Far Cry 2 Dissected: Massive Amounts of Performance Data
by Derek Wilson on November 21, 2008 5:30 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
AMD Driver Caveats and Major Open Issues
The issues with AMD's driver and hotfix for Far Cry 2 have been fairly public. The 8.10 driver didn't really deliver on some performance points while the first hotfix had some rendering issues. The next couple hotfixes fixed some things and broke others, and we still don't have a driver from AMD that gives us the results we want. The 8.11 driver only incorporates the final hotfix changes, but we will have to wait until a newer hotfix is released or 8.12 for any hope of a better experience on Far Cry 2 with most AMD hardware.
While people have been talking about the issues, we've spent quite a bit of time looking at this problem (and the AMD driver issues are one of the major reasons this article is as delayed as it is). And we'll lead off with the bottom line: the Radeon HD 4870 1GB is the only AMD card not in some way afflicted, and it also happens to be the card we would recommend for the best single GPU experience on Far Cry 2 at any setting except 2560x1600 with 4xAA. But that is not an excuse for the kind of horrific experience we've had with every single other AMD solution when playing this game.
The stuttering issue people have pointed out with AMD hardware is not an issue with the 1GB part in our experience. The rest of the line up suffers greatly from random hitches that aren't so much stuttering in our tests as they are temporary slow downs. We were also unable to test CrossFire, as CrossFire only works with 4xAA enabled. Even then CrossFire performance is erratic and stutters more than single card solutions (except for with the 4870 X2 or two 1GB 4870 cards that is). We aren't quite sure what the CrossFire issue is, but it seems clear that there is some graphics memory issue somewhere, and not only because of the huge discrepancy between the performance of the 4870 512MB part an the 1GB part.
In our tests, we initially wanted to take the 3 run average for each test. This was not something we could do with AMD hardware as even our benchmark sessions were marred with ridiculous stuttering and slow downs. We would have performance range from 25 to 55 frames per second on any given test. Rather than take the average, we decided to take the highest performance run for NVIDIA and AMD. It is worth noting that most of the performance results for NVIDIA were within less than a frame per second difference, so average versus max performance run isn't that different.
This does mean that our tests paint AMD hardware in a better light than the actual experience will be, at this point in time, with every card except the 4870 1GB. The average FPS data was just not usable as our line graphs looked more like sine waves than anything logical; nothing made any sense at all. Our choice to publish this article now is based on the fact that we absolutely expect AMD to fix their performance issues in Far Cry 2 as soon as possible. Far Cry 2 is a major title and AMD is a major GPU maker: there is simply no excuse for this sort of problem.
So the trade off for going forward with best-case scenario numbers is this page explaining the problems and a plea to AMD to change their approach to driver development for the good of the consumer.
Maintaining a monthly driver release schedule is detrimental to AMD's ability to release quality drivers. This is not the first or only issue we've seen that could have been solved (or at least noticed) by expanded testing that isn't possible with such tight release deadlines. Yes, consistent and frequent driver releases to improve compatibility and performance are a necessity, but doing anything to excess is a very bad idea. Moderation is key and AMD severely needs a better balance here.
We've been mentioning this as an issue in passing when it pops up and causes us problems, but this is starting to get ridiculous. It is one thing when previous fixes are broken or when older games fall off the grid and are neglected. But when a major title like Far Cry 2 is released to incredibly poor driver support, it is time to wake up and realize that something is wrong. This is not the first time we've seen issues with a newly released game, but the problems we've had with AMD drivers and Far Cry 2 are some of the worst we've ever experienced.
And this time it isn't just us. This isn't prerelease hardware or a beta software package. This isn't a quick fix "oops I forgot something" kind of bug. Though we tend to see problems a lot more frequently than end users, we do see a lot more issues with AMD drivers than NVIDIA. Even though not all those issues are things that we need to bother end users with, the probability of hitting a bug that will affect end users is much higher when you've got a higher number of bugs to worry about in general.
Now don't get me wrong, AMD drivers are still much better than they were before Catalyst. Back during the transition to Vista, ATI drivers were hands and feet above NVIDIA drivers for a long time (and they didn't hang XP out to dry either). AMD has maintained a unified driver model where NVIDIA had to break up their driver for different hardware generations for a while.
And now it is time for AMD to learn from their mistakes and change over to a more manageable and sensible driver release policy. Double the time between driver releases, do much much more testing across hardware platforms and games, and maybe even regularly release partly QA'd beta drivers in between WHQL drivers if there's something that needs a quick fix.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
78 Comments
View All Comments
toyota - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - link
graphics a joke? on very high or ultra they seem pretty good to me. now the character models look goofy but thats about it for my complaints on the way it looks. now gameplay is a different story. I am growing tired of driving around and running through re spawned enemy checkpoints as if nothing happened just 1 minute earlier. also the AI is stupid as hell. they will shoot at you and then look the other way or even up in the air sometimes. too bad ubi screwed this one up.Griswold - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - link
He's right though. Its aimed at consoles and thus the textures are "cheap" compared to whats possible. It has this typical console touch as far as visuals go. :(clairvoyant129 - Friday, November 21, 2008 - link
Every other sites show GTX 260 Core 216 leading over HD4870 1GB... tells you something about Anand.SiliconDoc - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
Well someone has to cheer for the stuttering underdawg ... if they all told the truth, amd/ati sales would plummet and competition might then be over.I have been amazed myself - the kind of seemingly unavoidable bias that has been everywhere with the 4000 release - I guess they like the color red or hate the leader - LOL - no that wasn't a political comment.
Maybe it's cheering for the underdog - or blowing off pent up steam on the NV card namings and reissuings of barely changed cards with bit width and shaders mixed about in number.
Something is definitely causing it - but it is becoming ever clearer that just screaming ATI has a driver update every month won't cut it.
People cheer for what they like or bought, for whatever reason and with the massively complex benching and work involved it's no surprise one side gets a break the other side doesn't.
I certainly don't blame the people - gosh having to watch every word is difficult - and then meeting work deadlines - and colluding with the vendors that work with them - there's a lot more to the nightmare than I see when I'm critiquing the benchmark bias....
( Doesn't mean the bias isn't there - but then again human nature is complex )
Anyway, thanks for saying it - what you said about other benchmarks being different.
( Yes I saw Derek's explanation below - oh well pressure at the workplace makes things happen - and with everyone so touchy I suppose threats would issue if they didn't claim everything is almost equal. )
At least some can see clearly what is going on, that makes me happy.
kr7400 - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
Can you please fucking die? Preferably by getting crushed to death in a garbage compactor, by getting your face cut to ribbons with a pocketknife, your head cracked open with a baseball bat, your stomach sliced open and your entrails spilled out, and your eyeballs ripped out of their sockets. *beep* bitch
I would love to kick you hard in the face, breaking it. Then I'd cut your stomach open with a chainsaw, exposing your intestines. Then I'd cut your windpipe in two with a boxcutter. Then I'd tie you to the back of a pickup truck, and drag you, until your useless *beep* corpse was torn to a million *beep* useless, bloody, and gory pieces.
Hopefully you'll get what's coming to you. *beep* bitch
I really hope that you get curb-stomped. It'd be hilarious to see you begging for help, and then someone stomps on the back of your head, leaving you to die in horrible, agonizing pain. *beep*
Shut the *beep* up f aggot, before you get your face bashed in and cut to ribbons, and your throat slit.
You're dead if I ever meet you in real life, f ucker. I'll f ucking kill you.
I would love to f ucking send your f ucking useless ass to the hospital in intensive care, fighting for your worthless life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po0j4ONZRGY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po0j4ONZRGY
I wish you a truly painful, bloody, gory, and agonizing death, *beep*
Snarks - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - link
care to back that claim up, or just spew forth more bs?Carfax - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - link
Anandtech is the only website I've seen that shows ATI's part leading Nvidia in Far Cry 2.The GTX 260 216 is typically compared to the 4870 1GB in this game..
Anandtech is the only site I've seen where the 4870 1GB actually beats the GTX 280.
Also, there is NO MENTION whatsoever as to what Nvidia driver version the author uses in the article near as I can tell.
The 180xx series brings substantial performance increases for Nvidia cards in this game.
chizow - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - link
The Nvidia drivers and results are probably at least 3 weeks old:http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=51...">http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=51...
And the irony of it all, as the reason given as to why the review wasn't published earlier?:
If this FC2 review wasn't really "Shitting on AMD's Drivers Part 3" you might think AT was being biased. Personally I think its just poor testing standards. Derek is clearly being overambitious with his scope and the result is his work is dated before its even published. Derek really takes criticism and suggestions poorly though, so I doubt we'll see any changes. I was glad to see Gary Key include some additional info in his last set of benches, in a motherboard review of all places! http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3459&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3459&am...
DerekWilson - Monday, November 24, 2008 - link
My drivers for NVIDIA were 180.44This driver featured all the same performance improvements of 180.48, but I had access to it much earlier. The difference is that new features were not yet implemented. I did not use outdated performance data for this. Every other test with Far Cry 2 and NVIDIA would have either used this driver or the 180.43 (well, maybe they would have used 180.47 ... but either way, perf was the same).
The reason my results show the 4870 1GB pushing past the NV cards is very likely for two reasons: I made my own demo, and I took the highest of 3 runs per test rather than the average. It's easy to see that the custom demo does paint the 4870 1GB in a favorable light, and I explain why I take the highest of 3 runs on the second to last page when I'm talking about the problems we had with AMD drivers.
chizow - Monday, November 24, 2008 - link
I'm not sure how you can claim the drivers and performance is the same when:1) You are not using the 180.48 drivers.
2) Other review sites have shown significant differences in performance between drivers, even earlier 180.43 to 180.48.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canu...">http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ha...-2-hardw...
3) Your results are clearly the outlier amongst a sea of review sites that use the actual 180.48 drivers.
4) Your results are at least 3 weeks old, but you still consider them accurate because you think 180.44 = 180.48 in terms of performance.
Besides the other glaring problems with this review that you've acknowledged, that's a pretty far leap to make. Instead of just assuming the results between drivers are the same, why not re-run some tests to confirm or deny? As of right now, running these results really undermine you and the sites credibility.