Exploring ATI's Image Quality Optimizations [Guru3D.com] - Page 2

chanw4 · 12-02-2010, 15:00 | posts: 2,010 | Location: Hong Kong

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanm

The 'point of this thread' is that unless this is addressed by ATI - and only in regards with what they supposedly did with these 2 drivers (10.10 and 10.11?) default settings and if they continue it - then it may hang over their head with continued controversy. I can just see future bench comparisons with Nvidia owners saying 'uh, but you have to deduct 8% off the ATI figures to make it fair', etc.

Deduct 8% to get raw performance and compare it with Nvidia which use optimization in their default setting as well? I'm pretty sure HH said that BOTH brand need to use no optimization for the default setting.

sutyi · 12-02-2010, 15:05 | posts: 105 | Location: Budaörs, Hungary.

Can I ask why was AA enabled on the GTX 580 while making screens from ME2 for a texture filtering test?

dirthurts · **. -** 12-02-2010, 15:05 | posts: 638 | Location: Tn.

I never have and never will notice this in game. I can barely see in with a screen shot comparison.
I'll take my added performance and run for it.
Nvidia could do this as well, and in my opinion they should. It's a great little trick.

Lane · *Last edited by Lane; 12-02-2010 at 15:48.*

EDIT - please keep images at acceptable sizes.

re uploaded with link only

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6253/global1.png
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/5493/zoom1.png
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/3180/zoom3.png
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3381/zoom4.png

Nv on left, AMD+optimisation on the right.

Hilbert Hagedoorn · 12-02-2010, 15:23 | posts: 16,946 | Location: Guru3D testlab

Quote:

Originally Posted by sutyi

Can I ask why was AA enabled on the GTX 580 while making screens from ME2 for a texture filtering test?

LOL - of all the things to do, the wrong NV image screenshot was uploaded initially (one with AA still enabled), this was corrected.

chanw4 · 12-02-2010, 15:30 | posts: 2,010 | Location: Hong Kong

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lane

EDIT - please keep images at acceptable sizes.

why did it said the user edit the post when it looks like a MOD edit? is this a bug or working as intended?

Hilbert Hagedoorn · 12-02-2010, 15:34 | posts: 16,946 | Location: Guru3D testlab

Quote:

Originally Posted by chanw4

why did it said the user edit the post when it looks like a MOD edit? is this a bug or working as intended?

The user edited the message before a MOD had to edit it ?

Cyberdyne · 12-02-2010, 15:45 | posts: 1,269 | Location: USA, Pennsylvania

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kohlendioxidus

what's the point of this thread??

I don't play with a microscope conected to my eyes and I don't see the reason of debating if ATI or nvidia should use "Quality" or "High Quality" settings...It's up to user to decide. ATI always had more IQ expecially when watching movies. Regarding games I see NILL difference...maybe they are but at microscopic scale...

The point is that ATI is fabricating extra performance in games by default. If ATI was the only GPU company this would not matter. But they are not.

Redemption80 · 12-02-2010, 15:52 | posts: 13,417 | Location: Glasgow

The difference in image quality is irrelevant, its the difference in performance thats the issue, and if this was the other way round, we all know people would be speaking very differently.

It means now its going to be even harder to compare one review to another, and no doubt every site will be using different settings.

Just hope we don't get an influx of new users, who just want to post in this thread.

Lane · 12-02-2010, 15:56 | posts: 4,869 | Location: Switzerland

you can't test this using the same driver and set just HQ and Quality, you need for this use an old driver set it to "standard" and then use the new driver and set it using "Quality", and watch what is the difference ( best will be in the 3 mode) ... Then you can measure the gain of fps betwen them ..

Anarion · *Last edited by Anarion; 12-02-2010 at 16:06.*

Hilber, did you enable trilinear filtering in Mass Effect? If you didn't (it's off unless changed in config file), there are bilinear like banding even with 16xAF. That will (bilinear filtering+AF) most likely make AF look identical between cards. The difference is clearly noticeable in game between bilinear filtering+AF and trilinear filtering+AF, especially when walking around Citadel.

Same thing goes to Mass Effect 2. It's beyond my comprehension why Bioware doesn't have trilinear filtering enabled by default.

mapel110 · 12-02-2010, 16:03 | posts: 91 | Location: Germany

Screenshots don't show, what you see. Videos are better.
In the 3DCenter-Forums we have compared several games by making videos with fraps.

PinguX · 12-02-2010, 16:08 | posts: 794

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyberdyne

The point is that ATI is fabricating extra performance in games by default. If ATI was the only GPU company this would not matter. But they are not.

If optimisation is considered to be fabricating, then are'nt Nvidia doing the same thing with all the "way its meant to be played games" ?

Redemption80 · 12-02-2010, 16:27 | posts: 13,417 | Location: Glasgow

Nothing like TWIMTBP, exact opposite actually.

With Nvidia and the TWIMTBP, AMD users lose out.
With AMD and this, AMD users lose out.

Ukraver · 12-02-2010, 16:47 | posts: 541 | Location: Uk

i think this is daft , all us users with mid to high end gpus both ati and nvidia should enable high quality as default in both ccc and nvcpl which renders the whole argument void

MAD-OGRE · 12-02-2010, 16:54 | posts: 2,839 | Location: Alabama

Thanks Hilbert for give us valid info that we can see for our selves.

The Postman · 12-02-2010, 16:58 | posts: 1,460 | Location: Boston

I dont understand the point of this. It s like it is concluding that ONLY AMD uses optimizations to gain fps.

This article needs more depth and better comparison. Showing only benchmarks from one side doesnt look fair. The default settings are fine, not everyone own a 5870 and those extra fps for not "visible" image quality loss is more than welcome.

If we are going to be fair with both sides lets do reviews or benchmarks with all optimizations off.

IPlayNaked · 12-02-2010, 16:58 | posts: 6,559

I blame primarily the reviewers here, and to a lesser extent both AMD and Nvidia.

I mean, review websites exist to make objective comparisons.

If we accept that review websites exist to make those comparisons, then the review websites need to ensure that they are testing things at similar settings. While I realize this is impossible in all circumstances, I don't think any real effort is made by any big review website to keep settings similar between vendors.

The vendors could of course make this simpler by offering thorough explanations of all their settings, and comparable settings in the competition. But they are the competitors here, its expected that either of them will try to play slightly dirty by playing up their settings and choices and playing down the competition's.

The websites need to be the referee, and ensure that these two companies play fair. If we can't trust the websites to find out the testing flaws, who is going to?

That said, I prefer AMD's approach. I would prefer to have optimizations available to me that I can disable or enable than not have them at all for moral reasons. I just think AMD should have been more forthcoming in that the driver defaults to the optimizations, and been more forthcoming to the reviewers that, in they want an objective comparison, to enable HQ AF.

Hilbert Hagedoorn · 12-02-2010, 17:03 | posts: 16,946 | Location: Guru3D testlab

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarion

Hilber, did you enable trilinear filtering in Mass Effect? If you didn't

Hey man, yes I know, trilinear filtering was enforced in the BioEngine.ini

Guys due to the JPG remark I've replaced the Mass Effect JPG screenshots with losless BMP files (each 12MB a piece), it doesn't get any better then that.

k3vst3r · 12-02-2010, 17:06 | posts: 2,403 | Location: Manchester UK

Whole point is both sides should have 100% max image quality set as default without any messing about with end user choosing whether they would like to drop quality for extra performance.
As HH pointed out he uses default driver settings, sure he could change ATI drivers to HQ, so it's at same level as Nvidia drivers for testing reviewing but why should he when it's not default

Ryu5uzaku · *Last edited by Ryu5uzaku; 12-02-2010 at 17:11.*

ATI just did some of their own research and in HAWX if you use HACKS.exe you get higher quality AA and less performance on 580 gtx so really both are doing crap.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news/...eating-hawx-2/

alanm · 12-02-2010, 17:18 | posts: 4,961

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryu5uzaku

ATI just did some of their own research and in HAWX if you use HACKS.exe you get higher quality AA and less performance on 580 gtx so really both are doing crap.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news/...eating-hawx-2/

Which if you read the article, was rebutted by Nvidia with a detailed technical reply.

shane_p · 12-02-2010, 17:57 | posts: 46 | Location: [URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-

wow
now I am upset, WITH NVIDIA!

why don't they do the same thing and get my 480 some more performance, for a minor tweak that 99.99% of you guys cannot even see?

LOL
come on Nvidia do the same thing here, I see people are upset with ATI, but Nvidia is behind the ball I say...lol

WhiteLightning · 12-02-2010, 18:00 | posts: 20,411 | Location: Netherlands

Yeah i bet Nvidia espionage tactics by infiltrating someone into ati's driver team really payed off now

Anarion · 12-02-2010, 18:01 | posts: 9,148 | Location: Finland

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilbert Hagedoorn

Hey man, yes I know, trilinear filtering was enforced in the BioEngine.ini

Guys due to the JPG remark I've replaced the Mass Effect JPG screenshots with losless BMP files (each 12MB a piece), it doesn't get any better then that.

Good!