Carmack speaks: poor Nvidia!
who be dat?
has a custom back end that uses the lower precisions on the GF-FX, but when
you run it with standard fragment programs just like ATI, it is a lot
slower. The precision doesn't really matter to Doom, but that won't be a
reasonable option in future games designed around DX9 level hardware as a
minimum spec.
http://english.bonusweb.cz/interviews/carmackgfx.html
Goodbye Nvidia.
Chris Smith
Tim
5600pro is doing 48fps.
ITs pretty ovious that hl2 team didn't want code it for performance.
Derek Baker
"Tim" <ilov...@iet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3F6A721E...@iet.net.au...
Where did you get those numbers from?
As far as I can see - for example, here:
http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2003q3/hl2bench/index.x?pg=2 - even the
5900Ultra can't get to 48fps let alone the 5600Ultra. I'm talking about the
DX9 path here.
Derek
Tim
phobos
In the future don't post such blatant flame bait especially to both groups.
But as an addendum, I don't think what a lot of people realize is that
mathematically even, the FX lineup has to do at least 1/3 more work to
get the same full-precision result as the Radeon in DX9. Not to mention
stalls in the pipeline for something the architecture wasn't intended
for (ATI set the spec for DX9 PS2.0 with Microsoft long before an nVidia
product was released).
The original intent of the FX architecture was as a completely
programmable chip that was independent of any particular API, not
dependent on it. So one could just as easily use hardware accelerated
realtime raytracing as they could program for a game engine.
Another thing is that most "fans" are equating floating point precision
to be the same as image quality. I hate to break this, but precision
only goes toward the mathematical calculation producing the shader op,
not the image bit-depth (i.e. 16-bit precision is a 16-bit number, not
16-bit color).
Derek Baker
But even if the 5600Ultra beats the 9600Pro in DoomIII - and I guess we'll
find out for sure next year -you can't draw any conclusions about Half-Life
2 from that: Doom's OpenGL, Half Life's DX9.
Derek
"Tim" <ilov...@iet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3F6A7C70...@iet.net.au...
SpaceWalker
It's not HL2 team's fault that NVIDIA deviates so badly from the DX9 spec.
They had to put 5 times the time into getting some speed out of the FX
cards. as it is, they perform better using the DX8.1 paths that the DX9
paths. The ATI cards worked right out the box using the default DX9 paths
"Tim" <ilov...@iet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3F6A721E...@iet.net.au...
Lenny
> YEah u also must relize that 9600pro performs at a fps rate of 36fps where
the
> 5600pro is doing 48fps.
> ITs pretty ovious that hl2 team didn't want code it for performance.
You understand that Doom3 is an entirely different game compared to HL2,
don't you?
That 48fps figure is done with the special quality-reduced NV3x rendering
path. If you run Nvidia cards in the full-quality ARB2 path ATi R3xx chips
use, the score is MUCH lower. Fortunately for Nvidia and you, Doom3 looks
pretty much the same using their own cheato-path and ARB2, but full ARB2
means other cards do a lot more work. Bragging that you get more FPSes from
the cheato-path is kind of like saying you can lift more weights than Arnold
because your weights are made of wood instead of iron and hence lighter.
Doom3 is only slightly affected by the quality reduction because Doom3 only
needs directx 7 features to run, anything better than that like pixel
shaders etc is just gravy for it; things runs faster but look only
marginally better. HL2 is designed more as a DX9 title, and the quality
reduction for Nvidia cards is much more visible and will only get more
visible as time goes by and shader complexity increases in newer games.
mitch
>Doom3 is only slightly affected by the quality reduction because Doom3 only
>needs directx 7 features to run, anything better than that like pixel
>shaders etc is just gravy for it; things runs faster but look only
>marginally better.
That's a nonsense statement - Doom3 doesn`t use a Direct3d rendering
path, it uses OpenGL and extensions thereof. This may account for the
performance difference, Nvidia have exceptionally tight gl drivers.
It may use directx components for input/sound, I don`t know, but it`s
certainly not unusual.
.m
Lenny
> >Doom3 is only slightly affected by the quality reduction because Doom3
only
> >needs directx 7 features
> That's a nonsense statement - Doom3 doesn`t use a Direct3d rendering
> path
I didn't SAY it used Direct3D. Read my post better next time instead of
jumping at me with an attack at first opportunity.
Doom needs stencil buffer, dot3 bumpmapping and cube maps to function. First
was exposed in DX6 I believe, the two latter came with DX7 when the GF256
was introduced. In contrast, OpenGL lacks direct support of most, if not all
these features, they're only supported through extensions in the current OGL
spec.
See what I mean?
Crash7
>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:31:49 GMT, "Lenny" <y...@wish.haha> wrote:
>
>
>>Doom3 is only slightly affected by the quality reduction because Doom3 only
>>needs directx 7 features to run, anything better than that like pixel
>>shaders etc is just gravy for it; things runs faster but look only
>>marginally better.
>
>That's a nonsense statement - Doom3 doesn`t use a Direct3d rendering
>path, it uses OpenGL and extensions thereof. This may account for the
>performance difference, Nvidia have exceptionally tight gl drivers.
He said directx7 features, not directx 7. Actually, my understanding
is that Doom 3 uses what could be considered the equivalent of DX7-DX8
tech (for rendering).
Crash7
remove x's from address to email
i'm_tired
<snip>
> That 48fps figure is done with the special quality-reduced NV3x
> rendering path.
Lower precision (that Carmack said didn't amount to anything with Doom3
anyway), not reduced quality. Precision and quality are not interchangable
in the context that Carmack spoke.
i'm_tired
<snip>
> In the future don't post such blatant flame bait especially to both
> groups.
Chris Smith is a good candidate for the bozo bin/kill filter, really. The
very first day I found the alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nVidia NG, he
admitted to being an ATI employee and to trolling not just on usenet but
also several web forums so that he could spread misinformation and disrupt
people trying to use such forums as they are intended to be used. I bet
that's still up on google groups. What a nob.
Anders Albrechtsen
"i'm_tired" <it_isn...@emailaddy.edu> wrote in message
news:%YRab.524723$o%2.230297@sccrnsc02...
Correct, it depends on the situation. There's no doubt that Carmack is one
of the leading programmers in the world and I'm sure he is capable of
minimizing the image quality difference so one will be hard pressed to
notice any difference. That said, any direct comparisons between the NV3x
cards and the R3xx/RV3xx are meaningless since one compares apples and
oranges.
---
Anders
Tim
The FX's are the fastests cards for doom3
not may people cna tell the differencne between dx8 to dx9 ATI.
now the FX's are using the double the precession to that of dx8 8bit..16bit
now how can tell?
nobody can tell differennce between them. Mabe thats why the FX;s are card hve
better frames, because of the the faster 16bit path compared to ATI slowe
24bit path.
PEople buy cards because of frames rates not image quality.
Canuck21
wrote:
>PEople buy cards because of frames rates not image quality.
Speak for yourself.
Canuck21
McGrandpa
news:3F6D2E2F...@hotmail.com
> poor nvidia?
>
> The FX's are the fastests cards for doom3
>
> not may people cna tell the differencne between dx8 to dx9 ATI.
>
> now the FX's are using the double the precession to that of dx8
> 8bit..16bit now how can tell?
ATI uses 16 and 24 bit floating point precision as the DX9 spec calls
for.
NVidia uses 16 and 32 bit floating point precision which the DX9 spec
partly calls for :)
The default is 24 bit for ATI and 32 bit for Nvidia, when fp calls are
made by software.
>
> nobody can tell differennce between them. Mabe thats why the FX;s are
> card hve better frames, because of the the faster 16bit path compared
> to ATI slowe 24bit path.
>
> PEople buy cards because of frames rates not image quality.
Uh uh! I want BOTH great image quality and great frame rates! :)
McG. (thinkin he's still people..)
k y l e
"Canuck21" <canu...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:gpmqmv41qiqb49sot...@4ax.com...
I want both, thanks :)) But frame rates are a premium priority to me,
because we all know what it's like when you have a pc that eventually makes
a game look sadly like a slideshow... I'd much rather have a card that will
stay ahead of the pack in terms of its frame rates and play all games
trouble-free, at least for reassurance's sake. Image quality is more like, a
nice bonus, a little cherry on the top. Personally, I'm looking forward to
playing Half-Life 2 with my 128mb ti4200...so what if I miss out on the DX9
eye candy? I'll catch up with that in a few years time...which will probably
look lame by then anyway because there will be newer, cooler
technology...which kinda makes you wonder why people whined and drooled over
all this in the first place :)
Lenny
> ATI uses 16 and 24 bit floating point precision as the DX9 spec calls
> for.
ATis current cards only support 24-bit FP precision, which is *baseline* DX9 spec. Any lower than that (ie, 16-bit FP, 12-bit INT) is not DX9-compliant. Nvidia's got the edge as far as pure precision is concerned, though they're severely lacking in the speed department, especially while using that extra precision...
Lenny
> poor nvidia?
> The FX's are the fastests cards for doom3
...So they say. Anyway, Doom3 isn't a DX9-level game, it's really a DX7-level game that can make use of more recent features to speed things up. On a visual level, there's little or no difference.
> not may people cna tell the differencne between dx8 to dx9 ATI.
That's a nonsense statement. DX9 is VASTLY more advanced than DX8 and the visual differences when using high dynamic range rendering (floating-point framebuffers) are startlingly clear compared to older stuff. Quite simply, you're an Nvidia apologist and talking outta yer butt, sonny.
> now the FX's are using the double the precession to that of dx8 8bit..16bit
> now how can tell?
Actually, since the 16-bit screenmode is in floating-point format, the increase in precision is several orders of magnitude, not just 2x. Even if it was integer, 16-bit is not twice the precision of 8 bits; that would be 9 bits. 2^8 = 256. 2^9=512=2*(2^8)... ;) Again your butt's doing the talking.
> nobody can tell differennce between them. Mabe thats why the FX;s are card hve
> better frames, because of the the faster 16bit path compared to ATI slowe
> 24bit path.
Nvidia is generally slower even when running in 16 bit mode. Sometimes a lot slower.
> PEople buy cards because of frames rates not image quality.
Funny. That's what the 3dfx people used to argue with the Nvidiots back in the day. My my how things change! :D It wasn't true then, and it's not true now either.
Anders Albrechtsen
"Lenny" <y...@wish.haha> wrote in message
news:mvmbb.29525$dP1....@newsc.telia.net...
In order words it supports higher precision, but cannot use it.
---
Anders