View Single Post
Old 02-16-03, 07:59 PM   #7
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nutty
I dont think their current line lacks the technology to be good at DX9.

I maybe reading between the lines here, but it seemed the 9700 ran the DX9 scene's PS 1.4 shaders as PS1.4. It seems the GF-FX had some problem with this, and so promoted all the shaders to PS2.0, which is why it seems to run like a dog compared to the 9700 in the pixel shader category.

If some companies get some decent quiet cooling solutions on the gf-fx, then I'll probably consider getting one. I think given a few months for drivers to mature, we'll see it pull ahead from the 9700 alot more.
what are you on about?

the fx does what it is supposed to... its ps 2.0 does not seem as efficient as the 9700pro's for some reason @ the moment.. either because it is not or because of driver problems... dunno...

what problem exists is the dx8 gf4ti cards running the dx8 games with ps 1.3 instead of 1.4 hence using extra renderng pases and therefore garnering a lower score...

concerning comments about 3dmark03... READ THE WHITE PAPER BEFORE MAKING RETARDED COMMENTS

the original white paper perhaps...

maybe is nvidia or hardocp or toms had read the white paper they would not have posted half of what they did... as is I am hoping that the rumor mongers read futuremarks newly released .pdf answering all allegations about their product levied by nvidia...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote