10.7a Beta Catalyst released - SC2 Forced AA and Quadfire+Eyefinity Improvements

[Dorkenstein]

I'm using this but I don't see an AA option in the game, so I forced it through CCC. When I do that the game stutters at mission start and some textures look really strange.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Doesn't sound like there's less of a hit in performance than with nVidia.
Yet that was the excuse that AMD used for not having AA: they didn't want to release a solution that is too expensive in terms of performance.

Yep - shame on AMD there was 2 or 3 days were people with AMD cards couldn't use AA.

I'm using this but I don't see an AA option in the game, so I forced it through CCC. When I do that the game stutters at mission start and some textures look really strange.

There is no in game option for either NVIDIA or AMD.

Don't forget to turn on the Catalyst AI.

 

[Scali]

Yep - shame on AMD there was 2 or 3 days were people with AMD cards couldn't use AA.

More like: It's a shame that AMD has to keep lying to their customers, and treat them like little kids.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news...-options-starcraft-ii-atis-official-response/

AMD constantly strives to deliver great gaming experiences for our customers and the upcoming launch of Starcraft II is no exception. Blizzard’s focus on incredible game play for all, means that gamers using ATI Radeon(tm) products can enjoy smooth HD gameplay and industry leading image quality with our current generation of ATI Radeon products as well as many of our past generation cards.

In discussions during the development of StarCraft II, Blizzard indicated that they would not initially include options to set levels of in-game anti-aliasing (“AA”). This meant that support for AA within StarCraft II would only be made possible by including it in the driver, an approach that could significantly impact performance.

Some third party reviews of the Starcraft II beta echo our concerns that AA can cause gameplay impairment. In these reviews, the third parties found that 4x AA led to a reduction in fps rendering at lower screen resolutions, which only became more noticeable at larger resolutions.

After evaluating our options, our engineering team opted not to provide AA support for StarCraft II within the Catalyst Control Center, even though the competition has included AA support in their driver at launch.

We are committed to making AA perform at an acceptable level before we release it to our customers. We will continue to work with Blizzard on this matter and hope to offer our customers an acceptable AA solution at a later date.

So that is a dig at nVidia for delivering a solution that takes a performance hit.
And here we are, 5 days later, and AMD releases their own patch, which has just as much of a performance hit.
So what changed in those 5 days, so that their AA will now "perform at an acceptable level"?
Apparently only their opinion on what the market finds 'acceptable', after nVidia just gave their customers the choice.

 

[Grooveriding]

So that is a dig at nVidia for delivering a solution that takes a performance hit.
And here we are, 5 days later, and AMD releases their own patch, which has just as much of a performance hit.
So what changed in those 5 days, so that their AA will now "perform at an acceptable level"?
Apparently only their opinion on what the market finds 'acceptable', after nVidia just gave their customers the choice.

Please provide your source showing benchmarks that display an equal performance hit.

 

[GaiaHunter]

So that is a dig at nVidia for delivering a solution that takes a performance hit.
And here we are, 5 days later, and AMD releases their own patch, which has just as much of a performance hit.
So what changed in those 5 days, so that their AA will now "perform at an acceptable level"?
Apparently only their opinion on what the market finds 'acceptable', after nVidia just gave their customers the choice.

What we have seen was people bashing AMD for not having AA, again exalting the great developers relation that NVIDIA has and a few days later, AMD which has excruciating developers relation is just able to produce a solution that works just the same.

I guess many people were hoping AMD would be unable to add AA support... after all AMD sucks, their developers relations suck as we had seen in the Batman AA case, where AMD simply wanted to reap the rewards of NVIDIA amazing work.

Except it didn't turn out like that. AMD released support (for a feature that is mostly a checkbox that anything in this game) in a timely manner.

Additionally I don't see how did AMD lied to their costumers - I've never bought an AMD card based on the ability of having AA with Starcraft II.

The base line is that AMD caught up with NVIDIA in the graphics hardware department, so much that released their DX11 generation some 6 months earlier than NVIDIA and since AMD took over ATI, the software side has been improving clearly.

They are even the market leader, in discrete graphic cards, at the moment Scali. Must be a real nightmare for you!

 

[Scali]

Please provide your source showing benchmarks that display an equal performance hit.

Read my post above, I'm just going by what ace55 says. Short version: 100 fps without AA, 50 fps with AA.

 

[Kuzi]

I just tried the new 10.7a drivers with SC2 and used 4x AA at 1920x1080 res. Honestly I didn't notice a big performance hit on my OC'ed 5850 compared to running without AA. Although I only tried 1v1 matches, so maybe larger maps with more players would cause more of a performance hit.

RTS games play perfectly fine as long as your minimum fps is higher than 30.

 

[Scali]

What we have seen was people bashing AMD for not having AA, again exhaling the great developers relation that NVIDIA has and a few days later, AMD which has excruciating developers relation is just able to produce a solution that works just the same.

I guess many people were hoping AMD would be unable to add AA support... after all AMD sucks, their developers relations suck as we had seen in the Batman AA case, where AMD simply wanted to reap the rewards of NVIDIA amazing work.

Except it didn't turn out like that. AMD released support (for a feature that is mostly a checkbox that anything in this game) in a timely manner.

Well, I never said that AMD couldn't or wouldn't do it.
Nor was I hoping for any of that (which would be rather weird anyway, being a Radeon 5770 user myself).

Additionally I don't see how did AMD lied to their costumers - I've never bought an AMD card based on the ability of having AA with Starcraft II.

Pretty obvious from what I quoted, isn't it?
They said they didn't want to add AA because it would hurt performance too much (and they present this fact as if they're doing customers a favour by not releasing it, because they're so committed to delivering a the best possible experience blahblahblah).
Now they release it anyway, apparently without having tackled the performance problem.

And this is the umpteenth time that AMD officially says X, and then later does Y anyway. Their official statements are just incredibly hollow. And it's sad that they ALWAYS have to take jabs at their competitors, especially if their competitors offer something that they don't (PhysX, AA, HyperThreading, OpenCL, etc).

The base line is that AMD caught up with NVIDIA in the graphics hardware department

Not really. nVidia's hardware may be late, but it has capabilities that AMD does not have.

They are even the market leader, in discrete graphic cards, at the moment Scali. Must be a real nightmare for you!

Lol yea, I'm actually part of the cause for that, owning a Radeon 5770 myself, and recommending a 5770 CrossFire setup for my brother.
I can see why you're an AMD fan though, you love to dish out personal jabs as much as AMD's marketing dept.

 

[Scali]

RTS games play perfectly fine as long as your minimum fps is higher than 30.

That's what I said aswell, when AMD was attacking nVidia's performance hit with AA.
A GTX460 still did 50 fps at 1920x1200 with 4xAA, so what was their point?
Even though it runs 100 fps without AA, it doesn't really matter for the game. 50 fps is still fine.

 

[Keysplayr]

What we have seen was people bashing AMD for not having AA, again exhaling the great developers relation that NVIDIA has and a few days later, AMD which has excruciating developers relation is just able to produce a solution that works just the same.

I guess many people were hoping AMD would be unable to add AA support... after all AMD sucks, their developers relations suck as we had seen in the Batman AA case, where AMD simply wanted to reap the rewards of NVIDIA amazing work.

Except it didn't turn out like that. AMD released support (for a feature that is mostly a checkbox that anything in this game) in a timely manner.

Additionally I don't see how did AMD lied to their costumers - I've never bought an AMD card based on the ability of having AA with Starcraft II.

The base line is that AMD caught up with NVIDIA in the graphics hardware department, so much that released their DX11 generation some 6 months earlier than NVIDIA and since AMD took over ATI, the software side has been improving clearly.

They are even the market leader, in discrete graphic cards, at the moment Scali. Must be a real nightmare for you!

So, can you tell me, after seeing AMD's public response a few days ago about AA in SCII, that if Nvidia didn't offer AA in SCII that we would have AA from AMD in SCII just 3 days after they stated it wouldn't happen? Or they didn't plan to?
You should start a poll on that one. I can't believe you actually think that. I may be wrong, but that is what I'm getting from your post here. Tell us if you believe there wouldn't be any different outcome if NV didn't offer AA in SCII and there wasn't any public outcry to be had.

 

[Grooveriding]

Read my post above, I'm just going by what ace55 says. Short version: 100 fps without AA, 50 fps with AA.

Really, I saw another post that said 100+ at 1920x1200 with the AA. Again, please advise your source with a link beyond random comments.

 

[Keysplayr]

Really, I saw another post that said 100+ at 1920x1200 with the AA. Again, please advise your source with a link beyond random comments.

Yup you saw correctly. Only that was Crossfired 5850's if it's the one I think you're talking about. Nobody really reads these forums, do they?

 

[Grooveriding]

So, can you tell me, after seeing AMD's public response a few days ago about AA in SCII, that if Nvidia didn't offer AA in SCII that we would have AA from AMD in SCII just 3 days after they stated it wouldn't happen? Or they didn't plan to?
You should start a poll on that one. I can't believe you actually think that. I may be wrong, but that is what I'm getting from your post here. Tell us if you believe there wouldn't be any different outcome if NV didn't offer AA in SCII and there wasn't any public outcry to be had.

You heard it here first, we even have to thank nvidia for ATI's AA in Starcraft II....

Please provide a source for their motivation for providing AA. Just because nvidia sent out a marching band and marketing force to trumpet their AA does not = ATI giving us AA.

 

[Grooveriding]

Yup you saw correctly. Only that was Crossfired 5850's if it's the one I think you're talking about. Nobody really reads these forums, do they?

? Regardless, I don't get 100+ with 4xAA on my setup. Do you ?

 

[Scali]

Nobody really reads these forums, do they?

Apparently not, I quoted an earlier post by ace55 in this thread, and now I need to 'provide links'.

 

[Keysplayr]

You heard it here first, we even have to thank nvidia for ATI's AA in Starcraft II....

Please provide a source for their motivation for providing AA. Just because nvidia sent out a marching band and marketing force to trumpet their AA does not = ATI giving us AA.

All the evidence points to the contrary. The most convincing of which is AMD's own public statements just days ago. You want a source for motivation? Where have you been the past few days? Public outcry, people getting fed up and turning from AMD to NV? That isn't enough motivation for you? Apparently it was enough for AMD.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Well, I never said that AMD couldn't or wouldn't do it.
Nor was I hoping for any of that (which would be rather weird anyway, being a Radeon 5770 user myself).

Do you even play SC2 at all?

Pretty obvious from what I quoted, isn't it?
They said they didn't want to add AA because it would hurt performance too much (and they present this fact as if they're doing customers a favour by not releasing it, because they're so committed to delivering a the best possible experience blahblahblah).
Now they release it anyway, apparently without having tackled the performance problem.

a) AA does hurt performance;
b) you can't blame them to not add AA and then blame them to had AA which causes performance hit while thumbing up NVIDIA for adding AA support that also causes a performance hit.

And this is the umpteenth time that AMD officially says X, and then later does Y anyway. Their official statements are just incredibly hollow. And it's sad that they ALWAYS have to take jabs at their competitors, especially if their competitors offer something that they don't (PhysX, AA, HyperThreading, OpenCL, etc).

Which is just silly of them because the market decides which of those features matter and matter not.

See, even though they didn't have physX, AA in Batman and OpenCL they still gained market share.

Not really. nVidia's hardware may be late, but it has capabilities that AMD does not have.

And the GF100 still sells like crap.

Even you that think physX, CUDA, OpenCL, etc, are so important now chose not to trade that 5770 to a GF100 based card.

Now imagine the rest of us that think those features are much less importance.

Only with the GF104 does NVIDIA have a good solution for people that want to buy graphic cards for gaming. And of course, being cheaper than the 5850 helps a lot.

Lol yea, I'm actually part of the cause for that, owning a Radeon 5770 myself, and recommending a 5770 CrossFire setup for my brother.

And I'm considering getting a GTX460. So?

One thing is being all idealistic about features and technologies with words and opinions and other thing is being idealistic when you have to spend your own money!

That is why the market doesn't respond to that "feature superiority".

I can see why you're an AMD fan though, you love to dish out personal jabs as much as AMD's marketing dept.

When you don't have arguments you resort to name calling. Of course I didn't do any jab against NVIDIA either, but you need to have something to say.

Considering that you wrote an article saying that all AMD fanboys are idiots, and you keep calling everybody that disagrees with you an AMD fanboy (read idiot), I dunno how the hell you escape moderation.

 

[Keysplayr]

? Regardless, I don't get 100+ with 4xAA on my setup. Do you ?

You know it depends on the res and settings within the game. Could be ULTRA, could be Performance. There ARE some variables. And I'm fairly certain you get more fps with SLI'd 480s than you would with Xfired 5850's with an equivalent rig and settings. Aren't you certain of that? There are benchmarks pretty much everywhere on it.

 

[GaiaHunter]

All the evidence points to the contrary. The most convincing of which is AMD's own public statements just days ago. You want a source for motivation? Where have you been the past few days? Public outcry, people getting fed up and turning from AMD to NV? That isn't enough motivation for you? Apparently it was enough for AMD.

The same way people went from AMD to NVIDIA because of lack of physX and AA in Batman AA?

Cause last time I checked AMD has been gaining market share.

It is even more fun because a large portion of Blizzard public couldn't care less about graphics and AA doesn't even increase the IQ in any measurable manner in SC2.

This was just nice "look at me move" by NVIDIA.

It is legit.

But more "GTX460" kind of cards impresses me more than these marketing maneuvers.

 

[Keysplayr]

The same way people went from AMD to NVIDIA because of lack of physX and AA in Batman AA?

Cause last time I checked AMD has been gaining market share.

It is even more fun because a large portion of Blizzard public couldn't care less about graphics and AA doesn't even increase the IQ in any measurable manner in SC2.

This was just nice "look at me move" by NVIDIA.

It is legit.

But more "GTX460" kind of cards impresses me more than these marketing maneuvers.

Batman was a fairly large title, and I'm sure there were many that did switch to NV for PhysX not only for Batman, but other games that had it and possibly newer games that will have it.

AMD gained market share due to lack of options from the 5xxx launch to the GF100 launch. That's pretty much a no brainer. I'm fairly certain market share (which by the way none of us should give a damn about) will revert to the way it was pre-5xxx within a years time.

Man oh man. Dude, if the large portion of Blizzard public (whom you do not speak for) couldn't care less about graphics and AA, then there is a pretty good chance nobody would have complained. But, as it turns out, people did.

A nice "look at me move" or not. At least they made the move and probably will again, and again in future titles that fall short.

Mark my words. AMD owners would not have AA in SCII right now if NV did not. AMD made a very smart move to pull all nighters with their dev team to get this out in just days. You saw the public statement by AMD. They did not have plans for AA in this title. Now, quite suddenly, they do.

This is something you'll find very difficult to argue in anything remotely resembling a convincing manner.

 

[Scali]

Do you even play SC2 at all?

No. Does that matter?

b) you can't blame them to not add AA and then blame them to had AA which causes performance hit while thumbing up NVIDIA for adding AA support that also causes a performance hit.

I'm blaming AMD for making an official public statement about not having AA, using performance as an excuse... and then days later releasing it anyway. They're just causing a lot of confusion and there doesn't seem to be any consistency in their public statements.

nVidia didn't make any excuses or anything. They just implemented the AA feature, and released it. Period. No need for excuses, no need for public statements, no need for confusing.

Bottom line: I'm blaming AMD for having untrustworthy official publications.

Which is just silly of them because the market decides which of those features matter and matter not.

So you agree with me that AMD's public mudslinging is useless.

And the GF100 still sells like crap.

So? That's not what we were discussing here.

Now imagine the rest of us that think those features are much less importance.

So? No matter how unimportant you think those features are, they exist.
So you can't make statements like "The base line is that AMD caught up with NVIDIA in the graphics hardware department". There is no feature parity.
And trying to downplay those features only weakens your position.

Only with the GF104 does NVIDIA have a good solution for people that want to buy graphic cards for gaming. And of course, being cheaper than the 5850 helps a lot.

Yes, and getting back on topic... the GF104 and probably the GF106 will probably be very effective in nVidia trying to win back the lost marketshare from AMD.
I think the worst is over for Fermi.

That is why the market doesn't respond to that "feature superiority".

Yea, but I'm not "the market". I'm a developer.
It's people like me who need to make choices of what features to use in upcoming products, which could in turn MAKE these features desirable for "the market", in which case they will respond.
You can hold the exact same argument for DX11 itself.
Yea, sure, AMD was a few months ahead of nVidia there, "feature superiority"... but with a large part of the market incapable of running DX11 (XP users), and virtually no DX11 games available... and even so, a lot of people happy to settle for DX9 or DX10 and getting more performance... the market didn't respond to DX11 all that much really.
It's AMD's price and performance that mattered, not DX11. Yet people bring up "AMD had DX11 first" in completely unrelated topics such as this...

Considering that you wrote an article saying that all AMD fanboys are idiots, and you keep calling everybody that disagrees with you an AMD fanboy (read idiot), I dunno how the hell you escape moderation.

Well, I'm not sure what to call you, but you basically claimed that I spend money to support my nightmares...
The mere fact that you would call this a nightmare for me is beyond comprehension anyway...

Basically the only thing I don't have a problem with, is AMD's hardware. I despise their marketing and devrel however. And their driver quality appears to be slipping again as well.

 

[tokie]

Why are you turds arguing about stupid things like Nvidia vs ATI?

I came to this thread to see what the performance impact would be using these new drivers. I see 1 or 2 people who have posted that it cuts their fps in half. Could we enlarge this sample please instead of acting like 12 year old fanboys?

 

[sandorski]

So sorry that AMD is winning. Srsly.

 

[Grooveriding]

You know it depends on the res and settings within the game. Could be ULTRA, could be Performance. There ARE some variables. And I'm fairly certain you get more fps with SLI'd 480s than you would with Xfired 5850's with an equivalent rig and settings. Aren't you certain of that? There are benchmarks pretty much everywhere on it.

Exactly. I play at 2560x1600, I think you use the same resolution as he does though, that's why I asked. Just wondering what framerate you're seeing in SC2 with those settings ?

 

[Qbah]

It's nice to see AMD quickly get this out. Game is unbelievably good. I question what the big deal with AA in this one is though. I'm playing 1920x1080 on a 46" HDTV with a 5770 and i'm not noticing any bothersome jaggies, aside from a few minor spots in the in between mission parts. During gameplay i dont get the big deal need for AA in this game. Other than an AMD vs nVidia spin, I don't see the merit for an uproar over AA support in this game. The nVidia focus group pouncing on an oppurtunity to exploit the thing I thought was laughable.

Those of you playing at 1080P or higher, is the AA more of a novelty or something you are going to use while gaming in SC2?

Man, 1080p on a 46" and you don't see a difference? How far away do you sit from your screen? Across the apartment?

I'm on a 40" at 1080p, roughly 1.5-2 meters from the screen and aliasing in games makes my eyes bleed! D: I find this the best distance as it fills out most of my front focus view.