Nvidia caught cheating; latest drivers 169.xx cheat in Crysis demo

But more important to me, I like the TREES better on ATi. The windshield.. so what? The trees make 75% of the game, so the trees should matter much more.

Later, dudes.. I'm done with all the fuss.. off to gaming! No point in ranting when I could be fragging your asses off.
 
Bo_Fox said:
But more important to me, I like the TREES better on ATi. The windshield.. so what? The trees make 75% of the game, so the trees should matter much more.

Later, dudes.. I'm done with all the fuss.. off to gaming! No point in ranting when I could be fragging your asses off.
Click to expand...

That looks more like the difference between medium and High to me. Or they set some settings lower for NV. I wouldn't come to any conclusions based on 1 unknown site's image quality analysis.

I've already seen plenty of incompetent review sites (i.e. benchmarking MOHA in "DX10" when the game is only DX9... lol). Now I wait for confirmation from a 2nd and 3rd site before drawing a conclusion on something being factual.
 
It isn't an optimization either... in any way you could possibly imagine. Accept the facts guy.
Click to expand...

Then please enlighten me on what you would call a driver that increases performance?

BTW your post makes no sense. You say the bug isn't related to a performance increase persay.
Click to expand...

Correct, I said there was a bug in the optimized driver for Crysis (doesn't mean that the performance increase was directly caused from the bug).

When you call it an optimization, it is implying a performance increase.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Nvidia made an optimization in the 169.04 drivers that gave 8800 users a performance increase. Thanks for stating the obvious?

No one optimizes 100% and gets 100%.
Click to expand...

And grass is green. Neither of these statements have anything to do with what we are talking about.

That simply couldn't be called an optimization, as it is necessary to "optimize" something (see "change") in order to be an optimization.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I only know English (though I'm learning some Spanish).
 
Moofasa~ said:
Then please enlighten me on what you would call a driver that increases performance?



Correct, I said there was a bug in the optimized driver for Crysis (doesn't mean that the performance increase was directly caused from the bug).



Exactly, Nvidia made an optimization in the 169.04 that gave 8800 users a performance increase. Thanks for stating the obvious?



And grass is green. Neither of these statements have anything to do with what we are talking about.



I'm sorry I only speak English (though I'm learning some Spanish).
Click to expand...

Okay, clearly you have some cognitive receptivity issues.

The point is no one would call something an optimization if they didn't believe it was increasing performance. You called the bug an optimization, and you have therefore implied that you believe the performance gain was due to this bug. Get it yet?
 
Moofasa~ said:
All I said was the article gave me the impression that the 169.04 drivers included a performance enhancement and an image quality bug and that bug was related to a game specific optimization (that's doesn't mean the performance increase was directly related to the image quality loss).
Click to expand...

There.
 
Sr7 said:
Uhh actually they even post WHQL drivers more often than 1 driver a month. Do you bother to look?
Click to expand...

My bad there then, no I have not bothered to look, since been out of the loop for quite some time now :D
 
sam0t said:
My bad there then, no I have not bothered to look, been out of the loop so to speak :D
Click to expand...

Guess I was a little harsh, I'm just frustrated by these guys who accuse and accuse all day long, then when they get called on it they have no proof, and they slowly step back from their accusations with the game of "I never said that!"

My apologies.
 
Sr7 said:
Guess I was a little harsh, I'm just frustrated by these guys who accuse and accuse all day long, then when they get called on it they have no proof, and they slowly step back from their accusations with the game of "I never said that!"

My apologies.
Click to expand...

Indeed assumptation is mother of all mistakes, so my bad there plain and simple. Anyways good info there, guess my only gripe toward Nvidia has been fixed as of late, which being the driver release thingy.
 
Moofasa~ said:
All I said was the article gave me the impression that the 169.04 drivers included a performance enhancement and an image quality bug and that bug was related to a game specific optimization (that's doesn't mean the performance increase was directly related to the image quality loss).
Click to expand...

Sr7 said:
There.
Click to expand...

I fail to see the relevance. Clearly the bug is related to the optimization Nvidia created for Crysis. That doesn't mean the optimization itself was the bug.
 
Moofasa~ said:
I fail to see the relevance. Clearly the bug is related to the optimization Nvidia created for Crysis. That doesn't mean the optimization itself was the bug.
Click to expand...

God you just don't get it...how is it clear that the bug is related to the optimization?

And what is "the optimization" you refer to? I've already told you it's a bug, not an optimization...

You're making assumptions about things you just don't know.
 
vanilla_guerilla said:
does anybody know how to spell the sound that you make when you yawn for a real long time?
Click to expand...

How funny. So funny, in fact, that it definitely justifies saying it twice in the same thread. It would be even funnier if you said it a 3rd time OMGLOL.
 
how is it clear that the bug is related to the optimization?
Click to expand...

Because when you turn off all the game specific optimizations (ie: rename the .exe), the bug goes away.

And what is "the optimization" you refer to? I've already told you it's a bug, not an optimization...
Click to expand...

Simply amazing. I'm just stunned how several posts later you still have managed to misinterpret what I have written, even after I clearly explained myself many times. There is a bug IN the optimization. See the word IN? That means Nvidia created a optimization that (accidentally) included a drop in image quality. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, the performance increase (or optimization) was a direct result from the reduced image quality. For the last time, the only point I'm trying to make is that the article concluded that while the 169.04 drivers included a performance increase, it also included a bug (but that doesn't mean they are related).

You're making assumptions about things you just don't know.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. It just appears you don't read my posts completely.

does anybody know how to spell the sound that you make when you yawn for a real long time?
Click to expand...

Does anyone know if there is a way on this forum to alert moderators/admins of a completely wasteful and unnecessary post? Oh wait...
 
oh btw guys a little bird told me that bug is gone in the retail ver of Crysis with the 169.04 drivers but thats just what i hear threw the IRC grapevine
and yes i have seen screen shots of it and no i will not post them till the game is officially out
 
Moofasa~ said:
Because when you turn off all the game specific optimizations (ie: rename the .exe), the bug goes away.



Simply amazing. I'm just stunned how several posts later you still have managed to misinterpret what I have written, even after I clearly explained myself many times. There is a bug IN the optimization. See the word IN? That means Nvidia created a optimization that (accidentally) included a drop in image quality. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, the performance increase (or optimization) was a direct result from the reduced image quality. For the last time, the only point I'm trying to make is that the article concluded that while the 169.04 drivers included a performance increase, it also included a bug (but that doesn't mean they are related).
Click to expand...

The bug goes away when you change the .exe name because it's related to SLI profiles.

Now again, see how you said "Nvidia created an optimization"? How is the image quality issue related to an optimization? How do you know that? You don't. You're talking about an optimization as though it is factually there.

If you say the word optimization, you imply performance gains. Can you not comprehend that? There is NO OPTIMIZATION THERE. An optimization is an intentional change to improve performance. This is NOT that. Get it? It's an unintentional graphics glitch based on driver settings.

It sounds like you're now using the word optimization to mean "the driver in it's entirety". This is not the common meaning of the word. If you say optimization, it means a specific tweak meant to improve performance. Seeing as how that's not what this is, it's not an optimization. Period.
 
The bug goes away when you change the .exe name because it's related to SLI profiles.
Click to expand...

What? That doesn't even make sense. If you change the .exe you disable all game specific optimizations for that game. That's a well known fact (it's the same for AMD too).

Now again, see how you said "Nvidia created an optimization"? How is the image quality issue related to an optimization?
Click to expand...

Once again:
Moofasa~ said:
Because when you turn off all the game specific optimizations (ie: rename the .exe), the bug goes away.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't related to the game specific optimizations, the bug should appear regardless if the game specific optimizations are on or not (this isn't the case). Remember (because I think this is the part you are having issues comprehending), just because the bug is related to the optimization, doesn't mean the performance increase (or the optimization) is directly caused by (or resulted from) the bug (in this case reduced image quality).

If you say the word optimization, you imply performance gains. Can you not comprehend that? There is NO OPTIMIZATION THERE. An optimization is an intentional change to improve performance. This is NOT that. Get it? It's an unintentional graphics glitch based on driver settings
Click to expand...

For the love of God, I never said the bug is an optimization, I said there is a bug IN the optimization (lN does not equal IS).

It sounds like you're now using the word optimization to mean "the driver in it's entirety".
Click to expand...

No you just can't read correctly.
 
guys its a game bug i have seen new screens since the leak it looks fine now
remember that was pre-release demo im sure other stuff got changed to
im waiting to pick my copy up when its out but if a mod says its ok ill post screens
 
Elios said:
guys its a game bug i have seen new screens since the leak it looks fine now
remember that was pre-release demo im sure other stuff got changed to
im waiting to pick my copy up when its out but if a mod says its ok ill post screens
Click to expand...

We already know there is a new driver revision that fixes the bug. This is very old news.
 
Elios said:
no this is with 169.04 with the retail game NOT a new driver
Click to expand...

Well Nvidia themselves have come out and said it is a bug and that they have fixed it in an internal driver. I'm sure if it was just a game bug Nvidia would have been more than happy to share that information when this whole "situation" broke out.

ChrisRay (who is in direct communication with Nvidia) said:
this is fixed in a driver revision ((thats only .o1 or .o2 digits higher than the 169.04 driver series. I cant reveal the actual driver number as it may change by the time it goes public)). But performance looks to be largely unchanged.
Click to expand...
 
Moofasa~ said:
What? That doesn't even make sense. If you change the .exe you disable all game specific optimizations for that game. That's a well known fact (it's the same for AMD too).



Once again:


If it wasn't related to the game specific optimizations, the bug should appear regardless if the game specific optimizations are on or not (this isn't the case). Remember (because I think this is the part you are having issues comprehending), just because the bug is related to the optimization, doesn't mean the performance increase (or the optimization) is directly caused by (or resulted from) the bug (in this case reduced image quality).



For the love of God, I never said the bug is an optimization, I said there is a bug IN the optimization (lN does not equal IS).



No you just can't read correctly.
Click to expand...

Bug in the optimization? So yet again, you imply there is an optimization. There is no optimization. For the love of god. There is no optimization. There is no optimization. There is no optimization.

It makes perfect sense that the driver would adapt how it interacts with the application (aka with updates) based on single or multi GPU. In fact this is what happens. It's fact. So if you have some driver code that is meant to deal with a multi-gpu situation (i.e. a driver setting meant for SLI), which is accidentally coded too generally, and as a result applies to all single-gpu cases too, then you have a problem like this. It's called a bug. Not an optimization. It is not an intentional changing of settings to increase single gpu-performance. It's a bug that seems to have caused a performance difference when the driver recognized the .exe name (i.e. kicked in the SLI compensating tweak on single gpu).

Stop using the word optimization. You're simply dead wrong. I don't know many more ways I can tell you.
 
There is no optimization
Click to expand...

That is wrong. You seem to think that "optimization" is a bad word, but I want Nvidia to put in optimizations in each game.

Moofasa~ said:
Then please enlighten me on what you would call a driver that increases performance?
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense that the driver would adapt how it interacts with the application (aka with updates) based on single or multi GPU. In fact this is what happens. It's fact. So if you have some driver code that is meant to deal with a multi-gpu situation (i.e. a driver setting meant for SLI), which is accidentally coded too generally, and as a result applies to all single-gpu cases too, then you have a problem like this. It's called a bug. Not an optimization. It is not an intentional changing of settings to increase single gpu-performance. It's a bug that seems to have caused a performance difference when the driver recognized the .exe name (i.e. kicked in the SLI compensating tweak on single gpu).
Click to expand...

And that is wrong.

Moofasa~ said:
What? That doesn't even make sense. If you change the .exe you disable all game specific optimizations for that game. That's a well known fact (it's the same for AMD too).
Click to expand...

What I posted are facts. You are clearly misinformed. In Vista, SLI cards use different than single gpu. So tell me why would Nvidia include SLI code in the single gpu driver? Do you see the lack of logic in your statements? Changing the .exe prevents the game specific optimizations from running. This is a fact, stop arguing it!

In XP NVIDIA simply needed to create two main driver components; really two separate drivers. One for DirectX rendering and one for OpenGL rendering. With Vista though, things have changed, and NVIDIA now needs to develop six separate drivers. One for DX9 single card, one for DX9 SLI, one for DX10 single card, one for DX10 SLI, one for OpenGL single card and one for OpenGL SLI modes.
Click to expand...

This argument is going nowhere since you lack the basic capacity to do simple research. I can only show you the door, you still have to walk through it. So unless if you can raise new points other the garbage you have been posting (doubtful), I'm ok with declaring this issue resolved and moving on. Thanks for the laughs.
 
Sr7 said:
How funny. So funny, in fact, that it definitely justifies saying it twice in the same thread. It would be even funnier if you said it a 3rd time OMGLOL.
Click to expand...

he says, in a high pitched, nasal voice, with one hand on his hip, the other snapping its fingers while making shapes in the air.
 
phide said:
Quiz. NVIDIA improved Crysis performance with 169.04 by means of:
A) Optimization
B) Luck
C) Salad
D) All of the above

Pick one.
Click to expand...

C.

Wait, it's a trick, you never specified what dressing! :mad: Everybody knows ranch dressing doesn't increase performance.
 
How come is it that whenever people start a thread like this, someone has to turn into a dick and think he is all knowing and start calling people names like retards?
 
so, erm, what drivers should i install for my gtx? the ones on nvidia site are 163.75, and the ones on the xfx site are 169.04.
 
I pick option c

it's the salad...

one of the driver team members brought their lunch with them and had nvidia's famous tortellini cheese with pesto sauce and a side salad and brought back to his cubicle to program code over lunch. While eating the salad the ranch spilled onto the keyboard causing magic code to be written which was quickly compiled when the driver team head said submit your fixes so we can release a quick update to the drivers...

Thus whenever ranch dressing is made, a cat is tossed into the mix for that oh so yummy flavor...

oh and 169.04 were born too.
 
Slade said:
I pick option c

it's the salad...

one of the driver team members brought their lunch with them and had nvidia's famous tortellini cheese with pesto sauce and a side salad and brought back to his cubicle to program code over lunch. While eating the salad the ranch spilled onto the keyboard causing magic code to be written which was quickly compiled when the driver team head said submit your fixes so we can release a quick update to the drivers...

Thus whenever ranch dressing is made, a cat is tossed into the mix for that oh so yummy flavor...

oh and 169.04 were born too.
Click to expand...

get off the pot.
 
I don't understand why anyone would be going crazy over the word "optimization". Making something more efficient and thus, better/faster is a good thing.

Optimization doesn't mean "turning down quality to improve performance" so get over it. If you change even small things like the way something's calculated in a program, take out some loops here and there, etc. it can help get things running better overall without the end result looking any different.

From what I can tell, this is simply some (BETA) driver bug. How do I know? Well because we've all seen the game running just fine months ago using all kinds of different drivers and none of us noticed stretched or "laggy" reflections, right? Settle down.
 
Ahh, I came back from gaming after 1 day and now see that 30+ useless posts have been added to this thread. What a waste of reading... people like you turn the forums into a chat zoo full of drama.

If men want to see some drama, they watch UFC or some other sports where people bash each other. Women watch soap operas or read stuff like this thread.
 
Big D. said:
I don't understand why anyone would be going crazy over the word "optimization". Making something more efficient and thus, better/faster is a good thing.

Optimization doesn't mean "turning down quality to improve performance" so get over it. If you change even small things like the way something's calculated in a program, take out some loops here and there, etc. it can help get things running better overall without the end result looking any different.

From what I can tell, this is simply some (BETA) driver bug. How do I know? Well because we've all seen the game running just fine months ago using all kinds of different drivers and none of us noticed stretched or "laggy" reflections, right? Settle down.
Click to expand...

People freak out over the word because when it is used in the context of an app-specific change, that means that it's likely the driver isn't doing all the work the app is asking of it, so it's really not doing the full workload. Any time people mess with what is "intended" to be rendered, it can be construed as "cheating", and many people jump on the bandwagon with accusations even though they have no clue what goes on behind the scenes.

With the bug in question, people are still assuming it's some intentional optimization specific to Crysis, and therefore jumping to the conclusion that it's an intentional cheat, instead of seeing it as a bug (which is what it is, hence it is fixed in upcoming drivers). That's why it's a problem.

In a non-app-specific context, optimizations are always welcome.
 
Ack! Someone beat me to it, I was just gonna post that here. :)

Hey Kyle, it was cool to meet ya. Gonna be harder to fight with you now that I actually know you, but I'll try if you will. ;)
 
Moofasa~ said:
An interesting update. The bug is fixed in 169.09, but at the cost of some performance.
Click to expand...

1 to 2 fps at best that in margin of error imo
well atlest they live up to there name >.> hyping the "7%" change in frame rate which at worst was no more 2 fps except in one case were it was 3fps and already unplayble to start with lame
 
Elios said:
1 to 2 fps at best that in margin of error imo
well atlest they live up to there name >.> hyping the "7%" change in frame rate which at worst was no more 2 fps except in one case were it was 3fps and already unplayble to start with lame
Click to expand...

It's more of the principle of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top