Tesselation done properly..according to AMD

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Athadeus

Senior member
Feb 29, 2004
587
0
71
The Hawx2 video comparison seemed significant to me. The game looks silly like the first one though :)

I haven't actually run a video demo in years D:
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
Just for perspective I've added a 0ne pixel tri (not really possible to accurately draw, since a pixel is square so in reality that little white spec you see is the size of 2 one pixel tris) and a sixteen pixel tri. just so people can see the actual sizes we are talking about. They are under the blown up pics.

Tesselation-Rasterizer-Efficiency.png
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Tesselation makes a difference now. And I will maintain this chant if the 6970 launches with superior tesselation power over a GTX580. Right about the time when everyone pulls a 180 who felt the opposite before.


I have a feeling that before more tesselation power is needed than current AMD cards can handle at comfortable frame rates we won't be using GTX480's and 5870's. My guess is a lot of the Nvidia crowd that is chanting Fermi's superior tesselation power won't even be using the cards they have now. So does it really matter how much oomph you have in your current card if it won't be used by the time heavier tesselation power is needed?

Again, this is just how I see it playing out, if games come out in the next few months that bring a Radeon to it's knees when tesselation is enabled, I'll happily eat my words... finally a game that requires some horsepower is out, that would mean. :)

Anyway, back to DX9 ( ? ) Torchlight on my super dooper Radeon DX11 capable card. At least it's not a port I guess.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Again, why did Nvidia come into picture? Leadbox was not talking about Nvidia either.

From the blog in the OP.. which I am pretty sure you haven't even read:



So, what is your opinion on this? Did they bash Nvidia for using "too much tessellation"?

Ah, it's because that is the ENTIRE basis of the conversation. Said or unsaid.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Good article, i'm on board and in agreement with the effiecient handling of tessalation that AMD is making a case for.

Was never happy with the nonsensical amounts of tessalation that was/is being pushed for use in games/benchmarks by nVidia to exaggerate the significance of their advantage in tesselation performance amongst the current crop of cards.

From the article:
As gamers, we know that you just want a game that plays well. At AMD, we are committed to delivering the best possible gaming experience for all gamers, not just those using AMD hardware. To that end, we are continuing our work with developers of DirectX® 11 games to help them use tessellation in the most efficient way possible.

Given the recent attempts nVidia has made to stiffle a gamers experience if that gamer had chose to run AMD hardware, the significance of that quote is important. It shows a clear difference, a meaningful difference, between how AMD and nVidia conduct themselves.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
You answer the 1st, but not the second.

Skurge, lets not play this game ok? I answered just fine. This ENTIRE conversation would not exist if not for any comparison between AMD and Nvidia and Tesselation abilities. Too much, not enough, in comparison to what? Itself?
Do you understand? I can't explain something that I feel has been already, in a different way or to cater to you.
But I'll try anyway. This threads title says all you need to know.

"Tesselation done properly... according to AMD"

In comparison to who? Intel? Matrox? S3?

What the blog was, was a bizarre slight against NV for having too much tesselating power when it's not needed. Hence the "bizarre" comment. Waaaaaaaay out there, and stretching like Armstrong.

Last I'm commenting on this. If you don't get me, you dont get me.
 
Last edited:

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Ah, it's because that is the ENTIRE basis of the conversation. Said or unsaid.

But.. whenever anybody says the same about your posts and/or threads you start complaining.


This manner of critique regarding one's personal posting style is not helpful when posted publicly in a technical forum.

Please restrict such feedback to the proper venue (which would be pm in this case).

Moderator Idontcare
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
In comparison to who? Intel? Matrox? S3?

What the blog was, was a bizarre slight against NV for having too much tesselating power when it's not needed. Hence the "bizarre" comment. Waaaaaaaay out there, and stretching like Armstrong.

That wasn't a comparison, you just saw it as a comparison. Although I'm not surprised.

I saw it as blog about the most efficient way to do tessellation. Nothing was said about anyone having too much tessellation, no mention was made of nV having to much tesselation. You just need to relax and stop being so overly defensive whenever something pro-nV isn't said.
 

flopper

Senior member
Dec 16, 2005
739
19
76
If I understand it right, the game needs to be done from ground up to support tesselation and the addition in games with tesselation wont do much.

Maybe BF3 will have it done right.

But likely a new game done properly, and that might happen when the next gen consoles is out.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,361
136
Nobody in their right mind would deny that, the issue here is about how much is enough or too much?

There is NO too much when it comes to computer power.



Rasterization: It’s important for all DirectX® 11-capable GPUs that tessellation not result in most polygons covering 1 pixel or less, in order to allow the rasterizers to keep operating at a reasonable level of efficiency.

They must be talking about their hardware and not in general, they have no idea how NVs rasterizers are performing in les than 16 pixels. Just because AMDs rasterizers are designed to be more efficient at 16 pixels that doesn’t mean NVs rasterizers are designed and perform the same at the same envelop.

Overshadowing: If there are high levels of tessellation, it can produce many sub-pixel sized polygons, greatly increasing the impact of overshading.

Well, that’s the job of the engineering team to make sure the hardware can cope with higher levels of tessellation and that’s why Cayman has a dual core design with double Tessellation units in the Front End. That design characteristic in Cayman also answers why too much is never enough.

Because the tessellator stage is not programmable but a fixed faction in the DX-11 pipeline the only way to have more performance is to have more tessellation units in your GPU (multi-core design) and next year’s AMDs HD7000 and NVs Kepler will continue this trend with more cores than what today’s hardware have.

So, anyone saying that today’s Tessellation performance is too much clearly don’t have no clue how Tessellation works or don’t want to admit that a specific hardware has less power.

Multi-sample anti-aliasing (MSAA) techniques: Since tessellation results in a large number of small polygons, it also increases the number of pixels falling on polygon edges, thus reducing the efficiency of MSAA.

That’s true but, more small polys create better graphics and that is what we all want. So make your design more powerful in order to compensate with the loss in efficiency. That statement is more PR BS, is like they are saying that at 1920x1200 we have more pixels to render than 1024x768, so is not that efficient and we shouldn’t be playing at higher resolutions.
 
Last edited:

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
That wasn't a comparison, you just saw it as a comparison. Although I'm not surprised.

I saw it as blog about the most efficient way to do tessellation. Nothing was said about anyone having too much tessellation, no mention was made of nV having to much tesselation. You just need to relax and stop being so overly defensive whenever something pro-nV isn't said.

Bold ^
This is an unsaid reference toooo......Or as opposed tooooo.....??????? (insert Jeopardy music here)

I don't need to relax, but you do need to open your eyes a bit.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,361
136
I saw it as blog about the most efficient way to do tessellation.

No, that blog its all about how AMDs GPUs are more efficient to do Tessellation.

If we talk generally about Tessellation, the most efficient way is to have more Tessellation units and rasterizers in your design.
 

flopper

Senior member
Dec 16, 2005
739
19
76
AMD speaks about it due to them knowing they havent got enough power.
Nvidia is silent due to them have enough power in tesselation.

AMD is doing dmg control.
 

Aristotelian

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,246
11
76
AMD speaks about it due to them knowing they havent got enough power.
Nvidia is silent due to them have enough power in tesselation.

AMD is doing dmg control.

Nvidia is silent? Did you watch their presentation at PDX Lan? Have you checked out a message board recently? Your premise is utterly false, rendering your conclusion absurd. Differences of opinion regarding the progression of tessellation and different emphases on the importance of tessellation do not 'damage control' make. AMD's cards tessellate too, you know? Or is that news to you?
 

Leadbox

Senior member
Oct 25, 2010
744
63
91
No, that blog its all about how AMDs GPUs are more efficient to do Tessellation.

If we talk generally about Tessellation, the most efficient way is to have more Tessellation units and rasterizers in your design.

You risk running into heat and power issues with your design that might see your product delayed by oh, say 6 months :sneaky:
DO you also really need more tessellation right now? AS some on here have already said, by the time when its needed, even the 580 won't cut it. Its all about balance. Nvdia is pressing home their advantage here, can't fault them for that:AMD would have probably done the same
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
No, that blog its all about how AMDs GPUs are more efficient to do Tessellation.

If we talk generally about Tessellation, the most efficient way is to have more Tessellation units and rasterizers in your design.

Ever heard of diminishing returns?
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
Bold ^
This is an unsaid reference toooo......Or as opposed tooooo.....??????? (insert Jeopardy music here)

I don't need to relax, but you do need to open your eyes a bit.

No, its not an unsaid. Its says right there in the blog. If you bothered to read it.
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
As a user/owner of all the cards the number don't paint a pretty picture for AMD. Sure the 5970 may show a higher number than a 480 but has anyone actually WATCHED it run? It looks like it's chugging along and struggling the entire time. Would you want to play a game like that?! If all you care about is a number then what is the point?

Funny thing is every hardcore gamer I've met always turns all the gingerbread off and runs at the lowest rez they are comfortable with. They want 100s of FPS so at the most demanding time they aren't chugging and getting fragged. :biggrin:

Tessellation is a real eye opener and the heaven benchmark shows that nicely. It sure does invoke a hit on frame rates but it's worth it IF your hardware can deliver a smooth gameplay experience. The HD5970s I had definitely did not.
 

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
As a user/owner of all the cards the number don't paint a pretty picture for AMD. Sure the 5970 may show a higher number than a 480 but has anyone actually WATCHED it run? It looks like it's chugging along and struggling the entire time. Would you want to play a game like that?! If all you care about is a number then what is the point?

Funny thing is every hardcore gamer I've met always turns all the gingerbread off and runs at the lowest rez they are comfortable with. They want 100s of FPS so at the most demanding time they aren't chugging and getting fragged. :biggrin:

Tessellation is a real eye opener and the heaven benchmark shows that nicely. It sure does invoke a hit on frame rates but it's worth it IF your hardware can deliver a smooth gameplay experience. The HD5970s I had definitely did not.

You *had* more than one 5970? so 2 5970's in crossfire, and you where not happy with the performance?

So you now own 2 x 580 in SLI to have better performance? or 3? 4x580?

5970 is a faster card than a 580... I dont see how haveing 2 of them, can be bad performance.
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
You *had* more than one 5970? so 2 5970's in crossfire, and you where not happy with the performance?

So you now own 2 x 580 in SLI to have better performance? or 3? 4x580?

5970 is a faster card than a 580... I dont see how haveing 2 of them, can be bad performance.

Never used them in crossfire.

5970 faster than a 580? That's a joke too because I found that a single 480 was better than the 5970. Currently running 580s in SLI and its butter for the most part. I had four 5970s in different systems, all clean installs and all working as they should. Benchmark numbers were perfectly normal.

Yet just forgetting about benchmark and playing a real game the HD5970 just disappointed. It's like comparing loudspeakers where one has superior specification yet the one that's inferior on paper sounds better. I'm a musician and am biased so maybe that's the problem? Then again I'm a CUDA user so that just makes my decision even easier. (work takes precedence over gaming every day)

I've pointed this out to others (in person) and they agree if you actually do what the card is intended to do you will see. I see way too much emphasis on benchmark figures these days. Heck hardware manufacturers know this and (sadly) fine tune their hardware to outgun the competition in benchmarks without actually considering the fact that real life performance may not be better (or worse). This does not apply only to video cards either. <cough>sandforce<cough>
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
It's simple for me:

Does one desire tessellation in the future? Yes, no, maybe, don't care, the views may differ.

Does having more tessellation matter right now? Yes, no, maybe, don't care, the views may differ.

But, for me, it is always nice to see more performance based on there may be less of a tessellation bottleneck for titles. This adds some value to some but does it mean the end-all-be-all? Probably not.

But, when an IHV offers more performance than the other or may have some advantages, of course they're going to try to drive this point home. They wouldn't be doing their job. Just like the other is going to talk about balance, efficient, good enough, and attack why having too much is not the right way - they're doing their job.

But, since when is having too much performance of anything a bad thing?