View Single Post
Old 09-02-04, 09:28 AM   #5
Subtestube
Anisymbolic
 
Subtestube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,365
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

He's comparing it to a 9600 Pro, not a 9800 Pro. No-one's arguing (yet) that the high end Radeon isn't faster than the high end GF FX. As to why the FX 5950 is doing worse than the 9600 Pro, I'd guess that HL2 actually requires the extensions to SM 2.0 basic that ATi implemented in that line. Hence, the GF FX series will be emulating them, and that's sloooooow. Just a guess, but it would explain the problems. Basically, unless someone goes through and write some FX specific shader substitutes, it may be that the FX series video cards will never compare with the Radeon 95xx+ series video cards in the specific case of HL2. I'm not a developer that has any association with anyone important, so this is all guesswork, and I have no evidence to back any of this up!

Heh.
__________________
Dr Possible: Core 2 Duo E6400 on Gigabyte GA-965P-DS4. Galaxy GeForce 7600GT. 2GB Corsair XMS 2 DDR2-6400 RAM (CL5). ATi Theatre 550 Pro. Windows XP MCE. All stored in Piano black Antec Sonata II, with a broken door.

Mobile: ASUS M2400N, Pentium M 1.5 GHz. 512 MB DDR RAM. Intel EXTREME graphics. Windows XP SP 2 / Ubuntu 5.10.

Ridiculous DOES not have an 'e' in it. It comes from "ridicule" and has less than nothing to do with the colour red.
Subtestube is offline   Reply With Quote