PDA

View Full Version : Run Far Cry using R300 path


MikeC
06-02-04, 07:30 PM
ToMMTi Systems has posted a utility that allows the GeForce FX / 6 to run Far Cry using the R300 path. It contains a modified d3d9.dll file that is to be placed under the \Far Cry\Bin32 directory.

http://www.tommti-systems.de/main-Dateien/files.html

Posted in this thread posted by tb from ToMMTi Systems:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12949

As some of you already know, he mentions that the NV40 runs Far Cry as though it were an NV3x no matter what driver is used.

Arioch
06-02-04, 07:34 PM
Nice - now I just need a 6800 Ultra!

MUYA
06-02-04, 08:05 PM
Nice - now I just need a 6800 Ultra!
You can use that patch to run Far Cry in r3XX mode with GeForce FX cards ;)

Arioch
06-02-04, 08:33 PM
Heh - well I got a X800 Pro at the moment and it runs fine, but I really want to get a 6800 Ultra. I laready got a friend lined up to buy the X800 Pro off of me.

ChrisRay
06-02-04, 08:34 PM
Thanks for the heads up Mike. I wonder how performance compares to that of forcing the r300 Device ID with 3danalyze.

ArChAnGeLv7
06-02-04, 08:38 PM
well from that link, it seems somewhat dissapointing. The one 9800 pic included showed the scene @ 53 fps and the 6800 @ 58 fps....5 fps difference for $500... :screwy: This is based on only one shot though...my custom title remains..heh

jimmyjames123
06-02-04, 08:42 PM
Running the 6800 cards on the R3xx path will presumably be just a bandaid solution until DirectX 9.0c and the SM 3.0 add-on comes out.

To be realistic, running the NV4x cards on a R3xx path will never be optimal because of the differences in precision. The whole idea behind mixed FP16/FP32 precision on the NV cards is that you use the lower FP16 precision in instances where there are no obvious visual anomalies or errors, and use FP32 in all other situations. The main question is: in what situations is it ok to use any degree of lower precision? Hopefully, the NV programmers can work with developers to determine where and when it is advisable to use lower precision without suffering from any visual artifacts.

maxima420
06-02-04, 09:43 PM
umm using the r3xx mode shows nothing.
it is OPTIMIZED for the r3xx family.
specialy optimzation has a good chance of hurting performace not increasing it.
seems like a worthless thing to do.

also i'd like to point out the r420 is slower then a 5800 in most ogl apps/games. doom3 is ogl...WHY DOES ATI SUCK ARSE AT OGL?


has anyone tried forcing a r3xx card to use nvidia code path?

it's all a bunch of sillyness.

ChrisRay
06-02-04, 09:56 PM
Its not worthless since the r300 path has higher quality than the Nv3X pathway,

WarheadMM
06-02-04, 09:59 PM
yes but the R300 uses FP24. Nvidia FX's use FP 16. It doesnt matter....you will still lose the quality

ChrisRay
06-02-04, 10:03 PM
yes but the R300 uses FP24. Nvidia FX's use FP 16. It doesnt matter....you will still lose the quality


Actually thats not the reason for the Quality differences, If you run the r300 in the FX pathway, You still get degraded Quality. The differences is because of the Lighting is using normalization of cubemaps Shader 2.0.

So it's not an issue of precision.

WarheadMM
06-02-04, 10:16 PM
so why use it?? all it does is lower the FPS

ChrisRay
06-02-04, 10:17 PM
Because the r300 path isnt using the Normalization of cubemaps for most Lighting. So you dont end up with that awful banding.

It increases Quality, Thats why theyd use it :)

jimmyjames123
06-02-04, 10:20 PM
True, the R3xx path utilizes more higher quality PS 2.0 shaders than the NV3x path, and that is why you see the differences in quality between the two paths.

Using the R3xx path, presumably all cards must run at precisions of FP24 and higher, correct? This would not be optimal for the GeForce FX cards because they would not be able to take advantage of any instances where lower FP16 precision would be adequate. I know that developers can take advantage of partial precision "hints", but I'm not sure if that is even applicable with the R3xx path. At the same time, the relatively poor performance of PS 2.0 on the FX cards might be a more important factor than precision in this game when it comes to measuring performance differences, but this is not really clear because the game makes relatively little use of PS 2.0 anyway at the moment.

Finally, I would think that 6800GT/U and X800Pro/XT owners should eventually expect better image quality than what is currently seen with the R3xx path. The current R3xx path utilizes mostly PS 1.1 shaders, and PS 2.0 shaders primarily for the lighting effects. These powerful new cards can be pushed much more than the current gen hardware while still maintaining playable framerates, so using more advanced PS 2.0/3.0 effects would seem to make sense.

dan2097
06-03-04, 06:54 AM
has anyone tried forcing a r3xx card to use nvidia code path?

Yes they have. It makes r3xx cards run the game significantly faster in some areas but degrades image quality to the level of the nv3x.

OWA
06-03-04, 07:19 AM
Yes they have. It makes r3xx cards run the game significantly faster in some areas but degrades image quality to the level of the nv3x.
How do you do it? Use 3d analyze? I want to try it with my ATI card.

dan2097
06-03-04, 09:12 AM
AFAIK you just target farcry using 3d analyse and force device/vendor ids the same as that of a gffx (3d analyse gives you the device/vendor id of a gffx 5900 ultra)

Unit01
06-03-04, 10:18 AM
True, the R3xx path utilizes more higher quality PS 2.0 shaders than the NV3x path, and that is why you see the differences in quality between the two paths.

Using the R3xx path, presumably all cards must run at precisions of FP24 and higher, correct? This would not be optimal for the GeForce FX cards because they would not be able to take advantage of any instances where lower FP16 precision would be adequate. I know that developers can take advantage of partial precision "hints", but I'm not sure if that is even applicable with the R3xx path. At the same time, the relatively poor performance of PS 2.0 on the FX cards might be a more important factor than precision in this game when it comes to measuring performance differences, but this is not really clear because the game makes relatively little use of PS 2.0 anyway at the moment.

Finally, I would think that 6800GT/U and X800Pro/XT owners should eventually expect better image quality than what is currently seen with the R3xx path. The current R3xx path utilizes mostly PS 1.1 shaders, and PS 2.0 shaders primarily for the lighting effects. These powerful new cards can be pushed much more than the current gen hardware while still maintaining playable framerates, so using more advanced PS 2.0/3.0 effects would seem to make sense.

Full precision, partial precision. What's the complicated matter? Isn't it how it works? You only call for full precision and the card delivers what it can be it FP32 or FP24.

Edge
06-03-04, 12:23 PM
Yes they have. It makes r3xx cards run the game significantly faster in some areas but degrades image quality to the level of the nv3x.

Huh? The information I've seen on it shows that the R3xx cards run at nearly the same framerate whether it's running under the full quality path or the nv3x path. Could be wrong though, is there a benchmark that compairs the two?

dan2097
06-03-04, 01:01 PM
Huh? The information I've seen on it shows that the R3xx cards run at nearly the same framerate whether it's running under the full quality path or the nv3x path. Could be wrong though, is there a benchmark that compairs the two?

Radeon forced to run the NV path = Avg: 50.011 - Min: 28
http://www.driverheaven.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44253&perpage=15&highlight=farcry%20nv3x&pagenumber=7

Radeon using normal path looks to be about AVG 40 min 18
http://www.driverheaven.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44253&perpage=15&highlight=farcry%20nv3x&pagenumber=1

Im almost sure veridian did make and actual graph of this in a new thread but I cant find it at the moment

freak77power
06-03-04, 04:20 PM
PS3.0 requires FP32 all the time, it could be pain in ass for 6800Ultra and Far Cry...

FP32 really requires powerful GPU. I'm not saying that 6800Ultra is not powerful, but it's not enough. That's just my view of things...

Can't wait for bench...

trolane
06-03-04, 04:24 PM
do all you dumbasses that think nvidia can't handle fp32 work have access to nvidia chip design process ? didn't think so. so please explain how you would have a ****ing clue if it can handle it or not.

jimmyjames123
06-03-04, 04:25 PM
PS 3.0 stipulates that FP32 is "full" precision, so anything less than that (ie. FP16 and FP24) is considered "partial" precision. However, wouldn't developers still have the option of using partial precision hints?

I believe that there was an interview done with someone at NVIDIA who claimed that FP32 performance on the 6800U should approach FP16 performance in most cases once the compiler is more mature. Not sure where I read that though. Anyway, I seriously doubt that full FP32 precision will represent any major problem for cards like the 6800U. As you can see from the preliminary Shadermark 2.0 tests, the 6800U is very fast even when using full precision.

dan2097
06-03-04, 04:35 PM
I believe you can still use fp16 as partial precision under ps3.0, so from the 6800s perspective thats basically no difference from ps2.0 i.e. on the 6800 full precison =fp32 partial precision =fp16

tb77
06-03-04, 07:51 PM
I believe you can still use fp16 as partial precision under ps3.0, so from the 6800s perspective thats basically no difference from ps2.0 i.e. on the 6800 full precison =fp32 partial precision =fp16

You are right. Partial Precision is allowed via 3.0 shaders. The main reason for switching from 24 bit to 32 bit is the ability to move vertex shaders and pixel shaders closer together...(vertex shaders always use 32 bit precision)

I have released a fp16 version of the far cry v1.1 patch:
http://www.tommti-systems.de/main-Dateien/files.html

Thomas