Catalyst Hotfix 71310 Restores Visual Elements at Expense of Performance

[EastCoasthandle]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[btarunr]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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?