Originally Posted by Ronin
SOE, perhaps? I'm sure there are several avenues that could have been taken, before posting this so that an educated response could have been formulated, either by you or by them (I'm not saying your findings are uneducated, simply one sided at the moment).
I'm not sure what you'd expect them to tell me. I have posted my findings on the web. So it's not like they arent up for others to investigate. Using 3danalyze anyone can verify/check my findings.
You make it sound like I have blasted a hole through at sony. All I did was analyze their dumped shader code and show people what it was presenting. As a matter of fact. Alot of people have taken it a bit out of context on the boards in there interpretation of it. I have in no way blamed the performance issues regarding EQ 2 on SM 1.1 implementation.
It was simply an avenue to disprove the belief that EQ 2 has a broken SM 3.0 implementation or the Nv4x cant run Sm 3.0 at acceptable speeds. No more no less. The whole point was to show EQ 2 is not bottlenecked by any implementation of SM 3.0.