Assassin's Creed - decision to remove DX 10.1 support

Hauk

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2001
2,808
0
0
I know the Assassin's Creed DX10.1 issue was already discussed; but after reading AT's Assassin's Creed Article I thought it worthy a repost.

"So why did Ubisoft remove DirectX 10.1 support? The official statement reads as follows: "The performance gains seen by players who are currently playing AC with a DX10.1 graphics card are in large part due to the fact that our implementation removes a render pass during post-effect which is costly." An additional render pass is certainly a costly function; what the above statement doesn't clearly state is that DirectX 10.1 allows one fewer rendering pass when running anti-aliasing, and this is a good thing. We contacted AMD/ATI, NVIDIA, and Ubisoft to see if we could get some more clarification on what's going on. Not surprisingly, ATI was the only company willing to talk with us, and even they wouldn't come right out and say exactly what occurred."

I tend to root for the underdog if my team's already out in sports. But benchies have solely driven my purchase decisions for the past couple years. I think this is an issue worth consideration though. It's June and the fun is about to begin..

EDIT: Upon further review, Ubisoft says they plan to remove DX 10.1 due to bugs.

You can all take a chill pill, this thread is locked.

-ViRGE
 

kotrtim

Member
Jun 9, 2007
77
0
0
It seems nViDiA has better relationships with the game developer/OEM, AMD/ATi is very poor in this department. AMD/ATi is to be blamed for poor business practices? Current Intel mainboard and future Nahalem only support ATi crossfire, so I don't think ATi is underdog.

ViA CPU + nViDiA SLi ?
AMD CPU + nViDiA SLi ?
Intel CPU + ATi CF ?
AMD CPU + ATi CF ?

Kinda interesting combo for enthusiast. You just can't build Intel CPU + nViDiA SLi for Nahalem?
 

Hauk

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2001
2,808
0
0
But to remove DX10.1 support when it was apparently working? I doubt ATI's relationship building skills are that bad..
 

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0
Firstly, well done AT for a great article. I was considering buying this game and perhaps a GT200 but after this- not a chance. Leaning on a developer to cripple the competition is not a respectable business practice- would a runner break the legs of his competitors in a race so he could win? I think it's a disgrace. Whats more is Ubisoft acting as just a puppet, they need to figure out where they stand- it will hardly jeopardise the TWIMTBP program for Ubi if they were to tell Nvidia they are adding DX10.1 back in a future patch- they are too large of a developer for Nvidia to 'cut ties' with. This is perhaps the first example of the benefits of ATI's architecture in DX10.1 opposed to 10.0- that is, the relative benefit of AA in the shaders. I only hope we can see further implementations of DX10.1 in the near future and not be punished for innovation. Will add more in the morning :p.

/end rant
 

kotrtim

Member
Jun 9, 2007
77
0
0
But they are all 40+ fps, nvidia or ati , not too bad for good gaming experience. Its funny nvidia refuses to support dx 10.1, they already have the specs for dx10.1 for quite sometime, aren't they? Maybe they just figure out that its current architecture cannot match ati when dx10.1 is utilized, so nvidia purposely drop dx 10.1 knowing its benefit ($xFSAA with negligible performance hit). And this gives them more time to work on a new architecture.... who knows? Its all about business, the one that gets most money from consumer will be the winner. Although this is bad from technology standpoint, holding off newer and better technologies.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,703
2,935
126
Is anyone really surprised that TWIMTBP is yet again a hindrance to the gaming experience? I can list at least a dozen such titles that have historically run faster and/or with fewer issues on ATI hardware than nVidia.

Unreal 2 engine games (many of which have TWIMTBP logos) have been stuttering since November 2006 on 8xxx/9xxx hardware. It is now June 2008, or 19 months to be exact.

For 19 months I?ve waited for the ability to play Unreal 2 titles properly on my 8800 Ultra and I?m still waiting. Can someone please explain to me how TWIMTBP ?benefits? me if 19 months later I still can?t play the game properly?

Roy Taylor parrots what a benefit the TWITMPB program is so I?d like him to come in here and explain to me why 19 months later the logo is still in my face but I can?t play the game properly. I?d also like to hear from him why the ATI 3xxx series runs the game fine.
 

mwmorph

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2004
8,882
1
81
Not the first time Ubisoft has pulled this. Remember when Splinter Cell Chaos Theory supported ONLY DX9.0C and DX8.1 so ALL Ati users had to play under the DX8.1 render path even if they had X850XTPEs?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
This looks like sloppy conjecture by the reviewer and he should know better. In the review the reviewer admits to rendering errors with patch 1.0 that werent there in 1.02. Then shows the performance difference isnt "that" far apart on the ATI side. In fact he admits overall performance is up on ATI hardware on 1.02. Then look at the overall picture? According to the reviewer the game only renders AA at certain resolutions and cant be forced via the drivers.

I'd say there is clearly something funky going on under the hood on this game. And I really dont see the evidence that it is Nvidia putting pressure on Ubisoft to yank 10.1 support. Simply they havent got their shit together with DX 10.1 support.
 

BassBomb

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2005
8,396
1
81
Originally posted by: mwmorph
Not the first time Ubisoft has pulled this. Remember when Splinter Cell Chaos Theory supported ONLY DX9.0C and DX8.1 so ALL Ati users had to play under the DX8.1 render path even if they had X850XTPEs?

They could play on DX9 but not SM3.0 which x850's didn't have.

Later they did fix it with a patch I believe so that all SM 3.0 cards could use the features (not limited to nVidia).
 

mwmorph

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2004
8,882
1
81
Originally posted by: BassBomb
Originally posted by: mwmorph
Not the first time Ubisoft has pulled this. Remember when Splinter Cell Chaos Theory supported ONLY DX9.0C and DX8.1 so ALL Ati users had to play under the DX8.1 render path even if they had X850XTPEs?

They could play on DX9 but not SM3.0 which x850's didn't have.

Later they did fix it with a patch I believe so that all SM 3.0 cards could use the features (not limited to nVidia).

When it shipped, it only supported DX9.0C and DX 8.0(PS 3.0 and 1.1 respectively) so all aTI cards had to play the 8.0 render path which is odd since if you're programming a game for DX9.0C, programming it for 9.0b is not a decent chuck of work at all.

Then suprise, suprise, everyone complained until Ubisoft fixed it so Ati cards weren't artificially crippled.
http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_058b.html
 

BassBomb

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2005
8,396
1
81
Ahh, I was using my 6600GT :D

I played with soft shadows even though it was said only very good cards could handle it.

Still cant play Double Agent because its so buggy. I bought it in 2006, was unplayable on my old rig. Now its playable but is so whack
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
Hmm, the performance difference between game versions shown in AT's benchmarks are pretty tiny. Fans sure are making a lot more noise than this is worth.

Anyhoo, it's a console port. I'm just glad it (officially) supports both DX9 and DX10, unlike a certain other hotly contested Xbox title.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I for one . Am thankful that AT did this indepth review and got to the trueth. Even tho the author couldn't come right out and say it . WE know why and who made the developrer install this patch. IT was NV trying to stop Progress!!!! WERE'S ROLLO?
 

HOOfan 1

Platinum Member
Sep 2, 2007
2,337
15
81
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I for one . Am thankful that AT did this indepth review and got to the trueth. Even tho the author couldn't come right out and say it . WE know why and who made the developrer install this patch. IT was NV trying to stop Progress!!!! WERE'S ROLLO?

I am looking forward to anandtech's article about who was behind the assassin on the grassy knoll.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I for one . Am thankful that AT did this indepth review and got to the trueth. Even tho the author couldn't come right out and say it . WE know why and who made the developrer install this patch. IT was NV trying to stop Progress!!!! WERE'S ROLLO?

And you(and the reviewer) have what for proof? Zilch, nada, nothing. Just 100% pure conjecture.

If true, Nvidia and Ubisoft have kinda broken some laws. If false the reviewer just opened up a huge legal liability for Anandtech.

And since there is no proof. Im leaning towards the later.

Game developers have had problems with DX10.1. Now is it on MS's end, ATI's end or the developers end. Im going to have to guess its a combonation of all three.

 

Drayvn

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2004
1,008
0
0
Originally posted by: mwmorph
Originally posted by: BassBomb
Originally posted by: mwmorph
Not the first time Ubisoft has pulled this. Remember when Splinter Cell Chaos Theory supported ONLY DX9.0C and DX8.1 so ALL Ati users had to play under the DX8.1 render path even if they had X850XTPEs?

They could play on DX9 but not SM3.0 which x850's didn't have.

Later they did fix it with a patch I believe so that all SM 3.0 cards could use the features (not limited to nVidia).

When it shipped, it only supported DX9.0C and DX 8.0(PS 3.0 and 1.1 respectively) so all aTI cards had to play the 8.0 render path which is odd since if you're programming a game for DX9.0C, programming it for 9.0b is not a decent chuck of work at all.

Then suprise, suprise, everyone complained until Ubisoft fixed it so Ati cards weren't artificially crippled.
http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_058b.html

And if i remember correctly, i had a X850 back then and when the fix came out, it supposedly ran better too!
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Trying hard to get this.

Game comes out- ATi has massive rendering errors in certain situations.

Game gets patched- no more ATi rendering errors, slight hit in performance with AA.

Massive nV conspiracy!

AT has truly fallen into the fanatical ATi fan site realm.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
I find it ironic certain folks are willing to overlook the graphical problems in AC with DX10.1 and jump straight to conspiracy theories. Every site I've seen cover the problem has admitted to varying degrees of rendering issues (even Rage3D, which is historically pro-ATI). Is it now acceptable to have rendering errors in exchange for performance? If so, nothing is stopping ATI-users from running V1.0 if they want DX10.1 support. Was ATI able to fix DX10.1 in AC with a patch? If not, then Ubi would have every right to pull 10.1 support if that was the solution they chose instead of re-writing code and fixing the game.
 

mwmorph

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2004
8,882
1
81
Originally posted by: chizow
I find it ironic certain folks are willing to overlook the graphical problems in AC with DX10.1 and jump straight to conspiracy theories. Every site I've seen cover the problem has admitted to varying degrees of rendering issues (even Rage3D, which is historically pro-ATI). Is it now acceptable to have rendering errors in exchange for performance? If so, nothing is stopping ATI-users from running V1.0 if they want DX10.1 support. Was ATI able to fix DX10.1 in AC with a patch? If not, then Ubi would have every right to pull 10.1 support if that was the solution they chose instead of re-writing code and fixing the game.

It's not so much that as it wasn't fixed, just pulled.

For example you go buy a car and the stereo doesn't work all the time and you take it in for warranty work on that, wouldn't you be a bit pissed off if the dealership just removed it and told you it's fixed?

It's amazing how easily people will roll over and declare that removing something is the right thing to do. It was an advertised feature, it'd better work.
 

golem

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
838
3
76
Originally posted by: mwmorph
It's not so much that as it wasn't fixed, just pulled.

For example you go buy a car and the stereo doesn't work all the time and you take it in for warranty work on that, wouldn't you be a bit pissed off if the dealership just removed it and told you it's fixed?

It's amazing how easily people will roll over and declare that removing something is the right thing to do. It was an advertised feature, it'd better work.

It wasn't an original advertised feature, I don't think AC ships with any mention of DX10.1. It was added via a patch and when the patch caused other problems it was removed.

So your analogy with the dealership doesn't work, the DX10.1 patch wasn't warranty work since it was never promised but an added feature. When they found out it didn't work correctly, it was pulled. Maybe if they are able to fix the rendering problems it will be reintroduced.
 

mwmorph

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2004
8,882
1
81
Originally posted by: golem
Originally posted by: mwmorph
It's not so much that as it wasn't fixed, just pulled.

For example you go buy a car and the stereo doesn't work all the time and you take it in for warranty work on that, wouldn't you be a bit pissed off if the dealership just removed it and told you it's fixed?

It's amazing how easily people will roll over and declare that removing something is the right thing to do. It was an advertised feature, it'd better work.

It wasn't an original advertised feature, I don't think AC ships with any mention of DX10.1. It was added via a patch and when the patch caused other problems it was removed.

So your analogy with the dealership doesn't work, the DX10.1 patch wasn't warranty work since it was never promised but an added feature. When they found out it didn't work correctly, it was pulled. Maybe if they are able to fix the rendering problems it will be reintroduced.

If you read the article... DX10.1 was in Assasin's Creed 1.0 unpatched gold master retail, 1.02 removed DX10.1 support. I can't verify this myself since I have AC1.0 with a DX9 card but it shipped with the original retail version.

I think you're mixing this up with splinter cell where they added DX9.0b later and hasn't removed it since.
 

golem

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
838
3
76
Originally posted by: mwmorph


If you read the article... DX10.1 was in Assasin's Creed 1.0 unpatched gold master retail, 1.02 removed DX10.1 support. I can't verify this myself since I have AC1.0 with a DX9 card but it shipped with the original retail version.

I think you're mixing this up with splinter cell where they added DX9.0b later and hasn't removed it since.


Hmm.. sorry my mistake then. I didn't know it shipped as a DX10.1 title.



 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
It's not so much that as it wasn't fixed, just pulled.

For example you go buy a car and the stereo doesn't work all the time and you take it in for warranty work on that, wouldn't you be a bit pissed off if the dealership just removed it and told you it's fixed?

It's amazing how easily people will roll over and declare that removing something is the right thing to do. It was an advertised feature, it'd better work

You have a good point- could you please list off what rendering feature doesn't work? Without that, your point becomes utterly unrelated to the topic at hand.

The situation we are looking at- AC rendering DX 10.1 on ATi hardware had massive rendering issues in certain situations. This could have been caused by some faulty code on Ubi's part, issues with ATi drivers or hardware, or problems with the API itself. Whatever the case may be- the problem wasn't going to fix itself for free. As a publisher- what business choice would you make to rectify the situation given that reverting to the DX10 path meant losing no rendering features? Out of the mountain of possible and likely scenarios nV paying someone off or doing something underhanded makes no logical sense whatsoever.

The renderer never worked right- that is a fundamental issue some of the less coherent loyalists are ignoring. Could Ubi have maybe gotten it working right if they spent the time and effort on it? Perhaps they could have. How much would it really have been worth to them? A mild boost in aa performance for a very small segment of the people that bought the game IF correcting the rendering issues didn't reduce performance more then the gain they were seeing when the engine wasn't working right.