotfix was rushed and portions of the driver were left pretty messy.  They came out with a fix for the driver in what... under a week that got rid of the manipulation that YOU seem to think was a manipulation of their customer base.  Did ATI take benchmarks and wave them in the face of nVidia or potential customers?  No.  They made a hotfix to give correct support for a game, and there was an error and they fixed the error.  With expreview making those kind of amateur benchmarks as proofs it is an insult to people who read decent reviews and news articles.

Please take your bloated exaggerations somewhere else.  Btw-- the first video card I ever owned was a GeForce 2 32mb pci card so I could play Duke Nukem 3D and Warcraft II.  Now I own an ATI card... god get a life.


----------



## Trizmatic (Oct 30, 2008)

I have seen this problem with the road.  It think it is only road related too.  I noticed that guns, people, and even car tires when in the road have this effect that looks like it sinks into the road a bit.  I will try to capture a screen shot tonight.  I remember one specific case when I was looking through the dragunov scope at a guy in the road, it looked like the road decal came up to his knees...or he was knee deep in the road...not sure how to explain it exactly. 

You can see it if you look at the huge expreview pics on their site.  Look at the pic where the rocks are "missing."  The rock closest to the dudes left arm is light on top.  It is poking out of the road decal as if it were poking out of water or fog.  It isn't missing...it is just under the road somehow.  

To me it just looks like the road decal is higher than what it should be and ends up covering what ever is in it just like a fog effect.  I have no clue how that would be driver related but it doesn't sound like foul play to me...just an oops form a rushed hotfix.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> My point was not to say Ati cheated, because IMO that's not cheating. They just tried some optimizations with very little time to test them, that probably in no way should make textures disapear. I would even bet the optimizations had nothing to do with textures. They probably tested the things that their optimization should or would change and everything was OK, but "oh, sometimes things happen" and the optimization made some textures disapear. Nothing really to make a big deal out of it, you fix it and that's all.
> 
> BUT! It just happens that the EXACT same thing happened a year ago, this time was Nvidia, the potential IQ damage was not so big (some reflections on the water with bad angles) and back then a big deal was made out of it (big? try tremendous, desproportionate). Several threads were made about it and the thing lasted a lot of time, even after 169.09 drivers were released soon after the discovery completely fixing it.
> 
> ...


Let me repeat what I said to you earlier: If you can change the fps in a give screen rendered it will change the outcome of frame rates obtained.  Regardless if you use fraps or the built in benchmark program


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Let me repeat what I said to you earlier: If you can change the fps in a give screen rendered it will change the outcome of frame rates obtained.  Regardless if you use fraps or the built in benchmark program



you just don't agree. I would agree with you if the both screens were same. 

But they are not, since you moved, post fps from same screens, then let me see what happens


----------



## truehighroller1 (Oct 30, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> you just don't agree. I would agree with you if the both screens were same.
> 
> But they are not, since you moved, post fps from same screens, then let me see what happens





Fraps had nothing to do with the screen shots. The screen shots were not used to say we had these fps when we took these screen shots......... They said the average from the benchmark and just showed the screen shots to show what the issue was. I feel like I am repeating something that has been said already???????


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> you just don't agree. I would agree with you if the both screens were same.
> 
> But they are not, since you moved, post fps from same screens, then let me see what happens



The point I was making was explained earlier.  But we will agree to disagree.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Let me repeat what I said to you earlier: If you can change the fps in a give screen rendered it will change the outcome of frame rates obtained.  Regardless if you use fraps or the built in benchmark program



*OH MY GOD!*

I don't want to insult your intelligence, but you are putting it difficult for not.

Let's see, for the nth time. The fps numbers posted are not the ones they get in that spot(s) shown on the screenshots, in that single moment, captured frame or whatever, it's the one they get by running the benchmark! It's the average of the whole benchmark! i.e Average of 2 minutes of gameplay or level wandering or whatever that benchmark does, I don't own the game...

Benchmark results, when same testbed is used, are always the same, or close enough because the camera follows a defined path. If you get different results with different drivers, you know what? Yeah exaclty. 

What you did doesn't prove anything, yes changing the camera a bit can change the fps, but that's NOT what they did. They ran a complete benchmark to test performance of each hotfix, because whenever a hotfix is released sites usually do this. Then, because of the purpose of the hotfix is to fix a rendering issue, they take ss's to show what that issue was and to show it's fixed now. It wouldn't even matter if they took one of the screenshots from the oposite side.

Honestly I hope you finally understand this, because I don't know what to think of you in this moment.

@ others: sorry dor repeating the same thing again and again, I hope he finally gets it so we don't follow with this nonsense. :shadedshu


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> *OH MY GOD!*
> 
> I don't want to insult your intelligence, but you are putting it difficult for not.
> 
> ...



It's obvious you will only show your own intelligence by repeating the same crap.  Therefore, you are only insulting yourself.   Further more if you were astute your would know by now we are not going to agree on this subject.  Instead of accepting that you insist on these specious posts in what looks like a vain attempt to convince yourself you are right. 

With the information found within this thread it's obvious that the results in the OP are exaggerated.  Is there anything else?


----------



## El Fiendo (Oct 30, 2008)

Darkmatter, don't worry yourself too much. He did the same thing over 'Mojave' a little bit back. 

Look East, benchmarks are set up like a movie. They are made to make a standard that should apply across all cards and runthroughs. Screenshots taken in the same place should have the same FPS within 1 or 2 frames because the same elements are being rendered every time. It's set to be exact same camera movements. With yours you proved that at different locations, FPS varies. They are showing FPS varied at the same location. This shows that there is a difference in the way that location was rendered. They have provided screenshots that attempt to explain the variances, specifically in this case these rocks. In doing so they show missing textures of said rocks. Your screenshots don't refute the evidence because its a completely different location in your examples.

Whether or not it was a mistake or underhanded tactics, I don't know. However I do know your arguement is slightly flawed.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 30, 2008)

Aye,

I was going to say the other day, that one could easily say this is the same as Nvidia degrading image quality to achieve greater performance.

Fortunatley for me, these drivers actually helped my performance, but either way, I don't think we should be complaining about ATi here. We should be complaining to Ubisoft for releasing a game with such a weak LOD scaling system, and a program that has far too few sprites and objects altogether.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

El Fiendo said:


> Darkmatter, don't worry yourself too much. He did the same thing over 'Mojave' a little bit back.
> 
> Look East, benchmarks are set up like a movie. They are made to make a standard that should apply across all cards and runthroughs. Screenshots taken in the same place should have the same FPS within 1 or 2 frames because the same elements are being rendered every time. It's set to be exact same camera movements. With yours you proved that at different locations, FPS varies. They are showing FPS varied at the same location. This shows that there is a difference in the way that location was rendered. They have provided screenshots that attempt to explain the variances, specifically in this case these rocks. In doing so they show missing textures of said rocks. Your screenshots don't refute the evidence because its a completely different location in your examples.
> 
> Whether or not it was a mistake or underhanded tactics, I don't know. However I do know your arguement is slightly flawed.


Nah there is nothing wrong with my opinion on the situation "new poster" .  It's obvious you didn't read my explanation as to why I posted those pics.  Read a few posts back and it becomes clear to you that your assumption and my reason don't match.  But thanks for the feedback none the less


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 30, 2008)

El Fiendo said:


> Darkmatter, don't worry yourself too much. He did the same thing over 'Mojave' a little bit back.
> 
> Look East, benchmarks are set up like a movie. They are made to make a standard that should apply across all cards and runthroughs. Screenshots taken in the same place should have the same FPS within 1 or 2 frames because the same elements are being rendered every time. It's set to be exact same camera movements. With yours you proved that at different locations, FPS varies. They are showing FPS varied at the same location. This shows that there is a difference in the way that location was rendered. They have provided screenshots that attempt to explain the variances, specifically in this case these rocks. In doing so they show missing textures of said rocks. Your screenshots don't refute the evidence because its a completely different location in your examples.
> 
> Whether or not it was a mistake or underhanded tactics, I don't know. However I do know your arguement is slightly flawed.



Yeah, I know I have to care less about him. Indeed with this thread and some others in the past I have enough evidence he doesn't read what it is said in the links. I even have my doubts he even follows the links or that he even reads other's post for the matter.

He just lives in that little place inside his mind, where he is happy, unconnected from the harmful reality that is the outside. Sad...


----------



## El Fiendo (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Nah there is nothing wrong with my opinion on the situation "new poster" .  It's obvious you didn't read my explanation as to why I posted those pics.  Read a few posts back and it becomes clear to you that your assumption and my reason don't match.  But thanks for the feedback none the less



Didn't realize it was a crime to be new. Also, it has 0 effect on my reading comprehension. I've read the thread thoroughly and have come to realize you aren't. Here's the kicker, all you proved in your screenshots is that you mimiced the problem with the drivers. In your screenshots, you changed what was being rendered by moving the camera thus changing the rendered data. In the review's screenshots, the driver changed what was rendered at the same location, thereby doing the same thing. In effect you've been arguing this point against yourself. 


> If you can change the fps in a give screen rendered it will change the outcome of frame rates obtained


In your case you were the change, in the reviews case, it was the drivers. The fact that people see this as underhanded is their opinion. The fact you see it as a mistake is your opinion. I've made no assumptions, I'm providing exactly whats been pointed out already to this point.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> Yeah, I know I have to care less about him. Indeed with this thread and some others in the past I have enough evidence he doesn't read what it is said in the links. I even have my doubts he even follows the links or that he even reads other's post for the matter.
> 
> He just lives in that little place inside his mind, where he is happy, unconnected from the harmful reality that is the outside. Sad...



And I see that when we disagree you can only result to throwing insults as a base for your claims.   Furthermore, it's you who (out of the blue) responses to my posts in such fashion.  In the end, that's what's sad .  Odd how with some people can agree to disagree with a subject while you on the other hand make these odd posts that are off topic to the thread.  I guess it's your way of feeling good about issue at hand.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

El Fiendo said:


> Didn't realize it was a crime to be new. Also, it has 0 effect on my reading comprehension. I've read the thread thoroughly and have come to realize you aren't. Here's the kicker, all you proved in your screenshots is that you mimiced the problem with the drivers. In your screenshots, you changed what was being rendered by moving the camera thus changing the rendered data. In the review's screenshots, the driver changed what was rendered at the same location, thereby doing the same thing. In effect you've been arguing this point against yourself.
> 
> In your case you were the change, in the reviews case, it was the drivers. The fact that people see this as underhanded is their opinion. The fact you see it as a mistake is your opinion. I've made no assumptions, I'm providing exactly whats been pointed out already to this point.



Actually you do have a problem with comprehending my posts.  I've already explained the reason for the pics.  All you have to do is read it not make up your own explanation. But thanks anyway


----------



## El Fiendo (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Actually you do have a problem with comprehending my posts.  I've already explained the reason for the pics.  All you have to do is read it not make up your own explanation. But thanks anyway



I understand your reasoning behind your posts. You're trying to point out that we don't know anything about the screenshots other than what they say. You tried showing everyone this using your screenshots. 

We know the reviews screenshots are from the benchmark. We can clearly see the missing textures. And judging how the match up when you overlay them, aside from missing textures, its safe to assume they are in the same spot. Your screenshots however are clearly none of the above. Yours has too many variables tossed in which isn't the point the review was making. Of course frames fluctuate in game. They *shouldn't* in benchmarks at the same point along the way. If you can't trust Expreview, thats your issue. However, I can't imagine why they'd specifcally try to mudsling ATI, they're showing what they've found. 

I've been saying this all along, however you've been refusing to realize it.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

El Fiendo said:


> I understand your reasoning behind your posts. *You're trying to point out that we don't know anything about the screenshots other than what they say. You tried showing everyone this using your screenshots. *
> 
> We know the reviews screenshots are from the benchmark. We can clearly see the missing textures. And judging how the match up when you overlay them, aside from missing textures, its safe to assume they are in the same spot. *Your screenshots however are clearly none of the above.* Yours has too many variables tossed in which isn't the point the review was making. Of course frames fluctuate in game. They *shouldn't* in benchmarks at the same point along the way. If you can't trust Expreview, thats your issue. However, I can't imagine why they'd specifcally try to mudsling ATI, they're showing what they've found.
> 
> I've been saying this all along, however you've been refusing to realize it.


There is a contradiction found within your own post.  It's become obvious at this point that your posts are more geared toward arguing more so then stating an opinion.  You insist on adding way more then what I said or implied to say.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> And I see that when we disagree you can only result to throwing insults as a base for your claims.   Furthermore, it's you who (out of the blue) responses to my posts in such fashion.  In the end, that's what's sad .  Odd how with some people can agree to disagree with a subject while you on the other hand make these odd posts that are off topic to the thread.  I guess it's your way of feeling good about issue at hand.



Buffff!

It's not a matter of agreeing or not. The drivers change the performance obtained out of the *benchmark*. *Not screenshots.* They state it very clearly in the links provided by Btrunr. 



> We used the same PC as we used in our first test - nothing has changed except for the new hotfix driver replacing the old one.  We continue to test using FarCry2’s built-in short Ranch demo run at overall ultra settings, varying the AA settings in-game and forcing 16xAF in the control panel.  We can see the performance of the new hotfix drivers sits slightly ahead of the regular Cat 8-10 but behind the first hotfix drivers.  Here are our results:



To refute those, you took 2 screenshots at different angles and said you reproduced what they did. And no, you didn't. Period.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 30, 2008)

Fu** me this is more exciting than the game.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> Buffff!
> 
> It's not a matter of agreeing or not. The drivers change the performance obtained out of the *benchmark*. *Not screenshots.* They state it very clearly in the links provided by Btrunr.
> 
> ...


And what I've already told you in previous posts still stands.  Even with the second review posted the averages are no were as high as found in the OP.  You can get mad, upset or whatever.  I have no reason to agree with you.  That's something you have to deal with. And as for the screenshot I've already explained that to you numerous times. LOL


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> And what I've already told you in previous posts still stands.  Even with the second review posted the averages are no were as high as found in the OP.  You can get mad, upset or whatever.  I have no reason to agree with you.  That's something you have to deal with.



Different testbeds, different results. That's what any normal person knows. What you think is that contrary to what they say, the fps figures they offer are on those punctual frames instead of average of the benchmark and want to make a point out of that. That's lame.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> Different testbeds, different results. That's what any normal person knows. What you think is that contrary to what they say, the fps figures they offer are on those punctual frames instead of average of the benchmark and want to make a point out of that. That's lame.



And your the one arguing about it.  Irony...


----------



## ShogoXT (Oct 30, 2008)

Anyone have any windows crossfire BSOD troubles?


----------



## El Fiendo (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> There is a contradiction found within your own post.  It's become obvious at this point that your posts are more geared toward arguing more so then stating an opinion.  You insist on adding way more then what I said or implied to say.



I'm sorry East, but there isn't a contradiction there nor am I adding. 

"You're trying to point out that we don't know anything about the screenshots other than what they say. You tried showing everyone this using your screenshots." is taken directly from post #22.

"Your screenshots however are clearly none of the above." Now this one hinges on the fact you've been arguing we don't know what they're settings for each screenshot is. Its why I mentioned the trust issue with Expreview which is my opinion whether its right or wrong. But you show an obviously different location and attempt to use that as your basis for the arguement. The screenshots in the first post are of the same spot. Its comparing Apples to Jupiter. I personally trust Expreview to be at least professional and consistent if they're going to start a story like this. 

In the end I regret posting attempting to clear this up as it was obviously bothering some of the other members. In the end it would only seem, judging by your short and unhelpful posts, I've only gone so far as to feed the troll.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> And what I've already told you in previous posts still stands.  Even with the second review posted the averages are no were as high as found in the OP.  You can get mad, upset or whatever.  I have no reason to agree with you.  That's something you have to deal with. And as for the screenshot I've already explained that to you numerous times. LOL



You are missing the point East. I'm sorry man, your opinion of this is slightly off. The important thing is _not_ the screen shots. They do not matter at all. They are just there as an example of what was reported as missing in the game. They are _not_ used as fps evidence at all. The FPS they quoted are what the in-game benchmark gave to them. The in-game benchmark dropped by 5fps avg with the new hotfix. They cannot manipulate the in-game benchmark, unless they purposely use different graphical settings for each bench.  They cannot alter the in-game benchmark to change the camera angles.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> And your the one arguing about it.  Irony...



Explain that. I want to have a good laugh.

Honestly, I am arguing about what? What's your point? YOU are stating 2 respectable review sites are lying, based on something you fabricated. And of course I argue with that.

Here I finally found it:

http://en.expreview.com/2008/10/29/catalyst-810-hotfix-kidnapped-stones-in-far-cry-2.html

This is the article to which the other one is the follow up. In the other one in chinese things are not clear. But in this...

- They clearly state it's average frames.

- The screenshot is at the same angle, just in case you want to follow the same route once again.

Sorry kid, but you are just wrong, you have been since you started this mess. Period.


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 30, 2008)

newconroer said:


> Fu** me this is more exciting than the game.



thats true !! 

:..sits back with  popcorn and pop and conitnously refreshes browser..:


Btw what are we arguing over ?


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> You are missing the point East. I'm sorry man, your opinion of this is slightly off. The important thing is _not_ the screen shots. They do not matter at all. They are just there as an example of what was reported as missing in the game. They are _not_ used as fps evidence at all. The FPS they quoted are what the in-game benchmark gave to them. The in-game benchmark dropped by 5fps avg with the new hotfix. They cannot manipulate the in-game benchmark, unless they purposely use different graphical settings for each bench.  They cannot alter the in-game benchmark to change the camera angles.



If you convince him (actually is not a matter of convincing, it's understanding facts) with that after all the posts we made saying the exact same thing, I will not know what to think. Seriously.


----------



## El Fiendo (Oct 30, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> If you convince him (actually is not a matter of convincing, it's understanding facts) with that after all the posts we made saying the exact same thing, I will not know what to think. Seriously.



If he convinces him, I'll herald him as a god. And also be very clingy towards him.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 30, 2008)

El Fiendo said:


> If he convinces him, I'll herald him as a god. And also be very clingy towards him.



There'd be only one thing left to do then...

Dim the lights, put some "Take My Breath Away" by Berlin on in the background, and make sweet love like Osama and Leeroy Brown.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> Explain that. I want to have a good laugh.
> 
> Honestly, I am arguing about what? What's your point? YOU are stating 2 respectable review sites are lying, based on something you fabricated. And of course I argue with that.
> 
> ...



I see now, we are reinventing what I said in those screen shots I provided.  Is that your argument?  It's obvious not going to work here.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 30, 2008)

El Fiendo said:


> If he convinces him, I'll herald him as a god. And also be very clingy towards him.



Yeah he would deserve something great. A cookie. Want a cookie?  

Honestly. I'm curious about what he is going say to refute my last post, because he NEVER will admit he was simply wrong, not being me the one he is arguing with. 

I'm excited. It's going to be a really good literature, I'm sure. Some fantastic or sci-fi literature to be precise. Worth of one Hugo, probably. 

EDIT: Oh he was faster than this post. Ooooooh... What a dissapointment. Negation of evidence. That's all he got.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> You are missing the point East. I'm sorry man, your opinion of this is slightly off. The important thing is _not_ the screen shots. They do not matter at all. They are just there as an example of what was reported as missing in the game. They are _not_ used as fps evidence at all. The FPS they quoted are what the in-game benchmark gave to them. The in-game benchmark dropped by 5fps avg with the new hotfix. They cannot manipulate the in-game benchmark, unless they purposely use different graphical settings for each bench.  They cannot alter the in-game benchmark to change the camera angles.



No, 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.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 30, 2008)

Why 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!


----------



## erocker (Oct 30, 2008)

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.


----------



## El Fiendo (Oct 30, 2008)

-OT-



newconroer said:


> Why 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!?!?
> ========================
> ...



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.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

ShogoXT said:


> Anyone have any windows crossfire BSOD troubles?



Try changing fracry2.exe to AFR-FriendlyD3D.exe and see if that helps.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> No, 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.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> 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.



erocker has already issued the warning in this forum.  It's better to just let it go IMO.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> erocker 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.


----------



## Binge (Oct 30, 2008)

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.



EastCoasthandle said:


> There 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.



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.


----------



## ShogoXT (Oct 30, 2008)

Fixed itself after a while of messing with it.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 30, 2008)

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?? "


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2008)

Well, I didn't want to egg that on. Guess I should've just shut up after all. Sorry erocker.


----------



## Binge (Oct 30, 2008)

Yeah I'm really sorry too... Sorry Dark Matter...


----------



## Trizmatic (Oct 30, 2008)

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...







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.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 30, 2008)

Trizmatic said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



 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...


----------



## btarunr (Oct 31, 2008)

wow, what just happened 

- 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.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Nov 2, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> All I did was back up .
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, the images are not in the same spot.




i think it is just in not same game time


----------

