[AMD_Robert] Concerning the AOTS image quality controversy

[dacostafilipe]

Calm down guys, we don't know if there a difference in performance yet, let's wait for the first tests.

Those are new drivers, it would be "normal" to have bugs on them. And compared to the SLI issues the actual drivers have, this here is nothing.

 

[PhonakV30]

AMD selected the drivers. Its a driver not used by any reviews. And its a driver they selected despite of the retail driver being out.

So, ask AMD

No Ask Nvidia Why they released this driver

 

[selni]

I'm a little late catching up to this so can someone fill me in on what the last 4 pages of debate is over.

Is the issue a debate over rather or not the drivers provided by Nvidia to the press artificially inflated frame rates by sacrificing image quality.

or

Is the issue a debate over if Nvidia purposely try to pull a fast one by intentionally providing rigged drivers hoping nobody would ever notice?

The prerelease driver used in pascal reviews and AMD's polaris comparison has a rendering bug with an AotS shader not running properly that may impact performance depending on what's exactly happening. The difference was definitely noticeable (much less snow). This was fixed in the release driver.

If it ends up that yes it was a major performance difference (which seems unlikely given there's a truckload of 1080s at around the radeon demo benchmark result +- a few %, but hey) then you can start thinking about whether it was intentional or not. So far it's lots of pages about a small rendering bug and some really bizarre theories from both camps.

 

[positivedoppler]

The prerelease driver used in pascal reviews and AMD's polaris comparison has a rendering bug with an AotS shader not running properly that may impact performance depending on what's exactly happening. The difference was definitely noticeable (much less snow). This was fixed in the release driver.

If it ends up that yes it was a major performance difference (which seems unlikely given there's a truckload of 1080s at around the radeon demo benchmark result +- a few %, but hey) then you can start thinking about whether it was intentional or not. So far it's lots of pages about a small rendering bug and some really bizarre theories from both camps.

Nice summary thank you.

Since both drivers are available, anyone know if any reviewer has done any before and after testing to see the delta in performance?

 

[antihelten]

AMD selected the drivers. Its a driver not used by any reviews. And its a driver they selected despite of the retail driver being out.

So, ask AMD

Actually plenty of reviews have been using this driver, it's the 1070 release driver after all, and at least 1 site also used it for 1080 (they also tested AotS).

Anyway this is all a storm in a teacup. As you said the retail driver that fixes this is available and Ryan Smith has confirmed that there is no performance difference.

 

[dacostafilipe]

Ryan Smith has confirmed that there is no performance difference.

:thumbsup:

I would say, case closed?

 

[positivedoppler]

Actually plenty of reviews have been using this driver, it's the 1070 release driver after all, and at least 1 site also used it for 1080 (they also tested AotS).

Anyway this is all a storm in a teacup. As you said the retail driver that fixes this is available and Ryan Smith has confirmed that there is no performance difference.

Seems like a pretty open and shut case if a few more confirmation on it!

 

[zinfamous]

AMD selected the drivers. Its a driver not used by any reviews. And its a driver they selected despite of the retail driver being out.

So, ask AMD

As confused as I am about the back and forth drivel in this thread, I do know that this^ is not the issue.

 

[renderstate]

Here we go. As I wrote multiple times people making accusations without proof should have waited for someone to check the bad driver was responsible for improved perf. This was a genuine driver bug.. not a surprise for whoever could use a little bit of logic and rational thinking.

So now we just have to find out why AMD would broadcast worldwide a comparison made with a driver they shouldn't even have (who gave it to them and why?) instead of using the most recent and up to date driver that had been available for 6 days before their public demo.

I am not saying they did it on purpose, mistakes do happen, but they should apply their GPUOpen philosophy to this event as well

 

[Minkoff]

Here we go.As I wrote multiple times people making accusations without proof should have waited ....stuff...
So now we just have to find out why AMD would broadcast worldwide a comparison made with a driver they shouldn't even have (who gave it to them and why?) instead of using the most recent and up to date driver that had been available for 6 days before their public demo.

I am not saying they did it on purpose, mistakes do happen, but they should apply their GPUOpen philosophy to this event as well

As you did accusations, as well...
Also, you have been proposed with answers to that question. And who's to say, what they should or shouldn't have?
Do you have any documents, where Nvidia says "This driver is under NDA. Should not be given away to 3rd parties"

 

[Krteq]

So now we just have to find out why AMD would broadcast worldwide a comparison made with a driver they shouldn't even have (who gave it to them and why?) instead of using the most recent and up to date driver that had been available for 6 days before their public demo.

What the heck. Do you know how long it takes to prepare this kind of presentation?

 

[dacostafilipe]

Do you have any documents, where Nvidia says "This driver is under NDA. Should not be given away to 3rd parties"

You know the first rule of NDA ... you don't ta ..... damn D:

 

[kraatus77]

Here we go. As I wrote multiple times people making accusations without proof should have waited for someone to check the bad driver was responsible for improved perf. This was a genuine driver bug.. not a surprise for whoever could use a little bit of logic and rational thinking.

So now we just have to find out why AMD would broadcast worldwide a comparison made with a driver they shouldn't even have (who gave it to them and why?) instead of using the most recent and up to date driver that had been available for 6 days before their public demo.

I am not saying they did it on purpose, mistakes do happen, but they should apply their GPUOpen philosophy to this event as well

when caught cheating, blame the other person why did he caught you instead of admitting you were cheating. what a way to defend man. this is new low.

 

[Abwx]

Nice summary thank you.

Since both drivers are available, anyone know if any reviewer has done any before and after testing to see the delta in performance?

They likely couldnt since they all got at Computex the days after the 1080 reviews publication, and AMD s demo occured there, so we ll know when they get back home...

 

[renderstate]

I read science fiction, not answers. Also I am not claiming AMD used an NDA driver (others used that terminology) but I do think it's not the most ethical thing to do to compare your product without using the official release driver which has been readily available for almost a week before the public demonstration.. Is it illegal? Hell no. Is it fishy? I'd say yes. Of course feel free to disagree.

 

[renderstate]

when caught cheating, blame the other person why did he caught you instead of admitting you were cheating. what a way to defend man. this is new low.

Please continue to live in your parallel universe where Ryan Smith has not confirmed there was no cheating and ignore me from now on. Thank you.

 

[Piroko]

So now we just have to find out why AMD would broadcast worldwide a comparison made with a driver they shouldn't even have (who gave it to them and why?)

All blame lies on the party that leaked the driver if it is actually mentioned in any contract (kinda doubt that one) unless AMD paid them to breach their contract (very much doubt that one).

instead of using the most recent and up to date driver that had been available for 6 days before their public demo.

It is actually a fair game for AMD to try and reproduce the exact test environment that was used to advertise these cards, unless you can show definite proof that AMD tried to misrepresent Nvidias card by using the older driver (good luck on that one, I wouldn't even know where to start).

 

[Zstream]

AMD selected the drivers. Its a driver not used by any reviews. And its a driver they selected despite of the retail driver being out.

So, ask AMD

Dude, stop already, it gets old. The driver was used in reviews, and it's something you know. :thumbsdown:

 

[positivedoppler]

Can you guys just please stop with the back and forth who's right who's wrong. It's absolutely not important at this point. This is close to resolve and appears very likely to be a none issue. It can't be that difficult to take the high road walk away from this without the need to "get in the last word" to fluff some internet ego.

 

[renderstate]

All blame lies on the party that leaked the driver if it is actually mentioned in any contract (kinda doubt that one) unless AMD paid them to breach their contract (very much doubt that one).



It is actually a fair game for AMD to try and reproduce the exact test environment that was used to advertise these cards, unless you can show definite proof that AMD tried to misrepresent Nvidias card by using the older driver (good luck on that one, I wouldn't even know where to start).

I don't think they did it with malice but I do think it's not fair game to not use the release driver for a product you can buy in a store. Thankfully in this case performance wasn't affected but once again we have seen how it's so easy for people to scream NVIDIA cheated without a shred of evidence. Moreover, as you can see in this thread, they won't stop claiming NVIDIA cheated. I'll assure you they are driven by the same mindset of flat earthers and global warming deniers, nothing will change their minds.

 

[Minkoff]

I read science fiction, not answers. Also I am not claiming AMD used an NDA driver (others used that terminology) but I do think it's not the most ethical thing to do to compare your product without using the official release driver which has been readily available for almost a week before the public demonstration.. Is it illegal? Hell no. Is it fishy? I'd say yes. Of course feel free to disagree.

It would have been fishy, if AMD said "Look at the quality, look the rendering". They did not! Saying, that someone on a live-stream, with that low quality will notice is not an assumption, it goes to accusation! Should be proven!

Ethical goes all ways.
How about we start using those words, and request ethics from all companies (and journalist etc.), huh?
Here you have image controversy (with someone trying to include) driver controversy.
You open a thread "Ethical companies, reviews etc." and I'll gladly join...with links (not empty words).

 

[positivedoppler]

If anyone ever needs a case study of why competition is important, this is a good example. Nvidia had a bug in their code that came to light after their competitor did a side by side comparison and a few sharp eye noticed the difference. In the end, consumers were the biggest winner as those who did or will purchase a Pascal card will run with a better video card.

 

[dogen1]

There's nothing logical or reasonable about downplaying the issue and deflecting by asking pointless questions like where AMD got said driver from. A genuine consumer should be happy this came out. If this never got caught you'd be blissfully ignorant of the true nature of Pascal's DX12 capability.

Lol, yeah. Cause pascal can't handle snow in dx12.

I'm a little late catching up to this so can someone fill me in on what the last 4 pages of debate is over.

Is the issue a debate over rather or not the drivers provided by Nvidia to the press artificially inflated frame rates by sacrificing image quality.

or

Is the issue a debate over if Nvidia purposely try to pull a fast one by intentionally providing rigged drivers hoping nobody would ever notice?

Yes, basically. But it doesn't appear many of the reviews even used the .19 driver.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/commen..._twitter_so_it_appears_to_us_that_the/d3yo1v8

 

[Magee_MC]

I read science fiction, not answers. Also I am not claiming AMD used an NDA driver (others used that terminology) but I do think it's not the most ethical thing to do to compare your product without using the official release driver which has been readily available for almost a week before the public demonstration.. Is it illegal? Hell no. Is it fishy? I'd say yes. Of course feel free to disagree.

That raises the question then, is it ethical to have a separate release driver than the review driver? Is it illegal? Hell no. Is it fishy? I'd say yes. Of course feel free to disagree.

 

[renderstate]

That raises the question then, is it ethical to have a separate release driver than the review driver? Is it illegal? Hell no. Is it fishy? I'd say yes. Of course feel free to disagree.

How is it fishy? Drivers development never stops. Would you prefer to have IHVs not fixing driver bugs?