FarCry = FartCry
Posted by: Newsfactory on: 05/05/2004 01:52 PM [ Print | 20 comment(s) ] · 8614 views
Anyone remember Quake vs. Quack, eh? Looks like Nvidia are at it again this time with Fry Cry! Try changing the executable from "FarCry.exe" to "FartCry.exe" and see your Geforce 6800 Ultra suddenly jump 18 fps from 23fps to 41fps at 1,600 x of 1,200 pixels, 32 bits, 4xAA and 8xAF using Forceware or should I say Cheatware 61.11.
With the tests of the new GeForce 6800 Ultra of extremes edition CHIP on-line one is encountered inconsistencies: The new Nvidia driver in the version 61.11 supplied - together with the GeForce 6800 Ultra of extremes edition - with the DirectX-9-Knaller "far a twice as high result to Cry with" compared with a GeForce 6800 Ultra with the driver revision 60.72:
Instead of as before about 23 pictures per second (1,600 x of 1,200 pixels, 32 bits, 4xAA and 8xAF) our GeForce reached 6800 Ultra of extremes edition of suddenly 40.3 pictures per second. Thus the GeForce 6800 Ultra of extremes edition and the Radeon X800 XT, which comes when this dissolution on approximately 41 pictures per second, would lie in approximately up.
Chip Online.de
With the tests of the new GeForce 6800 Ultra of extremes edition CHIP on-line one is encountered inconsistencies: The new Nvidia driver in the version 61.11 supplied - together with the GeForce 6800 Ultra of extremes edition - with the DirectX-9-Knaller "far a twice as high result to Cry with" compared with a GeForce 6800 Ultra with the driver revision 60.72:
Instead of as before about 23 pictures per second (1,600 x of 1,200 pixels, 32 bits, 4xAA and 8xAF) our GeForce reached 6800 Ultra of extremes edition of suddenly 40.3 pictures per second. Thus the GeForce 6800 Ultra of extremes edition and the Radeon X800 XT, which comes when this dissolution on approximately 41 pictures per second, would lie in approximately up.
Chip Online.de
« No AMD Windows 64 until Q4 2004? · FarCry = FartCry
· The Hot Flashing Guide Rev. 2.0 »
Comment
|
Hyde Unregistered |
#53462 Posted on: 05/05/2004 02:05 PM
I want to see some screenshots to prove that there is a diference between the IQ of the drivers, if there isn't any then what's the problem ? |
Comment
|
Sardaukary Unregistered |
#53463 Posted on: 05/05/2004 02:23 PM
I agree. Application specific optimisations are fine as long as IQ isn’t messed with. But I though until Far Cry is patched all Nvidia hardware runs it at an inferior IQ level anyway, because of a left over work around compensating for the FX range. There’s no point benchmarking with the game until Nvidia and ATI produce similar quality images. |
Comment
|
digitalwanderer Junior Member Posts: 4 Joined: 2004-02-22 |
#53464 Posted on: 05/05/2004 02:30 PM
No argument from me. Shader replacement isn't wrong in and of itself, it's only when it's sacrificing image quality for speed that it's a no-no anymore. That being said, I've heard of a lot of graphical issues with this driver set too....so I want to see more testing and results. |
Comment
|
MAT0 Unregistered |
#53466 Posted on: 05/05/2004 03:22 PM
hell, i cant believe what my eyes see, your thoughts are really non reasonalbe and terribly wrong. hardware is made to run software, but think, a video cards its NOT meant to be especifically made for some software, games, o apps, o else, they are meant for general video purposes, so specific "optimizations" means that the programers are making "shortcuts, replacements, or lies(i like to call it that way)" to speed up somes games that the card is NOT CAPABLE OF reproduce. think twice the following, tomorrow can be a linux port of far cry, halo, or another game, and those "Chea.. optimizations" cant be done on linux (im guessing), so your far cry will not be running at nvidia speed, it will be running at normal hardware speed. another example? i will not code differently for an ati card, an nvidia card, and volari o matrox, card, i will code for the standard of the day, call it dx9.0b or opengl1.5, so NVIDIA SHOULD HIRE AND FOCUS ON PEOLPLE WITH GOOD IDEAS TO MAKE BETTER HARDWARE; NOT BETTER DRIVERS. im tired of this type of topic that NVIDIA and nvidia buyers are trying to justify, the best card SHOULD BE the one that does the best job no matter what other hardware (nforce3 anyone?) software(recognition of apps) or drivers(optimizations).bye |
Comment
|
wb22gprix Unregistered |
#53467 Posted on: 05/05/2004 03:25 PM
Good objective reporting there. |
Comment
|
Sardaukary Unregistered |
#53468 Posted on: 05/05/2004 03:33 PM
What’s it got to do with being an Nvidia fan? I remember 2 driver versions where ATI managed to specifically increase the performance in Halo and UT03. |
Comment
|
FaaR Unregistered |
#53470 Posted on: 05/05/2004 04:07 PM
I believe the news blurb got it backwards, as Farcry runs SLOWER on the 6800 once one renames the exe. Also, the performance hit is proportional to the screen resolution, so at higher reses it is even larger (30% at 1600*1200, according to a thread over at B3D). |
Comment
|
Rosco Member Posts: 24 Joined: 2005-02-09 |
#53471 Posted on: 05/05/2004 04:12 PM
Very Interesting. But, if the drivers were cheating, wouldn't the FPS actually drop once you change the executable name. Normally, cheating drivers raise fps in games in exchange for reducing quality. |
Comment
|
MagamiAKO Unregistered |
#53472 Posted on: 05/05/2004 04:16 PM
If the game developers give it the OKAY, I don't see where the problem is. After all, it is their game. You have to understand that not all hardware will run features "exactly" the same. After all, they do have to patent each and every method of rendering within the hardware that they come up with. They have to come up with "compatible" methods, but compatibility doesn't always necessarily mean it's going to work right. Often times problems that show up ARE driver problems, or are rendering problems related to the video hardware's method of rendering. If the game developers use the highest speed architecture to design their games (i.e. ATI Hardware in the last generation), then more than likely there will be problems that occur on Nvidia cards that they don't see. Often times it is something they cannot fix, and request that the hardware companies make a modification. The modifications cannot be done to the video hardware. No company can completely redesign a chip every time something goes wrong with its rendering process, and this is where drivers come in. If a certain thing is rendered improperly because of this situation, they are forced to add application detection in drivers. Get over it already and gain an understanding of how all of the software and the hardware interacts, along with the ways the hardware and software companies interact to develop software. Application Detection is a REQUIRED feature in some instances, and you won't get around it. This does not matter which hardware company you choose. |
Comment
|
digitalwanderer Junior Member Posts: 4 Joined: 2004-02-22 |
#53473 Posted on: 05/05/2004 04:20 PM
...in this case it's looking like they rushed in a few of the shortcuts because these latest drivers are 'sposed to be REALLY glitchy visually in FC with these. App detection isn't a bad thing, but when it's done badly it is. If they trade quality for performance just to close that 20% gap against the X800 than that doesn't sit really well with me. I wish I had one to test it out with myself though, I hate taking other people's words for visual stuff!  |
Comment
|
Yakumo Junior Member Posts: 2 Joined: 2004-05-27 |
#53479 Posted on: 05/05/2004 06:07 PM
article'sopening is all wrong though, AFAIR the Quack debacle was over ATI cheating not nvidia. |
Comment
|
FailedCRC Unregistered |
#53482 Posted on: 05/05/2004 06:29 PM
pah, judging by that comment you have no knowledge of any of the 3d api's or how to code them. |
Comment
|
MagamiAKO Unregistered |
#53483 Posted on: 05/05/2004 06:49 PM
Despite the business negotiation between the 2 companies that resulted in the presentation at the launch of the NV40 with PS3.0, the developers had to have been happy with the quality of the image with Far Cry. Everyone argues that "If the image differs from what the developers originally intended.....". What if the developers agree that it's fine? Does it matter then? |
Comment
|
lit_phuze Unregistered |
#53484 Posted on: 05/05/2004 07:45 PM
Does anybody even realize that 61.11 has an application profile for FarCry and that these guys don't seem to realize it? If they knew about it, they'd know that YES the drivers are detecting the game and so of course changing the name will change the settings the driver uses. It sounds like they were changing the global driver settings and are too stupid to realize that they needed to be changing the application profile. |
Comment
|
The_truth Unregistered |
#53486 Posted on: 05/05/2004 08:41 PM
Then its fine, but the X800 does it better, so why settle for less? |
Comment
|
FaaR Unregistered |
#53487 Posted on: 05/05/2004 09:04 PM
The "quack" controversy was NOT a cheat. There were three things that interacted to create all that hullabaloo: 1: ATi optimized performance in the driver by detecting quake via the application name. 2: A bug in the performance optimization routines caused textures to be rendered incorrectly. 3: *NVDIA* secretly tipped off HOCP about this, and then the whole "cheating" crap started. ATi had used the application name to detect Q3 ever since the release of the original Radeon card without anyone protesting. It only started when the bug was introduced in a (at the time) new driver release for the also new R200 chip. The bug was later fixed without any performance degradation, the accusation ATi cheated is total bulls--t from beginning to end. |
Comment
|
MagamiAKO Unregistered |
#53488 Posted on: 05/05/2004 09:15 PM
It's a much better match up between Nvidia and ATI this time. It will most definitely come down to which costs less. The price wars for these cards could drop them significantly lower than what they are now. |
Comment
|
MagamiAKO Unregistered |
#53489 Posted on: 05/05/2004 09:18 PM
Not necessarily. You have to remember the accusations by which Nvidia are being attacked today. According to the generally 'accepted' idea of 'cheating' is any application-specific optimization that results in a difference of image quality from the reference image not intended by the developer within the drivers. Of course, my earlier post already stated how such things are acceptable to exist. I'm just saying that by the standards of which everyone judges today, ATI cheated very much. However, IMO, both companies utilize very valid methods of rendering the images. Read my previous posting. |
Comment
|
FaaR Unregistered |
#53494 Posted on: 05/07/2004 03:50 PM
"I'm just saying that by the standards of which everyone judges today, ATI cheated very much." Tell me how a bug is equal to cheating, thank you. Your definition of the word "cheating" seems seriously broken. |
Comment
|
Fatass Unregistered |
#53503 Posted on: 05/07/2004 07:51 PM
Finally someone who thinks before he reacts. |
