• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Nvidia Launches "AMD Has Issues" Marketing Offensive ahead of Hawaii Launch

Yes, they're quick to defend the results which is good. But just looking at the performance results on the whole is a good reflection as-to-why this whole blame game is pointless. Like <censored> do I want to be playing BF3 at under 30FPS. Pure pointlessness.
 
Keep in mind that both nVidia and AMD/ATI have been aware of the whole frame time thing for years and both have their own in house tools for testing and debugging things like that - nVidia has had software level support for frame metering and their own tools long before PCPer ever investigated the subject, with kepler they started developing hardware level support again long before PCPer was on the subject.

When PCPer started to investigate it they came up with their own testing methodology and at some point got in contact with nVidia that lead to greater support from nVidia with some of the PCPer ideas being brought in house to enhance nVidia's testing setup and PCPer getting access to some of the nVidia tools. There is undoubtedly some level of nVidia support behind more recent efforts by PCPer and probably some degree of input on the direction taken from nVidia - to go to the lengths of making out there is some grand propaganda "AMD has issues" campaign launched by nVidia with little more than timing and a few inconsistencies (most of which are actually people not understanding the subject fully) to go on is bordering on conspiracy nutjob territory.
 
Maybe we can put these "regular" framepacing stuffs to bed with the new driver that (Hopefully) starts shipping when the new cards launch and just concentrate on the 4k like on the OP? :P

Yes, there's a problem now. Yes, it will be fixed. (On 2560x1440 and less)

I'd still like to know whether that review up there was screw'd up or not.. No, it's not for nvidia vs amd wars, just pure interest.

Hell I'd buy a 7990 without objections with that framepacing fix.
 
So are people with 7 series cards still experiencing frame pacing issues, or is this now just isolated to 4k? The benchmarks in the Guru article are obviously at 4K so thought it was at least a little bit relevant. Micro stuttering is an issue on both sides of the fence anyway, it's never been rectified.
 
MjFrosty said:
So are people with 7 series cards still experiencing frame pacing issues, or is this now just isolated to 4k? The benchmarks in the Guru article are obviously at 4K so thought it was at least a little bit relevant. Micro stuttering is an issue on both sides of the fence anyway, it's never been rectified.
Click to expand...

No issues up to 1600p. Only Eyefinity/DX9/OpenGL users have the supposed problem at the moment. One thing ive noticed is i don't seem to get micrsostutter on DX9 games, don't know why. Maybe its because they're not very demanding.

Tommy's quote sums it up well. 4k Monitor with a Beta frame pacing driver AMD sent pcper.

tommybhoy said:
The problem being, Ryan has already had access to the prototype driver which helps address the frame metering issue, but I don't see any mention/reference of it in this latest article.

Just one example of dodgy journalism:



Ryan(Delboy) is misdirecting his audience-'If it does require hardware' despite first hand experience that AMD is working on a software fix, he knew that back in April:



'Frame Rating: High End GPUs Benchmarked at 4K Resolutions'

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...marked-4K-Resolutions/Battlefield-3-999-Level

Which yet again begs the question, why release a report that contradicts his earlier report so close to the 25th September as he has clearly lied to his target audience?
Click to expand...

83IitOf.png


That article was printed back in April 30, 2013 using

Graphics Drivers AMD: 13.5 beta
AMD: Frame Pacing Prototype 2 (HD 7990)

So clearly AMD had sent Pcper a prototype driver that fixes 4k. However for some reason rather than use that again, or wait a week for the final version to be released, they did that article using a different driver. At least thats as far as i understand it.

The funny thing is we have a page back PCPER saying we created FCAT in 2012. Before this Nvidia were on pcper (see the video last page) saying they created FCAT years ago, ala 2011. It brings into question a lot of what pcper say as someone is clearly lying.
 
Last edited:
LtMatt said:
The funny thing is we have a page back PCPER saying we created FCAT in 2012. Before this Nvidia were on pcper (see the video last page) saying they created FCAT years ago, ala 2011. It brings into question a lot of what pcper say as someone is clearly lying.
Click to expand...

nVidia developed a testing suite way before 2011 even, "FCAT" is part of that for taking the raw data and analysing it but itself doesn't actually do the (hardware) data capture part despite the name (EDIT: roughly 5 minutes and 40 seconds into the interview with nVidia touches on this). Not sure at what point it became known as FCAT.

PCPer came up with the hardware side of capturing the data from source for themselves and at some point in trying to produce a way to represent that raw data in a meaningful way got into contact with nVidia who opened up some of the tools they were using to them as well as refining their own systems based on what PCPer was doing.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
nVidia developed a testing suite way before 2011 even, "FCAT" is part of that for taking the raw data and analysing it but itself doesn't actually do the (hardware) data capture part despite the name (EDIT: roughly 5 minutes and 40 seconds into the interview with nVidia touches on this). Not sure at what point it became known as FCAT.

PCPer came up with the hardware side of capturing the data from source for themselves and at some point in trying to produce a way to represent that raw data in a meaningful way got into contact with nVidia who opened up some of the tools they were using to them as well as refining their own systems based on what PCPer was doing.
Click to expand...

Well in that thread Ryan is claiming its pcper who created it long before Nvidia.
 
LtMatt said:
Well in that thread Ryan is claiming its pcper who created it long before Nvidia.
Click to expand...

Read that back to yourself. Sounds unlikely doesn't it lol.

So anyway, it may or may not (looks like it probably is in fairness) a poor attempt at slandering a product yet to even launch, time will tell if it was worth bothering or not.
 
Last edited:
LtMatt said:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24975087&postcount=50

Can't be bothered to dig through the whole thread over at oc.net, but i snapped a couple of the contradictory quotes in an earlier post. They conveniently got ignored.
Click to expand...

I think theres a bit of mis-understanding going on there - not sure if they rebranded it FCAT when they decided to build a version for public release but hes talking about that whereas nVidia is talking about the testing suite they've had in development for quite a long time - I first was aware of it on or give or take a day or two the 17th Nov 2010 (wasn't called FCAT then).

nVidia's testing suite didn't originally do what PCPer has done with an external hardware capture card - originally it operated much like fraps but with its own analysis tools additional to the software capture, later it was extended deeper into the pipeline with support within the GPU hardware it was only in collaboration with PCPer that it was updated to include external capture in the way PCPer is doing it. (If you watch the video they talk about the proprietary code they (nVidia) use to capture within the GPU that hasn't been released as part of FCAT).
 
Well, looks like the BSN article is not so full of rubbish after all. Techreport pretty much confirming what some of it says. :rolleyes:

So the problem is fixed (aside from frame pacing which is coming soon) by using DisplayPort. Jesus. More mud slinging crap.

Ryan tells me he was working on this story behind the scenes for a while, talking to both AMD and Nvidia about problems they each had with 4K monitors. You can imagine what happened when these two fierce competitors caught wind of the CrossFire problems.

For its part, Nvidia called together several of us in the press last week, got us set up to use FCAT with 4K monitors, and pointed us toward some specific issues with their competition. One the big issues Nvidia emphasized in this context is how Radeons using dual HDMI outputs to drive a 4K display can exhibit vertical tearing right smack in the middle of the screen, where the two tiles meet, because they're not being refreshed in sync. This problem is easy to spot in operation.

GeForces don't do this. Fortunately, you can avoid this problem on Radeons simply by using a single DisplayPort cable and putting the monitor into DisplayPort MST mode. The display is still treated as two tiles, but the two DP streams use the same timing source, and this vertical tearing effect is eliminated.

I figure if you drop thousands of dollars on a 4K gaming setup, you can spring for the best cable config. So one of Nvidia's main points just doesn't resonate with me.

And you've gotta say, it's quite the aggressive move, working to highlight problems with 4K displays just days ahead of your rival's big launch event for a next-gen GPU. I had to take some time to confirm that the Eyefinity/4K issues were truly different from the known issues with CrossFire on a single monitor before deciding to post anything.
Click to expand...

Full article
http://techreport.com/blog/25399/here-why-the-crossfire-eyefinity-4k-story-matters

So Nvidia calls everyone together apart from pcper...yeah. Not sure i buy that one little bit.

The Nvidia bias mods (no doubt Alatar) over at oc.net had the thread title changed and the thread moved to a dead section of the forum. Yet we have another Tech site pretty much confirming everything the BSN article was saying. :mad: :confused:

Its scary how deep the wormhole goes. :p
 
LtMatt said:
Well, looks like the BSN article is not so full of rubbish after all. Techreport pretty much confirming what some of it says. :rolleyes:

So the problem is fixed (aside from frame pacing which is coming soon) by using DisplayPort. Jesus. More mud slinging crap.



Full article
http://techreport.com/blog/25399/here-why-the-crossfire-eyefinity-4k-story-matters

So Nvidia calls everyone together apart from pcper...yeah. Not sure i buy that one little bit.

The Nvidia bias mods (no doubt Alatar) over at oc.net had the thread title changed and the thread moved to a dead section of the forum. Yet we have another Tech site pretty much confirming everything the BSN article was saying. :mad: :confused:

Its scary how deep the wormhole goes. :p
Click to expand...


It's mud slinging pure and simple and I don't care what spin people want to put on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom