Originally Posted by ChrisRay
Now that I am calmed down. I will be fair pako. You are right that I dont always write coherently. Especially when I get heated into a debate. I'll often find myself editing my own posts over and over again because even after I post them. I sometimes have difficulty understanding what I wrote because its usually just a rush of thoughts cominng out as I type them. I do apologize for that. I am in a better mood now that I understand your initial post was not entirely understanding of the timeline I was referring too. So it could have been an easy thing to misunderstand.
Oh his another dynamic branching bench from behardware. Which once again shows the major latency problems with even simple branches pre 64 pixels.
Ok, well in that case I'll admit that you're right that it's difficult to draw a correlation between SM1.1 performance in RightMark (or ShaderMark) and how the various shaders perform in EQ2. I got heated too. Neither one of us have have run the shaders themselves, and even if that were the case that x800 was faster, it wouldn't nec. mean that this was the main affecting factor. Plus, performance seemed to be all over the place. I was initially just saying that it would make sense why Geforce 6 struggled a bit more, since it seemed to generally lag behind in shader heavy games, which I assumed EQ2 to be, at least to a similar degree that something like Far Cry was.
Nice find with the benchmark. Wasn't x1800 16pixel granularity and x1900 48? It seems that ~48 - 64 then is the cutoff for acceptable performance degredation. I suppose that's why even nvidia was very careful to suggest its use.
About the Sm3.0 shaders in EQ2, they look cool.