View Single Post
Old 03-31-03, 05:46 PM   #54
ChrisRay
Registered User
 
ChrisRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Beige
no, you are still talking BS. phrases like "Offering the most limited DirectX 9.0 functionality" are BS because DX9 is not about just programmability. the R300 currently offeres the best DX9 functionality because it is the only with WHQL certified drivers and is DX9 compliant ALL the time (and is also widely available and relatively cheap - 9500pro is best bang for buck card ever). also, the programmability you're talking about is not to do with DX9 at all, it's DX9+.

if you want to just talk about programmabilty separately from any other issues (e.g. actually being available to buy) then don't use such BS general phrases like "Offering the most limited DirectX 9.0 functionality".

say things like "NV30 supports x number of instructions, whereas R300 has y number".

and you're also only talking about specs. you really think many programmers will code for NV30's DX9+ abilities given how few are available and the NV30 is crippled by its 128 bit memory anyway? (you think many will even code for DX9 at all until we're into the R400+ era?)
You obviously have limited understanding of programming. I actually doubt you have any,

There are several reasons why the r300 is limited programmability wise and the Nv30/r350 line are less limited,

More programmable precision, More programmable Pixel Shader instructions,

But that concept is above you I believe, Because you obviously have no capability of understanding,

Not even speaking of the limited number of instructions, It also misses half precision, Specific precision, Fixed integers in certain floating point precision levels. Again, 24 bit constant FP is not always a good thing.


Quote:
also, the programmability you're talking about is not to do with DX9 at all, it's DX9+.
This statement shows here that you have absolutely no comprehension of DirectX 9.0 Nor do you have any idea what you are talking about.

DirectX 9.0 specification calls for more than the R300 is capable of. IE preferred precision, half precision, intergers ect, And the R300 meets the "bare minimum" the absolute neccasary minimum to be called DirectX 9.0 compliant

The r300 pixel shader engine leaves no room for imagination when it comes to half precision on reads/writes when neccasary, Also lacking the true 32 bit "reccomended" precision specified Microsft DirectX,

Again Both the Nv30 and r350 were a step towards the compliancy needed for DirectX 9.0

Hopefully when we see the r400 and Nv40 Pixel Shader 3.0 and Vertex Shader 3.0 (both are part of DirectX 9.0 not supported by either card) Will be available by hardware means. Yes these are a part of DirectX 9.0


Quote:
if you want to just talk about programmabilty separately from any other issues (e.g. actually being available to buy) then don't use such BS general phrases like "Offering the most limited DirectX 9.0 functionality
it IS limited compared to the Nv30 and r350, It offers less programmability than the Nv30 and r350, it offers less features, Less Instructions, and less precision options than the Nv30 and r350, And ALL I have been talking about is the programmability features of the r300, Which ARE limited in comparison to the competition.


Quote:
and you're also only talking about specs. you really think many programmers will code for NV30's DX9+ abilities given how few are available and the NV30 is crippled by its 128 bit memory anyway? (you think many will even code for DX9 at all until we're into the R400+ era?)
Again, In the future yes, Heck even carmack is using the Nv30 as his basis for future products, IE he will use its extended programmability features in the future for his baseline of his next engine and future engines.

Just because the Nv30 has crippled architecture does not mean its not a step forward in programmability, Compilers, and rendering features

And this, For whatever reason may be, Seems to have gone beyond your grasp in comprehension.

The Geforce 256 was a crippled card which never saw its potential. But its architecture was the baseline for MANY future products to come, Including any card which went for Hardware T&L,

The R300 "is" a good card, Its shader instructions, functions and precision are limited in comparison to what is becoming available,

Like it or not, The r300 is out dated now in instruction/precision capabilities, Just like the Nv30 is outdated in instruction capabilities now that the r350 is out. This is because we have a little thing called "progress" in computer technology

But I wouldn't want to insult the precious r300. My god man. You'd think you are married to that piece of silicon
__________________
|CPU: Intel I7 Lynnfield @ 3.0 Ghz|Mobo:Asus P7P55 WS Supercomputer |Memory:8 Gigs DDR3 1333|Video:Geforce GTX 295 Quad SLI|Monitor:Samsung Syncmaster 1680x1080 3D Vision\/Olevia 27 Inch Widescreen HDTV 1920x1080

|CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.5 Ghz|Mobo:Asus M3n HT Deluxe Nforce 780A|Memory: 4 gigs DDR2 800| Video: Geforce GTX 280x2 SLI

Nzone
SLI Forum Administrator

NVIDIA User Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members
ChrisRay is offline   Reply With Quote