Thursday, October 30th 2008

Catalyst Hotfix 71310 Restores Visual Elements at Expense of Performance

AMD had released an updated hotfix to its ATI Catalyst 8.10 drivers the other day, with hotfix 71310. It succeeded hotfix 70517 for the said version of Catalyst. Hotfixes specific to certain games, are intended to selectively improve hardware performance and/or visual quality. When AMD released the older hotfix for version 8.10 of Catalyst, it aimed to improve performance in general. It was later found by keen observers, that the hotfix manipulated with visual elements of the game in an attempt to gain performance. A popular example of this, was noted in the "lost rocks" issue in Far Cry 2, where the hotfix 70517 caused the texture and/or geometric loss of certain rocks along a track from a scene, presumably reducing load on the graphics processor(s).

With hotfix 71310 issued yesterday, AMD seems to have fixed the issue. Expreview put the hotfix to test, where it was found that the "lost rocks" issue was fixed. The larger issue was of the driver interfering with visual elements the game has to offer. The fix however, came at the expense of performance. Expreview used a test-bed consisting of Core 2 Extreme QX9650 CPU, ATI Radeon HD 4870 graphics, 2x 1 GB of DDR3 1066 MHz memory, all seated on an ASUS Striker II Extreme motherboard, running Windows Vista 32-bit operating system. The testers used Driver Sweeper to make sure a new variant of the driver installed on a purged environment. Testing Far Cry 2 revealed that the issue was addressed, but at a performance loss. The frame-rate dropped from 48.12 fps to 43.20, which is roughly a 10% loss in frame-rate.

Source: Expreview
Add your own comment

90 Comments on Catalyst Hotfix 71310 Restores Visual Elements at Expense of Performance

#1
newconroer
Aye,

I was going to say the other day, that one could easily say this is the same as Nvidia degrading image quality to achieve greater performance.

Fortunatley for me, these drivers actually helped my performance, but either way, I don't think we should be complaining about ATi here. We should be complaining to Ubisoft for releasing a game with such a weak LOD scaling system, and a program that has far too few sprites and objects altogether.
Posted on Reply
#2
EastCoasthandle
El Fiendo said:
Darkmatter, don't worry yourself too much. He did the same thing over 'Mojave' a little bit back.

Look East, benchmarks are set up like a movie. They are made to make a standard that should apply across all cards and runthroughs. Screenshots taken in the same place should have the same FPS within 1 or 2 frames because the same elements are being rendered every time. It's set to be exact same camera movements. With yours you proved that at different locations, FPS varies. They are showing FPS varied at the same location. This shows that there is a difference in the way that location was rendered. They have provided screenshots that attempt to explain the variances, specifically in this case these rocks. In doing so they show missing textures of said rocks. Your screenshots don't refute the evidence because its a completely different location in your examples.

Whether or not it was a mistake or underhanded tactics, I don't know. However I do know your arguement is slightly flawed.
Nah there is nothing wrong with my opinion on the situation "new poster" :laugh:. It's obvious you didn't read my explanation as to why I posted those pics. Read a few posts back and it becomes clear to you that your assumption and my reason don't match. But thanks for the feedback none the less ;)
Posted on Reply
#3
DarkMatter
El Fiendo said:
Darkmatter, don't worry yourself too much. He did the same thing over 'Mojave' a little bit back.

Look East, benchmarks are set up like a movie. They are made to make a standard that should apply across all cards and runthroughs. Screenshots taken in the same place should have the same FPS within 1 or 2 frames because the same elements are being rendered every time. It's set to be exact same camera movements. With yours you proved that at different locations, FPS varies. They are showing FPS varied at the same location. This shows that there is a difference in the way that location was rendered. They have provided screenshots that attempt to explain the variances, specifically in this case these rocks. In doing so they show missing textures of said rocks. Your screenshots don't refute the evidence because its a completely different location in your examples.

Whether or not it was a mistake or underhanded tactics, I don't know. However I do know your arguement is slightly flawed.
Yeah, I know I have to care less about him. Indeed with this thread and some others in the past I have enough evidence he doesn't read what it is said in the links. I even have my doubts he even follows the links or that he even reads other's post for the matter.

He just lives in that little place inside his mind, where he is happy, unconnected from the harmful reality that is the outside. Sad...
Posted on Reply
#4
El Fiendo
EastCoasthandle said:
Nah there is nothing wrong with my opinion on the situation "new poster" :laugh:. It's obvious you didn't read my explanation as to why I posted those pics. Read a few posts back and it becomes clear to you that your assumption and my reason don't match. But thanks for the feedback none the less ;)
Didn't realize it was a crime to be new. Also, it has 0 effect on my reading comprehension. I've read the thread thoroughly and have come to realize you aren't. Here's the kicker, all you proved in your screenshots is that you mimiced the problem with the drivers. In your screenshots, you changed what was being rendered by moving the camera thus changing the rendered data. In the review's screenshots, the driver changed what was rendered at the same location, thereby doing the same thing. In effect you've been arguing this point against yourself.
If you can change the fps in a give screen rendered it will change the outcome of frame rates obtained
In your case you were the change, in the reviews case, it was the drivers. The fact that people see this as underhanded is their opinion. The fact you see it as a mistake is your opinion. I've made no assumptions, I'm providing exactly whats been pointed out already to this point.
Posted on Reply
#5
EastCoasthandle
DarkMatter said:
Yeah, I know I have to care less about him. Indeed with this thread and some others in the past I have enough evidence he doesn't read what it is said in the links. I even have my doubts he even follows the links or that he even reads other's post for the matter.

He just lives in that little place inside his mind, where he is happy, unconnected from the harmful reality that is the outside. Sad...
And I see that when we disagree you can only result to throwing insults as a base for your claims. Furthermore, it's you who (out of the blue) responses to my posts in such fashion. In the end, that's what's sad ;). Odd how with some people can agree to disagree with a subject while you on the other hand make these odd posts that are off topic to the thread. I guess it's your way of feeling good about issue at hand.
Posted on Reply
#6
EastCoasthandle
El Fiendo said:
Didn't realize it was a crime to be new. Also, it has 0 effect on my reading comprehension. I've read the thread thoroughly and have come to realize you aren't. Here's the kicker, all you proved in your screenshots is that you mimiced the problem with the drivers. In your screenshots, you changed what was being rendered by moving the camera thus changing the rendered data. In the review's screenshots, the driver changed what was rendered at the same location, thereby doing the same thing. In effect you've been arguing this point against yourself.

In your case you were the change, in the reviews case, it was the drivers. The fact that people see this as underhanded is their opinion. The fact you see it as a mistake is your opinion. I've made no assumptions, I'm providing exactly whats been pointed out already to this point.
Actually you do have a problem with comprehending my posts. I've already explained the reason for the pics. All you have to do is read it not make up your own explanation. But thanks anyway :)
Posted on Reply
#7
El Fiendo
EastCoasthandle said:
Actually you do have a problem with comprehending my posts. I've already explained the reason for the pics. All you have to do is read it not make up your own explanation. But thanks anyway :)
I understand your reasoning behind your posts. You're trying to point out that we don't know anything about the screenshots other than what they say. You tried showing everyone this using your screenshots.

We know the reviews screenshots are from the benchmark. We can clearly see the missing textures. And judging how the match up when you overlay them, aside from missing textures, its safe to assume they are in the same spot. Your screenshots however are clearly none of the above. Yours has too many variables tossed in which isn't the point the review was making. Of course frames fluctuate in game. They shouldn't in benchmarks at the same point along the way. If you can't trust Expreview, thats your issue. However, I can't imagine why they'd specifcally try to mudsling ATI, they're showing what they've found.

I've been saying this all along, however you've been refusing to realize it.
Posted on Reply
#8
EastCoasthandle
El Fiendo said:
I understand your reasoning behind your posts. You're trying to point out that we don't know anything about the screenshots other than what they say. You tried showing everyone this using your screenshots.

We know the reviews screenshots are from the benchmark. We can clearly see the missing textures. And judging how the match up when you overlay them, aside from missing textures, its safe to assume they are in the same spot. Your screenshots however are clearly none of the above. Yours has too many variables tossed in which isn't the point the review was making. Of course frames fluctuate in game. They shouldn't in benchmarks at the same point along the way. If you can't trust Expreview, thats your issue. However, I can't imagine why they'd specifcally try to mudsling ATI, they're showing what they've found.

I've been saying this all along, however you've been refusing to realize it.
There is a contradiction found within your own post. It's become obvious at this point that your posts are more geared toward arguing more so then stating an opinion. You insist on adding way more then what I said or implied to say.
Posted on Reply
#9
DarkMatter
EastCoasthandle said:
And I see that when we disagree you can only result to throwing insults as a base for your claims. Furthermore, it's you who (out of the blue) responses to my posts in such fashion. In the end, that's what's sad ;). Odd how with some people can agree to disagree with a subject while you on the other hand make these odd posts that are off topic to the thread. I guess it's your way of feeling good about issue at hand.
Buffff!

It's not a matter of agreeing or not. The drivers change the performance obtained out of the benchmark. Not screenshots. They state it very clearly in the links provided by Btrunr.
We used the same PC as we used in our first test - nothing has changed except for the new hotfix driver replacing the old one. We continue to test using FarCry2’s built-in short Ranch demo run at overall ultra settings, varying the AA settings in-game and forcing 16xAF in the control panel. We can see the performance of the new hotfix drivers sits slightly ahead of the regular Cat 8-10 but behind the first hotfix drivers. Here are our results:
To refute those, you took 2 screenshots at different angles and said you reproduced what they did. And no, you didn't. Period.
Posted on Reply
#10
newconroer
Fu** me this is more exciting than the game.
Posted on Reply
#11
EastCoasthandle
DarkMatter said:
Buffff!

It's not a matter of agreeing or not. The drivers change the performance obtained out of the benchmark. Not screenshots. They state it very clearly in the links provided by Btrunr.



To refute those, you took 2 screenshots at different angles and said you reproduced what they did. And no, you didn't. Period.
And what I've already told you in previous posts still stands. Even with the second review posted the averages are no were as high as found in the OP. You can get mad, upset or whatever. I have no reason to agree with you. That's something you have to deal with. And as for the screenshot I've already explained that to you numerous times. LOL
Posted on Reply
#12
DarkMatter
EastCoasthandle said:
And what I've already told you in previous posts still stands. Even with the second review posted the averages are no were as high as found in the OP. You can get mad, upset or whatever. I have no reason to agree with you. That's something you have to deal with.
Different testbeds, different results. That's what any normal person knows. What you think is that contrary to what they say, the fps figures they offer are on those punctual frames instead of average of the benchmark and want to make a point out of that. That's lame.
Posted on Reply
#13
EastCoasthandle
DarkMatter said:
Different testbeds, different results. That's what any normal person knows. What you think is that contrary to what they say, the fps figures they offer are on those punctual frames instead of average of the benchmark and want to make a point out of that. That's lame.
And your the one arguing about it. Irony...
Posted on Reply
#14
ShogoXT
Anyone have any windows crossfire BSOD troubles?
Posted on Reply
#15
El Fiendo
EastCoasthandle said:
There is a contradiction found within your own post. It's become obvious at this point that your posts are more geared toward arguing more so then stating an opinion. You insist on adding way more then what I said or implied to say.
I'm sorry East, but there isn't a contradiction there nor am I adding.

"You're trying to point out that we don't know anything about the screenshots other than what they say. You tried showing everyone this using your screenshots." is taken directly from post #22.

"Your screenshots however are clearly none of the above." Now this one hinges on the fact you've been arguing we don't know what they're settings for each screenshot is. Its why I mentioned the trust issue with Expreview which is my opinion whether its right or wrong. But you show an obviously different location and attempt to use that as your basis for the arguement. The screenshots in the first post are of the same spot. Its comparing Apples to Jupiter. I personally trust Expreview to be at least professional and consistent if they're going to start a story like this.

In the end I regret posting attempting to clear this up as it was obviously bothering some of the other members. In the end it would only seem, judging by your short and unhelpful posts, I've only gone so far as to feed the troll.
Posted on Reply
#16
Wile E
Power User
EastCoasthandle said:
And what I've already told you in previous posts still stands. Even with the second review posted the averages are no were as high as found in the OP. You can get mad, upset or whatever. I have no reason to agree with you. That's something you have to deal with. And as for the screenshot I've already explained that to you numerous times. LOL
You are missing the point East. I'm sorry man, your opinion of this is slightly off. The important thing is not the screen shots. They do not matter at all. They are just there as an example of what was reported as missing in the game. They are not used as fps evidence at all. The FPS they quoted are what the in-game benchmark gave to them. The in-game benchmark dropped by 5fps avg with the new hotfix. They cannot manipulate the in-game benchmark, unless they purposely use different graphical settings for each bench. They cannot alter the in-game benchmark to change the camera angles.
Posted on Reply
#17
DarkMatter
EastCoasthandle said:
And your the one arguing about it. Irony...
Explain that. I want to have a good laugh.

Honestly, I am arguing about what? What's your point? YOU are stating 2 respectable review sites are lying, based on something you fabricated. And of course I argue with that.

Here I finally found it:

http://en.expreview.com/2008/10/29/catalyst-810-hotfix-kidnapped-stones-in-far-cry-2.html

This is the article to which the other one is the follow up. In the other one in chinese things are not clear. But in this...

- They clearly state it's average frames.

- The screenshot is at the same angle, just in case you want to follow the same route once again.

Sorry kid, but you are just wrong, you have been since you started this mess. Period.
Posted on Reply
#18
Unregistered
newconroer said:
Fu** me this is more exciting than the game.
thats true !!

:..sits back with popcorn and pop and conitnously refreshes browser..:


Btw what are we arguing over ?
Posted on Edit | Reply
#19
DarkMatter
Wile E said:
You are missing the point East. I'm sorry man, your opinion of this is slightly off. The important thing is not the screen shots. They do not matter at all. They are just there as an example of what was reported as missing in the game. They are not used as fps evidence at all. The FPS they quoted are what the in-game benchmark gave to them. The in-game benchmark dropped by 5fps avg with the new hotfix. They cannot manipulate the in-game benchmark, unless they purposely use different graphical settings for each bench. They cannot alter the in-game benchmark to change the camera angles.
If you convince him (actually is not a matter of convincing, it's understanding facts) with that after all the posts we made saying the exact same thing, I will not know what to think. Seriously. :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#20
El Fiendo
DarkMatter said:
If you convince him (actually is not a matter of convincing, it's understanding facts) with that after all the posts we made saying the exact same thing, I will not know what to think. Seriously. :ohwell:
If he convinces him, I'll herald him as a god. And also be very clingy towards him.
Posted on Reply
#21
newconroer
El Fiendo said:
If he convinces him, I'll herald him as a god. And also be very clingy towards him.
There'd be only one thing left to do then...

Dim the lights, put some "Take My Breath Away" by Berlin on in the background, and make sweet love like Osama and Leeroy Brown.
Posted on Reply
#22
EastCoasthandle
DarkMatter said:
Explain that. I want to have a good laugh.

Honestly, I am arguing about what? What's your point? YOU are stating 2 respectable review sites are lying, based on something you fabricated. And of course I argue with that.

Here I finally found it:

http://en.expreview.com/2008/10/29/catalyst-810-hotfix-kidnapped-stones-in-far-cry-2.html

This is the article to which the other one is the follow up. In the other one in chinese things are not clear. But in this...

- They clearly state it's average frames.

- The screenshot is at the same angle, just in case you want to follow the same route once again.

Sorry kid, but you are just wrong, you have been since you started this mess. Period.
I see now, we are reinventing what I said in those screen shots I provided. Is that your argument? It's obvious not going to work here.
Posted on Reply
#23
DarkMatter
El Fiendo said:
If he convinces him, I'll herald him as a god. And also be very clingy towards him.
Yeah he would deserve something great. A cookie. Want a cookie? :D

Honestly. I'm curious about what he is going say to refute my last post, because he NEVER will admit he was simply wrong, not being me the one he is arguing with.

I'm excited. It's going to be a really good literature, I'm sure. Some fantastic or sci-fi literature to be precise. Worth of one Hugo, probably. :roll:

EDIT: Oh he was faster than this post. Ooooooh... What a dissapointment. Negation of evidence. That's all he got. :(
Posted on Reply
#24
EastCoasthandle
Wile E said:
You are missing the point East. I'm sorry man, your opinion of this is slightly off. The important thing is not the screen shots. They do not matter at all. They are just there as an example of what was reported as missing in the game. They are not used as fps evidence at all. The FPS they quoted are what the in-game benchmark gave to them. The in-game benchmark dropped by 5fps avg with the new hotfix. They cannot manipulate the in-game benchmark, unless they purposely use different graphical settings for each bench. They cannot alter the in-game benchmark to change the camera angles.
No, I am not missing the point but stated an opinion. You can agree or disagree but the point does stand on it's on merit within the content that I explained it. The post in which I left regarding the pic were directed more so towards the amount of information presented not about actual frame rates specifically. You can agree or disagree but lets not reinvent what was stated.
Posted on Reply
#25
newconroer
Why can't we have such thorough posts with this kind of high level grammar and punctuation all the time?

Why does it only reveal itself in serious arguements!?!?
========================

ONE MORE POST DARKMATTER ! 1k!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment