CineFX=propaganda?

[ChrisW]

After a carefull read of the CineFX Archetecture, I have concluded it has nothing to do with hardware at all. It seems that CineFX is nothing more than the software suite that consists of CG and the Exluna software. Therefore, when it says the pictures were produced with CineFX, it is correct, since nVidia just purchased Exluna. I can find nothing in the technical document that states anything to do with the NV30. It seems people are believing the CineFX archetecture it the hardware archetecture of the NV30 graphics card, but I can find no evidence of it. The only thing that even seems to resemble information from the NV30 is the list of default software settings from the CG program.

I can be wrong about the entire thing which is why I ask you to read the CineFX document and tell me your oppinion of my assestment.

[Dragon88]

A graphics card is nothing without the software to use its features. Just think, when you do a fresh install of windows 98 and dont install the gfx card drivers, your TI4600 performes like a generic PCI card right. Well then you install optimized drivers, and install optimized games to play, and you see what your card can really do. Well the CineFX will be just like the nfiniteFX on GF3/4, it will give programers great flexibility and options when making games for the card. So nvidia may be putting out a lot of "propaganda" on CineFX, all companies do about all their products. But it will be a big feature of the card.

[[Corporal Dan]]

but the cinefx whitepaper included some specs for the nv30 (nv3x) compared to the nv2x line

[Remi]

Good point, ChrisW, but I certainly would not go as far as saying that Cg have nothing to see with hardware... Because in the end, that's on hardware that the code runs. The most important noticeable thing is that it does states nv3x and not nv30, which could be interpreted as something like "hey guys, it will be for nv35 only!". But frankly that just does not make sense, after all those bold quotes from NVidia, to ship a product unable to perform to the level of expectation set by the same company that ships it.

So I do not expect it should be interpreted in that way.

Just my 2 cents however...

[StealthHawk]

obviously nvidia's goal is to make the claim that those pictures can be rendered in real time, i would call it marketing, not propaganda.

[ChrisW]

The point is the Exluna software (a.k.a. CineFX) is designed to product those pictures on most any hardware. Those pictures were not even rendered on nVidia hardware. So, of course the NV30 can render those pictures. So can the GF3, GF4, Radeon 8500, etc.

[StealthHawk]

the gf3/4 can render those pictures in hardware? even if that were so, none of those exluna pictures were hardware accelerated. that is the whole point of nv30. hell even r9700, these new products are supposed to be able to render this stuff in hardware. realtime or not, it will be faster than doing it in software.

[ChrisW]

It would be great if the NV30 can render these images in realtime (1/30 of a second). But who said it would? Certainly not the CineFX Architecture technical document.

[SurfMonkey]

It would appear to me that the increased specifications that the CineFX architecture details are more useful to offline rendering than for real time rendering.

I think that nVidia are making a play for the Pixar, Dreamworks market place with a hardware\software combo and thereby getting themselves a toe hold in a $2 billion dollar market. Maybe they want to see the nVidia logo up on the silver screen along with Steven Spielbergs name :D

Even if you view the CineFX part as being software only then you still have to take into account the hardware that supports it, and at this point in time only the NV3x line seems to have the extended pipeline requirements to do so.

The fact that the pixel shader now contains a limited form of flow control, via NV25 style vertex control, is a pretty interesting addition in itself.

I guess the only way we will actually find out though is by playing around with the NV30 when it arrives.

[DIMA]

Originally posted by ChrisW
After a carefull read of the CineFX Archetecture, I have concluded it has nothing to do with hardware at all. It seems that CineFX is nothing more than the software suite that consists of CG and the Exluna software. Therefore, when it says the pictures were produced with CineFX, it is correct, since nVidia just purchased Exluna. I can find nothing in the technical document that states anything to do with the NV30. It seems people are believing the CineFX archetecture it the hardware archetecture of the NV30 graphics card, but I can find no evidence of it. The only thing that even seems to resemble information from the NV30 is the list of default software settings from the CG program.

I can be wrong about the entire thing which is why I ask you to read the CineFX document and tell me your oppinion of my assestment.

That must be the LAMEST thing I EVER heard!

If that's not the NV30 architecture that NVIDIA speaks highly of so much, promising REVOLUTIONS, their BIGGEST contribution ever since the company was founded and u think that THE KEY to this is all A LIE?

So what do u think they're using? NV25 architecture perhaps?

I can't belive u can ever consider that! :mad:

[Kruno]

G2 MX could render those pics the only problem is it will be rendering at 0.0000000001fps :) (No joke)

[[Corporal Dan]]

My i815 could do the same... the CPU is doing all the work...

[DIMA]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
G2 MX could render those pics the only problem is it will be rendering at 0.0000000001fps :) (No joke)

My ancient Cirrus Logic 2mb could render this, but in 3DSMAX, not in real time! :D

[[Corporal Dan]]

So could my p100 with 1mb ati mach64

it would just take a while LOL

[Remi]

Originally posted by ChrisW
It would be great if the NV30 can render these images in realtime (1/30 of a second). But who said it would? Certainly not the CineFX Architecture technical document.
Right again. But I am not sure it matters too much, see if you are interested here (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1176#post892) why I think that. :)
Have fun!

[ChrisW]

Originally posted by DIMA


That must be the LAMEST thing I EVER heard!

If that's not the NV30 architecture that NVIDIA speaks highly of so much, promising REVOLUTIONS, their BIGGEST contribution ever since the company was founded and u think that THE KEY to this is all A LIE?

So what do u think they're using? NV25 architecture perhaps?

I can't belive u can ever consider that! :mad:
When did nVidia say Exluna was the greatest thing they did since sliced bread? It may be the NV30 architecture, but they went to great pains to make sure they didn't say that in the CineFX technical document. They went out of their way to make that document as vague as possible. Now I ask you, why would they purposely do this instead of comming out and stating exactly what the CineFX architecture is? The entire document reads like a legal document.

[DIMA]

Originally posted by ChrisW

When did nVidia say Exluna was the greatest thing they did since sliced bread? It may be the NV30 architecture, but they went to great pains to make sure they didn't say that in the CineFX technical document. They went out of their way to make that document as vague as possible. Now I ask you, why would they purposely do this instead of comming out and stating exactly what the CineFX architecture is? The entire document reads like a legal document.

How many documents did u read on their site?

There is one document about CineFX architecture and there is one more from Siggraph 2002 describing the architecture and cg from a technical standpoint!

Read the second document and then come back and tell me what u think, o.k? :)

[ChrisW]

I read the second one and it also tells me nothing about the NV30. The only thing it tells me is the values the cG language can use but it says nothing about what the NV30 can actually do, how many passes anything will take, or if it can do these pictures in realtime. The only mention of the NV30 was a small line about switching effects between the NV30 and the GF4 but even that has very little to do with anything. Very, very vague information.