Why was Far Cry 1.2 really recalled?

[@trapine]

Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy 1280x1024 w/ 4xAA + 8xAF

X800XT 69.5 fps
6800nu 75.8 fps =Total 6 FPS YOU aint gonna notice that!

Neverwinter Nights: Shadows of Undrentide 1600x1200 w/ 4xAA + 8xAF

X800XT 42.3 fps
6800nu 45.2 fps =total 2.9 FPS YOU MOST DEFINATLY GONNA NOTICE THAT?

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory 1280x1024 no AA + AF

X800XT 90.9 fps
6800nu 94.7 fps =TOTAL 3.9FPS NOT GONNA SEE THAT?

While i do not disagree that ATI's openGL is less than steller You tend to get somewhat mellow dramatic sometimes Burningave?Nvidia does BETTER in openGL But NO it doesnt Slaughter it?
The only place that openGL is really poor is in linux.But unfortunatly there just isnt a big enough demand For gaming under linux plain and simple

 

[burningrave101]

So far what I have taken is:

1. Nvidia is not rendering in 32bit while in SM3.0 path?
2. Nvidia is only exploiting the SM3.0 features that don't require big horsepower (ie. things that can be done in SM2.0b)
3. ATI can do most the feature, if not all, in SM2.0b and gain performance
4. ATI always renders in 24bit versus Nvidias mix of 16bit and 32 bit
5. Why did the patch get pulled the same day the review sites were going to shock a lot of people?

FP16 is ONLY used when it doesn't hurt IQ. Crytek said this themselves. ATI is just spreading alot of FUD about it because they know nothing about it and are pissed because nVidia's FP16 is faster then their FP24 lol. FP16 is fine for nearly everything.

And nVidia has nothing to do with what their exploiting. Crytek is the ones doing it.

That FP32 can do things ATI's FP24 cannot. HDR in Far Cry anyone?

And most of the time FP16 is all that is needed. ATI hates it that nVidia has a faster FP16 and a more advanced FP32.

Notice how ATI makes no mention of their "advanced" Brilinear filtering tricks and how they dont offer Full Trilinear all the time.

Here are some of the differences between PS 3.0 and PS 2.0b

Dependent Texture Limit
2.0b = 4
3.0 = No Limit

Position Register
2.0b = none
3.0 = Yes

Executed Instructions
2.0b = 512
3.0 = 65536

Interpolated Registers
2.0b = 2+8
3.0 = 10

Intstruction Predication
2.0b = none
3.0 = Yes

Indexed Input Registers
2.0b = none
3.0 = yes

Constant Registers
2.0b = 32
3.0 = 224

Arbitrary Swizzling
2.0b = none
3.0 = yes

Gradient Instructions
2.0b = none
3.0 = yes

Loop Count Register
2.0b = none
3.0 = yes

Face Register (2-sided lighting)
2.0b = none
3.0 = yes

Dynamic Flow Control Depth
2.0b = none
3.0 = 24

Minimum Shader Precision
2.0b = FP24 (96-bit)
3.0 = FP32 (128-bit)

PS 2.0b is nowhere near being as advanced as PS 3.0.

I think OGL will not be a factor once HL2 releases and the hundreds of mods start to appear. HL has survived for over five years as the number one online game, just imagine what HL2 is going to do......

There are rumors to suggest that HL2 will have OpenGL support like the original.

 

[kcthebrewer]

Maybe you didn't notice that was the 299 Geforce 6800nu beating the x800XT PE...

 

[SnakEyez187]

Face Register (2-sided lighting)

R420 has this

Yet another post from snakeyez with the word "cheap shot" and a rolls eyes smiley...do I see a pattern forming?

If you keep making them i'll keep doing it, why don't you talk more about who ATI is paying for what, or what Ati is using their money on and other things you would have no knowledge of and are jusdt trying to stir up BS. You don't want people saying things are cheats or who is cheating, and I don't want people spouting BS about who either company is paying for what

 

[burningrave101]

=TOTAL 3.9FPS NOT GONNA SEE THAT?

Thats the 8 pipe 128MB 6800 NON ULTRA there lol. NOT the 6800u.

 

[^eMpTy^]

Lol the same people who say ATi cheated are the same that look the other way at the whole 3dmark2k3 fiasco.

Both companies cheated (quake/quack and 3dmark2003).

And especially since ATi only "quacked" back in the dark days prior to Catalyst drivers, I have easily 300% more faith in ATi not cheating vs. nVidia cheating RIGHT NOW.

Ok I can't let that slide.

Do you remember when the X800 was released and ATi invited everyone to compare thier "full trilinear" to Nvidia's "brilinear" as proveable via colored mipmaps? In my opinion that was the most dishonest thing ever done in the graphics industry...it wasn't a driver hack...it was openly and officially misleading the public...

Nvidia cheating thier ass off at 3dmark runs a close second.

As of right now I have ever so slightly more confidence in Nvidia...and it's mostly due to the lack of a "disable trilinear optimizations" checkbox in the ATi drivers...

 

[^eMpTy^]

There are rumors to suggest that HL2 will have OpenGL support like the original.

Those rumors are shaky at best...I assume you're referring to the post yesterday that showed OpenGL in the control panel of the HL2 beta...that OpenGL renderer was dropped already...you know this...

 

[burningrave101]

As of right now I have ever so slightly more confidence in Nvidia...and it's mostly due to the lack of a "disable trilinear optimizations" checkbox in the ATi drivers...

I doubt you will ever see that. Thats where all their performance is at. Heck, the ATI cards even lose AF performance if you enable AF in-game instead of through the CP like ATI wants lol.

Those rumors are shaky at best...I assume you're referring to the post yesterday that showed OpenGL in the control panel of the HL2 beta...that OpenGL renderer was dropped already...you know this...

No. I've been talking about HL2 having OpenGL for a while now. Its been rumored quite a few times on the forums by various sources. Maybe it will. Maybe it wont.

 

[Mav451]

Hmm, well haha, I haven't kept up at all with the X800/6800 releases as much, since their price range is way out of my budget.

That's great and all, but since I'm probably getting a 9800Pro next, this doesn't concern me at all. The 5800 in itself shook my confidence in their abilities as a h/w manufacturer in getting EFFICIENT performance/power used.

Even if the 5900 was a better deal (compared to the 9800 Pro), is it not true that they run considerably hotter? I ask this b/c I don't intend to increase my case temps significantly for a vid card

 

[^eMpTy^]

R420 has this

If you keep making them i'll keep doing it, why don't you talk more about who ATI is paying for what, or what Ati is using their money on and other things you would have no knowledge of and are jusdt trying to stir up BS

If you read my post history, as I have read yours, you would see I'm wildly against anyone accusing anyone of paying anyone for anything...I firmly believe that developers and graphics companies aren't doing anything shady...

And you'll have to forgive my cheap shots...I just can't help but notice your habit of crapping on threads...

 

[tornadotsunamilife]

And especially since ATi only "quacked" back in the dark days prior to Catalyst drivers, I have easily 300% more faith in ATi not cheating vs. nVidia cheating RIGHT NOW.

and why is that then?

 

[kcthebrewer]

As of right now I have ever so slightly more confidence in Nvidia...and it's mostly due to the lack of a "disable trilinear optimizations" checkbox in the ATi drivers...

Because their cards lose like 30% performance in all games with AF if you disable it. ATI doesn't want to lose their performance lead. You will probably never see the option to disable it as ATI does not want to lose their lead by a heck of a lot (this is not flaming, it is truth).

 

[^eMpTy^]

I doubt you will ever see that. Thats where all their performance is at. Heck, the ATI cards even lose AF performance if you enable AF in-game instead of through the CP like ATI wants lol.

No. I've been talking about HL2 having OpenGL for a while now. Its been rumored quite a few times on the forums by various sources. Maybe it will. Maybe it wont.

Like I said, from what I hear that OpenGL renderer was dropped...but if I'm wrong...I won't complain as my GT will be here monday.

I recognize that ATi wants to keep their numbers as high as possible and that's why they don't want that checkbox...but I'm one of those people that believe that a $500 vid card shouldn't hold back options because of marketing strategy...I really take issue with that...and John Carmack seems too as well...

 

[tornadotsunamilife]

While i do not disagree that ATI's openGL is less than steller You tend to get somewhat mellow dramatic sometimes Burningave?Nvidia does BETTER in openGL But NO it doesnt Slaughter it?
The only place that openGL is really poor is in linux.But unfortunatly there just isnt a big enough demand For gaming under linux plain and simple

i think he's suggesting that the 6800non-ultra still beats the x800xtpe in opengl

 

[Mav451]

and why is that then?

Lol, are you a troll or sumthing?

ATi's driver team was just plain shlt back in those days (early 2002). Considering quack was a "game benchmark" vs. what nVidia did with 3dmark2003 (originally TRUSTED as THE 3d benchmark for the industry); I'd take the isolated quack incidient instead.

nVidia screwed everything for the future of benchmarking as a whole by the 3dmark2003 incident. Why do you think [H] lost faith in even using 3dmark2k3? I think that speaks volumes more than the quack incident--which in its context, is not that suprising but certainly still does not excuse ATi for their cheating back then.

Considering its only one game (quack), you could still test 5-7 games and be rid of that anomaly. Whereas 3dmark2003, WAS going to be trusted as the next "3dmark2k1" bench...well that pretty much went downhill from the CREDIBILITY standpoint. Who was behind that? nVidia.

*Now, don't take this as hating nVidia. I still love their mobos...its just their Video Cards that I have currently lost some faith in*

 

[^eMpTy^]

Lol, are you a troll or sumthing?

ATi's driver team was just plain shlt back in those days (early 2002). Considering quack was a "game benchmark" vs. what nVidia did with 3dmark2003 (originally TRUSTED as THE 3d benchmark for the industry); I'd take the isolated quack incidient instead.

nVidia screwed everything for the future of benchmarking as a whole by the 3dmark2003 incident. Why do you think [H] lost faith in even using 3dmark2k3? I think that speaks volumes more than the quack incident--which in its context, is not that suprising but certainly still does not excuse ATi for their cheating back then.

Considering its only one game (quack), you could still test 5-7 games and be rid of that anomaly. Whereas 3dmark2003, WAS going to be trusted as the next "3dmark2k1" bench...well that pretty much went downhill from the CREDIBILITY standpoint. Who was behind that? nVidia.

Alright this is a little lop-sided here.

I don't think Nvidia wrecked anything as you're stating here...nobody has ever trusted anything futuremark has put out...they're always just been one of many numbers...

If you want to talk about trust and faith in a benchmark, talk about Quake 3 which was always 10 times more important than any synthetic benchmark and is still used today, soon to be replaced by Doom3.

Nvidia didn't ruin anything...that's just silliness...

 

[burningrave101]

If you read my post history, as I have read yours, you would see I'm wildly against anyone accusing anyone of paying anyone for anything...I firmly believe that developers and graphics companies aren't doing anything shady...

And you'll have to forgive my cheap shots...I just can't help but notice your habit of crapping on threads...

If you keep making them i'll keep doing it, why don't you talk more about who ATI is paying for what, or what Ati is using their money on and other things you would have no knowledge of and are jusdt trying to stir up BS. You don't want people saying things are cheats or who is cheating, and I don't want people spouting BS about who either company is paying for what

If you guys dont think money is changing hands all over the place then your sorely mistaken lol. Nither one of them give a shit about any of you. All they care about is making money and being faster then the other. nVidia HAS made a big step forward this round though by giving the ability to disable all Tri and AF optimizations.

We aren't talking about thousands of dollars here. Were talking about MILLIONS and MILLIONS. And it all rests on the performance in these games. If you think nVidia or ATI ither one are an honest company your smoking something that sounds like alot of fun lol.

This is a small clipping from a recent e-mail i got from Tech Report's video card reviewer Scott Wasson when i asked him some questions.

Graphics driver guys optimize for popular and/or high-visibility games, especially those used as benchmarks, and that's a totally legit thing to do--but it
influences relative performance numbers greatly. Lots of money has been
changing hands lately between game developers and graphics card makers, as
well, lately. None of it is pure.

 

[@trapine]

The one thing that really gets me with these benchmarks is the 9800XT actually does as good as the FX5950

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQyLDQ=

And you are getting *tad* bit over excited burningrave? There is only 2.8 FPS between the 6800GT and X800XT @ High quality 1600X1200 4AA 8AF? and only 7.2 FPS diffrence with the 6800U?
SO that is quite posable for ATI to make them numbers up.And they dont constitute (in my eyes at least) the hammering some of you people are trying to spread.Its the X800Pro that isnt fairing so nice?

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQyLDU=

 

[lopoetve]

I think you all guys are down playing the fact that SM3.0 is going to end up a bust on the 6800, which was it's major marketing point. Once all of the facts are exposed, we will see. My thought is the card does not have enough horsepower to push full percision (32bit) SM3.0 code. It will all come out in time.

Kyle never answered if he was one of the review sites who received the beta drivers.

What? This is funny... not able to run full precision SM3.0 code?

Proof, please?

 

[tornadotsunamilife]

The one thing that really gets me with these benchmarks is the 9800XT actually does as good as the FX5950

the nv3x core was pretty lazy IMO

 

[^eMpTy^]

If you guys dont think money is changing hands all over the place then your sorely mistaken lol.

We aren't talking about thousands of dollars here. Were talking about MILLIONS and MILLIONS. And it all rests on the performance in these games. If you think nVidia or ATI ither one are an honest company your smoking something that sounds like alot of fun lol.

This is a small clipping from a recent e-mail i got from Tech Report's video card reviewer Scott Wasson when i asked him some questions.

I know money changes hands to get features implemented...but it's not like game companies ally themselves with graphics companies...they take the money, the do the feature addition or optimization and that's fine...both companies do it, no big deal...but this concept that nvidia is paying developers to NOT include ATi optimizations or features...that's wrong...and I doubt that's happening...

 

[tornadotsunamilife]

I know money changes hands to get features implemented...but it's not like game companies ally themselves with graphics companies...they take the money, the do the feature addition or optimization and that's fine...both companies do it, no big deal...but this concept that nvidia is paying developers to NOT include ATi optimizations or features...that's wrong...and I doubt that's happening...

ahh i see what you mean. no i doubt nvidia are paying developers to not include ati features/optimizations.

 

[^eMpTy^]

ahh i see what you mean. no i doubt nvidia are paying developers to not include ati features/optimizations.

I guess if they could they would...and I wouldn't really blame THEM...but the developers I hope wouldn't be so frivolous since they are responsible for making the game run well on ALL hardware...

 

[burningrave101]

And you are getting a bit over excited burningrave there is only 2.8 FPS betwwen the 6800GT and X800XT @ High quality 1600X1200 4AA 8AF? and only 7.2 FPS diffrence with the 6800U?
SO that is quite posable for ATI to make them numbers up.And they dont constitute in my eyes at least the hammer some of you people are trying to spread.Its the X800Pro that isnt fairing so nice?

Look at the performance of the X800Pro vs the 6800GT. The only thing that was keeping the PE even in it was turning on 8xAF. I would of liked to of seen 1600x1200 w/ no AA and no AF lol.

nVidia will likely increase their OpenGL performance further also. These are still just raw drivers for a new NV40 core. The X800XT PE is living off of older more stable drivers. nVidia has an excellent driver team and performance will continue to increase with each release.

 

[Mav451]

Alright this is a little lop-sided here.

I don't think Nvidia wrecked anything as you're stating here...nobody has ever trusted anything futuremark has put out...they're always just been one of many numbers...

If you want to talk about trust and faith in a benchmark, talk about Quake 3 which was always 10 times more important than any synthetic benchmark and is still used today, soon to be replaced by Doom3.

Nvidia didn't ruin anything...that's just silliness...

Without a doubt, Doom 3 is a killer app and the x800 is what it's killing.

Considering your statements in your info, I already don't trust alot, if ANY of your statements. Do you see me with a similarly immature line in my signature? E.g. "ATi is l33t"? No.

I never, ever considered Q3 as a legitimate benchmark. As an AMD user, I thought this would be a concern--P4's higher bandwidth always gave them an edge until the FX series came out for AMD. Hell, even Apple thought they could take the cake and say P4's got 275FPS. Q3 was abused and messed with to be MISLEADING, not just by ATi.

And on 3dmark2003--yes it was wrecked.
How many sites still use 3dmark2k1SE as a benchmark--even if not a purely vid card standpoint? Alot. How many still use 3dmark2k3 in comparison?

None.

 

[tornadotsunamilife]

I guess if they could they would...and I wouldn't really blame THEM...but the developers I hope wouldn't be so frivolous since they are responsible for making the game run well on ALL hardware...

if they are. then it isn't really working

 

[agar]

Comments like these are unbelievable. The amount of biased opinions, the avoidance of blatantly obvious facts and desperate attempt to vilify another IHV is incredible in these forums. Are you guys on NVidia's payroll?

As to the TWIMTBP sticker...I'm not even sure that's on the Doom3 box...but if it is it's probably because Nvidia is the only that took heed and built a card and a driver set that really shine when playing Doom3..

. Their too busy trying to find new ways of cheating in D3D to boost their benchmark numbers to worry about trying to put out decent drivers.

 

[Mav451]

Hah, I just realized that Quake 3 was one of the mainstream Open-GL benched games.

Being an nVidia supporter, your bias in solely supporting Q3 (and I suppose disregarding the rest?) isn't that surprising.

 

[tornadotsunamilife]

Comments like these are unbelievable. The amount of biased opinions, the avoidance of blatantly obvious facts and desperate attempt to vilify another IHV is incredible in these forums. Are you guys on NVidia's payroll?

err. what is your point? nvidia did make a card and drivers with doom 3 specifically in mind. sure they have 'the way it's meant to be played' on many games this game was like a flagship game for their 6800series. its the same as halflife 2 for the 9600/9800XT

 

[^eMpTy^]

Comments like these are unbelievable. The amount of biased opinions, the avoidance of blatantly obvious facts and desperate attempt to vilify another IHV is incredible in these forums. Are you guys on NVidia's payroll?

...what's biased about this? If you were ID, what sticker would you put on your box?

 

[gordon151]

Hehe, ID software is putting the TWIMTBP sticker on their games because nVidia was nice to them ?

 

[Mav451]

Comments like these are unbelievable. The amount of biased opinions, the avoidance of blatantly obvious facts and desperate attempt to vilify another IHV is incredible in these forums. Are you guys on NVidia's payroll?

Thank you. Finally some fresh air in light of some of these nVidia (video card ) zealots. This was beginning to sound like some of the blatant, one-sided arguments I get from Mac users

 

[^eMpTy^]

Hah, I just realized that Quake 3 was one of the mainstream Open-GL benched games.

Being an nVidia supporter, your bias in solely supporting Q3 (and I suppose disregarding the rest?) isn't that surprising.

We all have our opinions...I tend to believe that Q3 was way more important for benchmarking when ATi cheated to get the 8500 a speed boost...

I've never given a shit about anything put out by futuremark...I've always looked for gaming performance, synthetic numbers are useless...so when you say Nvidia did everyone a huge dis-service by ruining 3dmark for the rest of us...well I have to take issue with that because I think 3dmark was useless to begin with...

 

[agar]

What surprises me is that you actually convince yourself that putting that sticker on iD's box has nothing to do with money, and only because, "it runs best on their hardware". WOW, must not have heard of the marketing term joint advertising.

And as for burning, your posts speak for themselves. I really don't think any fair minded individual on these forums puts any weight into your posts. I really hope the best on your crusades to convince people not to buy ATI.

 

[^eMpTy^]

Considering your statements in your info, I already don't trust alot, if ANY of your statements. Do you see me with a similarly immature line in my signature? E.g. "ATi is l33t"? No.

I never, ever considered Q3 as a legitimate benchmark. As an AMD user, I thought this would be a concern--P4's higher bandwidth always gave them an edge until the FX series came out for AMD. Hell, even Apple thought they could take the cake and say P4's got 275FPS. Q3 was abused and messed with to be MISLEADING, not just by ATi.

And on 3dmark2003--yes it was wrecked.
How many sites still use 3dmark2k1SE as a benchmark--even if not a purely vid card standpoint? Alot. How many still use 3dmark2k3 in comparison?

None.

Those lines are in my sig because they struck me as funny...but thanks for jumping to conclusions and calling someone you don't even know "immature".

Everyone else on the face of the planet thought Quake 3 was a pretty god damned important benchmark...I'm pretty sure you're alone on that one.

 

[^eMpTy^]

What surprises me is that you actually convince yourself that putting that sticker on iD's box has nothing to do with money, and only because, "it runs best on their hardware". WOW, must not have heard of the marketing term joint advertising.

No no...I'm just saying that it's not like it was a bidding war for the sticker...obviously Nvidia paid a lot more attention to Doom3, and it runs significantly better on thier hardware...so naturally there would be some joint advertising between the two companies...

My comment before was a little half-assed...of course there is money changing hands to get stickers on boxes...

 

[Mav451]

Have you guys played Sim City 4?

B/c of a deal between nVidia and EA Games, this game runs like sh*t on my 8500. Hell, after googling around I found that for a lot of people it doens't run right. Why? B/c it was designed ONLY to run with nVidia hardware. Even a guy with a 2000+ and a underclocked GF4 Ti4200 runs this faster than me.

Pretty messed up.

 

[agar]

Ok, fair enough. I see your point. I find your posts a little more even handed then some others on this forum.

 

[^eMpTy^]

Have you guys played Sim City 4?

B/c of a deal between nVidia and EA Games, this game runs like sh*t on my 8500. Hell, after googling around I found that for a lot of people it doens't run right. Why? B/c it was designed ONLY to run with nVidia hardware. Even a guy with a 2000+ and a underclocked GF4 Ti4200 runs this faster than me.

Pretty messed up.

I'm not surprised...for games that aren't going to be like huge tier one titles that are super dependent on 3d acceleration...I can imagine they wouldn't care too much about just going with one video card company to optimize for...makes thier development easier...

However, I would expect any self-respecting developer (id, crytek, valve) to have a little more foresight than that...

 

[Lord of Shadows]

Heh, you guys are a bit off topic, oh well. SM3 is not a "bust" as R1ckCa1n put it. Shader model 3 adds more C control structures to the directx HLSL (high level shading language) So it feels more like a C program. It also adds special features such as texture lookups and geometry instancing in the vertex shader and allows unlimited multi-texturing in the pixel shader. (I got this from my memory of an beyond3d article I read quite some time ago and cant seem to find again)

SM3 has nothing to do with 16/24/32 bit precision, all of you saying ATI is better due to 24bit precision ill give you the story about that.

Before directx 9 was finalized nvidia went ahead and assumed the next color precision standard would be 32, and who wouldnt its the next power of 2? However ati waited and microsoft chose 24 as the directx9 spec. Now if you ask me 24 is a stupid number to pick for obvious reasons, but it was done for a lesser performance hit. Now with the newer release of directx, guess what the precision is up too? yeah 32.

If you want a source for all that I cant find it, so you will have to take my word on it.


I dont think hl2 will be as big as hl1 for two reasons, hl2 wont run on everyone's computer as hl did (hl based on quake1 source and didnt bring much graphically)

And in the original it was easier to get into a multiplayer server than other games, that allowed many newbs to make the game an easier game to play online. As compared to quake2 where we quakers would tear them a new hole if they managed to connect, much like people will do with this new release.

But who knows, maybe every hl1 player will buy the game as it ages and can be a hl nub all over again =)