PDA

View Full Version : Pixel shader version 1.4 supported?


JohnsonLKD
08-17-02, 02:05 AM
Pixel Shader 1.4...

If the rage3d people were correct...

what video card will support it? 8500? 9000? 9700?

They said GF 4 can't support PS 1.4!!!

I thought Adanced PS was PS1.4!!!:confused:

-=DVS=-
08-17-02, 02:27 AM
PS 1.4 only for Radeon 8500 maybe for 9000 to dunno about that but 9700 supports PS 2.0 :rolleyes:

Dunno about Nvidia don't realy give a damn, no games to play with :p

Uttar
08-17-02, 04:08 AM
Rage3D are ATI fans, so they'll say that useless, crappy features ATI got and nVidia doesn't are "the greatest thing ever".

nVNews is a little like that too, in my opinion a little less ( because nVidia does less crappy things probably ) , but that's not the point here.

PS 1.4 is ONLY supported in the Radeon 8500 and Radeon 9000. The Radeon 9700 and 9500 supports 2.0 ( and that means it also supports 1.4, but that's not so important to mention )

PS 1.4 being not supported by nVidia ( they say they've yet to see an effect needing 1.4 ) , very few developers use it.


In other words, no, GF4s do not support PS 1.4, but it's ridiculous to want that because nearly no games support it.


Uttar

StealthHawk
08-17-02, 04:25 AM
add to that mix that no other vendor supports it yet including Matrox, SiS, and as far as i know Trident. although i hear Trident is supposed to be DX9 so i guess it might have backwards compatibility.

JohnsonLKD
08-17-02, 06:52 AM
That I have another supported function...

Well, thank you for those "I-will-let-you-know-noob!" replys.

Then I just wonder what is that adv. PS then?

hmmm...:confused:

Renzo
08-17-02, 07:16 AM
If you're referring to 3dmark2001's "advanced pixel shader", then yes it means pixel shader version 1.4. However, if you read the 3dmark documents, you'll find out that "advanced pixel shader" test can be done using pixel shader version 1.3, but in two passes.

For your knowledge, there are some effects IMPOSSIBLE to do with PS1.3, but they can be done using PS1.4.

SavagePaladin
08-17-02, 08:40 AM
I'm of the opinion that the reason gf4s didn't have ps1.4 is because they'd been reworking the same architecture a little too long. Anyone can tell you modifying an existing design eventually sucks more than making a new one

saturnotaku
08-17-02, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Renzo
For your knowledge, there are some effects IMPOSSIBLE to do with PS1.3, but they can be done using PS1.4.

Right. :)

Again to echo what everyone else has said, you can probably count on one hand the number of games on store shelves that utilize any form of pixel shader at all, much less the highly touted PS 1.4.

DIMA
08-17-02, 09:32 AM
I've seen a few notes that GF4TI core HAS the potential to support PS 1.4 but this potential is untapped and will most definetely not be ever tapped, since it would be politically incorrect to follow ATI and suddenly implement PS 1.4 in NV28 for example. Imagine what the critics would say about nvidia following ati's path! The same can be said about N-Patches, that GF4TI doesn't support while the R8500 does, why? cause it's again politically incorrect to follow ATI and besides, nvidia doesn't see any use in them for the long run... (referring to N-patches and PS 1.4).

john19055
08-17-02, 10:08 AM
Well the NV30 and the R9700 and a few other companies will all support the PS2.0 witch this will be great for software makers that makes games so they don't have to program for two different kinds of shaders.

Renzo
08-17-02, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku


Right. :)

Again to echo what everyone else has said, you can probably count on one hand the number of games on store shelves that utilize any form of pixel shader at all, much less the highly touted PS 1.4.
There are probably... eh.. zero PS1.4 supporting games ;) Anyway, the point is even R8500 have more complete pixel shader than GF4 does. No matter if it's currently unsupported, but it is still missing and fanATIcs can boast with that.

Chalnoth
08-17-02, 04:56 PM
I don't believe that the GeForce4 architecture can, in any way, support PS1.4. If it could, you had better believe that not only would they support it, but the added functionality would be exposed in OpenGL (In particular, GF4 architecture can only support up to four textures per pass, and in a less flexible fashion than is available in PS 1.4).

Regardless, the reality of the situation appears to be this:

1. PS 1.4 offers one additional real-world improvement: overbright lights. The DOOM3 engine supports these, but apparently the designers aren't taking advantage of them (JC is attempting to push the designers to go for it...). While the overbright lights will be visible on all hardware, there will likely be visible banding on DX7/DX8 hardware. What PS 1.4 offers is much better accuracy under these situations.

2. PS 1.4's larger texture addressing flexibility and larger number of textures allow the same effects to be done in fewer passes. This is the primary situation where we'll see PS 1.4 used. What this translatest to is that PS 1.4 will be used to make the same effects run faster on a Radeon 8500. However, in the real world, it still cannot outpace a GeForce4 Ti in these situations (i.e. the benefit is nowhere near as great as you'd think given the use of only one pass, as opposed to the 2-3 used on the GF3/4 hardware).

What this appears to translate to is that there is really little reason to go for PS 1.4. The performance alone will speak of 99% of the improvement that you'll see from it, and current data indicates that it won't help the Radeon 8500 out that much. Secondly, the only practical visual improvement that we've seen come forward is a big "if" that may never be realized.

StealthHawk
08-17-02, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by john19055
Well the NV30 and the R9700 and a few other companies will all support the PS2.0 witch this will be great for software makers that makes games so they don't have to program for two different kinds of shaders.

every single vendor with DX8 hardware supports at least PS1.0 and 1.1

i believe all but the GF3 support 1.2, and 1.3

Acid Rain
08-19-02, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by DVS
no games to play with :p

True.

The only way to see lot's of examples of new technology at work right now is to buy an X-Box.

PC users have to wait for eons to see the new tech at work, but any game developer working on a title for the X-Box who wants to actually sell their game will most definitely use the new tech, and thus, most every game for the machine uses lot's of PS and VS effects.

Sad, but true.

Chalnoth
08-19-02, 08:14 PM
PC users have to wait for eons to see the new tech at work, but any game developer working on a title for the X-Box who wants to actually sell their game will most definitely use the new tech, and thus, most every game for the machine uses lot's of PS and VS effects.

Sad, but true. [/B]

It's more than just that. On the console, there is but one system to program for. Because of this, the software developer can do optimizations through the ying yang for that particular architecture. On the PC, doing the same thing would either break the game entirely on other hardware, or would cause massive stalls.

I believe it was John Carmack who recently estimated that you could get approximately an additional 50% performance by optimizing thoroughly for a single architecture.

And, of course, given the development cycles of the major players in the 3D market, it will probably be another two years before we see games with a minspec of DX8 (Actually, given JC's recent statements, this may be skipped altogether...making for DX9 minspec in two years).

Kruno
08-20-02, 12:03 AM
They are?

Originally posted by Renzo
If you're referring to 3dmark2001's "advanced pixel shader", then yes it means pixel shader version 1.4. However, if you read the 3dmark documents, you'll find out that "advanced pixel shader" test can be done using pixel shader version 1.3, but in two passes.

For your knowledge, there are some effects IMPOSSIBLE to do with PS1.3, but they can be done using PS1.4.

StealthHawk
08-20-02, 12:06 AM
overbright lights can't be on on < 1.4, can they?

Kruno
08-20-02, 12:09 AM
Yes, Chalnoth said that as well as Mr. Carmack. :)

StealthHawk
08-20-02, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
Yes, Chalnoth said that as well as Mr. Carmack. :)

not with the same IQ i mean

Kruno
08-20-02, 04:04 AM
Yer. :)