View Single Post
Old 02-17-03, 07:24 AM   #18
Sittin in the Sun
Nutty's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,835
Send a message via MSN to Nutty

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
I was under the impression the PS2.0 shader results were gained from the DX9 scene. If I'm wrong tell me.

This "DX9" shader scene consists mainly of DX8 shaders. Presumably PS1.4. I just thought that maybe nvidia still dont expose 1.4 explicity, but thus promote 1.4 shaders to 2.0, and therefore incurr a performance penalty.

It was just a thought, chill out!

Uh huh. So I guess we don't really need DX9 at all just code everything in a 64k boundry and that's all it takes.
Eh? Theres nothing stopping you writing a DX9 demo in 64k. I'm just saying I wasn't very impressed with the demo itself. The ogre scene looked awful. That womans's hair was crap.

You know, why doesn't everyone read FutureMark's white paper on 3DMark03 it explains a lot and answers many questions and concerns people are having.
I have.

AND GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS that it is for FUTURE GAMES not what is being played now.
Thats the problem, Genius!! Future games WILL NOT use the crap algorithms used in this badly written demo/benchmark.
Nutty is offline   Reply With Quote