View Single Post
Old 03-02-03, 09:54 AM   #97
legion88
WhatIfSports.com Junkie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by hithere

(snip...)

And your suggestion about having it be "the lowest shader version possible" seems outdated...isn't this supposed to be a forward-looking benchmark? We have benchmarks for all lower versions, do we need another one?
It isn't about need. It is about 'what do you want to hide until the next best thing comes out'.

Here are some scores with a fillrate tester from the Quadro FX 2000 (400Mhz core).

Quote:
Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: NVIDIA Quadro FX 2000
Driver version: 6.14.1.4290
Display mode: 1024x768x32bpp
--------------------------

Color writes enabled, z-writes disabled:
FFP - Pure fillrate - 1512.724487M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 1217.574219M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 975.951599M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 570.073181M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 542.109619M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Per pixel lighting - 58.340889M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 PP - Per pixel lighting - 58.350346M pixels/sec
PS_1_1 - Simple - 766.042053M pixels/sec
PS_1_4 - Simple - 480.761139M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Simple - 483.617737M pixels/sec
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4535&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=40

I note the signficant drop in performance from PS_1_1 to PS_1_4. The performance of PS2_0 is quite similar to PS_1_4.

Now here are the scores for a Radeon 8500.

Quote:
Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: ALL-IN-WONDER RADEON 8500
Driver version: 4.14.1.3659
Display mode: 1024x768x32bpp
--------------------------

Color writes enabled, z-writes disabled:
FFP - Pure fillrate - 1249.172607M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 1034.936646M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 563.419495M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 255.208725M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 168.004639M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Per pixel lighting - Failed!
PS_2_0 PP - Per pixel lighting - Failed!
PS_1_1 - Simple - 1233.932617M pixels/sec
PS_1_4 - Simple - 642.095886M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Simple - Failed!
Similar result. Large drop in performance from PS_1_1 to PS_1_4. Of course, the 8500 is not a DX9 card so PS_2_0 tests all failed.

Now here are scores for the Radeon 9700Pro.
Quote:
Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: RADEON 9700 SERIES 325/310
Driver version: 6.14.1.6292
Display mode: 1024x768x32bpp
--------------------------

Color writes enabled, z-writes disabled:
FFP - Pure fillrate - 1786.334229M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 1962.872559M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 1028.006592M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 680.939575M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 498.430298M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Per pixel lighting - 188.913147M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 PP - Per pixel lighting - 188.947739M pixels/sec
PS_1_1 - Simple - 1230.885376M pixels/sec
PS_1_4 - Simple - 1223.748901M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Simple - 1223.748047M pixels/sec
Notice that the scores for PS_1_1, PS_1_4, and PS_2_0 are virtually the same. When it comes to performance, it does not make much of a difference which pixel shader was used on a Radeon 9700Pro. It does make a difference on the FX, a big difference. So you can see why there's a push to use PS_1_1 even with NVIDIA's latest and greatest because of the current performance issue.
legion88 is offline   Reply With Quote