• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Doom 3 shader mod for ++ performance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Three D. Marks said:
I just made a new sig for a majority of the people in this thread. :D
Click to expand...
I perfer mine better :D
"The nvidiot vs. fanatic thing is kinda like special olympics boxing, personally I kinda like watching a couple retarded kids beating the crap outta each other but maybe thats just me"
Click to expand...
 
gordon151 said:
Rancor, from my understanding, the reason there are visual artifacts when using humus's replacement shader code is because there are values used in the code that need to be set dynamically by the game. Fiddling with those values have yielded no artifacts for some people, but that changes the game visually. The reason expressed why Carmack might not have done this was because this method causes nv30 performance to drop and the drop in performance for nv30 is greater than the gain for ati. So when he merged the two paths (arb2 and nv30), this was one of many possible compromises made.
Click to expand...


Very good point. But this comes down to the same thing, If ATi fans were so pissed off with shader replacement being done at runtime for nV 30 cards during shader compiling this is even better ATi programmers writing their own shaders for a game :p and then saying the programmers of the game did it wrong.
 
GeniusInABottle said:
"Even with his HACK ATi still sucks in OpenGL and especially sucks in Doom3..."

Taken from your much-talked-about first post no less. Ring any bells? You're right, you never said anything about ATi, I was just confused and stupified!

I pointed that out in another thread. Quite humorous. :p
Click to expand...

I didn't say "ATi sucks" or "ATi is lame"...this is what you accused me of is it not?

I said ATi sucks in OpenGL...now if you think you can debate that statement feel free to give it your best shot...

Are you done yet?
 
This thread makes me wanna......
stickguysuicide.gif
 
yea i do remember seeing the benches that the 6800 ultra pounced on the x800xt by about 60 fps in some cases. thats an insane increase and with these minor bumps in fps (4.9's/humus hack) your still not touching the ultra. I wasnt even trying to bring this out but since it was mentioned i figured id throw it out there.

all im saying is that this bottom line is a hack. right now very little is known but from what ive seen it DOES increase PERFORMANCE and does HURT IQ minorly but it still does hurt it. and not at a 60 fps boost.

i again say use it if you want but its not a cure all thing, maybe with some tweaking it will work and it can help ati owners out by making up some of that 60 fps gap.

i own an ati tyan tachyon g9700 pro in my sencond computer. I loved that card and loved ati. before i got my BFG 6800 ultra i tried doom 3 on my ati card. I got artifacts all over the place at stock speeds. i also after a certain ammount of play time got VPU recovery screens. I ended up having to downclock it below stock speeds to work. this sucked much @$$. all in all i can overclock my BFG 6800 ultra to 470/1.22 and still get 0 artifacts in doom 3. this tells me something hardware wise was wrong with my 9700 pro. the wierd thing was this was the first game i ever saw anything like this happen to before. other than that the g9700 lasted me 2 years and was an awsome card. It cant be denied that the x800xt and the 6800 ultra are both awsome cards. i dont see anyone going wrong with either one. I personally see nvidia winning this round though and thats why i bought the 6800 ultra. ati has maxed out much of their driver potential. imagine the room the 6800 has in driver advancement. 8)

there was a large performance increase from drivers from 2 years ago compared to now right? for ati/nvidia card. now that nvidia is on a new architechture they start that process all over again where ati has pushed most of its potential through already.
 
^eMpTy^ said:
This is the first contructive post in like 3 pages...so what's to be taken from this? Should Carmack have made a separate shader path for ATi cards? Or can this tweak be performed in a driver?
Click to expand...

Well I'm not all too sure that is the case, but from what Humus said in subsequent posts and from what Scott said, it makes sense (not to mention that adjusting the values did solve the artifacts for some, but it visually changed some objects).

Also CrimandEvil, I'm not sure how the sole person with a 5900 who posted in the thread and saw a performance loss translates into several who saw no change in performance. I think I even saw a person with a 5700 that reported a similar occurrence. I think you're mistaking them with the 6800 users.
 
gordon151 said:
Well I'm not all too sure that is the case, but from what Humus said in subsequent posts and from what Scott said, it makes sense (not to mention that adjusting the values did solve the artifacts for some, but it visually changed some objects).

Also CrimandEvil, I'm not sure how the sole person with a 5900 who posted in the thread and saw a performance loss translates into several who saw no change in performance. I think I even saw a person with a 5700 that reported a similar occurrence. I think you're mistaking them with the 6800 users.
Click to expand...

So basically the X800 series may have to be treated like the FX5900 series was in DX9 and have special paths for adequate performance in Doom3 & future OpenGL games?
 
tranCendenZ said:
So basically the X800 series may have to be treated like the FX5900 series was in DX9 and have special paths for adequate performance in Doom3 & future OpenGL games?
Click to expand...

I believe the X800 series (even the lowly pro) is already getting "adequate" performance. The problem here is that, when compared to the 6800 series (which excels in OGL, and Doom3 in particular) it seems a little less than so. If I were on any modern day card I wouldn't be complaining about my cards performance not being adequately playable. As was evidenced by [H].
 
GeniusInABottle said:
I believe the X800 series (even the lowly pro) is already getting "adequate" performance. The problem here is that, when compared to the 6800 series (which excels in OGL, and Doom3 in particular) it seems a little less than so. If I were on any modern day card I wouldn't be complaining about my cards performance not being adequately playable. As was evidenced by [H].
Click to expand...

Right, when I say adequate I mean comparatively to the competition's offerings.
 
UltraShadow II Technology hasn't been implemented into Doom 3 yet and when it is it will give the 6800's a good performance boost.
 
gordon151 said:
Also CrimandEvil, I'm not sure how the sole person with a 5900 who posted in the thread and saw a performance loss translates into several who saw no change in performance. I think I even saw a person with a 5700 that reported a similar occurrence. I think you're mistaking them with the 6800 users.
Click to expand...

I could have been confused, theres a lot of people just posting their system specs and not their in game settings so that's what probably threw me. ;)
 
This thread has gotten so far off track it isn't even funny.

The issue at hand is that:

a.) someone claimed to have found a performance tweak

b.) it causes artifacts

c.) people are getting different results, some people like it...some people don't. Right now it seems 50-50.

d.) the "hack" post could've been worded a little better, it did come off as bashing Carmack whcih upsets people.


PLEASE get off the "you have an ATi card, that makes you stupid" or the "GeForce owners lick balls" and all that other crap. Lay off the bashing.

Cool?
 
Mr.Magneplanar said:
Wow this is quite a thread. Well i just wanted to give my two cents to it.

I had many High End systems in the past. There was the 3.9GHz Vapochill, The dual 3.2GHz watercooled Dual XEON, and the lovely 2.6C @ 3.8 :) I spend over 3 grand on my last computer .....and you know what ?!? It wasnt worth anything. Because 1 month later came a new game around, and a new graphics card. And man was i mad cause my recently bought 500€ video card was 10FPS slower ..than then the latest one. :mad:

As far as i know its like this.

Doom3 = nvidia is faster
Far Cry = ATI is faster
UT2004 = ATI is faster
UT2003 = ATI is faster

and there are many many more games that run faster on ATI than on nvidia. So what the hell !! I do not care if nVidia is currently faster. Ill just wait another 6 month to play the game on the new ATI card thats out by then. Why would i spend 400 bucks on the nvida card now, only because its faster in Doom3.

And by the way, to all who call this a "cheat" or a "hack" ...so what. I remeber nvidia cheating like crazy on all of 3DMark. The even cheatet back in the Quake 3 Arena days :) LOL go on and wear your pride up high. We dont care, we still beat ya on the rest of the games.

I had the GeForce 1, the GeForce 2 Utra, The GeForce 3 TI500, the GeForce 4 TI4600. Then i had the 9700 Pro, then the 9800 Pro and during that time nVidia had absolutly nothing to stick against it. The entire 5800 and the entire 5950 range is BS compared to ATI.

just my opinion

Greetings from Germany
Click to expand...
:eek: Agreed 100% ;)
 
Steve said:
This thread has gotten so far off track it isn't even funny.

The issue at hand is that:

a.) someone claimed to have found a performance tweak

b.) it causes artifacts

c.) people are getting different results, some people like it...some people don't. Right now it seems 50-50.

d.) the "hack" post could've been worded a little better, it did come off as bashing Carmack whcih upsets people.


PLEASE get off the "you have an ATi card, that makes you stupid" or the "GeForce owners lick balls" and all that other crap. Lay off the bashing.

Cool?
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
 
Mitolo said:
:eek: Agreed 100% ;)
Click to expand...

I really dont know where people are coming up with these ideas that the ATI cards are faster in everything but DOOM 3 cause their not. Its actually the exact opposite.

The 6800's are faster in ALL OpenGL games and there are quite a few. Call of Duty and KOTOR won last years GOTY awards and both were OpenGL. Quake 4, RTCW 2, and Soldier of Fortune are just a few games we will see based off the D3 engine.

The 6800's are also faster in just as many D3D games as the X800's are. People look at Far Cry performance and think that game translates D3D performance which it doesn't. Its one engine and one engine that most likely very few games will be built off of. There are thousands of D3D games.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/leadtek_winfast_a400_ultra_tdh/page8.asp

Take a look at some recent benchmarks using some of the latest drivers.

The 6800U is tied with the X800XT PE in UT2004 at 1280x1024 w/ 4xAA + 8xAF and is less less then 5 fps slower the PE at 1600x1200 w/ 4xAA + 8xAF.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/leadtek_winfast_a400_ultra_tdh/page9.asp

In Splinter Cell the 6800U is leading at 1280x1024 w/ 8xAF.

The 6800's have higher performance AA and better quality AF. They also support alot more AA options then the X800's.

The 6800's have the settings to run full Trilinear filtering with no ops so you can gain the maximum IQ quality in games. They dont lose much performance from running High Quality ither because they dont have to be optimized to the hilt like the X800's do to compete.

Without AF enabled the 6800U beats the X800XT PE the majority of the time in D3D games. The Anisotropic Filtering optimizations is whats keeping the PE in the running for the D3D performance crown.

Even in Far Cry, the 6800U wins alot of the time against PE and its just a matter of what level you test and how you test it and what settings your using.

If you run a lower resolution and use different settings then someone does in the benchmarks your looking at, those benchmarks wont mean shit because the the opposing card might be faster at those settings.

The 6800U is doing damn well against the X800XT PE in D3D games considering its the 6800U Extreme that matches up against the PE.
 
the problem is if anyway says performance is better for any reason its starting a fan boy war. Back to the topic, Has any tried this hack on different ati cards? like a 9800 vs x800?
 
burningrave101 said:
I really dont know where people are coming up with these ideas that the ATI cards are faster in everything but DOOM 3 cause their not. Its actually the exact opposite.

The 6800's are faster in ALL OpenGL games and there are quite a few. Call of Duty and KOTOR won last years GOTY awards and both were OpenGL. Quake 4, RTCW 2, and Soldier of Fortune are just a few games we will see based off the D3 engine.

The 6800's are also faster in just as many D3D games as the X800's are. People look at Far Cry performance and think that game translates D3D performance which it doesn't. Its one engine and one engine that most likely very few games will be built off of. There are thousands of D3D games.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/leadtek_winfast_a400_ultra_tdh/page8.asp

Take a look at some recent benchmarks using some of the latest drivers.

The 6800U is tied with the X800XT PE in UT2004 at 1280x1024 w/ 4xAA + 8xAF and is less less then 5 fps slower the PE at 1600x1200 w/ 4xAA + 8xAF.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/leadtek_winfast_a400_ultra_tdh/page9.asp

In Splinter Cell the 6800U is leading at 1280x1024 w/ 8xAF.

The 6800's have higher performance AA and better quality AF. They also support alot more AA options then the X800's.

The 6800's have the settings to run full Trilinear filtering with no ops so you can gain the maximum IQ quality in games. They dont lose much performance from running High Quality ither because they dont have to be optimized to the hilt like the X800's do to compete.

Without AF enabled the 6800U beats the X800XT PE the majority of the time in D3D games. The Anisotropic Filtering optimizations is whats keeping the PE in the running for the D3D performance crown.

Even in Far Cry, the 6800U wins alot of the time against PE and its just a matter of what level you test and how you test it and what settings your using.

If you run a lower resolution and use different settings then someone does in the benchmarks your looking at, those benchmarks wont mean shit because the the opposing card might be faster at those settings.

The 6800U is doing damn well against the X800XT PE in D3D games considering its the 6800U Extreme that matches up against the PE.
Click to expand...

must agree with ya.

the only place the x800xt really outperforms anyone is at 1600x1200 with 4xaa and 16xaf. anywhere else in most cases its either tied or the 6800 ultra is pulling a victory.

keep in mind in most benchmarks (for some stupid reason) people are benchmarking the nvidia cards with full tri filtering with ati cards doing tri/bri. Now this is an optimization but the 6800's lose their 5-40 percent of their performance when you do this so its not really a fair comparison, and of course in that situation the x800xt is going to win.

here ill break it down simple for you

OPTIMIZATIONS ON vs OPTIMIZATIONS OFF


now change that so the optimizations are on on both cards and they are very comparable, to the point its hard to name a victor. they are so close there is no point arguing this. It seems to me that its nvidia working out the bugs in their new architecture that is keeping the 6800 ultra from winning all tests, give it some time we shall see very soon when nvidia completes some of the things they are currently working on 8)

either way both great cards, but the architecture of the 6800 is above par, where as the r300 opps i mean r420 is par only.
 
Steve said:
This thread has gotten so far off track it isn't even funny.

The issue at hand is that:

a.) someone claimed to have found a performance tweak

b.) it causes artifacts

c.) people are getting different results, some people like it...some people don't. Right now it seems 50-50.

d.) the "hack" post could've been worded a little better, it did come off as bashing Carmack whcih upsets people.


PLEASE get off the "you have an ATi card, that makes you stupid" or the "GeForce owners lick balls" and all that other crap. Lay off the bashing.

Cool?
Click to expand...

Sadly each and every Doom3 thread that says the word ATI or Nvidia will turn into a flame war.
 
Xenozx said:
must agree with ya.

the only place the x800xt really outperforms anyone is at 1600x1200 with 4xaa and 16xaf. anywhere else in most cases its either tied or the 6800 ultra is pulling a victory.

keep in mind in most benchmarks (for some stupid reason) people are benchmarking the nvidia cards with full tri filtering with ati cards doing tri/bri. Now this is an optimization but the 6800's lose their 5-40 percent of their performance when you do this so its not really a fair comparison, and of course in that situation the x800xt is going to win.

here ill break it down simple for you

OPTIMIZATIONS ON vs OPTIMIZATIONS OFF


now change that so the optimizations are on on both cards and they are very comparable, to the point its hard to name a victor. they are so close there is no point arguing this. It seems to me that its nvidia working out the bugs in their new architecture that is keeping the 6800 ultra from winning all tests, give it some time we shall see very soon when nvidia completes some of the things they are currently working on 8)

either way both great cards, but the architecture of the 6800 is above par, where as the r300 opps i mean r420 is par only.
Click to expand...


Ditto, both cards are good, depending what you want out of your card, just raw speed (which is pretty much equal to nV's best now) or features that will come in handy soon. Because of Ati's bad ogl performance is a big hit on them, they had along time to fix their hyper z, they should have know it what effects it had on games that use heavy shadowing.. Actually they thought they wouldn't have this much compitition with nV, which by god don't know why they would think that. They got lazy and now the hammer falls hard.
 
rancor said:
Ditto, both cards are good, depending what you want out of your card, just raw speed (which is pretty much equal to nV's best now) or features that will come in handy soon. Because of Ati's bad ogl performance is a big hit on them, they had along time to fix their hyper z, they should have know it what effects it had on games that use heavy shadowing.. Actually they thought they wouldn't have this much compitition with nV, which by god don't know why they would think that. They got lazy and now the hammer falls hard.
Click to expand...

I dont know why they would get lazy so fast lol. ATI got kicked around by other GPU manufacturers for over 15 years and then out of nowhere they had ONE good round which was the R300's and then now nVidia is back in the running again.
 
I'll stay away from any flamethrowing and just post my results. System Config is in my sig. Running Image Cache tweaks previous published.

1280x1024 4xAA 16XAF Pre-Shader tweak: 46FPS. After Shader Tweak: 58FPS.

I'm not seeing any artifacting at all. Carmack has stated that overclocking your system or video card can cause problems, and since no one else who has gotten any artifacting has said whether they're overclocking or not, I'll simply state that I'm not overclocking anything in my system and leave it at that.
 
ATI got kicked around by other GPU manufacturers for over 15 years and then out of nowhere they had ONE good round which was the R300's and then now nVidia is back in the running again.
Click to expand...

Wow, you really need to brush up on some ATI history, where is every other GPU company from 15 years ago, and please indulge me on how they got "kicked around" yet still made more money and got bigger then everybody else back then, now, if you had said maybe 5 years, then you would be making some sense, but don't even try to tell me ATI was crap it's entire lifespan
 
SnakEyez187 said:
Wow, you really need to brush up on some ATI history, where is every other GPU company from 15 years ago, and please indulge me on how they got "kicked around" yet still made more money and got bigger then everybody else
Click to expand...

Honestly, its a known fact that prior to R3xx ATI cards sucked. Their 2D cards were a disaster. They got smoked by stuff like the Tseng ET4000/ET6000 chipsets, S3 964/968 chipsets, matrox millennium chipsets, etc... Then when 3D came around they were smoked by Nvidia until the r3xx series.
 
Wow, I was playing with it after reading the Beyond3D a little more...

I can't quite explain what is going on, but there is a very noticable difference in speed with certain parameters. Hesitant to put up numbers, cause I'm not sure its a legit speed optimization yet. Looks extremely promising though.
 
SnakEyez187 said:
Wow, you really need to brush up on some ATI history, where is every other GPU company from 15 years ago, and please indulge me on how they got "kicked around" yet still made more money and got bigger then everybody else
Click to expand...

Ok then tell me exactly when ATI had any major GPU run before the R300 cores against nVidia, 3DFX, S3, and Matrox for example lol.

ATI came nowhere close to making more money and getting bigger then everybody else.

ATI is a small canadian company that just just now managed to catch up with nVidia in market share the last couple of years because of their R300 cores. ATI couldn't touch nVidia before that.

You ever notice how many games are marketed with nVidia hardware and how all the game magazines have nVidia logo's on every other page and nVidia advertisements? Its sure not because ATI has more money lol.
 
ATI came nowhere close to making more money and getting bigger then everybody else.
Click to expand...

Back then the pc gaming market was burgeoning and tiny, OEM designs for PC's was where the money was at, and ATI was the favorite with nearly every single OEM and big iron company back then

Ok then tell me exactly when ATI had any major GPU run before the R300 cores against nVidia, 3DFX, S3, and Matrox for example lol.
Click to expand...

If you're going to bring up history from 15 years ago, you should omit companies which didn't exist in those times. ATI was the favored card because they managed to successfully merge all of the pertinent functions of the times(not 3d) into a single board card, while most others needed multiple boards to get the functions
 
burningrave101 said:
Ok then tell me exactly when ATI had any major GPU run before the R300 cores against nVidia, 3DFX, S3, and Matrox for example lol.

ATI came nowhere close to making more money and getting bigger then everybody else.

ATI is a small canadian company that just just now managed to catch up with nVidia in market share the last couple of years because of their R300 cores. ATI couldn't touch nVidia before that.

You ever notice how many games are marketed with nVidia hardware and how all the game magazines have nVidia logo's on every other page and nVidia advertisements? Its sure not because ATI has more money lol.
Click to expand...

I believe he was talking about the OEM market, where ATi once clearly dominated.
 
ZenOps said:
Wow, I was playing with it after reading the Beyond3D a little more...

I can't quite explain what is going on, but there is a very noticable difference in speed with certain parameters. Hesitant to put up numbers, cause I'm not sure its a legit speed optimization yet. Looks extremely promising though.
Click to expand...

Only legit scores are ones used with official id software code, not shader iq/performance hacks.
 
SnakEyez187 said:
Back then the pc gaming market was burgeoning and tiny, OEM designs for PC's was where the money was at, and ATI was the favorite with nearly every single OEM and big iron company back then
Click to expand...
exactly, look at most older oem computers and they are likely to have an onboard ati viedo controller. these were definately not gaming chips, but they were not supposed to be. they just had to display a win95 desktop, which they did just fine. it is true that recently, ati has changed their target market slightly to the enthusiest market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top