Behind the Mask with Optimization and Catalyst AI

Final Words

After having tested a few of the games that ATI now detects under Catalyst AI, we can evaluate what they are doing. They say that they try to keep image quality nearly the same, and in the games that we've looked at, we see that they do. Of course, the only games on which we had seen any "real" improvement were Doom 3 and (only with AA/AF enabled) UT2K4. Maybe there is an issue with this version of the Catalyst AI functionality (this is a beta driver), or maybe there's really just no performance difference for the games that we tested. Usually using higher performance hardware accentuates small tweaks and performance enhancements, and these games shouldn't be limited by other aspects of the system. We are definitely pleased with ATI's move away from dropping to bilinear filtering.

NVIDIA first started applying tight restrictions on optimizations last year after their issue with Futuremark. We are glad to see that ATI is embracing a move to enhance the user experience for specific games when possible while tightening up the reins on their quality control as well. We see this as a very positive step and hope to see it continue.

We also like the fact that we have the ability to turn on or off Catalyst AI functionality. When we perform the test, we will be using the default option, but for those out there who want the choice, it is theirs to make. Of course, right now, it doesn't look like it makes much sense to have Catalyst AI on except in Doom 3 and Unreal. As the package matures, we will likely see more games affected and more reason to enable Catalyst AI. But ATI can be assured that we and others in the community will be doing image quality spot checks between running with and without Catalyst AI. And the same goes for any optimization over which NVIDIA allows us control.

Over the past year, we have had ample opportunity to speak with the development community about optimizations and their general take on the situation. They tend to agree that as long as the end result is very nearly the same, they appreciate any kind of performance enhancement that they see. Since NVIDIA and ATI cannot physically produce the same mathematical output, they'll never have the same image appear on systems with different vendors' cards in them. But just as these two different results are equally valid under the constraints of the API used and the developer who implemented them, so can optimized results that are faster to render, but not perceivably different to the human eye.

Both ATI and NVIDIA want to maintain an acceptable image quality because they know that they'll be held accountable for not doing so. If it's not the API architects (who can take away the marketing tool of feature set support), then it's game developers. If it's not the game developers, then it's the end users. And the more we know about what we are seeing, the better we are able to help ATI and NVIDIA give us what we want. As the mantra of "optimizations are bad, mmkay" lifts, we should encourage both companies to focus on balancing mathematically accurate output optimally with pure speed to match our own perception.