El FiendoDarkmatter, 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.

El FiendoDarkmatter, 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.

EastCoasthandleNah there is nothing wrong with my opinion on the situation "new poster" :laugh:. 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 ;)

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

DarkMatterYeah, 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 FiendoDidn'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.

EastCoasthandleActually 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 FiendoI 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.

EastCoasthandleAnd 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.

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:

DarkMatterBuffff!

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.



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

EastCoasthandleAnd 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.

DarkMatterDifferent 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.

EastCoasthandleThere 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.

EastCoasthandleAnd 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

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

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

Wile EYou 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.

DarkMatterIf 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. :ohwell:

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

DarkMatterExplain 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:

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.

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

Wile EYou 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.