ATI ‘cheating’ benchmarks and degrading game quality, says NVIDIA

Justin Robinson of Atomic: MPC writes "From our testing it's clear that ATI's implementation FP16 Demotion does affect image quality in games as challenged by NVIDIA. However, the extent and prevalence of it is not universal - from four games, only one showed any real visible influence. On the other side of the coin are performance improvements, which are plentiful in two games from four: boosting performance by 17 per cent at high resolutions, and a still-impressive 10 per cent at lower resolutions."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
jack who2953d ago

this like m$ saying sony is a 2 face lair....oh wait

zootang2952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

Would it not be more like, Sony PS3(Nvidia) calling Microsoft Xbox360(ATI)

golsilva2953d ago

so which one is the best out the two, ati or nvidia in terms of sales and/or quality?

nnotdead2953d ago

Nvidia tends to be the bigger sellers. both companys have quality though. ATI tends to give you the better bang for the buck, but Nvidia better overall performance. this is of course not always the case. much better idea to start with a price you want to spend, and then go look up reviews for cards in that price range.

Pandamobile2952d ago

Both are good. Don't let someone tell you that one or the other is better. Take it on a case by case basis.

nycredude2952d ago

For the price I'd say ATI is a better value.

NYC_Gamer2952d ago

ATI is better in my opinion

likedamaster2952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

Nvidia has consistently delivered much more stable cards, although ATI have always been cheaper. Nvidia gets my money most times.

peowpeow2952d ago

The 5xxx series are VERY efficient, and great in terms of price/performance. 5770 was the best budget card, but now the GTX 460 kills the 5770 especially when SLI'd with another. I'm glad I was able to get one =)

XxZxX2952d ago

I was a ATI fan since Radeon 8500 until recently I bought an Intel motherboard from ASUS that constantly fail whatever ATI card throw at it. Was using 2850, has random hung issues also but not that much. Then I tried 4870, random hung on Mass Effec everytime, so I went gtx 260, pretty good. Recently just upgraded to 5870, random hung on Starcraft II... FAILED again, went back to GTX 260. I'm gonna stick with Nvidia for now. I haven't bought an NVIDIA since geforce 6800, but Nvidia seem to be more stable to me. Happy with 260gtx, looking to upgrade the next 4 series.

jack_burt0n2952d ago

nvidia for me purevideo etc has always been more reliable for me.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2952d ago
i_like_ff72952d ago

nvidia has better drivers but ati is cheaper

crck2952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

Historically true. But right now at this moment I think the GTX 460 and GTX 470(if you can put up with the heat and power req) are the best bang for the buck cards. Since they usually come with 1 or 2 games you can flip for $25 to $35. But this could change soon when more info is available about Ati's 6xxx series.

mittwaffen2952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

I have used the 5850/GTX 470.

If you can afford it, and want to sit on an amazing card get the 470. Its hot, a little loud but it has the most consistent framerates i've ever seen from a card. Minimum framerates are amazingly stable on the 470.

My only problem is ATI sucks at DX11 drastically, I'd rather a card I can hold onto for a year or two down the road. I ended up trading the cooler/quieter 5850 in for the faster/newer 470.

Its a trade off, but at the end of the day I buy a video card for performance/upgrade.

ProjectVulcan2952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

Nvidia have been the market leader for years, and offer different features, such as physx. Ati have just recently though have had better offerings when it comes to price/performance, and the cards themselves have had heat and power consumption advantages.

This is a bit of cheek really, because nvidia themselves are not above misleading benchmarks. For example, unigine tesselation benchmark used by nvidia to make Ati cards look very slow, when in actual real world the difference in games performance is minimal with tesselation enabled and doesnt impact overall performance nearly as much as the very specific benchmark would suggest.

This isnt new though. They have both been arguing about performance benches for years

likedamaster2952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

You make a good point. However, real world tests still prove current Nvidia cards are more powerful and get higher frames with tessellation compared to the most powerful AMD cards.


ProjectVulcan2952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

My point being with unigine nvidia tried to show that GTX480 was nearly twice as fast as a 5870 on the synthetic benchmark. Whereas in DX11 games with tesselation enabled, the advantage is minor, arguably not even related to tesselation performance in some games. GTX480 is a massive GPU, much much larger than 5870, but its size does not correlate to the same increase in performance advantage. Synth benches are not to be trusted, especially wielded by the designers of the hardware themselves....

The radeon 68xx series will still be smaller than GTX480, and if its not faster across the board in games despite being on 40nm still (6870) i'll eat my shoes. AMD are on a roll, and have major architectural advantages regards die size and efficiency versus Nvidia's designs. Smaller die = cheaper to produce.

This is obvious even looking closely at the midrange, where the GTS450 cannot comprehensively defeat a radeon 5750, despite having a die size 30 percent larger. 5750 isnt even the fastest chip based on that die, 5770 is which soundly beats the GTS450 despite being far smaller. This is a huge advantage for AMD, because they can price parts for profit far below what nvidia could to only break even.

This sort of benchmark fudging has gone back years, recent examples often cited as physx score in 3Dmark favouring nvidia. Going waaaay back even more, i recall accusations being flung about 3D Mark 2003 and how the FX series results were being manipulated by nvidia.

z1ck2952d ago

ATI is the best choice , better price/performance , low power consumption ( means less heat and more space for overclock ) and now even in drives is better . nvidia still have the most powerfull single core cards but they very expensive and run too hot . if you plan on buying a new card wait for the ati 6000 series or until nvidia drop prices ( but wating for the 6000 series is recommended )

nycredude2952d ago

Really no need to buy the 6000 series now since they will cost an arm and leg now. Better waiting until 6000 series releases, then buy a late 5000 series for cheap. They can handle pretty much any games out at highest settings and will last a while. Spend the money you save on games.

jakethesnake2952d ago

Thats what I'm planning on doing. Wait til the 6000s come out and the 5000 prices go down, and then getting a good deal on a 5000 series! .The only hard part is being patient!

peowpeow2952d ago

You can say that again. The hardest part is waiting for the price drop xD

ps360owner092952d ago

I'm just a moderate pc gamer I'm mainly a console gamer but here's my opinion for what its worth. I don't have a dedicated pc rig I just choose the option to get a dedicated game card on my pc when it comes time to get a new laptop because usually it's just a $100 option. My current laptop has a ati 4650 and my last laptop had a nvidia 8400.

Nvidia wins in terms of sales but Ati has been gaining on it in market share over the years. Ati offers the best bang for the buck and they tend to run a lot cooler especially in notebooks. Some of nvidias card tend to overheat. I personally will never buy a nvidia card again because of the overheating problems I had with my past card and the sad thing is it wasn't even that powerful of a graphics card. My ati card in my current laptop stays nice and cool and I can play all current gen games at 720p and most at 1080p with the settings maxed out.

joydestroy2952d ago

like the guys have said, ATI is better bang for your buck.
i personally prefer Nvidia, though. you have PhysX in Nvidia cards.
i run off of 2 MSI GTX 460's

Trroy2952d ago

If you're looking for the best performance first, and looking to save money as well, ATI is usually better.

If you're looking for the best performance, period, or the best performance in a low- or mid-range card, nVidia is better. nVidia really only overcharges for the high-end of the moment.

jerethdagryphon2952d ago

@below it does indeed depend

on a game using physx api nvidia gives a huge advantage because of cuda, in games not running physx theres less difference

bang for buck ati puts more cores in a chip and are lower priced

optimazation and proformence in some areas is better with nvidia at a price

most review list same generation cards as very similar usually less then 10fps from one to another

of corse some games are different and nvidia shows ati up o nthem but there few

my 100£ 5770 runs the games i want at max spec and gives me a 3400 score on the ff14 benchmark

rexus123452952d ago

As of right this moment, AMD leads the market (ATI does not exist), but nvidia is gaining market with their new gtx 460 series

Sarcasm2952d ago

ATI is a better value and a lot of their cards run cooler.

As far as raw power, the high end Nvidia's is pretty hot stuff that cant be denied.

Once they roll out either a GTX 490 or maybe even the 500 series, ATI/AMD will have a lot on their hands.

Personally, the best value card in the entire market at least at this point is the GTX 460.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2952d ago
AwesomeJizz2952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

ATI sucks because half of the games that come out don't support them, but overall they are a better company than NVIDIA IMO. I mean their products are a lot cheaper than NVIDIA's.

Btw, I thought AMD dropped the name ATI. What happened?

nycredude2952d ago

I don't know what games you are playing or what ati card you use but I have like over 30 steam games and they all run on my 5870.

z1ck2952d ago

really half the games ? can you name one ? because i dont remember a single one that dont work on ati . there was the saboteur but that easy fixed .

AwesomeJizz2952d ago

That's not what I meant..
I know that games get fixed, but it takes some time for ATI to fix them.

4cough2952d ago

Nvidia sound just like sony, Bitter and sour when thier hardware is actully put to the test it just doesnt live up to the hype.

Seijoru2952d ago

What the... Have you seen God of War 3, Uncharted 2, GT5, Killzone 2???????

evrfighter2952d ago

Are you serious.? Gow3 is all smoke and mirrors outside of kratos everything else is a blurry low res texture mess. Kz2 the land of crappy textures, low fps, and jaggies. Never played uc2 or gt5.

You are talking to pc gamers here. We expect quality across the board. Smoke and mirrors don't work on us.

wicko2952d ago

Here comes a flood of kids who have no idea what they're talking about.

Motorola2952d ago

Dont bother hes only saying that because an NVIDIA card is in the PS3. i think....

RememberThe3572952d ago

He's just trying to piss people off.

Shackdaddy8362952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

I like how you say that even though its a fact that ps3 hardware is slightly better than the 360s. Everyone knew that since they first came out.

BTW, Im not one of those ps3 fanboys. I dont even own a PS3. I just dont like it when people say their stuff performs better when it really doesnt.

Zinc2952d ago (Edited 2952d ago )

I've owned cards from both companies. The TNT2 series lasted a long time and was very competitive. The Radeon X850 was a beast. I currently have a Nvidia 8800GTS 512 (G92) and it still kicks a good amount of ass, even to this day. I'm overall very happy with Nvidia, but both solutions have their positives.

Show all comments (57)
The story is too old to be commented.