View Single Post
Old 05-15-04, 02:08 AM   #29
CaiNaM
Registered User
 
CaiNaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 563
Default Re: I Played FarCry with Pixel Shader 3.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by freak77power
NV3x cards never run PS2.0...but PS1.1 in Far Cry.
umm.. wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freak77power
R3xx does not support PS3.0 but it runs Far Cry PS2.0 twice as fast as NV3x using PS2.0 as well.
and to think you just said nv3xx never runs ps2 in far cry.. so r3xx runs ps2 twice as fast as the ps2 the nv3x doesn't run? hmmm....
Quote:
Originally Posted by freak77power
But real difference between PS2.0 and PS2.0 in Far Cry is none...The same image quality...
now that's an amazing statement.. let me think about that for a bit... so you're trying to get me to believe ps2 is the same a ps2?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freak77power
The only difference is FP32 vs FP24 but human eyes can't tell difference at this level of shader complexity.
but you just said there is no difference.. so there's no real difference, but the only difference is the one that isn't there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freak77power
Some people don't see it, but X800XT simply eats NV40 in Far Cry.
1600*1200 FSAA4x AF8x X800XT give playable frame rate for this game, NV40 can't even start it...
jeesus.. so this last statement we should simply take at face value based on the logic of your previous statements?
__________________
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king.
CaiNaM is offline   Reply With Quote