View Single Post
Old 11-23-04, 12:41 PM   #49
Registered User
jbirney's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Originally Posted by Razor1
were we crying, not really, just wondering what the hurt was coming from, thats not the same case, as Doom 3 was orginally made and run on ATI hardware. They had the time to optimize for them.
My point was from the begining that nV had been working much closer with ID on doom from the very beginning. Everyone else here knows that fact. Its the same thing what is happing with ATI/Valve and again thats the only point I was trying to make.

You don't need to look over the code, hmm interseting, 90 instructions do something that should take under 50 wonder why?
Until some one post the code I dont think you or I should try to second guess valve. They know more about making games than your or I

nvidia on Doom 3, probably not shader replacement just better optimization for the engine on the cpu end. They didn't even have ultra shadow going!
Oh yes they are. The big man himself as "said" so. Granted anytime JC says something its always crypitc but yes NV is doing shader replacement in Doom3. Its not that big of a deal. If the game runs faster and the out put is the same then great. However in benchmarks its kind of a cheat...

Now you see its not the cards, its the shader counts and what paths Valve chooses to force the nvidia's cards on.
Oh good greif. You have no idea but are just guessing at the reason. Why not wait for some more proof... If you think its just that then trick the device ID and run the becnhmark again. If you get 20 more fps you might be on to something. If you dont..well there ya go...but if its about the same...then there goes your different path theory...

Agree 100% with this.But contrary to what a lot of people could say, Carmack did not went out of is way to slang one of the IHV
No but how much time did he spend on making an NV30 path? Granted it did get dropped but thats a lot of time for just one IHV. Also if you believe value they went x5 times as far to optimize the nv3x hardware. So I dont see how Gabe did any worse than JC did.

where Mr Newell promised 30% faster gameplay in ATI hardware.
Promised? Or said A was faster than B. Its a big difference. I never saw promissed that one would be faster. I know currently we have seen PR from Valve that says 30% faster. His orginal statements came last year at/around ATIs shader day. This was at the highlight of the NV30 issues we had. There were a few PS2.0 games showing how week the FX was. Gabe said they saw the same thing. We all know that with out serrious help the nV3x line struggles at any PS2.0 work. Since that point valve has always stuck to the fact that ATI would be faster.

I just dont see why people think that Valve on purpose is Making NV run slower than it can...its makes no sense for them as a business move, as a gaming move or any move on vavle's part....
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote