• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does AMD use more aggressive optimizations than nvidia does?

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
I was thinking so but then I don't really know for sure. I heard that HyperZ was more aggressive than nvidia's "early z occlusion culling" and that AMD wanted to use Hyper Z to cull things that could barely be visible as well.

I've never understood what it is that nvidia did to make their depth calculations look better.

What are some vendor specific optimizations (i.e., what does nvidia sacrifice for performance that AMD doesn't and vice versa) at the driver level? What about at the hardware level? Anyone have a list?

As others know, I have a beef with early z occlusion culling because it makes it so that devs are tempted to use depth formats other than 32 bit fx log z.
 
I have seen artefacts on both vendors cards this year, most likely related to taking shortcuts. The ones a applied to AMD cards with transparency cause major problems with arms 2, the trees gain white speckles which is horrid. But I have seen poor transparency and textures on my 680s as well.

Without knowing the details of exactly what they are doing we can't know if one is more aggressive than the other, and their is no way they could even list them out even if they wanted to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top