Looking Back Pt. 2: X800 & Catalyst Under The Knife
by Ryan Smith on February 22, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Doom 3
Moving back in to first-person shooters, Doom 3 is without a doubt the most interesting game tested on the Catalyst drivers today. With its emphasis on darkness and a unified lighting system, Doom 3 presents a very different situation than most first-person shooters do, hopefully giving us a different take on performance in such a game. It’s also the OpenGL game of choice for this roundup; though, as we’ll see, just being OpenGL doesn’t mean it’s a great indicator of OpenGL performance.
Shortly after Doom 3 was released, ATI found itself in an interesting situation with regards to what they could do to improve performance. There was a bottleneck in the game in how specular highlighting was applied, and while ATI made some efforts to optimize their drivers for the game, as seen with the 4.09 drivers, this kind of bottleneck was a fundamental issue on which ATI would have to take more serious measures if they wanted to remove it.
What ended up being the bottleneck was that John Carmack, id’s lead programmer, had decided to use a lookup method for determining what highlighting values should be used, based on referencing a specifically constructed texture map with these pre-computed values. It turned out that the R420 could actually calculate such values faster than it could look them up, so to fix the bottleneck would mean replacing the entire shader with what was only a mathematical approximation for the real values in the texture map. However, given the scrutiny over optimizations, it is a difficult choice to make. We’ve covered the issue before, but ultimately, these optimizations are valid in most cases, and the result is the performance improvement as seen above. This case, however, will always serve as a reminder of how fine of a line there is between optimizing and cheating in a game.
But getting back to performance as a whole, outside of ATI’s shader replacement, there’s no further changes in performance. Unfortunately, the replacement means that Doom3 isn’t too great of an OpenGL benchmark, but as the number of OpenGL games continues to dwindle, there is little else on the market to play that uses OpenGL, which isn’t Doom 3 (or Doom 3 engine based) in the first place.
Moving back in to first-person shooters, Doom 3 is without a doubt the most interesting game tested on the Catalyst drivers today. With its emphasis on darkness and a unified lighting system, Doom 3 presents a very different situation than most first-person shooters do, hopefully giving us a different take on performance in such a game. It’s also the OpenGL game of choice for this roundup; though, as we’ll see, just being OpenGL doesn’t mean it’s a great indicator of OpenGL performance.
For these benchmarks, we opted to start with the 4.05 drivers, even though they’re a few months older than Doom 3 itself. Doing so also helps bring attention to the large jump in performance between the 4.09 and 4.11 drivers, and what makes Doom 3 such an interesting game to work with. It’s here that ATI implemented its Catalyst AI feature, which is the cause of the performance change.
Shortly after Doom 3 was released, ATI found itself in an interesting situation with regards to what they could do to improve performance. There was a bottleneck in the game in how specular highlighting was applied, and while ATI made some efforts to optimize their drivers for the game, as seen with the 4.09 drivers, this kind of bottleneck was a fundamental issue on which ATI would have to take more serious measures if they wanted to remove it.
What ended up being the bottleneck was that John Carmack, id’s lead programmer, had decided to use a lookup method for determining what highlighting values should be used, based on referencing a specifically constructed texture map with these pre-computed values. It turned out that the R420 could actually calculate such values faster than it could look them up, so to fix the bottleneck would mean replacing the entire shader with what was only a mathematical approximation for the real values in the texture map. However, given the scrutiny over optimizations, it is a difficult choice to make. We’ve covered the issue before, but ultimately, these optimizations are valid in most cases, and the result is the performance improvement as seen above. This case, however, will always serve as a reminder of how fine of a line there is between optimizing and cheating in a game.
But getting back to performance as a whole, outside of ATI’s shader replacement, there’s no further changes in performance. Unfortunately, the replacement means that Doom3 isn’t too great of an OpenGL benchmark, but as the number of OpenGL games continues to dwindle, there is little else on the market to play that uses OpenGL, which isn’t Doom 3 (or Doom 3 engine based) in the first place.
Catalyst 4.05 versus 6.01 (mouse over to see 4.05)
24 Comments
View All Comments
breethon - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link
I never download the "FULL" package drivers from ATI. I always use the option "dial up - driver only"(the first of three options under the dial up links). I use atitool for any tweaking. I don't have the CCC (atleast I don't believe I do). Don't let the dial-up words trick you. I pull from ati.com just as fast as the broadband links. Hopefully this helps.archcommus - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link
I'll admit the CCC takes a long time to load and is bloated, but if you disable it from startup and don't mess with the settings much, it's really not that bad.microAmp - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link
If you search the Far Cry forums, there is a way to do a quick save, through the console, IIRC.archcommus - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link
Yes, I wouldn't even bother playing the game without doing that, don't care for repeating things endlessly.wing0 - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link
from all the comparison for 9700Pro, it seems to me that I should stick with my 5.7 cat?Cybercat - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link
I do see a change in the shadows under the dock. I don't know if you could say it's better or worse though.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link
That's actually fog. We couldn't get an exactly perfect screenshot because of the rolling fog(though we kept the scene because it does a good job showing everything), so there is a slight difference due to that. There are no differences however due to driver IQ changes.tfranzese - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link
But is the CCC the cause of the increased boot time or is it the .NET Framework in general? I've never given CCC any use personally, just want to be sure that the distinction was made when you took the measurements.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link
It was the CCC, the machine already had the .NET framework on it.Scrogneugneu - Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - link
Yeah, but is the slowdown caused by the CCC itself, or by the .NET components loading because there was a .NET application launched?I believe the Framework won't load itself until one application requires it. If the CCC happens to be that application, then there's not much ATI can do about it. However, if it isn't... then they should definitively take a look at that (I'd rater have a better CCC than a "half-a-fps" faster driver).