View Full Version : Why SM3.0 != NVIDIA only
im going to post what i have been saying for a long time to ATI fans ,that were either complaining or downplaying SM3.0. now that ATi can pull some tricks with their hardware ,suddenly some of the native features in SM3.0 benefits are not so bad at all.im not surprised at all to see post of game developers that have similar opinions.
Why SM3.0 != NVIDIA only
For some reason lots of people see every game thats beginning to support SM3.0 as being 'pro' NVIDIA. People seem to forget that time spent on SM3.0 is good for the future wheras SM2.0B isn't. Any time/money spent on SM3.0 is a good investment, most game devs have to work tight budgets and deadlines, so getting some code out as a patch to an existing project is good business sense. The code/experience will be useful for the next project and at least the code isn't thrown away but benefits a few people and hopefully builds some 'good will' (even if its just those who currently have an NV40). Would people prefer companies experiment with SM3.0 on there current engines and then didn't release it? The argument that it could be done on SM2.0B is irrelevant, it still costs extra time/money to port back to SM2.0B ..and if its a patch its a freebie not costing you anything whereas there will be a serious cost (dev time and regression testing) for the company. And if NVIDIA is paying for the patch, thats great for everybody. It means ATI and NVIDIA customers all will benefit in future from NVIDIA generisity (remember ATI will get SM3.0 soon enough). Its a crucial time in the games industry and the NV40 is the best developers card out there at the moment. What it can do that the others can't is extremely relevant for the next 5-8 years of gaming. I know of a fair few console only devs who don't even do PC games exploring SM3.0 on NV40. Any state of art engines starting today are SM3.0+, in around two years you will see the results but not nessecarily running on NVIDIA hardware.
....
I just don't see enough of a market for SM2.0B specific pipes. In the same way nobody is really support SM2.0A thats just isn't a compelling advantage.
Hopefully PC devs will decide differently for R4x0 owners but I'm not hopeful. I personally expect the code paths in PC game for the next couple of years to be SM1.1, SM2.0 and SM3.0 and no others.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14358&highlight=&sid=4b75916a710df81270bbec6ef6d4edeb
Whether ATi fans like it or not ,Ps2.0b is not good for the gaming industry .(more because its introduced so late in time ,since Dx9 Ps2.0 was first introduced 2+years ago) because it delays the development of future Sm3.0 titles .that will benefit nor only Nvidia but ATi and others .if every company manage to $$persuade game developers to code for special paths then there will be no reason to support MIcrosoft Standars at all. its an irony that this year is ATI the one no following what they were embracing in the past. ;)
DivotMaker
07-27-04, 06:42 PM
Whether ATi fans like it or not ,Ps2.0b is not good for the gaming industry .(more because its introduced so late in time ,since Dx9 Ps2.0 was first introduced 2+years ago) because it delays the development of future Sm3.0 titles .that will benefit nor only Nvidia but ATi and others .if every company manage to $$persuade game developers to code for special paths then there will be no reason to support MIcrosoft Standars at all. its an irony that this year is ATI the one no following what they were embracing in the past. ;)
I have never downplayed SM 3.0, but the person who composed the comments above must have a very short and/or convenient memory, OR, he knows nothing about the hoops developers have had to go through to try to get FX hardware to run decently with pixel shaders. I also see the PS 2.0b situation a bit differently as I have the luxury of looking at it from BOTH sides of the equation (as a consumer and dev rep) (as well as ATI and NV user).
Comparing the amount of work needed to enable PS 2.0b to rewriting entire shaders to lower precision (think 5 months extra coding time for HL2/FX functionality) is completely misleading and mis-informative. Comparing PS 2.0B to what nV pulled with the FX generation is equally misleading and somewhat insulting.
While I can appreciate your passion for anything that is green and starts with "nV", some of your comments make me think of pure fanboy when I read them. For you to consistently point out any little negative point about ATI at every opportunity is simply unnecessary here. BOTH companies have VERY compelling and capable hardware in this generation. I currently have a 6800GT which I like VERY much and I am getting an X800 Pro Thursday or Friday which I fully expect to enjoy equally well.
In the future, try not to insult the intelligence of others by pointing out any little piece of negative information about ATI that you find. I fully recognize and respect that this is an nV fan site. However, IMHO, you are not doing anyone any good by continually posting negativity about ATI. You are SAFE here...you don't need to throw stones at ATI. I can assure you, both companies are imperfect and if you look hard enough, you can find less than positive things about both. Try to keep this in mind for those of us who feel comfortable with both companies and their products and prefer to keep the "glass-half-full" mindset.
Thanks,
BB
huh?
i merely providing Facts!!! , point me to anything i have said or quoted is not correct? dont know why in every single topic that Sm3.0 is mentioned and that someone have something positive to say about the NV40 ,always someone brings again the Fx line. just let it go , it a horse already beaten to death.. Nvidia have learned from their past mistakes ,and the results you see are that you and many ATI fans have now an Nv card. Ati in the other is not doing what they were preaching or advertising ,neither embracing what they encouraged so much in the past and that is Microsoft Standars.
there is not atack here , just facts.
big B has never come across as the fan of anything other than fast architecture nv40... seems wrong to paint him as such...
and I do understand where he is coming from since back in the day when I was first conversing to him about EA titles such as TW 2004 (I would never have played that had big B not sold me on it and Muya bragged about how good his drive was)
dan2097
07-27-04, 07:14 PM
I dont get the article's point, It misses the point that there are more sm2.0b cards than sm3.0 cards. Any work done in ps2.0b is not wasted as it also benefits sm3.0 cards while work done on sm3.0 cards for the moment will only help the 6800s till the r5xx arrives. Basically if your not going to do something that really needs sm3.0 why use it as your just going to alienate X800 owners?
Ps2.0_a is entirely different as shaders made in that will be unoptimal for other architectures due to trying to work around the oddities of the gffx thus making work in that useless especially as the result may still be that the path is unusable on the gffxs if you really are doing advananced effects that need ps2.0_a
EDIT: and even the X800s are still incapable of running ps2.0_a
Riptide
07-27-04, 07:17 PM
Well I have pretty much stayed out of these sorts of discussions for the most part but I want to just throw out my 2 cents.
SM3 is a good feature, a step forward. I applaud NVDA for supporting it first. From the comments I've seen by major developers it's obviously not just hype.
That said, I think it is probably true that by the time we see games come out that really make the most of it there will be better graphics cards on the market. Simply put, SM3 will probably be much more useful in a year or so by which time NVDA/ATI will release/have released another product refresh.
I really don't think the X800 is going to be hurting any time soon because they lack this feature. It's not a "must have" right now, more of a "nicety" or a "luxury" if you will.
big B has never come across as the fan of anything other than fast architecture nv40... seems wrong to paint him as such...
and I do understand where he is coming from since back in the day when I was first conversing to him about EA titles such as TW 2004 (I would never have played that had big B not sold me on it and Muya bragged about how good his drive was)
and i never accused Him to be Fan of anything. :)
nowhere Big B name is my earlier post ,just here. He just jumped because felt i was atacking ATI .which is not the case .
DivotMaker
07-27-04, 07:42 PM
He just jumped because felt i was atacking ATI .which is not the case .
Oh?
Whether ATi fans like it or not ,Ps2.0b is not good for the gaming industry .(more because its introduced so late in time ,since Dx9 Ps2.0 was first introduced 2+years ago) because it delays the development of future Sm3.0 titles.
This is NOT attacking ATI? The "delay" in development you quote is a fraction of development time since there are a number of parallels between the instructions as I am led to believe by Dev Reps from BOTH nV and ATI. If this is wrong, please show me a public comment from a DX9 developer where PS2.0b is bad for the industry and will slow down PC game development.
that will benefit nor only Nvidia but ATi and others .if every company manage to $$persuade game developers to code for special paths then there will be no reason to support MIcrosoft Standars at all. its an irony that this year is ATI the one no following what they were embracing in the past. ;)
YOU are the one who is bringing the PAST into the discussion. For you or the person you quoted to suggest that enabling PS2.0b functionality (if I am hearing correctly is already part of DX9) in current or future games will not be supporting MS standards and/or actually slowing down future game development is just plain ridiculous and smacks of extreme bias. Only one who is extremely biased would label PS2.0b as "bad for future game development".
Oh?
This is NOT attacking ATI? The "delay" in development you quote is a fraction of development time since there are a number of parallels between the instructions as I am led to believe by Dev Reps from BOTH nV and ATI. If this is wrong, please show me a public comment from a DX9 developer where PS2.0b is bad for the industry and will slow down PC game development.
Only one who is extremely biased would label PS2.0b as "bad for future game development".
is not an atack is a fact. cant you see the diferences?
if i tell you that stolen games betas are bad for the game community ,or warez games.. does that is an atack or a fact ? -ANY- special path that (like the developer above says) costs extra time/money is BAd for the gaming industry ,because it delays the games and makes more dificult to Fix them . if it were something that will benefits in the near future the entire industry ,then its well worth while the sacrifice ,but if it is something only benefit a particular hardware then it is not. i dont see the diferences between Ps2.0a in Nv3x and Ps2.0b in R42x.. no diferences , except that ATi have hardware with good performance. So yes ps2b (and any special path) *IS* "bad for future game development" , because it divide the industry ,anyone with common sense will tell you that.
i remember the long discussion about the Standars in the past ,how much they were important ,but now suddenly it doesnt matter to follow that and only that. :rolleyes: ask developers at EA and see what they tell you ,later come here and post your findings before judging me as Fanatic. :). if im a fan it is about technology and computer graphics ..; (hence why i use Nvidia hardware). the day ATI produce first Sm4.0 hardware (and fix their opengl problems) ,ask me ,i will be the first to jump the ship .i believe that Companies that push forward for better graphics in games ,should be supported ,whenever $$ its possible. Doing this is helping the future games to arrive earlier and not later . and to move to the Standars is the way the Industry will follow.
jbirney
07-27-04, 08:04 PM
NV40 only a few fanboyi's ever said that Sm3.0 was bad. Some of us here were skeptical on when its impact will be felt. Having games support it is one thing. How they support it is much more important. Will they use Farcry like speed tweaks of Sm3.0, or will they add visuals that you can not do on an SM2.0 card? Its not a matter of if SM3.0 will be needed. Its a question of When. Given the fact the number of PS2.0 cards is much much greater than the number of current PS3.0 cards, its only wise to bet that it may take awhile.
ChrisRay
07-27-04, 08:06 PM
I dont get the article's point, It misses the point that there are more sm2.0b cards than sm3.0 cards. Any work done in ps2.0b is not wasted as it also benefits sm3.0 cards while work done on sm3.0 cards for the moment will only help the 6800s till the r5xx arrives. Basically if your not going to do something that really needs sm3.0 why use it as your just going to alienate X800 owners?
Ps2.0_a is entirely different as shaders made in that will be unoptimal for other architectures due to trying to work around the oddities of the gffx thus making work in that useless especially as the result may still be that the path is unusable on the gffxs if you really are doing advananced effects that need ps2.0_a
EDIT: and even the X800s are still incapable of running ps2.0_a
I am curious, What brings you to the conclusion there are more SM 2.0B than SM 3.0 card? There seems to be a fairly equivalent amount of X800/6800 hardware out there.
Other than that theres more ATI cards which support SM 2.0(Norm) though.
Shader 2.0B isnt really bad for the industry persay IMO, I just think its introduction is kinda silly at this point in juncture. ATI could have easily supported shader 2.0A with their cards instead of making a new 2.0B profile.
[QUOTE=Nv40]is not an atack is a fact. cant you se the diferences?
if i tell you that stolen games betas are bad for the game community ,or warez game.. does that is an atack or a fact ? ANY special path that (like the developer above says) costs extra time/money is BAd for the gaming industry ,because it delays the games and makes more dificult to Fix them . if it were something that will benefits in the near future the entire industry ,then its well worth while the sacrifice ,but if it is something only benefit a particular hardware then it is not. i dont see the diferences between Ps2.0a and Ps2.0b except that ATi have the performance. So yes ps2b (and any special path) *IS* "bad for future game development" ,anyone with common sense will tell you that. ask developers at EA and see what they tell you ,later come here and post your findings before judging me as Fanatic. :). if im a fan it is about technology and computer graphics ..hence why i use Nvidia hardware. they day ATI produce first Sm4.0 hardware (and fix their opengl problems) i will be the first to jump the ship. and to move to the Standars is the way the Industry will follow.
Its just a shader profile. It shouldnt take devs that long to compile their shaders into 2.0B/2.0A/3.0 profiles so long as the the code can fit into said profile.
If someone writes a 150 instruction shader, That shader could be compiled down to 2.0A/2.0B/3.0 so long as the shader itself is compatible with each profile. Keep in mind if its using instruction prediction for instance. It would require some tweakage to work in 2.0B, But 2.0A/3.0 would be fine with it.
Its just a shader profile. It shouldnt take devs that long to compile their shaders into 2.0B/2.0A/3.0 profiles so long as the the code can fit into said profile.
If someone writes a 150 instruction shader, That shader could be compiled down to 2.0A/2.0B/3.0 so long as the shader itself is compatible with each profile. Keep in mind if its using instruction prediction for instance. It would require some tweakage to work in 2.0B, But 2.0A/3.0 would be fine with it.
you are completely missing the point Chris.. what the purpose of Microsoft Standars ? think before replying.. read my first post again.. and look at what have been bolded or underlined again. because it contradict what you have already said.. that will not be said if it was merely a "tweak". notice what have happened with the Farcry patch.or notice the ammount of work that was made to make Rubi demo "work" in Sm2.0 hardware. Things are not as simplistic as you believe ,there are many possible diferent situations . if there were no issues as you say ,there will be no developers saying that there are with special paths .
ChrisRay
07-27-04, 08:47 PM
you are completely missing the point Chris.. what the purpose of Microsoft Standars ? think before replying.. read my first post again.. and look at what have been bolded or underlined again. because it contradict what you have already said.. that will not be said if it was merely a "tweak". notice what have happened with the Farcry patch.or notice the ammount of work that was made to make Rubi demo "work" in Sm2.0 hardware. Things are not as simplistic as you believe ,there are many possible diferent situations..
This argument could have been turned around last year, if a profile has to be made to get the best out of your hardware, Then by all means use it, I see no point in letting features sit sterile on hardware,
The only thing I question about SM 2.0B is the fact that ATI just didnt support SM 2.0A. Standards are great and all. But I and every other Nv3x user am glad the SM 2.0A profile exists,
Helanic Frost
07-27-04, 09:06 PM
Well I have pretty much stayed out of these sorts of discussions for the most part but I want to just throw out my 2 cents.
SM3 is a good feature, a step forward. I applaud NVDA for supporting it first. From the comments I've seen by major developers it's obviously not just hype.
That said, I think it is probably true that by the time we see games come out that really make the most of it there will be better graphics cards on the market. Simply put, SM3 will probably be much more useful in a year or so by which time NVDA/ATI will release/have released another product refresh.
I really don't think the X800 is going to be hurting any time soon because they lack this feature. It's not a "must have" right now, more of a "nicety" or a "luxury" if you will.
While it is true that there will be another product refresh by this time next year when we start seeing SM 3.0 games become abundant that refresh will be nothing like the performance increases we seen going from NV30/R300 to X800/6800 architecture. We may see a 15%-20% increase but certainly not an increase of 90% or more again for a long time. Myself i really i like to get at least a year and a half or more out of a video card purchase and to be honest if the 6800 weren't such a drastic jump in performance over last year's cards i wouldn't be planning on purchasing one later this month.
So with all that said i DO think it's a great feature to have NOW. The 6800 is a VERY powerful video card and i am quite confident it will still be a great performer with even next year's games that have SM 3.0.
Let's just be honest with ourselve's here, what we keep hearing is nothing but pure FUD when people downplay the 6800 being more future proof. I find it laughable that ANYBODY thinks the next gen of video cards is gonna leave this gen's in the dust, it simply just isn't going to happen. Heck look at the G4 series, they are still a very viable card for all but the most demanding games on the market. Seriosly alot more people play games on current midrange cards like the X600 that cost the same and don't perform as well as last year's $400-$500 cards and beleive me those midrange cards $$SELL$$ alot more than the High performance expensive models we buy. I pay $400-500 for a video card for just that very reason, longetivity. Midrange cards you pretty much have to replace every 10-12 months and you actually end up paying more that way just to be able to play games at medium settings.
Oh and before a fanboy comes in and tries to discount what i've said, there's alot more folks like me out there who hold onto our cards for a couple years than those who just gotta have the latest and greatest every 6 months.
SCORE:
NVIDIA: SM 3.0 ( 7 points)
ATI: DX2.0b & 3DC ( 6 points)
NVIDIA wins by a field goal!!!!!!!!!!!
SCORE:
NVIDIA: SM 3.0 ( 7 points)
ATI: DX2.0b & 3DC ( 6 points)
NVIDIA wins by a field goal!!!!!!!!!!!
a field goal counts for 3 points...
Helanic Frost
07-27-04, 09:17 PM
a field goal counts for 3 points...
Depends what game you are talking about mate. But i will correct myself, meant extra point. Just tired and typed faster than i was able to proccess it in my mind, 400 phone calls a day fries your mind hehe.
This argument could have been turned around last year, if a profile has to be made to get the best out of your hardware, Then by all means use it, I see no point in letting features sit sterile on hardware,
The only thing I question about SM 2.0B is the fact that ATI just didnt support SM 2.0A. Standards are great and all. But I and every other Nv3x user am glad the SM 2.0A profile exists,
i understand perfectly what you say.. but there is a word here that should help here with "diferences" that you might see in my comments. and that is [Timing]. the timing is very important ..to know whether something will help or not. im all for technolgy ,and anything that helps developers makes their games better . :)
even if the features (standars or special paths) are only helpfull for game developer research and never used in a game in the usefull lifetime of a product .if that is the case still the hardware have served them very well ,since helped them to have something to work for the future. however when a special path doesnt help in any way the development of the future games ,but merely used for compatibility or fallbacks. then is bad for the game community ,since doesnt help in the development of games ,but the opposite ,give them more work supporting it.
yes it will be ideal if every single feature or gimmick of every company hardware is supported in games ,but in the real life unfortunetaly there is not enogh time to support every single card feature or trick in can do. the less that can be done is to follow the path that everyone have agreed to follow . unless the Pc industry makes easier game development , im afraid that incomming Consoles will kill the PC gaming industry ,because none of the issues that exist in PCgames ,exist there ,plus you get higher sales..
ChrisRay
07-27-04, 09:48 PM
I'm not sure how timing has anything to do with it, Are you suggesting ATI be forced to adhere to 2.0 96 instruction limits when the hardware itself is capable of it,
Now if were discussing the differences between 2.0A and 2.0B, I'd have no problem cuz I dont think the difference between the two warrants a new shading profile.
But I also seee no reason to limit hardware from its capabilities just because it falls between a certain specification
I'm not sure how timing has anything to do with it, Are you suggesting ATI be forced to adhere to 2.0 96 instruction limits when the hardware itself is capable of it,
Now if were discussing the differences between 2.0A and 2.0B, I'd have no problem cuz I dont think the difference between the two warrants a new shading profile.
But I also seee no reason to limit hardware from its capabilities just because it falls between a certain specification
nope.. what i simply said is that Standars is the way to go . but that if special paths are used (Ps2.0+/3.0+ /4.0+ then at least they better be used to help in the development or research of future games (this is why timing is important),and not for fall backs (when there s already much better technology) which means more work for Developers as already have be underlined and bolded in the first post. all that im favor is anything that make easier the work for developers in their future games. and Ps2b is not that thing ,specially at the timing it is introduced ,as already have been pointed by Developers in the above post.
will you rather prefer to benefit a very small group of people at the expense of the progress of the majority of the market as a whole in the industry? for example delay Sm3.0 games months/years to support every single featurity of every last Sm1.x/2.x generation hardware? special paths only benefits the first group ,Standars benefit everyone. as already have been pointed in my first post..and its underlined.
Riptide
07-27-04, 10:26 PM
Helanic, I know where you are coming from. I guess all I can do is simply restate my point: SM3 is not a big deal now, but might be down the road a bit. And by then, better hardware will be out. True, maybe not 90% faster, but it will still be faster and by that time SM3 will probably be more useful than it is now or in the near future.
I don't think SM3 should be a make or break type of factor in your decision regarding which card to get right now, *unless* you plan on keeping it (as you do) for quite some time. I will probably sell my XT and swap it out by next summer, depending on how long it takes them to come out with something better.
ChrisRay
07-27-04, 10:29 PM
nope.. what i simply said is that Standars is the way to go . but that if special paths are used (Ps2.0+/3.0+ /4.0+ then at least they better be used to help in the development or research of future games ,and not for fall backs (when there s already much better technology) which means means more work for Developers as already have be underlined and bolded in the first post. all that im favor is anything that make easier the work for developers in their future games. and Ps2b is not that thing ,specially at the timing it is introduced ,as already have been pointed by Developers in the above post.
will you rather prefer to benefit a small group of people at the expense of the progress of the majority of the market in the industry? special paths only benefits the first one ,Standars benefit everyone.
I hardly see how ATI users make up a small percentage of the market, Sure a single path is great, In theory anyway, But in all practical application it just doesnt work that way. So DirectX 9.0 standards be damned.
Hardware shouldnt be bound by an API, An API should be able to adapt to hardware. There is no benefit for limiting the instruction count on ATI cards to 96 instructions. None whatsoever, Unless of course you just want to see Card A: ) when a graphic bench verses Card B: ) If ati supports an extended instruction length, yet it doesnt get supported because they dont meet all the requirements of SM 2.0A or SM 2.0. It makes no sense to limit the hardware on that front.
I find your argument to be flawed because of the hundreds of thousands of Nv3x users out there, There's nothing wrong with a SM 2.0B profile. Other than the fact that its feature set is pathetic in this day in hardware. I think your bias has blinded your judgement,
Riptide
07-27-04, 10:33 PM
Other than the fact that its feature set is pathetic in this day in hardware. I think your bias has blinded your judgement,
This statement alone should be a wake up call. No offense meant NV40 but c'mon dude... If a moderator here on an nvidia focused website gets after you for being biased against ATI you might want to take that seriously. ;)
schuey74
07-27-04, 10:36 PM
nope.. what i simply said is that Standards is the way to go . but that if special paths are used (Ps2.0+/3.0+ /4.0+ then at least they better be used to help in the development or research of future games ,and not for fall backs (when there s already much better technology) which means more work for Developers as already have be underlined and bolded in the first post.
It's absolutely mind-boggling that you can say this after Nvidia's '03.
It's absolutely mind-boggling that you can say this after Nvidia's '03.
not at all.. Nv3x supported excelent futures ,ahead of Ps2.0 in that time . there wasnt anything better feature wise. (not performance wise). and it was used merely for research and development . Unreal3 for example use Fp32 everywhere ,with up to 150 shaders intructions long ,what hardware do you think Epic used the first 18months? havent you read JC Nv30 comments which card he use as primary develoment platform and why? game development if one thing ,to play games is another.
I find your argument to be flawed because of the hundreds of thousands of Nv3x users out there, There's nothing wrong with a SM 2.0B profile. Other than the fact that its feature set is pathetic in this day in hardware. I think your bias has blinded your judgement,
well if that what you think.. its your opinion.. :)
but my bias is technology and Computer graphics nothing more ,nothing less and it nice to see Developers also think also that Standars is the way to go. anything else that doesnt help in their future game isnt it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.