View Single Post
Old 03-31-03, 01:06 AM   #28
Radeon 10K Pro
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 351

Originally posted by ChrisRay
Since aparently its just 24 bit downsampling to 16 bit (which I think is retarded for any given number of reasons)
Either or, I think ATIS implementation of its floating point precision kinda leaves a little bit to be desired. Expecially when you consider DirectX 9.0 current specification. As ATis card is just a bare minimum for DX 9.0 I'm not quite sure they chose to stick with strict 24 bit precision. DX 9.0 specifications be damned. Probably to save Die space on their already crazily overloaded 0.15 micron proccess.

From a programmers point of view, They leave little room for modification or tweaking, And thats always a bad thing, I can see why John Carmack Stated he has become limited by the r300 programmability. Kinda disapointing to me. Oh well.
You're making some faulty statement here.

1. Both the 32-bit FP(would be 128-bit color as its 32-bit PER CHANNEL) and 24-bit FP( results are downsampled when they are rendered. The FP people are talking about is for color calculations NOT output. It's much the same as the old 3dfx 22-bit color rendered higher quality 16-bit because all of its calculations were done in 32-bit.

2. It's been shown time and time again that going above DX specs yields nothing as those feature never get supported in games using that API. They may get used in OGL, but few use them.

3. Carnack's comments had NOTHING to do with ATI being 24-bit as opposed to was about the instruction count being used in situations he was screwing around with NOT game situations, and this has already been addressed in R350 which surpasses the FX's dx9"+"specs.

4. ATI's card being "minimum DX9" is pretty irrelevant as we're probably at LEAST a year a way from games making ANY use of DX9, and TWO years away from games using DX9 as much as DX8 is used now.
Here's my clever comment
Steppy is offline   Reply With Quote