Let's see the 3D Mark 2003 IQ issues differently, shall we?

[Kruno]

Uttar: I understood your point the first time, I don't think you understand my point.

BAH! This is a waste of time.

[Myrmecophagavir]

Originally posted by pancakebunny
The R300 isn't as programmable as the FX but the R350 is far more programmable than the FX.I can't understand this logic at all. What makes the R350 more programmable than the NV30? The f-buffer? That just simplifies multipassing.

CG might be useful and then again CG could just be Nvidia's way of fixing their mistake. I see CG as another Glide 2.0 if it doesn't support other programmable GPU cards.And where did you get this from? I can guess the site probably. Anyway Cg outputs DX/OGL standard shaders which will run on any graphics card that supports them. Xabre, Parhelia, Radeon, whatever. It is no way comparable to Glide.

[walkndude]

I think some are just confused, cg is not an api its a programming tool.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
Devs will use the HLSL support for whatever API they plan on using. I just don't see why devs need to use D3D and OGL in 1 game. Just a waste of time.

you'd be surprised.

besides what Chalnoth listed, don't forget about WarCraft3!

you can run it in D3D or OGL...although the OGL implementation is not as good. I think it was included for Macs.

[Kruno]

Originally posted by walkndude
I think some are just confused, cg is not an api its a programming tool.

I know. I practically read about several pages of information about it long ago. I am aware of what CG is and it's uses.

you can run it in D3D or OGL...although the OGL implementation is not as good. I think it was included for Macs.

Exactly. That was one of my points.

Back to CG: Why do people think that CG is a magical tool that will make all the headaches go away? I can gaurantee anyone that there will still be headaches. In fact I am willing to bet my life on it.

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
Exactly. That was one of my points.

Back to CG: Why do people think that CG is a magical tool that will make all the headaches go away? I can gaurantee anyone that there will still be headaches. In fact I am willing to bet my life on it.
It can't make all the headaches go away.

But it does make it nearly trivial to support any DX9 card in Direct3D and OpenGL with good performance.

[Kruno]

It can't make all the headaches go away.

But it does make it nearly trivial to support any DX9 card in Direct3D and OpenGL with good performance.

THANK YOU!

I'm not too sure about performance at this current stage though. My main point I was trying to get out is that CG isn't going to create miracles. I found it annoying that people were talking about CG as it was the lord of 3d graphics. Like it was the be-all and end-all of 3d.

I'm pretty sure nVidia will eventually get their compilers a lot more optimised and iron out bugs.
My main concern is while nVidia are doing that, what is stoping M$ from doing something like that of their own?

[Chalnoth]

Microsoft isn't going to be producing an OpenGL HLSL.

As for DirectX, there still isn't a way to compile HLSL at runtime.

But you're right, there's less of a reason to go for Cg when the developer is going exclusively for DirectX as an API.

As for OpenGL, GLSlang may end up being a better solution in the long term (since it compiles directly to the metal, not to an intermediate assembly standard).

[Cotita]

CG is not designed to create miracles, it just makes programming easier.

If CG is to be adopted, it will be because of its ease of use, cross platform capabilities and code optimizing for diferent cards (if manufacturers other than nvidia support it)

Microsoft is not known to be good for optimizing software, only to get the job done, so nvidia could optimize cg to perform at least as fast as HLSH. (there's still no definite proof that CG is actually slower than HLSL anyway)

[Chalnoth]

Well, it needn't be specifically optimized for every piece of hardware. It should just be as good as competing compilers for most hardware. Other companies will get on the bandwagon if it becomes viable for them to do so (i.e. if Cg gains wide acceptance among software developers).

[Kruno]

Microsoft isn't going to be producing an OpenGL HLSL.

That's not what I ment. :)
I was thinking about M$ doing one of their licensing things that usually place companies in hot water. I was merely being paranoid.

(there's still no definite proof that CG is actually slower than HLSL anyway)

Hence, I am not too sure about performance.

If CG is to be adopted, it will be because of its ease of use, cross platform capabilities and code optimizing for diferent cards (if manufacturers other than nvidia support it)

I don't think that Ati or any company other than nVidia will optimise their cards under CG. I am aware that ARB extensions can be used by devs, but wouldn't the lack of support by other companies hurt CG in the long run?

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
I don't think that Ati or any company other than nVidia will optimise their cards under CG. I am aware that ARB extensions can be used by devs, but wouldn't the lack of support by other companies hurt CG in the long run?
Other companies, such as ATI, will only provide their own compilers for Cg if it is beneficial to do so.

If, for example, ARB_fragment_program is actually almost as good as it gets for the Radeon 9700, then there probably won't ever be a good reason for ATI to provide a Cg compiler for R3xx hardware.

However, if Cg gains wide acceptance, and ATI's next architecture isn't as compatible with the standard extensions, ATI would find great benefit in providing a Cg compiler.

[Cotita]

I think the future of CG will be in the developers.

If CG is adopted to create games, eventually other card manufacturers will have to make their own compilers to optimize the games for their cards.

So in the end CG doesn't really need that other video card manufaturers to support it, only DCC and game developers

[sapient]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
um, of course it matters how programmable something is. are you forgetting that DX9 does not have fixed specs? DX9 supports PS2.0, PS2.0+, and PS3.0 officially, at least. all of these offer differing programmability, with obviously no one having PS3.0 support yet.

HLSL isn't some magic language that lets you do anything you want. it just makes programming easier.

yeah I agree and from what I understand it uses its OWN assembly language routines right? We can all understand that the routines it will use will be the standard ARB paths (just as an example I know ARB is from OGL) cause they will be the least common denominator a DX9 hw HAS to support the ARB (type ) paths. So what if nvidia has a opcode that allows it to use only once cycle and regular 3dchps use 4 diff opcodes to achieve teh same result if that opcode is not being used what is the use?

Considering the fact that NV30 is upto 2 times slower than a R300 at running standard arb paths it REQUIRES Cg. I think running HLSL will also not be that good (but I may be wrong HLSL might have optimizations or even profiles like Cg as I think (have read somewhere) Cg is not that much different from HLSL)

I hope this makes it clear what my point is.

[sapient]

Originally posted by ChrisRay
The problem is, I wasn't comparing me and you, Most people "non Enthusiastt" people.

Heck I was chatting with a friend online yesterday (she doesnt know much about computers) And was telling me how her pentium 4 1.4 Ghz, Geforce 3 card was the top bread and butter and would last her another few years before she would have to upgrade.

The problem with enthusiasts is we make up such a small percentage of the computer market.

I AM talking about non enthusiasts. 3-4 years is longer than 2 OS cycles for MS. Even though I might be considered an enthusiast I am a student and a really poor one at that :( I only upgrade when i need to. I have had an Athlon 950 for about 2 years now and I am going to upgrade it soon. thats why I said 2-3 is the max. At my university they generally upgrade every 3 years (They have service contracts for 3 years so after that they usually upgrade). OEM is a very big market and they are not enthusiaists. A top of the line PC Atholon XP 2600+ can be had for around 700$ (albeit emachines) so that makes the point rather moot that people won't be upgrading as cost is the biggest issue in upgraidng. Enthusiasts will want an alienware whereas normal people ;) would be ok with an emachines.

For Chalnoth as far as I rememebr the MSRP of ALL top of the line cards for ATI has always been $399 since Radeon and all teh retail stores like bestbuy and compus sell at the MSRP.

(sorry abt the delay in replying I had an exam today thats why I wasn't reading any replys)

[ChrisRay]

Originally posted by sapient
I AM talking about non enthusiasts. 3-4 years is longer than 2 OS cycles for MS. Even though I might be considered an enthusiast I am a student and a really poor one at that :( I only upgrade when i need to. I have had an Athlon 950 for about 2 years now and I am going to upgrade it soon. thats why I said 2-3 is the max. At my university they generally upgrade every 3 years (They have service contracts for 3 years so after that they usually upgrade). OEM is a very big market and they are not enthusiaists. A top of the line PC Atholon XP 2600+ can be had for around 700$ (albeit emachines) so that makes the point rather moot that people won't be upgrading as cost is the biggest issue in upgraidng. Enthusiasts will want an alienware whereas normal people ;) would be ok with an emachines.

For Chalnoth as far as I rememebr the MSRP of ALL top of the line cards for ATI has always been $399 since Radeon and all teh retail stores like bestbuy and compus sell at the MSRP.

(sorry abt the delay in replying I had an exam today thats why I wasn't reading any replys)

Well Sadly non Enthusiasts don't even upgrade their Operatng system unless they have too.. Sadly but surely people who buy the Geforce 4 MX's are the biggest thing on the market. And you'd be surprised how many people think they have a top of the line machine.. :|

(yes Nvidia is to blame for this)

[sapient]

Originally posted by ChrisRay
Well Sadly non Enthusiasts don't even upgrade their Operatng system unless they have too.. Sadly but surely people who buy the Geforce 4 MX's are the biggest thing on the market. And you'd be surprised how many people think they have a top of the line machine.. :|

(yes Nvidia is to blame for this)

Well my point is this USUALLY most people will be forced to upgrade their hardware or software within 3 years. Just take a look at CPU sales and the amount of chips that have been produced in the last 3-4 years. Also non enthusiasts are likely to upgrade ethe processor and cpu rather than the 3d card but by definition 3D card means its for either gamers or professionals who ARE enthusiasts or as I call them people who are willing to pay to keep current.

I think we are getting a bit offtrack here. My point is this NV30 as a design, is good enough only because of the capabilities it offers in the programming and flexibility department since it is the foundation of the next gen chips (i believe) the next incarnation would be better.
The only problem with NV30 is that the trade offs it has made for programmability are those that make it inefficient. At a higher clock speed 5600 Ultra is bested by a ti4200 which is not only priced lower but a year old in design (PLus clocked 100MHz lower).

http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/nv31/

I believe Nv35 would atleast redeem most of these problems. But for now we are talking about Nv30 and as it stands the IQ is definitely reduced to get the gains that should have been there for a similar speed GF4 architecture.
Edit : Clarity