View Single Post
Old 04-16-03, 02:33 PM   #64
marcocom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 224
Default

what about the issue that nvidia raised regarding a 3dfx-esque post-buffer that makes screenshots not exactly represent the realtime-rendered image (i agree, its totally shady. i just wanted to know if its being considered in this comparison)

what about the new cinematic rendering methods (like focus-blurring and other T-buffer 3dfx technologies supposedly infused into this new chip) could that be the reason theres a blur on backgrounds?


Im all for giving nvidia a bit more time to get a completely new GPU and platform out the door and thats going to require a little time (we gave it to ATi, their first R3xx drivers werent much better)- but i agree that creating workarounds for each application will create a huge driver and make for shaky backwards compatibility.

its something to consider but could we be missing whats happening here?? nvidia pulled out of the 'madonion 3dmark' program saying that paying to be in alliance with them seemed shady (while ATi stayed in the program as an alliance and paid futuremark for it and worked with Futuremark hand-on while nvidia didnt - this was over a year ago.)...and boy did they pay in the end. is it possible that Futuremark understands how to optimize against nvidia on a level we can never dissect or know about? thus nvidia balks and tries to tell us what futuremark with ATi is conspiring towards and hopes we see through it? because you cant just accuse them outright. its an alliance. its common practice.

cant wait for Aquamark. we need another party in this to keep this honest and on the up and up.
marcocom is offline   Reply With Quote