PDA

View Full Version : Comment on the Front Page...


freak77power
03-20-04, 12:12 AM
Seeing unofficial results from the games I can say that NV40 is a crap...
No hard feelings...but having 51FPS for HALO in 1600*1200 no AA is too low, or 79FPS for UT2004. They must be joking. My conclusion is that right now NV40 clocked at 475Mhz has performance of pixel shader matched to Radeon 9800XT, since current GFX 5950 has 2x 3x times slower PS performance compared to r360...
Also seeing those numbers for 3DMark03 is telling me that NV40 has 8x2 design...

210million transistors ---> 475Mhz makes sense. I doubt they will achieve 550-600Mhz, simply they are going to need water cooling for it.

Looking at those screenshots, well nothing special. ATI's cards already produce that image quality...

ChrisRay
03-20-04, 12:18 AM
If its in 32 bit precision That IS something special

MUYA
03-20-04, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by freak77power
Seeing unofficial results from the games I can say that NV40 is a crap...
No hard feelings...but having 51FPS for HALO in 1600*1200 no AA is too low, or 79FPS for UT2004. They must be joking. My conclusion is that right now NV40 clocked at 475Mhz has performance of pixel shader matched to Radeon 9800XT, since current GFX 5950 has 2x 3x times slower PS performance compared to r360...
Also seeing those numbers for 3DMark03 is telling me that NV40 has 8x2 design...

210million transistors ---> 475Mhz makes sense. I doubt they will achieve 550-600Mhz, simply they are going to need water cooling for it.

Looking at those screenshots, well nothing special. ATI's cards already produce that image quality...

7Gp/s in single and then 7.2 gp/s in multi texture tests...that doesn't really say its 8X2. if it was, wouldn't the multi texturing throughput be much higher???

If you aren't impresses by Halo nummbers take a look here

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-nvidia-roundup_10.html

at 1600 by 1200 the 9800xt did 27 fps and nv38 did 25 fps.

Geforce4ti4200
03-20-04, 02:22 AM
you must be talking about the old nv40 that got cancelled, the new nv40 is 16x1 pipes :D :eek:

TheTaz
03-20-04, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
If its in 32 bit precision That IS something special


:confused:

Huh? Neither of those games use PS 3.0.

Sazar
03-20-04, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by freak77power
Seeing unofficial results from the games I can say that NV40 is a crap...
No hard feelings...but having 51FPS for HALO in 1600*1200 no AA is too low, or 79FPS for UT2004. They must be joking. My conclusion is that right now NV40 clocked at 475Mhz has performance of pixel shader matched to Radeon 9800XT, since current GFX 5950 has 2x 3x times slower PS performance compared to r360...
Also seeing those numbers for 3DMark03 is telling me that NV40 has 8x2 design...

210million transistors ---> 475Mhz makes sense. I doubt they will achieve 550-600Mhz, simply they are going to need water cooling for it.

Looking at those screenshots, well nothing special. ATI's cards already produce that image quality...

could it be halo is a badly coded game instead of the gfx card is shyte?

also keep in mind it is highly playable still.. heck even 79fps is highly playable... especially comparing it to other cards we have today...

Sazar
03-20-04, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by TheTaz
:confused:

Huh? Neither of those games use PS 3.0.

ps 2.0.. for halo...

MUYA
03-20-04, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by TheTaz
:confused:

Huh? Neither of those games use PS 3.0.
He didn't say those games were PS3 coded.

he was speculating that if those numbers were obtained using full precision at FP32..then the numbers posted were impressive.

ChrisRay
03-20-04, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by MUYA
He didn't say those games were PS3 coded.

he was speculating that if those numbers were obtained using full precision at FP32..then the numbers posted were impressive.


Precisely :)

GalaxyFX
03-20-04, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
If its in 32 bit precision That IS something special

IF run in 32 bits. Dying to see some R420 benchies

Smokey
03-20-04, 08:28 AM
And I dont know why, everyone believes that the videocard is the bottle neck in games using the Unreal engine.

jAkUp
03-20-04, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Smokey
And I dont know why, everyone believes that the videocard is the bottle neck in games using the Unreal engine.

Not always... but at 1600x1200, it is.

freak77power
03-20-04, 11:02 AM
For the clock speed 500Mhz is going to be a goal, they gonna have hard time cooling that. 210mil tr :eek:

Far Cry numbers are kind of disapointment to me, since 50FPS i achieve at 1280*960 using AA2x and AF8x performance...
Overall I think that with FP32 pixel shader performance matches to r360, and with FP16 GFX comes faster for about 35% across the board.

OWA
03-20-04, 12:53 PM
It's hard to compare directly without having the exact same system but I'm pretty excited about the Far Cry numbers. I can run Far Cry at *lower* resolutions than 16x12 and make it playable even when using AA/AF. At 16x12 (and not even using AA), it's not close to being playable no matter what I do. I stay in the 20s with frequent dips into the teens. But, my systems are only using a XP 3000+ and a XP 2800+ so maybe a faster CPU would change that and then I wouldn't be as impressed with the numbers he showed. I don't know. Halo is the same way. I've been waiting for a card to make it smooth at high res. I play it at 1024x768 and can live with the performance although I'm not happy with it. So, having very nice framerates at 16x12 I can get excited about. :)

I wish I could see numbers on a system like mine though just to know what I could expect but maybe those type numbers will be out soon.

MUYA
03-20-04, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by OWA
It's hard to compare directly without having the exact same system but I'm pretty excited about the Far Cry numbers. I can run Far Cry at *lower* resolutions than 16x12 and make it playable even when using AA/AF. At 16x12 (and not even using AA), it's not close to being playable no matter what I do. I stay in the 20s with frequent dips into the teens. But, my systems are only using a XP 3000+ and a XP 2800+ so maybe a faster CPU would change that and then I wouldn't be as impressed with the numbers he showed. I don't know. Halo is the same way. I've been waiting for a card to make it smooth at high res. I play it at 1024x768 and can live with the performance although I'm not happy with it. So, having very nice framerates at 16x12 I can get excited about. :)

I wish I could see numbers on a system like mine though just to know what I could expect but maybe those type numbers will be out soon.

same here about Halo. The performance of Halo even on my 9700 Pro is just poor with full effects and vsync, AF disabled. Hopefully the new gens will make it even more playable :p I have had to dumb down effects to play online...

OWA
03-20-04, 06:26 PM
What, you mean you don't agree with my Far Cry part either. :)

Ends up I was wrong about Far Cry. The only thing I can think of is that I was having a settings not getting applied issue with the first demo. The 2nd one, I can definitely get my framerates above the 20s by lowering the options. In fact, if I set everything on low I'm in the 90s. When I tried this the first time I don't remember things looking much different but doing that with the official 2nd demo, it's almost like a different game (graphics-wise) when setting to low. So, please ignore my not above 20'ish no matter what I do in Far Cry comment earlier. It's just not playable with settings on very high when using 16x12.

Nv40
03-20-04, 07:21 PM
For the clock speed 500Mhz is going to be a goal, they gonna have hard time cooling that. 210mil tr :eek:

Far Cry numbers are kind of disapointment to me, since 50FPS i achieve at 1280*960 using AA2x and AF8x performance...
Overall I think that with FP32 pixel shader performance matches to r360, and with FP16 GFX comes faster for about 35% across the board.

50fps at 1280x960 aa2x/af8x???? with all settings high? is that your average FPS in FARcry or the maximun one? Indoors or Outdoors? because it have been said that outdoors performance is much slower than indoors.


if im not mistaken farcry is the most heaviest game/demo available today , performance wise .the only game more heavier for your video card , i think is Doom3 ... many radeon9800pro users play it at 1024x768 without aa/af at all.. im very interested to see a review with FArcry bechmarks.. if anyone knows one .. drop me a link :)


btw.. i think Halo benchmark is abit misleading , because that game is rock solid fully playable in a geforce3 (xbox) , and i have never seen any noticeable graphics enchancements beyond the Xbox version in the PC one ,but only higher resolutions ,and Ps2.0 that looks as good as PS1.x in Geforce3/4 cards.. for me Halo use PS2.0 merely there for bechmarkings purposes ,to stress graphics hardware.. (just like 3dmark03) just for the sake of bechmarking ,with not much noticeable increase in IQ over the directx7 Xbox version.

TheTaz
03-20-04, 07:32 PM
He didn't say those games were PS3 coded.

he was speculating that if those numbers were obtained using full precision at FP32..then the numbers posted were impressive.


Ah... Gotchya. :)

ChrisRay
03-20-04, 07:39 PM
I must say I am somewhat disapointed, and somewhat impressed,


Disapointed by the fact that investigation of those Anti Aliasing shots is very much appearing to 4x OGMS + 9 tap sub pixel sharing.



Impressed that I dismissed 4x 9tap at first not realising how much extra AA quality it brings to the table. And I over estimated its original performance hit on my FX 5900 :)

Skynet
03-21-04, 02:00 AM
Forget about Halo it was ported so badly it is not even funny.

If NV40 really is 200+ million transistors I will only believe it when I see a beast like that running at 500 mhz. If you look at a processor, the most transistor laden chips like Prescott are about 125 million, 30+ million of that are SRAM (cache) which run much cooler than the rest of the chip. Note:

Prescott: 125 millon transistors subtract 30 millon for cache = 95 million. At 2.8 Ghz Prescott draws AT LEAST 100 watts and spikes to 150 under full use. Remember this is the heat the processor disipates it actually uses more power because not all the work is translated into heat.

NV40: 210 million transistors, take away 10 million "cool running" parts that are cache etc. so say 200 million transistors at 500 mhz = around 80 watts of power for the GPU alone. Put that baby in a new Prescott system and you have a melt down.

note: the above is severe speculation on my part. Feel free to tear it to shreds.

goofjb
03-21-04, 03:50 AM
Quote: note: the above is severe speculation on my part. Feel free to tear it to shreds.

Tearing to shreds or not it certainly is an interesting speculation.

StealthHawk
03-21-04, 09:05 PM
The majority of transistors in a CPU are for cache. GPUs shouldn't have nearly the same ratio of logic/cache.

jbirney
03-22-04, 08:45 AM
Those numbers for Halo are in _PP mode. Halo makes use of _PP hints on all FX cards. Nice numbers if they are indeed true.