- Joined
- Jun 1, 2002
this pic is with and with out DTS.
DTS is on by defalt with all nVidia tests in 3dmark05.
but the developers only used a nVidia only string in coding it....so ATI cards can't do it, and is off by default.
this not only gives a higher score fore nVidia by upto 16%, but gives lower IQ then ATI results.
it also looks like the same result you get in farcry with the 1.2 patch and harsh shadows(look below at the shadow on the gun...note the jaggie shadow done on a 6800gt, that on ATI cards will be nice and soft(no jaggies)).
pic by Sentential
here are some thoughts on the matter....
Hexus said:Hopefully the difference is clear. The shadow umbra (the shadow's edge) is much softer with DSTs turned off, hinting that the sampling done in the fragment program when testing the depth value in the shadow map produces better results than the PCF sampling in compatible NVIDIA hardware. The image quality is worse with DSTs, the shadow edges are harsher than they should be, and the staircase stepping issue due to depth map resolution is exacerbated by the filtering method. It's not giving the results needed for good umbra rendering, in this reviewer's eyes.
So while DSTs improve performance on compatible hardware, to the tune of anywhere between 10% and 16% in our tests, they most certainly do not give good output in 3DMark05's case, compared to the case where they're turned off. Again, they're ON by default on compatible hardware, increasing the chances of a non apples-to-apples comparison between hardware than can do DST acceleration, and hardware that can't.
Hexus said:Futuremark's use of DST acceleration, in combination with single-cycle PCF filtering that's used for sampling of the DST, a method that has no part in PC-based DirectX and lies far outside Futuremark's previous claims that they'd not use vendor-specific extensions to render their 3D benchmarks on the PC, is the sticking point for me. That it's enabled by default on hardware that supports it is even more disagreeable. Combine that with the fact it reduces image quality (in my eyes) in the quest for performance, and we're back to a point we had during 03's lifetime, but this time it's supported by Futuremark and so it's valid in some respects.
When you also understand that Futuremark declined to put 3Dc support into 3DMark05, something that'd help reduce vertex load on a vertex-fetch-limited benchmark, for the precise reason that it's not a part of DirectX, is galling. Neither is NVIDIA's DST+PCF method of PSM acceleration, so why's that in there?
3Dc is a ratified part of WGF 1.0. It'll at least be in DirectX at some point in the future. The same can't be said of the NVIDIA acceleration of PSMs in 3DMark05.
Beyond3d said:Here's something I wrote Futuremark yesterday :
Reverend wrote:
Finally have some time to think about this in a "serious" manner.
It's too late for any comment of mine to have any effect -- it's gold. So I'll instead stick to talking about how bad I think the BDP program is.
You guys have been gathering feedback on basics from way back. You collate them, discuss internally, ask for some more feedback and you go ahead and decide how to make 3DMark05, for eaxmple, "Smoothie" was tossed around early on but no feedback was forthcoming from FM about what kind of shadows has been decided upon by FM. Essentially, as far as B3D is concerned, me and Dave had absolutely no idea what had been decided upon by FM. A better way, but perhaps much more time-consuming and will probably delay 3DMark, is for FM to tell BDP members "OK, after getting the feedback from you guys, we think this is what we're doing with the game tests... blah, blah explaining to us what you want to do... and then WHAT DO YOU BDP MEMBERS THINK OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH EACH GAME TEST?" Sure, you asked the BDPs for opinions on certain "default settings" but you never asked the BDPs (well, you didn't ask B3D, not sure if you asked other BDP members) about this DST thing.
It's just not satifactory. I realize there must come a time when FM has to make a decision (otherwise, you'll never get 3DMark05 done if you keep asking for feedbacks and opinions) but I feel more can be done to involve the BDP members without delaying a project. Progressively providing information to BDP members about certain crucial areas is what I'm saying.
I just learned the intricacies about DST yesterday. I never played with it on a NVDIA hw. My knowledge is based on what DX tells me and that was simply the ability to query, set texture format and away we go. I had no idea how NVIDIA hw implements this. In a big way, I blame MS for this obscurity (and there are other obscurities and non-defined stuff in DX).
But on to the main topic -- 3DMark is not a game. It is a benchmark meant to show how different hardwares perform on standard, hw-platform-wide API features that the benchmark author can control.
While FM can implement features that FM thinks will be "standard practice" in games, FM needs to ensure that everything they implement in every 3DMark favours no IHV or specific hw without having obscurities in the API influencing their decisions.
Taking another parallel -- depth bounds checking is good, no arguments. Should it be implemented as a DEFAULT, and therefore penalizing hw that do not have support for this?
I think FM has made the wrong decision wrt to this particular DEFAULT setting (DST). Sure, we can disable DST (and this is in fact what you recommend for better hw comparisons) but the basics are wrong. The ORB itself will be tainted, IMO.
I re-iterate : 3DMark is not a game. If FM wants to make a game, make a game. If FM wants to make a benchmark, the considerations are a whole lot different than those associated with making games. (end of note)
The point is that if this feature is basically a IHV-specific extension (I believe there's a NVIDIA-specific extension in OpenGL), then it should NOT be enabled by default. Dave and I have no argument with it actually being used; we just have issues with basically the "core values" (Dave's words) of Futuremark and what they constitute, simply by virtue of Futuremark deeming that games would enable this too by default -- 3DMark CANNOT use IHV-specific extensions/features/whatnots. It Is Not A Game.
let me also say that we are not being duped by nVidia this time around, we are being duped by futuremark "again".
mica
Last edited: