ati cheating in crysis benchmark?

[RaZz!]

no, i knew it all along, i changed it cause razz suggested it, and i trust him and agree that it was easy to misunderstand.
[...]

Are you sure? That screenshot is 90% identical between GTX480 and 5870.
And i just replayed crysis & warhead in a 40" tv and didn't notice any flickering.

How about more screenshots and comparisons?

for me, the difference is pretty obvious on these screenshots. you can clearly see the banding, so it indeed is a noticible flaw.
to actually see such filter flaws while playing the game is another thing imo. if you can't compare to smth else you most likely won't notice it.

this reminds me of my 7800gt which had abysmal AF quality. i've never really noticed this issue until i got myself a 4850. i noticed the difference instantly (the texture flickering on the 7800gt was horrible, but i never thought about that as a 7000 series specific thing), and afaik the AF quality of the 4000 series isn't the best as well, so i'd probably notice another difference when switching to a 5000 series or nvidia card

[Final8ty]

So where are the before & after pictures ?

Earlier CAT's & Later CAT's.

[zehoo]

I have to say that's pretty funny.

[damha]

Although I find this thread humorous and all the complaints about "if it was nv...". I went ahead and checked it for myself for the lulz. Between using the original exe and renaming it to lulz I found no difference in ground texture. Perhaps it does stay crunchy in milk .

Edit:
It was never mentioned in the article that anyone was cheating either. Which makes this all the more funny.

So one independent report already refutes it.

[purecain]

bad behavior but clever.... i would never of noticed had this not been brought to my attention...

[cowie]

So one independent report already refutes it.

i have not seen any facts that refute this
i can see the differance in the ss's in the review can we agree on that or no?
or let my ask this..is it true that biliner is default in aI normal and advanced?
if you set 16x af it should not be any where near biliner right?

i'm a drama queen about this too so dont feel bad saaya

[Chickenfeed]

I did a simple comparison using the 10.3a Cats and Standard AI. Settings are the the high preset ( using natural mod ) with 4x AA running in DX9 with the x64 exe.

The first image is without AF. Notice all the various changes caused by AF. It is rather interesting. More so however is how the trees look fuller and more detailed WITHOUT AF...

I might do a more indepth comparison later on using super high res shots ( 6x this resolution ) if people really want to see what is up.



I feel its worth noting that paralex occlusion mapping doesn't benifit from AF however. This doesn't change anything comparing vendor AF but it should be considered when comparing AF quality.

[damha]

A gif is pointless in an IQ comparison.. Use lossless formatting and put them side by side (example: png).

[Eastcoasthandle]

and why does that matter to begin with? i dont see where you are going with this... i chose a misleading thread title, somebody dropped me a hint about it, i changed it... and?

what else would it be?
i doubt its a user error with pcgh... they double and tripple check before they claim something is broken... at least thats how it was when fr3ak was still there, dunno if him leaving made any difference

It matters because it's all part of fact gathering. Also, I asked that if a reviewer enables AF in that game and it doesn't work as it should then it must be either cheating or a bug? You answer what else could it be. Well, it could be that AF isn't on at all or working as it should do to something else. In Crysis/WH you need to disable POM in order to get AF working as it should. Once disabled the game is started to check to make sure that the game is actually using AF. None of which is mentioned in the article you referenced where you think cheating (now bug) is happening.

So in the end after several pages what we have here is really nothing from my point of view. None of that was mentioned in the original article to derive at such a conclusion at this time.

[XSAlliN]

For some reason placebo effect doesn't work on me... Maybe a video sample could say more then those picture comparisons but, if you have to tell me where and how to look... that's like a mind suggestion trick aiming for placebo effect.

Looking at the comparisons from the linked site, the nVidia sample could be a little sharper, but the opinion of the ones that made those tests implies that both are cheating:

The two GeForce cards provide a much more homogeneous picture, although here too the standard drivers, including the trilinear optimization (in other words: trilinear filtering is largely turned off) is active.

...maybe one more then the other. So what's the conclusion?

The fact that ATi or nVidia don't lead a honest business... ?

DOH!!!!

You guys sleeping all this years? So obsessed with small details like this, that you're missing the big picture. Which is "They're both cheating, in one way or another..." It's impossible for companies like AMD and nVidia to work their way up and stay alive all this years by being honest.

Remember 3DFX Interactive?

In late 2000, not long after Voodoo 4's launch, several of 3dfx's creditors decided to initiate bankruptcy proceedings. 3dfx would have had virtually no chance of successfully contesting these proceedings, and instead opted to be bought by Nvidia, ceasing to exist as a company. The history of and participants in the 3dfx/Nvidia deal making can be read in the respective companies financial filings from that time period. The resolution and legality of those arrangements (with respect to the purchase, 3dfx's creditors and its bankruptcy proceedings) were still being worked through the courts as of February 2009[update], nearly 9 years after the sale.

Was just a reminder and let's not forget:

Graphics card makers subpoenaed in antitrust investigation

The US Department of Justice has delivered subpoenas to AMD and NVIDIA related to an investigation into possible antitrust violations in the graphics card industry. Details on the investigation are scant at this point, as the Department of Justice has yet to divulge any information in the case.

AMD said in a prepared statement that it was targeted as a result of its acquisition of ATI and that the DoJ has made no specific allegations against either ATI or AMD. The company "intends to cooperate with the investigation," according to its statement.

NVIDIA also confirmed that it, too, has been targeted as part of an investigation into potential antitrust violations related to GPUs and graphics cards. As is the case with AMD, the graphics card maker says that the DoJ has yet to make any specific allegations. NVIDIA says that it also intends to cooperate with the DoJ's investigation.

According to Jon Peddie Research, Intel was the top dog in the desktop graphics market during the second quarter of 2006 with 35 percent of the market. ATI (preacquisition) had 26 percent, while NVIDIA trailed with 24 percent of the market. Note that these figures include integrated graphics chipsets, which made up 62.5 percent of the market. When it comes to discrete video cards, especially those aimed at games and other high-performance applications, AMD/ATI and NVIDIA rule the market.

So who's playing who, THE CUSTOMERS, THAT's WHO!!

AMD/ATi and nVidia's PLAYING YOU!

Since ignorance is bliss, obviously...

[AndrewZorn]

there are no real standards for image quality
people seem to only care about minute FPS differences
so why is it weird to see lowered quality in order to win the FPS wars?

also agree that if this was nvidia it would be totally different

[BenchZowner]

nVIDIA must be behind this.
This is a conspiracy against the angelic AMD

[insurgent]

So one's cheat cancels the other cheat out, we're back to square one.. buying what fits our needs/wants. xD

edit

nVIDIA must be behind this.
This is a conspiracy against the angelic AMD

Your posts are so predictable... it's far from funny

[KingOfsorroW]

AMD/ATi and nVidia's PLAYING YOU!

Since ignorance is bliss, obviously...

oh, that's so true I completely agree. But nvidia is taking the stakes to the new highs all the time. I guess no company comes even close to how nvidia plays its customers.

[Eastcoasthandle]

I would consider the AF issue inconclusive. The reduction of foilage when AF is used happens on both video cards and has been talked about a few times but simply ignored. Here is a nvidia cards that shows exactly the same symptoms when AF is enabled. As you can see some of the foliage disappears when AF is enabled (something well known now for sometime). Also, as a footnote, ATI does recommend that you use in game settings instead of using CCC. This is IMO one example of why.

[Chickenfeed]

Also, as a footnote, ATI does recommend that you use in game settings instead of using CCC. This is IMO one example of why.

AKA don't use it in the first place. Personally given the choice between no AF, better folliage and AF, I'll take the AF but thats just me.

Crytek clearly didn't have AF in mind which is a pity. It would have been nice to have the best of both worlds.

[AndrewZorn]

looking at the gif makes me want to disable AF. i dont know how you consider the minute differences in sand detail to be more impacting than the trees that look way better.

[Chickenfeed]

looking at the gif makes me want to disable AF. i dont know how you consider the minute differences in sand detail to be more impacting than the trees that look way better.

Simply due to the fact that most scenes in the game don't have this kind of draw distance and half the game is indoors / frozen where AF helps greatly. I'm just a hitler when it comes to texture clarity. If I wanted poor AF quality ( or none at all ) I'd use my consoles more often

[wiak]

10.3a isnt even a *offical* driver
10.3 WHQL is the offical driver

[Tom128]

I absolutely see the difference in the pictures but I would not be willing to say the image produced on the GTX480 was "better" than the one from the HD5870 (or vice-versa), it's just different. If you really look at it, I see all the exact same regions and forms in both, but the gamma does not look the same in the two pictures, and neither do the RGB values. The GTX480 picture looks to have slightly higher gamma and slightly more green, which makes some of the areas pop out more.

For the record the last two cards I have owned were an HD5850 and an 8800GT, so I could care less who I buy my cards from. This seems like an irrelevant comparison from one site.

[ElSel10]

I absolutely see the difference in the pictures but I would not be willing to say the image produced on the GTX480 was "better" than the one from the HD5870 (or vice-versa), it's just different. If you really look at it, I see all the exact same regions and forms in both, but the gamma does not look the same in the two pictures, and neither do the RGB values. The GTX480 picture looks to have slightly higher gamma and slightly more green, which makes some of the areas pop out more.

For the record the last two cards I have owned were an HD5850 and an 8800GT, so I could care less who I buy my cards from. This seems like an irrelevant comparison from one site.

Come on, the 480 is clearly sharper and it's already been determined ATI has disabled FP16 rendering. Also, in the 16x AF test, the 480 still looks better. Funny since it doesn't have angle dependent AF while the RV870 supposedly does.

One thing that angle dependent AF should eliminate is flickering, which is safe to say it does not. I have a computer with a 5770 and definitely still see flickering with 16xAF and catalyst AI disabled and high quality mip maps.

So what's going on?

[Tom128]

Come on, the 480 is clearly sharper and it's already been determined ATI has disabled FP16 rendering. Also, in the 16x AF test, the 480 still looks better. Funny since it doesn't have angle dependent AF while the RV870 supposedly does.

I would agree that there are areas that are sharper, but I would also say the images clearly have different RGBG (red/gree/blue/gamma) values, which can very easily wash out or make easier to see parts of an image. That's why I usually have my screen with a lot higher than normal gamma because I want to see what is in the shadows more. I don't disagree that there is a difference, it's what the difference is.

As for testing would it be safe to assume that an HD5850 would be the same as far as taking screenshots for comparison? I have an HD5850 and Crysis still installed, I can take a screenshot at 0xAF, Tri-AF and 16xAF just to see if going from tri to 16x does in fact have no change, which would then be a bit fishy.

[insurgent]

So what's going on?

ATI's cheating, you know that's the only answer you're willing to accept... oooh a rhetorical question...

I'd be outraged but I look around the house and I have hardware from Intel, Nv and AMD, these scandals never really stopped me from buying what fits my needs.

[zalbard]

GIF or not, the difference is very noticeable... Thanks for posting the image.
Really hope it's going to be fixed soon...

[XSAlliN]

10.3a isnt even a *offical* driver
10.3 WHQL is the offical driver

WHQL? Where does it say that?