View Single Post
Old 02-12-03, 07:20 AM   #62
T-Spoon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 180
Default Re: Re: No damage control

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
This coincides well with other PS 2.0 tests we've seen with the FX. I say that these tests should be ignored until availability (as an aside, I also do not suggest preordering in general...you're more likely to get the first batch of hardware, which is much more likely to have significant problems). Since the PS 2.0 test is so low, it only makes sense that this is holding back the FX in current benchmarks. Again, wait until the FX is available until judging from these benches. If the PS 2.0 performance hasn't changed significantly, then worry. Right now, I wouldn't.
If the PS 2.0 test is holding the FX back, then why is GT4 better on the FX than on the 9700Pro? GT4 also uses PS2.0...

Taken from Rage3D 3DMark Analysis:

Quote:
Technical Summary
This DX9 test makes use of 2.0 pixel and vertex shaders. Each leaf and blade of grass is a separate object that moves independently. The leaf movements are calculated using 2.0 vertex shaders, using the new DX9 sincos instruction. The grass movement is modelled from 1.1 vertex shaders.

The lake is rendered with 2.0 pixel shaders. Multiple texture stages are used. It uses a ripple map, two reads of a normal map, a reflection map, a refraction map, and a reflection cube map for reflection from more distant objects. It also uses a transparency map and calculates per-pixel Fresnel.
Both these tests use PS 2.0 and yet in one the FX is way behind the 9700Pro... To me it seems that the latest Dets are optimized for the GameTests in 3DMark2k3, since these are the ones used for the endscore.
T-Spoon is offline   Reply With Quote