POPPUR爱换

标题: NVIDIA 根据媒体报道指责 AMD 优化（作弊？）策略(FP16 替换、AF 优化针对性开启) [打印本页]

作者: Edison 时间: 2010-11-20 09:41
标题: NVIDIA 根据媒体报道指责 AMD 优化（作弊？）策略(FP16 替换、AF 优化针对性开启)
                                    PC gaming enthusiasts understand image quality (IQ) is a critical part of the PC gaming experience. They frequently upgrade their GPUs to play the latest games at high frame rates, while also dialing up the display resolution and graphical IQ effects to make their games both look and play great. Image quality is important, and if it were not important, we’d all be playing at 10x7 with no AA!

Important Benchmarking Issues and Questionable Optimizations
We are writing this blog post to bring broader attention to some very important image quality findings uncovered recently by top technology Web sites including ComputerBase, PC Games Hardware, Tweak PC, and 3DCenter.org. They all found that changes introduced in AMD’s Catalyst 10.10 default driver settings caused an increase in performance and a decrease in image quality. These changes in AMD’s default settings do not permit a fair apples-to-apples comparison to NVIDIA default driver settings. NVIDIA GPUs provide higher image quality at default driver settings, which means comparative AMD vs. NVIDIA testing methods need to be adjusted to compensate for the image quality differences.

What Editors Discovered
Getting directly to the point, major German Tech Websites ComputerBase and PC Games Hardware (PCGH) both report that they must use the “High” Catalyst AI texture filtering setting for AMD 6000 series GPUs instead of the default “Quality” setting in order to provide image quality that comes close to NVIDIA’s default texture filtering setting. 3DCenter.org has a similar story, as does TweakPC. The behavior was verified in many game scenarios. AMD obtains up to a 10% performance advantage by lowering their default texture filtering quality according to ComputerBase.

AMD’s optimizations weren’t limited to the Radeon 6800 series. According to the review sites, AMD also lowered the default AF quality of the HD 5800 series when using the Catalyst 10.10 drivers, such that users must disable Catalyst AI altogether to get default image quality closer to NVIDIA’s “default” driver settings.

Going forward, ComputerBase and PCGH both said they would test AMD 6800 series boards with Cat AI set to ”High”, not the default “Quality” mode, and they would disable Cat AI entirely for 5800 series boards (based on their findings, other 5000 series boards do not appear to be affected by the driver change).


Filter Tester Observations
Readers can observe AMD GPU texture shimmering very visibly in videos posted at TweakPC. The popular Filter Tester application from 3DCenter.org was used with its “ground2” texture (located in the Program Files/3DCenter Filter Tester/Textures directory), and texture movement parameters were set to -0.7 in both X and Y directions with 16xAF enabled. Each video shows the split-screen rendering mode of the Filter Tester application, where the GPU under test is on the left side, and the “perfect” software-based ALU rendering is on the right side. (Playing the videos with Firefox or Google Chrome is recommended).

NVIDIA GPU anisotropic quality was also tested and more closely resembles the perfect ALU software-based filtering. Problems with AMD AF filtering are best seen when the textures are in motion, not in static AF tests, thus the “texture movement” settings need to be turned on in the Filter Tester. In our own testing with Filter Tester using similar parameters, we have seen that the newly released Catalyst 10.11 driver also has the same texture shimmering problems on the HD 5870. Cat 10.11 does not work with HD 6000 series boards as of this writing.

AF Tester Observations
ComputerBase also says that AMD drivers appear to treat games differently than the popular “AF Tester” (anisotropic filtering) benchmark tool from 3DCenter.org. They indicate that lower quality anisotropic filtering is used in actual games, but higher quality anisotropic filtering is displayed when the AF Tester tool is detected and run. Essentially, the anisotropic filtering quality highlighted by the AF Tester tool on AMD GPUs is not indicative of the lower quality of anisotropic filtering seen in real games on AMD GPUs.

NVIDIA’s own driver team has verified specific behaviors in AMD’s drivers that tend to affect certain anisotropic testing tools. Specifically, AMD drivers appear to disable texture filtering optimizations when smaller window sizes are detected, like the AF Tester tool uses, and they enable their optimizations for larger window sizes. The definition of “larger” and “smaller” varies depending on the API and hardware used. For example with DX10 and 68xx boards, it seems they disable optimizations with window sizes smaller than 500 pixels on a side. For DX9 apps like the AF Tester, the limit is higher, on the order of 1000 pixels per side. Our driver team also noticed that the optimizations are more aggressive on RV840/940 than RV870, with optimizations performed across a larger range of LODs for the RV840/940.

FP16 Render Observations
In addition to the above recent findings, for months AMD had been performing a background optimization for certain DX9 applications where FP16 render targets are demoted to R11G11B10 render targets, which are half the size and less accurate. When recently exposed publically, AMD finally provided a user visible control panel setting to enable/disable, but the demotion is enabled by default.  Reviewers and users testing DX9 applications such as Need for Speed Shift or Dawn of War 2, should uncheck the “Enable Surface Format Optimization” checkbox in the Catalyst AI settings area of the AMD control panel to turn off FP16 demotion when conducting comparative performance testing.

A Long and Winding Road
For those with long memories, NVIDIA learned some hard lessons with some GeForce FX and 3DMark03 optimization gone bad, and vowed to never again perform any optimizations that could compromise image quality.  During that time, the industry agreed that any optimization that improved performance, but did not alter IQ, was in fact a valid “optimization”, and any optimization that improved performance but lowered IQ, without letting the user know, was a “cheat”.  Special-casing of testing tools should also be considered a “cheat”.

Both NVIDIA and AMD provide various control panel knobs to tune and tweak image quality parameters, but there are some important differences -- NVIDIA strives to deliver excellent IQ at default control panel settings, while also ensuring the user experiences the image quality intended by the game developer. NVIDIA will not hide optimizations that trade off image quality to obtain faster frame rates. Similarly, with each new driver release, NVIDIA will not reduce the quality of default IQ settings, unlike what appears to be happening with our competitor, per the stories recently published.

We are glad that multiple top tech sites have published their comparative IQ findings. If NVIDIA published such information on our own, without third-party validation, much of the review and technical community might just ignore it. A key goal in this blog is not to point out cheats or “false optimizations” in our competitor’s drivers. Rather it is to get everyone to take a closer look at AMD’s image quality in games, and fairly test our products versus AMD products. We also want people to beware of using certain anisotropic testing tools with AMD boards, as you will not get image quality results that correspond with game behavior.
AMD promotes “no compromise” enthusiast graphics, but it seems multiple reviewers beg to differ.

We have had internal discussions as to whether we should forego our position to not reduce image quality behind your back as AMD is doing.  We believe our customers would rather we focus our resources to maximize performance and provide an awesome, immersive gaming experience without compromising image quality, than engage in a race to the IQ gutter with AMD.

We’re interested to know what you think here in the comments or on the NVIDIA forums.

http://blogs.nvidia.com/ntersect/2010/11/testing-nvidia-vs-amd-image-quality.html

等候 AMD 回应。

作者: hadeszhang 时间: 2010-11-20 09:45
现在什么东西都有假的，假药，假酒，假驱动，什么时候我们才能放心的用点真的？

作者: melface 时间: 2010-11-20 10:12
提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: 专业挖坟 时间: 2010-11-20 10:51
NV的画质好吗？

作者: sleepyboy 时间: 2010-11-20 11:42
我只是觉得奇怪，为什么是NV“根据媒体报道”的情况来指责，凭NV自身的水平还用的着等媒体评测完才说话？

作者: love571437 时间: 2010-11-20 12:14
兴风作浪的人很多，目的也很多，商场上无所不用的！就如同政治和金钱是世界黑暗的根源一样

作者: hd4770 时间: 2010-11-20 13:52

sleepyboy 发表于 2010-11-20 11:42
我只是觉得奇怪，为什么是NV“根据媒体报道”的情况来指责，凭NV自身的水平还用的着等媒体评测完才说话？

你以为一般媒体玩家能看出AMD咋做弊？
告诉你N有一Lab专门分析AMD的画质。一有细微的异样，马上用自己的跑一下，分析出工作量在哪，对比AMD的正常能力，马上就能看出AMD做了什么手脚。通知媒体，依着这样的线索，媒体才能验正AMD是否真的做弊。

作者: trevorlee 时间: 2010-11-20 13:56
等翻译.exe

作者: dengyixiong 时间: 2010-11-20 14:12

hd4770 发表于 2010-11-20 13:52
你以为一般媒体玩家能看出AMD咋做弊？
告诉你N有一Lab专门分析AMD的画质。一有细微的异样，马上用自己的 ...

The Way游戏笑而不语

作者: hd4770 时间: 2010-11-20 14:24

dengyixiong 发表于 2010-11-20 14:12
The Way游戏笑而不语

我发现AMD饭最能顾左右而言它（一没理了就来这着）

。画质是有标准的。MS refshader就是标准。The Way 能脱离画质标准?

作者: pikaqiuuuu 时间: 2010-11-20 15:20
提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: spring62 时间: 2010-11-20 15:25
某些人也只能打打**了
NV画质烂，那么多专业卡卖给SB的？
MacBook用NV的集显的时候，Jobs傻了？
至于the way……AMD不舍得花钱和游戏商合作提高表现，也只能用些作弊手段了，幸好还有一群人忠心为A社辩护，不舍得花钱提升用户体验变成了两袖清风

作者: 冰鸟 时间: 2010-11-20 15:56
这话居然是NV说出来的，那啥。。。。。。

这话题好搞笑，搬个凳子准备看戏

作者: dengyixiong 时间: 2010-11-20 16:02

spring62 发表于 2010-11-20 15:25
某些人也只能打打**了
NV画质烂，那么多专业卡卖给SB的？
MacBook用NV的集显的时候，Jobs傻了？

你用专业卡看视频玩游戏？macbook现在基本是A卡了，The Way A卡跑的比N卡慢吗？

作者: 冰鸟 时间: 2010-11-20 16:22

spring62 发表于 2010-11-20 15:25
某些人也只能打打**了
NV画质烂，那么多专业卡卖给SB的？
MacBook用NV的集显的时候，Jobs傻了？

N卡的专业卡卖的好，不是因为它的画质好，主要是因为那几个软件的兼容性，稳定性以及速度快，A卡的专业卡在这几个方面确实有待提高
我是专门做非编视频设备的，NV的专业卡卖的多，我觉得我的话还是有可信性，

现在国内基本就是上海，北京，广东这些地方用的最多，相对其他地方这3个地方市场也比较成熟了，出货对象大多都是广告公司和电视台（专业卡主要也是这些行当用的多），做了好几年的情况基本都是，除了对方指明要非编卡或者专业卡，一般情况我们都是配普通中低档次的A卡，便宜，而且色彩靓丽

作者: gjbsas 时间: 2010-11-20 16:41
世道真是反过来了

作者: blackgwt 时间: 2010-11-20 16:44
nv怎么现在才出来指责，这个在6870发布的那会，10.10d hotfix的时候不是闹得满城风雨么

作者: dengyixiong 时间: 2010-11-20 17:05

blackgwt 发表于 2010-11-20 16:44
nv怎么现在才出来指责，这个在6870发布的那会，10.10d hotfix的时候不是闹得满城风雨么

是啊，当年HD2000，HD3000，HD4000时代怎么NV不出来指责，是不是看到A卡变强了心虚了？

作者: CC9K 时间: 2010-11-20 17:24
奇怪画质作弊这种事情不是NV先带头的么？记得当年AMD也以同样的方式指责过NV，N饭还反驳说，画质差不多，速度更快，何乐而不为？

作者: 红发IXFXI 时间: 2010-11-20 17:26
这个嘛都彼此彼此了～～～～～～～～做商业的没一个好东西

作者: Orient_Ea 时间: 2010-11-20 17:47
画质差不多，速度更快，何乐而不为？恩恩，这话咋这么熟悉？

作者: goldman948 时间: 2010-11-20 17:56
这种权衡画面效能的做法我其实也不反感,只是以前
这种降画质增加效能的方法,以前a饭们称之"傻快"
a饭们可都是抱着高洁的标准表示不屑喔

作者: a110024 时间: 2010-11-20 18:06
翻译啊。。。。。。。。。。。。。。

作者: kaoon 时间: 2010-11-20 20:27
很好啊~~这样N卡有理由可以卖贵点了！

多爽啊.....

作者: Heitai 时间: 2010-11-20 22:12
提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

欢迎光临 POPPUR爱换 (https://we.poppur.com/)