PDA

View Full Version : a forum challange


Pages : [1] 2

fortress
09-14-03, 04:56 PM
hello all new to posting here but have been reading the site for some time now

i was wondering if some of the forums users around here could help with a test between fx and 9800 cards using this little prgram

http://www.daionet.gr.jp/%7Emasa/rthdribl/index.html

now i know this program is not a benchmark program but it uses only ps 2.0 shaders

myself i dont own a fx or a 9800 or i would test it myself

i am really just interested in getting some comparisons for ourselfs
there has been so much back and forth about all this stuff latley it is hard to know what to think.

real basic test default settings no aa no af and driver ver cpu speed
just looking for some numbers

thanks for your time

mrsabidji
09-14-03, 08:08 PM
demo settings :
windowed mode
640x480 noAA noAF
Glare type : disabled

main PC specs :
GeForce FX 5900
Athlon XP 2000+
512MB PC2100
Win XP Pro SP1
DirectX 9.0b
45.24 Detonators

I get about 65/80 fps, 70+ most of the time (I can't be more precise).

mrsabidji

fortress
09-14-03, 08:12 PM
wow thank you for the info

at that looks very promising

:)

saturnotaku
09-14-03, 08:28 PM
Demo settings are same as mrsabidji. System specs are in my signature. Video drivers are Omega Catalyst 2.4.60 (based off ATI's 3.5 set) and multisample in the demo is disabled.

Framrate is consistently 70-72.

mrsabidji
09-14-03, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by fortress
wow thank you for the info

at that looks very promising

:)

you're welcome :) .
I re-done the test with Glare type : camera (just in case the PS2.0 stuff was glare related) and fps falls to a 29/36.

mrsabidji

saturnotaku
09-14-03, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by mrsabidji
you're welcome :) .
I re-done the test with Glare type : camera (just in case the PS2.0 stuff was glare related) and fps falls to a 29/36.

mrsabidji

Do you have in-demo multisample enabled (default is 4x) or disabled?

mrsabidji
09-14-03, 08:38 PM
I disabled it. With 4x MS and glares I get about 14/18 fps.

mrsabidji

reever2
09-14-03, 08:39 PM
BTW, the program disable depth of field by default on FX cards and will not let you set the option as the fps drop is so huge for them

saturnotaku
09-14-03, 08:40 PM
On my card with glares and 4x multisample I'm running about 29-32.

mrsabidji
09-14-03, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by reever2
BTW, the program disable depth of field by default on FX cards and will not let you set the option as the fps drop is so huge for them

Yep, I noticed that too. But I still love my card anyway :D .

mrsabidji

Behemoth
09-14-03, 08:56 PM
everything default, fullscreen mode, 640x480 0xAA 0xAF, the demo cycles through 1 to 12 glare type, this is the fraps result of one cycle of the 12 glare types:

2003-09-15 08:41:23 - rthdribl
Frames: 7663 - Time: 185562ms - Avg: 41.296 - Min: 32 - Max: 54

when glare type is disabled and mutisample is set to none. i get constant 83 fps.

system used: P4 3G / 1G 800FSB dual channel ram/ 9800pro all at stock clocks.

GlowStick
09-14-03, 08:58 PM
This program is pritty trippy, but i dont think its that good for a benchmark program, the settings are to complicated.

reever2
09-14-03, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by GlowStick
This program is pritty trippy, but i dont think its that good for a benchmark program, the settings are to complicated.

And there's way too many of them, and they will have different effects on fps depending on which settings you have on

mrsabidji
09-14-03, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Behemoth
when glare type is disabled and mutisample is set to none. i get constant 83 fps.

Then maybe we should disable v-sync.

mrsabidji

Behemoth
09-14-03, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by reever2
BTW, the program disable depth of field by default on FX cards and will not let you set the option as the fps drop is so huge for them
in that case, i just tried disabling mutisample, depth of field and glare type all together and got around 200 steady fps :lol:

The Baron
09-14-03, 09:03 PM
Wow.

If that's what we're going to see in 2 years in games, I can't wait to be 19.

saturnotaku
09-14-03, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by The Baron
Wow.

If that's what we're going to see in 2 years in games, I can't wait to be 19.

Meh, you'll still have a greater longing to be 21. :p :D

Edge
09-14-03, 09:07 PM
Wow, given recent benchmarks I'd expect it to be much lower in FX cards. Anyone with a FX5200 wanna try this? Heh. Well it might not be the most acurate benchmark utility, but it seems decent enough to give a rough estimate. Just wish I had a DX9 card to test it with...

mrsabidji
09-14-03, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Behemoth
in that case, i just tried disabling mutisample, depth of field and glare type all together and got around 200 steady fps :lol:

Okay, so once more, GeForce FX gets outperformed by everyone else. And thanks to me. (note to self : delete the crappy demo as soon as possible :D ).

mrsabidji

reever2
09-14-03, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Edge
Wow, given recent benchmarks I'd expect it to be much lower in FX cards.

It would be much lower if the creator didn't have make the program automatically disable DOF on fx cards, based on benchmarks me and another guy at guru3d did, the 5900 ultra is roughly equivalent to an overclocked 9500 in this benchmark

Behemoth
09-14-03, 09:16 PM
i am sorry for the misled fx users, but i were one myself. :o
anyway let a 200fps *dx9* screenshot speaks for itself ;)
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=194499

mrsabidji
09-14-03, 09:19 PM
Bah, we still have drivers to cheat with...

mrsabidji

indio
09-14-03, 10:13 PM
NV3x doesn't have Floating Point render targets enabled in the drivers thus it can't render High Dynamic Range lighting at all.

Rthdribl stands for
Real-time High Dynamic Range Image-Based Lighting
I think the 5900fx scores are misleading

fortress
09-15-03, 12:51 AM
well thats what i wanted to see
:)
the reason i picked this program is because hl2 uses hdr lighting
and that seems to be the biggest slow down on the fx cards right now
because of the lack of support for fp textures in the drivers or something like that i think

not that i didnt believe valve but i figure it is a nice little program that will let people see for them selves what ps 2.0 shaders run like on there card.

considering thats all the program does :)

I wonder if nv det 5x.xx drivers get as much performance boost in this program as they are claiming

i also picked this program because no body really knows about it yet
so we can get a un bias un optimized veiw for us.

indio
09-15-03, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by fortress
well thats what i wanted to see
:)
the reason i picked this program is because hl2 uses hdr lighting
and that seems to be the biggest slow down on the fx cards right now
because of the lack of support for fp textures in the drivers or something like that i think

not that i didnt believe valve but i figure it is a nice little program that will let people see for them selves what ps 2.0 shaders run like on there card.

considering thats all the program does :)

I wonder if nv det 5x.xx drivers get as much performance boost in this program as they are claiming

i also picked this program because no body really knows about it yet
so we can get a un bias un optimized veiw for us.

Valve didn't enable HDR in the benchmark because they knew NV3x wasn't current capable of doing it while R3xx's are. Valve wanted an apples to apples comparison.
So I pretty sure HDR had zero effect on the benchmarks and if it did it would have a negative impact on ATI performance not Nvidia.