View Single Post
Old 04-06-03, 04:44 AM   #108
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293

Originally posted by sapient
I myself upgrade video cards every year but I only buy mid level cards. I bought Radeon 7200 a year later (when 8500 was introduced) and bought 8500 when 9700 was introduced (both times I paid less than 100$ for a card that was selling for 399$ a year earlier.
Aside from the all-in-wonders, no ATI card before the 9700 ever sold for $399, at least in the US.

Why do u think nvidia is pushing for Cg?
Because, as we are beginning to find out, the GeForce FX architcture is very complex, and could well be very challenging to code in assembly for (and make it run fast). I think nVidia is pushing Cg because it's the only realistic way to get optimum performance out of an NV3x part on the shader side (in OpenGL, at least...Microsoft's own HLSL compiler seems to work fairly well, though I think MS still should have some integer data types in PS 2.0).

The key point here is that a developer (in theory...depends upon how well-optimized the compiler is...) loses nothing by going for Cg. It compiles just fine for a Radeon 9700, but just does better for NV3x targets.
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote