Renaming F.E.A.R.'s .Exe increases performance on ATi cards ?

[Zenoth]

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/X16_GS/fear.htm

I'd like to understand how renaming an application's name affects its performance on specific hardware.

I'm just curious, and I'd like to know.

I could have posted this on the Software forum, but because that relates only to ATi hardware owners, I decided to post this here, since it might involve dicussions on technical aspects such as coding, hardware features, etc (just a guess).

 

[BrokenVisage]

R. Look about 6 threads below this one, it's been discussed and I can't believe it either.. but I can believe the +8 more average FPS scores I'm getting.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
R. Look about 6 threads below this one, it's been discussed and I can't believe it either.. but I can believe the +8 more average FPS scores I'm getting.

The thing is you may not be getting comparable IQ. There may be app specific code in the drivers necessary to render it as intended. I seriously doubt if it's the same ATI would let something like this escape them as higher framerates at comparable IQ = higher sales.

 

[Ackmed]

It has been said that its the same IQ. Unless you have proof otherwise, then its the same. There is a very good thread about it on the real forums.

 

[bdoople]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
It has been said that its the same IQ. Unless you have proof otherwise, then its the same. There is a very good thread about it on the real forums.

So when did "it's been said" become fact? Last I checked almost every argument on clock speeds or memory speeds or most things in this forum had to do with a lack of proof and going on "it's been said". Hell.. there's a practical flamewar going on about a guy saying he SAW a 7800GTX 512MB and noone believes him. Man.. sometimes you people confuse me.

 

[EightySix Four]

an ATI driver guy replied to someone and told them they got an IF statement backwards in the optimisations for the game that was hindering performance in the full game but helping it in the Demo. It has no IQ effects, and it does boost performance. It's a catalyst error.

(Rollo enters, sees reply)

"Ha, I told you ATi's drivers were substandard!"

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Rollo
The thing is you may not be getting comparable IQ. There may be app specific code in the drivers necessary to render it as intended. I seriously doubt if it's the same ATI would let something like this escape them as higher framerates at comparable IQ = higher sales.

Always ready to assume the worst about ATI, aren't you? According to CATALYST MAKER (an ATI rep, I'm assuming)

It?s a "bug" in that we simply got an IF statement backwards Thanks for pointing this out to us, you have just helped us get a big performance gain. Of course there is no difference in the rendering, it?s just a CATALYST AI game specific optimization that was good for the demo version, but backfired in the final version. We will get it sorted out in a future Catalyst (not 5.11 which is being posted tomorrow by the way).

Any other help anyone can provide in bringing up our performance, make sure you send it my way.

And one person who tried the game with both the regular and renamed .exe said:

Yes, I ahve looked and as I already said, short of detailed inspection, it appears to be rendering correctly.

So, no, it doesn't appear to have any effect on the rendered image, at least from the posted information available so far. Do you have something a bit more concrete than "seriously doubt" that you could share with the rest of us to disprove this?

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: bdoople

Originally posted by: Ackmed
It has been said that its the same IQ. Unless you have proof otherwise, then its the same. There is a very good thread about it on the real forums.

So when did "it's been said" become fact? Last I checked almost every argument on clock speeds or memory speeds or most things in this forum had to do with a lack of proof and going on "it's been said". Hell.. there's a practical flamewar going on about a guy saying he SAW a 7800GTX 512MB and noone believes him. Man.. sometimes you people confuse me.

Im sorry I take the lead ATi driver programmers word that it doesnt effect IQ as truth. Do you have facts to refute him? Also, I never said that 512mb GTX wasnt there, so why even mention that to me? I didnt not believe him.

 

[tuteja1986]

tried it : ) it works and didn't see any image quality chances. everything ran smooth .. no shimmering ect

 

[bdoople]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: bdoople

Originally posted by: Ackmed
It has been said that its the same IQ. Unless you have proof otherwise, then its the same. There is a very good thread about it on the real forums.

So when did "it's been said" become fact? Last I checked almost every argument on clock speeds or memory speeds or most things in this forum had to do with a lack of proof and going on "it's been said". Hell.. there's a practical flamewar going on about a guy saying he SAW a 7800GTX 512MB and noone believes him. Man.. sometimes you people confuse me.

Im sorry I take the lead ATi driver programmers word that it doesnt effect IQ as truth. Do you have facts to refute him? Also, I never said that 512mb GTX wasnt there, so why even mention that to me? I didnt not believe him.

That's a double negative!

I didn't mention that as you, just as an example.

 

[Ackmed]

I know its a double negative.. it was the quickest way to get my point across. You quoted me, and said "you people". Seems to me you were talking to me.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

That's kind of odd. The fear demo had the same filename as the fear retail? wasn't it like feardemo.exe or something?

 

[BFG10K]

Unfortunately both vendors are using application specific optimizations these days but at least with ATi you can disable them through Catalyst AI.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
It has been said that its the same IQ. Unless you have proof otherwise, then its the same. There is a very good thread about it on the real forums.

How bout, unless you have proof it's the same, it's otherwise. That works also here.
You have a point, but try not to make it one sided all the time. That is one of the biggest problems in this forum. I can't believe you actually said "I take the lead ATI programmers word." That is so un-Ackmed like.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Rollo
The thing is you may not be getting comparable IQ. There may be app specific code in the drivers necessary to render it as intended. I seriously doubt if it's the same ATI would let something like this escape them as higher framerates at comparable IQ = higher sales.

Always ready to assume the worst about ATI, aren't you? According to CATALYST MAKER (an ATI rep, I'm assuming)

It?s a "bug" in that we simply got an IF statement backwards Thanks for pointing this out to us, you have just helped us get a big performance gain. Of course there is no difference in the rendering, it?s just a CATALYST AI game specific optimization that was good for the demo version, but backfired in the final version. We will get it sorted out in a future Catalyst (not 5.11 which is being posted tomorrow by the way).

Any other help anyone can provide in bringing up our performance, make sure you send it my way.

And one person who tried the game with both the regular and renamed .exe said:

Yes, I ahve looked and as I already said, short of detailed inspection, it appears to be rendering correctly.

So, no, it doesn't appear to have any effect on the rendered image, at least from the posted information available so far. Do you have something a bit more concrete than "seriously doubt" that you could share with the rest of us to disprove this?

LOL
ATI says "it was all just a big misunderstanding- we were trying to cheat on the demo to sell cards- and it hosed the retail version!" and we all believe them.
Not me, Ackmed, I think I'll withhold judgement till some websites analyze the wonder fix.

I remember Quack, 3DMark, Trylinear, etc. and think that ATI is in a position these days that they'd say or do about anything to try and save some face.

 

[nts]

LOL cheat...

Take a look at Quake4 and other OpenGL benchmarks, reconfiguring (optimizing) their memory controller is not cheating. The more likely thing is that the optimizations in the demo didn't work because FEAR being an NVIDIA game had the developers reconfigure the memory layout of their geometry for example (to run faster on nvidia cards ofcourse).

btw, I remember the NV30/40, Futuremark, TRAOD and all the other benchmarks and the filth NVIDIA PR was spewing to sell their cards

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: nts
LOL cheat...

Take a look at Quake4 and other OpenGL benchmarks, reconfiguring (optimizing) their memory controller is not cheating. The more likely thing is that the optimizations in the demo didn't work because FEAR being an NVIDIA game had the developers reconfigure the memory layout of their geometry for example (to run faster on nvidia cards ofcourse).

btw, I remember the NV30/40, Futuremark, TRAOD and all the other benchmarks and the filth NVIDIA PR was spewing to sell their cards

LMAO. :laugh:

P.S. Dont argue with Rollo, waste of time & energy.

 

[EightySix Four]

Originally posted by: crazySOB297
an ATI driver guy replied to someone and told them they got an IF statement backwards in the optimisations for the game that was hindering performance in the full game but helping it in the Demo. It has no IQ effects, and it does boost performance. It's a catalyst error.

(Rollo enters, sees reply)

"Ha, I told you ATi's drivers were substandard!"

Kudos to me, I predicted the future... I knew it was coming!

 

[BFG10K]

Dont argue with Rollo, waste of time & energy.

Absolutely. Bring up nVidia's past cheating and he'll tell you its irrelevant because it's ancient history. Nevermind they still use application detection to this day.

My Dog for MOD!
Fair & Balanced

LMAO! That's the best suggestion for a mod I've seen thus-far.

 

[Powermoloch]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: nts
LOL cheat...

Take a look at Quake4 and other OpenGL benchmarks, reconfiguring (optimizing) their memory controller is not cheating. The more likely thing is that the optimizations in the demo didn't work because FEAR being an NVIDIA game had the developers reconfigure the memory layout of their geometry for example (to run faster on nvidia cards ofcourse).

btw, I remember the NV30/40, Futuremark, TRAOD and all the other benchmarks and the filth NVIDIA PR was spewing to sell their cards

LMAO. :laugh:

P.S. Dont argue with Rollo, waste of time & energy.

There should have been "ignore rollo for a day thread" jk (your cool)

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Rollo
LOL
ATI says "it was all just a big misunderstanding- we were trying to cheat on the demo to sell cards- and it hosed the retail version!" and we all believe them.
Not me, Ackmed, I think I'll withhold judgement till some websites analyze the wonder fix.

You're truly amazing, Rollo. You're the only person I know of who's so hopelessly biased that he can say that ATI was "trying to cheat on the demo to sell cards" and "I think I'll withhold judgement till somebody websites analyze the wonder fix" in the same breath.

Please explain (if you can) where "Fair and Balanced" fits anywhere into your last post.

Originally posted by: Rollo
I remember Quack, 3DMark, Trylinear, etc. and think that ATI is in a position these days that they'd say or do about anything to try and save some face.

Yes, yes... And nV was caught cheating big time on 3DMark. But as we all know, your memory is amazingly selective.

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/X16_GS/fear.htm

I'd like to understand how renaming an application's name affects its performance on specific hardware.

I'm just curious, and I'd like to know.

I could have posted this on the Software forum, but because that relates only to ATi hardware owners, I decided to post this here, since it might involve dicussions on technical aspects such as coding, hardware features, etc (just a guess).

I posted my results in another thread, my average fps went up 10fps. I don't know why it did but meh.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
I'd like to understand how renaming an application's name affects its performance on specific hardware.

I'm just curious, and I'd like to know.

The video card drivers detect the application being run (by its name) and can adjust settings for specific games. ATI had a special setting for fear.exe, so renaming it to fearwhatever.exe means the special settings won't be in effect, b/c ATI's driver doesn't recognize the new name (even tho it's still the same game).

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: Pete

Originally posted by: Zenoth
I'd like to understand how renaming an application's name affects its performance on specific hardware.

I'm just curious, and I'd like to know.

The video card drivers detect the application being run (by its name) and can adjust settings for specific games. ATI had a special setting for fear.exe, so renaming it to fearwhatever.exe means the special settings won't be in effect, b/c ATI's driver doesn't recognize the new name (even tho it's still the same game).

After 20 posts someone actually answers the OPs post!

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Rollo
LOL
ATI says "it was all just a big misunderstanding- we were trying to cheat on the demo to sell cards- and it hosed the retail version!" and we all believe them.
Not me, Ackmed, I think I'll withhold judgement till some websites analyze the wonder fix.

You're truly amazing, Rollo.

Thanks Creig! Nice of you to say!

Originally posted by: Rollo
I remember Quack, 3DMark, Trylinear, etc. and think that ATI is in a position these days that they'd say or do about anything to try and save some face.

Yes, yes... And nV was caught cheating big time on 3DMark. But as we all know, your memory is amazingly selective.

[/quote]
No, I just like to stay "on topic". The thread is about ATI app specific driver optomizations, not nVidia app specific driver optomizations.
You'll notice I didn't mention S3, Matrox, Intel, 3DFX, Rendition, or PowerVR either?


Know why?


Same reason- off topic. :beer:

-Amazing Rollo