BATMANGATE - Nvidia bows to public pressure over AA

Rroff · 12 Nov 2009 at 23:07

It has somewhat run its course :S

Granted there is a huge amount we can only speculate at... unless someone comes up with the "goods" - but there is enough solid info out there to work through the immediate hysteria and come to more sensible conclusions.

PGdude · 12 Nov 2009 at 23:51

You say that two days after I do? :rolleyes:

PGdude said:
Give it a rest guys. We don't know the details, no point in debating in the mist. If there was conclusive evidence, there wouldn't be an argument to be had.

kylew · 13 Nov 2009 at 00:06

Rroff said:
Either contribute to the discussion at hand or shut it.

There's no need for that.

Rroff · 13 Nov 2009 at 00:07

Theres no need for massive rants about me personally either...

kylew · 13 Nov 2009 at 00:29

Rroff said:
Theres no need for massive rants about me personally either...

But you basically did what you were telling him not to do.

Rroff · 13 Nov 2009 at 01:01

In what way did I?

Adrianr · 13 Nov 2009 at 01:15

Who cares who screwed who? We should be addressing the real issue here.. Using the 'gate' suffix to describe every scandal!!! Give it a bloody rest!

uv · 13 Nov 2009 at 07:57

Rroff said:
The fact of the matter is that the game engine doesn't actually support a standard implementation and for whatever reason a generic or vendor specific implementation for GPUs other than nVidia is missing from the game... there is nothing beyond speculation, misunderstanding and conjecture as to the exact reason why..

I can't understand how people are failing to see this.

Should Eidos have implemented a generic AA path? Yes, of course. Do we know why they didn't? No, we don't. Is the current implementation vendor specific? Yes, but now nVidia are allowing their implementation to be used by other vendors.

I don't see why people are giving Roff so much flack.. the bad guys in all this weren't Roff, or nVidia.. it was Eidos. Nothing but lazy developing caused them to not include a generic AA path.

queamin · 13 Nov 2009 at 08:02

Eidos were to blame for almost all of it, nvidia need to take small part of the blame and amd didn't reallly help either,i just hope in the future other company's look at this and think we willnot do the same because of the bad press.

markiejt · 13 Nov 2009 at 08:55

queamin said:
Eidos were to blame for almost all of it, nvidia need to take small part of the blame and amd didn't reallly help either,i just hope in the future other company's look at this and think we willnot do the same because of the bad press.

I agree with this. Nvidia should take some and ATI.... Neither helped

Rezident · 13 Nov 2009 at 13:15

Wonders will never cease. Maybe Nvidia does actually care about PC Gaming instead of just itself. That would be nice, and good for all of us.

Cyber-Mav · 13 Nov 2009 at 17:15

i dont see whats so special about this case, its nvidias own code that ENABLES AA to work in batman, it DOESNT DISABLE it for ATi cards.

unlike how ati have played it with valve and destroyed nvidias performance in half life 2. it was shown countless times then the nvidia cards were forced to run the ati shader path they gained a considerable boost in speed.
now thats direct sabotage.

and then take into account the first call of juarez game. the AA is messed up for nvidia cards due to the implementation that ati mande the developers of that game use.
nvidia cards suffered a dithering effect when anti-aliasing is enabled in that game. go read up about it in the call of juarez forums.

ATi are the worst at this yet people tend to ignore this.

so far i agree with all the points made by Roff in this thread. ati fanboys are just targeting him due to thier lack of knowledge.

kylew · 13 Nov 2009 at 17:47

Cyber-Mav said:
i dont see whats so special about this case, its nvidias own code that ENABLES AA to work in batman, it DOESNT DISABLE it for ATi cards.

unlike how ati have played it with valve and destroyed nvidias performance in half life 2. it was shown countless times then the nvidia cards were forced to run the ati shader path they gained a considerable boost in speed.
now thats direct sabotage.

and then take into account the first call of juarez game. the AA is messed up for nvidia cards due to the implementation that ati mande the developers of that game use.
nvidia cards suffered a dithering effect when anti-aliasing is enabled in that game. go read up about it in the call of juarez forums.

ATi are the worst at this yet people tend to ignore this.

so far i agree with all the points made by Roff in this thread. ati fanboys are just targeting him due to thier lack of knowledge.

No, the issue with half life 2 was that nVidia's cards used a rendering method that didn't meet the DX9 spec correctly, so they had to default to the DX8 path to avoid the performance hit.

Take note that those cards were the GeFarce FX ones, they were quite poor all round.

As for CoJ AA, it's shader based AA, the type of AA that was supposed to be used in DX10 in the first place.

Rroff · 13 Nov 2009 at 17:49

kylew said:
As for CoJ AA, it's shader based AA, the type of AA that was supposed to be used in DX10 in the first place.

Except it generally looks really really naff.

kylew · 13 Nov 2009 at 17:51

Rroff said:
Except it generally looks really really naff.

You've quoted uv but my post is in his place? :confused:

As for shader based AA looking poor, it looked fine to me when I played through CoJ.

Rroff · 13 Nov 2009 at 17:52

Must be a forum bug - I literally clicked quote and deleted a line of text.

Rroff · 13 Nov 2009 at 17:55

kylew said:
You've quoted uv but my post is in his place?

As for shader based AA looking poor, it looked fine to me when I played through CoJ.

Haven't looked at it in CoJ but typically with shader based "AA" you either get too much softening in the overall image, or great quality but massive performance hit and not much inbetween.

kylew · 13 Nov 2009 at 18:18

Rroff said:
Haven't looked at it in CoJ but typically with shader based "AA" you either get too much softening in the overall image, or great quality but massive performance hit and not much inbetween.

Ah, no that's not what I'm talking about.

I completely get what mean though.

Those wide/narrow tent AA settings that ATi introduced with the 2900s were utterly atrocious.

The only decent one was the edge detect, and that was broken for quite a while.

mmj_uk · 13 Nov 2009 at 18:31

kylew said:
No, the issue with half life 2 was that nVidia's cards used a rendering method that didn't meet the DX9 spec correctly, so they had to default to the DX8 path to avoid the performance hit.

Take note that those cards were the GeFarce FX ones, they were quite poor all round.

I agree the GeForce FX cards were poor but actually they met the DX9 specification better than ATI did, the performance hit was from being forced to run in full FP32 precision, whereas 9x00/X800 only ever supported FP24.

ATI didn't implement full FP32 precision until a generation or two later.

Rroff · 13 Nov 2009 at 18:42

That and the fact that the shader ops and pixel fillrate was almost half on the FX cards compared to the "comparable" ATI card of the time... so a bit of a double whammy for DX9 performance comparisions... which meant nVidia did some really horrid "opptimizations" to get performance up resulting in crap looking shaders.