PDA

View Full Version : NV40: A slap in ATI's PS 2.0 face


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

CaiNaM
04-21-04, 12:25 PM
THE AMAZINGLY good looking game Far Cry has support for the shader model 3.0 but that's currently supported only by Nvidia's Geforce 6800 cards.
This is the first time in history that some new marchitecture got support from the first moment of announcement. We are talking about a retail shipping game since it was not hard to see some fancy looking demo in the past that supported just about anything that graphic companies inserted in its chip transistors.

ATI doesn't have Shaders 3.0 while Nvidia is happy to show off that it has, happily showing us in Geneva how even the next generation Unreal engine has massive support for this nice feature.

It comes as no surprise to us that Far Cry is part of The way its meant to be played - Nvidia's marketing programme, and those Shader 3.0 support don't come coincidentally.

Shader 3.0 is a very nice feature I have to admit and it won't be easy for ATI to justify its lack.

We chatted with the developers of highly anticipated title Stalker and learned that even that game will have support for Shader 3.0.

THE INQ (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15442)

Sazar
04-21-04, 12:27 PM
instead of typing SOURCE you shoulda put TEH INQ

:D

they are probably basing the info off the ps 1.x compare with ps 3.0 from far cry which is an unrealistic comparison...

:)

CaiNaM
04-21-04, 12:36 PM
instead of typing SOURCE you shoulda put TEH INQ

:D

they are probably basing the info off the ps 1.x compare with ps 3.0 from far cry which is an unrealistic comparison...

:)

THERE, HAPPY!?! ;)

in all fairness tho, imo the difference is being overplayed, much like fp16 vs fp24 in this generation.. but who knows.. it may make a difference, but i sure haven't seen it yet.. still interesting tho.

TheTaz
04-21-04, 12:49 PM
I seen very little difference between PS 2.0 and PS 3.0, Visually (So Far).

It reminds me of PS 1.1 vs. PS 1.4.

I didn't feel the urge to upgrade from a Geforce 3 Ti500 to an ATi Radeon 8500 for PS 1.4. (Of course, there wasn't much speed difference after ATi did get their drivers beating a Ti500)

Why the hell would I feel the Urge to upgrade from a 9800 Pro to a GF 6800 U for PS 3.0?

Performance is what I'm looking at. Bang for buck. IF I upgrade this round (Cuz my wife can use my 9800 Pro)... I will choose either a full 16 Pipe R420 or a Geforce 6800 U, based on "bang for buck."

NOT PS 3.0.

/shrug

Taz

Bopple
04-21-04, 01:05 PM
But if the performance difference is like 60fps vs 65fps with DX9 games, I don't think the fps delta is good enough for choice decision over PS3.0.
However, it'd be worthwhile if it's like 60 vs 70~80.

CaiNaM
04-21-04, 01:14 PM
I seen very little difference between PS 2.0 and PS 3.0, Visually (So Far).

It reminds me of PS 1.1 vs. PS 1.4.

I didn't feel the urge to upgrade from a Geforce 3 Ti500 to an ATi Radeon 8500 for PS 1.4. (Of course, there wasn't much speed difference after ATi did get their drivers beating a Ti500)

Why the hell would I feel the Urge to upgrade from a 9800 Pro to a GF 6800 U for PS 3.0?

Performance is what I'm looking at. Bang for buck. IF I upgrade this round (Cuz my wife can use my 9800 Pro)... I will choose either a full 16 Pipe R420 or a Geforce 6800 U, based on "bang for buck."

NOT PS 3.0.

/shrug

Taz

that's funny.. isn't "bang for the buck" based on value (features/benefits) per $ you spend? or is your only criteria FPS?

jolle
04-21-04, 01:20 PM
Thought it was comon knowledge by now, they did, while treating the subject on NV40 launch, always say "PS2.0 and 3.0" was the requirement for the new "SM3.0 mod" for Farcry...
So its largly a content update, adding PS3.0 support, which will prolly run just as well on R420 in PS2.0 looking largly the same..

You dont, however, want to run it on "current PS2.0" hardware..
since it does, among other things, give all trees dynamic volumetric shadows (with soft edges i think) and that would prolly push them all over the edge..

Unit01
04-21-04, 01:29 PM
OMG ATI is doomed to hell with them. Go NV go. The GF 6800U is the ****s it will own all that ATI has. PS 3.0 is the gift from the holy NV to all the enthusiasts out there.

There, happy now Cainam? That's what you wanted to hear it seems

TheTaz
04-21-04, 01:34 PM
that's funny.. isn't "bang for the buck" based on value (features/benefits) per $ you spend? or is your only criteria FPS?

Both... but mostly FPS / Dollar once features are within a "generation spec". (Meaning... the basic features cover the spec.)

Example: A DX 8 card. PS 1.1 covered the spec and there was no real advantage going to a PS 1.4 card. A game running in PS 1.1 vs. PS 1.4 looked similar in quality.

It looks like it's the same thing is going on for PS 2.0 vs. PS 3.0.

Since PS 2.0 covers the "spec" in a satisfactory manner... visual featurewise... my focus is more on FPS, than features.

You also have to bare in mind I had no urge to go to PS 2.0 with a 9700 Pro, because my Ti500 was still perfoming good (Even though that would have been a nice jump). There were no DX 9 / PS 2.0 games out at the time, though.

I chose a 9800 Pro over an FX for obvious reasons, that have been beaten to death here.

At the same time... I bare no loyalty / Fanboism. From Anand's current article, the PS performance issues seem to have been fixed in the NV40 via the extra math unit and registers. Which is Great!!!

If the 6800 U cranks out more FPS / Dollar... I'll choose that.
If the X800 XT cranks out more FPS / Dollar... I'll choose that.

Both cards will handle DX 9 apps, showing off similar visual features, very well.

So it's a matter of FPS bang for buck, to me, at this point. :)

Regards,

Taz

eesa
04-21-04, 01:36 PM
who has done real research on PS3.0? Feel free to prove me wrong, but AFAICT, everything that can be done with PS3.0 you can do with PS2.0. If the new version of far cry does look better than the PS2.0 version, might I suggest that they simply added more effects using 3.0 that very well could have been implemented using 2.0... but seeing that it's a TWIMTBP game it makes sense to use 3.0 instead. NV needs every reason on earth to show that 3.0 is better (since it's an exclusive feature), even though in reality 3.0 doesn't really extend what can be done with 2.0.

Again, I could be misinformed but that's what I think unless shown otherwise.

CaiNaM
04-21-04, 01:41 PM
OMG ATI is doomed to hell with them. Go NV go. The GF 6800U is the ****s it will own all that ATI has. PS 3.0 is the gift from the holy NV to all the enthusiasts out there.

There, happy now Cainam? That's what you wanted to hear it seems

not at all. it's simply discussing features/benefits regardless of WHO offers them.

frankly i have more ati parts intalled in my pc's than i do nv, but that's not the point (the words i posted were not mine, but someone else's). what is interesting is the length people will go do to defend a "brand" name. for instance, i find it funny that such a big deal was made regarding 24bit precision vs 16bit precision, yet 32bit vs 24bit is no big deal... since that turns the table on which "brand" is offering it :)

CaiNaM
04-21-04, 01:42 PM
Both... but mostly FPS / Dollar once features are within a "generation spec". (Meaning... the basic features cover the spec.)

Example: A DX 8 card. PS 1.1 covered the spec and there was no real advantage going to a PS 1.4 card. A game running in PS 1.1 vs. PS 1.4 looked similar in quality.

It looks like it's the same thing is going on for PS 2.0 vs. PS 3.0.

Since PS 2.0 covers the "spec" in a satisfactory manner... visual featurewise... my focus is more on FPS, than features.

You also have to bare in mind I had no urge to go to PS 2.0 with a 9700 Pro, because my Ti500 was still perfoming good (Even though that would have been a nice jump). There were no DX 9 / PS 2.0 games out at the time, though.

I chose a 9800 Pro over an FX for obvious reasons, that have been beaten to death here.

At the same time... I bare no loyalty / Fanboism. From Anand's current article, the PS performance issues seem to have been fixed in the NV40 via the extra math unit and registers. Which is Great!!!

If the 6800 U cranks out more FPS / Dollar... I'll choose that.
If the X800 XT cranks out more FPS / Dollar... I'll choose that.

Both cards will handle DX 9 apps, showing off similar visual features, very well.

So it's a matter of FPS bang for buck, to me, at this point. :)

Regards,

Taz

ok, that makes sense.. thanks for the reply taz :)

CaiNaM
04-21-04, 01:45 PM
who has done real research on PS3.0? Feel free to prove me wrong, but AFAICT, everything that can be done with PS3.0 you can do with PS2.0. If the new version of far cry does look better than the PS2.0 version, might I suggest that they simply added more effects using 3.0 that very well could have been implemented using 2.0... but seeing that it's a TWIMTBP game it makes sense to use 3.0 instead. NV needs every reason on earth to show that 3.0 is better (since it's an exclusive feature), even though in reality 3.0 doesn't really extend what can be done with 2.0.

Again, I could be misinformed but that's what I think unless shown otherwise.

well, precision is also part of the issue.. frankly, imo ps3 will benefit developers more, however the end result is that consumers will reap the benefits of how developers use this feature.

i personally think the difference in image quality between the 2 will be minimal, if any.. performance and programming options however may see benefits.

Templar
04-21-04, 01:52 PM
Just wait for the benches.. Radeons rip through shaders like nothing.. PS3 might not actually provide anything mucho as of now.

Simon

eesa
04-21-04, 01:53 PM
well, precision is also part of the issue.. frankly, imo ps3 will benefit developers more, however the end result is that consumers will reap the benefits of how developers use this feature.

i personally think the difference in image quality between the 2 will be minimal, if any.. performance and programming options however may see benefits.

looks like we're in agreement then, because it seems like ps3.0 is merely a different way of doing things rather than something that extends the boundaries of what can be done with 2.0. That may not be 100% true, but is the gist of it. I guess you just need 3.0 hardware to take advantage of the 3.0 "path" if you will.

I don't think it will look very much different, if at all, from 2.0. That's assuming we don't count the instances where they add effects only using 3.0 and don't bother (or intentionally leave out) the same implementation of it using 2.0.

Either way though, and this is only my opinion based on my own personal preferences, I couldn't give a rats @55 about 3.0 till at least the next product cycles because I don't see any real tangible, worthwhile benefits from it in the near future. But then I also couldn't care less about AA but am crazy about AF, so perhaps I don't represent the average gamer? Oh, and I also hate MSN ;)

oqvist
04-21-04, 01:57 PM
Wow some enthusiasm here that´s for sure

Nvidia256
04-21-04, 02:00 PM
i find it funny that such a big deal was made regarding 24bit precision vs 16bit precision, yet 32bit vs 24bit is no big deal... s

That's beacuse 16-24 is quite a noticible difference, as oppossed to the 32 vs 24.

trashcan
04-21-04, 02:12 PM
what is interesting is the length people will go do to defend a "brand" name. for instance, i find it funny that such a big deal was made regarding 24bit precision vs 16bit precision, yet 32bit vs 24bit is no big deal... since that turns the table on which "brand" is offering it




Dude you own :) And that is so true.

Bopple
04-21-04, 02:21 PM
Well, from the screen shots I have seen and the opinions of many, FP24 vs FP32 is really hard to tell the difference. But FP16 vs FP24 is quite noticeable, compared to that. Still, you have to concentrate hard to see it.

Currently, we don't know how much difference PS3.0 will make. It will be like PS1.1 vs 1.4? Or like FP16 vs FP24? Or more?
We just don't know.

Nvidia256
04-21-04, 02:26 PM
i find it funny that such a big deal was made regarding 24bit precision vs 16bit precision, yet 32bit vs 24bit is no big deal.

Did you not read above what I said? The reason why people made a big Stink was that first, DX9 spec called for FP24, but really the issue was that indeed there was noticeable difference between 16 and 24. Remember 32 is only called for SM 3.0 and we have yet to see any noticible difference between 24 vs 32.

Personally my opinion is the X800 will be fp24 with PS 2.b, but then again I have no real concrete evidence to back that up.

oqvist
04-21-04, 02:29 PM
The relationship between 16/24/32 is like 4.1 to 5.1 to 6.1 surround.

Or you can check it out yourself on your monitor. Run 256 colors then 16 bit colors then 24 bit colours and last 32-bit colours ;)

Bopple
04-21-04, 02:34 PM
BTW, someone who had seen a thing, said, "It seems a bit too early to cheer, right now."
Oh, he is not a fanboy to a certain company. Actually, he was annoyed when I wrote some posts about weaknesses and optimizations of a product, on the bulletin board of his company.

Dazz
04-21-04, 02:52 PM
what is interesting is the length people will go do to defend a "brand" name. for instance, i find it funny that such a big deal was made regarding 24bit precision vs 16bit precision, yet 32bit vs 24bit is no big deal... since that turns the table on which "brand" is offering it




Dude you own :) And that is so true.
What about 16bit Vs 24bit colour? Big diffrence yet there was little diffrence from 24bit and 32bit colour.

theultimo
04-21-04, 03:53 PM
Big diffrence yet there was little diffrence from 24bit and 32bit colour.
Alpha Channels.

CaiNaM
04-21-04, 04:20 PM
Or you can check it out yourself on your monitor. Run 256 colors then 16 bit colors then 24 bit colours and last 32-bit colours ;)

well, the problem with that is you're comparing apples to oranges. on one hand, your applying it to the entire screen, on the other you're applying it to a very small portion of it..

here's an example of ps2 shaders on nv35 and r350. can you really say one is THAT much better than the other? if so, which one, and why? and how long did you have to compare the two before coming to a decision?

http://www.darkvengeance.net/test/FarCry_2004-04-21_14-09-29-50.JPG

http://www.darkvengeance.net/test/FarCry_2004-04-21_14-07-18-84.jpg