Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-14-03, 12:15 AM   #13
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default Re: I found some interesting info about Aquamark3

Quote:
Originally posted by Hellbinder
I was looking for another thread to post this in but i could not find one.

Anyway.. I had been trying to Figure out how the 5900U could be so competative with the 9800pro in this "Modern" Benchmark. Then I found this..

That is the actual count of the type and Number of Pixel shaders used in the Benchmark. Which of course ends up making sense why the Two cards peform so Closely together.

Which briungs me to a little Side Question. Doesnt it seem a little odd that Nvidia is not Screeming about this benchmark for the same Reasons they hammered 3dmark03?
that information was posted in b3d.. and I posted it in another thread

however... I don't know if you read the follow up statement saying that even TR : AOD uses close to 14 ps 2.0 shaders in its benchmark... a far larger number than AM3...

I thought that was an interesting point though I cannot independently corroborate this

have to go by the word of the lads @ b3d...

mike has verified the number of dx9 shaders in AM3... and it does appear to be more dx8 than dx9 by all means which goes a long way to explaining why the performance delta between the r3xx and nv3x cards is not so big...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-03, 03:16 AM   #14
Kihon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 26
Default Re: Re: I found some interesting info about Aquamark3

Quote:
Originally posted by Sazar
that information was posted in b3d.. and I posted it in another thread

however... I don't know if you read the follow up statement saying that even TR : AOD uses close to 14 ps 2.0 shaders in its benchmark... a far larger number than AM3...

I thought that was an interesting point though I cannot independently corroborate this

have to go by the word of the lads @ b3d...

mike has verified the number of dx9 shaders in AM3... and it does appear to be more dx8 than dx9 by all means which goes a long way to explaining why the performance delta between the r3xx and nv3x cards is not so big...
Dispite only having a few DX 9 shaders, if they are used more often than PS 1.x shaders, then it would still be a valid test of DX 9 performance. (I think).

The key thing is what the PS 2 shaders are doing.
Kihon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-03, 04:46 AM   #15
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

According to Massive, there are no IHV specific codepaths. 39 pixel shaders isn't a lot (that's including the ones from DX8)
__________________
[b]Optimization guidelines by Koji Ashida of NVIDIA:[/b][list][*]Use fx12 instructions whenever possible[*]Use lowest pixel shader version[/list][url=http://developer.nvidia.com/docs/IO/10878/ChinaJoy2004_OptimizationAndTools.pdf]source[/url]

[size=1]The politics are invading the technology. We don't really like to mess with politics because that kind of adversarial relationship has nothing to do with pure technical operations and the technical specifications of what we like to play with, the hardware![/size]
volt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-03, 05:06 AM   #16
Dazz
"TOON ARMY!"
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,138
Send a message via AIM to Dazz
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by bkswaney
Is AM3 based off aquanox 2? Or is it totally new?
Yes it uses the aquanox 2 engine to power the benchmark which was optimised for the nVIDIA cards.
__________________
"Never interupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Processor: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition @ 4.25GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3
Graphics: ASUS ENGTX470
Memory: 4GB Kingston HyperX Blu PC12800 DDR3
Monitor: LG E2260V-PN Full HD WLED 22" & DELL 20" 2005FPW,
Power: Coolermaster Silent Pro Modular 850w PSU
Sound: Logitech Z5500 Digital.
Cooling: Thermalright Silver Arrow.
1st Storage: Kingston V100 SSDNow128GB SSD
2nd Storage: Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB
Dazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-03, 06:15 AM   #17
ReDeeMeR
The Guy Next Door *wink*
 
ReDeeMeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 605
Send a message via ICQ to ReDeeMeR
Default

In other words, engine was built for Gforce 3, then update still keeping Nvidia in mind and now the benchmark is again 'optimized' for FX series heh
ReDeeMeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-03, 06:25 AM   #18
Joe DeFuria
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeC
Hard to say at this point based on my previous comments on the SVIST test. AM3 may be more of a DX9 benchmark for graphics cards built around DX9 technology.
Unless, of course, certain DX9 cards choose to use DX8 paths....
Joe DeFuria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-03, 06:34 AM   #19
Toaster
Registered User
 
Toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Antartica
Posts: 143
Default

Why use ps2.0 when ps1.x is sufficient for the effect you want??

turning all ps1.x into ps2.0 would be rather pointless, the output would be the same. and you'd still need the ps1.x shaders for the dx8 cards.

besides, the amount of ps2.0 shaders doesn't mean anything, it's how often they get used whats important here.
Toaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-03, 06:35 AM   #20
panzaman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 94
Default

..why do you think Detonator 50 are out on the 15th in coincidence with Aquamark3??....guess what!!!
__________________
Athlon Sempron 3100+ @ 1600mhz
ABIT NF8
1GB Crucial PC3200
BFG 6600GTOC 128mb
Windows XP SP2
panzaman is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-03, 06:45 AM   #21
Dazz
"TOON ARMY!"
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,138
Send a message via AIM to Dazz
Default

nVIDIA have sure been busy in 'Optimizing' their drivers.
__________________
"Never interupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Processor: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition @ 4.25GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3
Graphics: ASUS ENGTX470
Memory: 4GB Kingston HyperX Blu PC12800 DDR3
Monitor: LG E2260V-PN Full HD WLED 22" & DELL 20" 2005FPW,
Power: Coolermaster Silent Pro Modular 850w PSU
Sound: Logitech Z5500 Digital.
Cooling: Thermalright Silver Arrow.
1st Storage: Kingston V100 SSDNow128GB SSD
2nd Storage: Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB
Dazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-03, 07:08 AM   #22
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Toaster
Why use ps2.0 when ps1.x is sufficient for the effect you want??

turning all ps1.x into ps2.0 would be rather pointless, the output would be the same. and you'd still need the ps1.x shaders for the dx8 cards.
The question is, could they have made better effects by using more PS2.0 instead of using PS1.x.

Quote:
besides, the amount of ps2.0 shaders doesn't mean anything, it's how often they get used whats important here.
I have to concede that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-03, 07:20 AM   #23
Dazz
"TOON ARMY!"
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,138
Send a message via AIM to Dazz
Default

From what i have seen PS2.0 adds more depth and realisim over PS1.x.
__________________
"Never interupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Processor: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition @ 4.25GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3
Graphics: ASUS ENGTX470
Memory: 4GB Kingston HyperX Blu PC12800 DDR3
Monitor: LG E2260V-PN Full HD WLED 22" & DELL 20" 2005FPW,
Power: Coolermaster Silent Pro Modular 850w PSU
Sound: Logitech Z5500 Digital.
Cooling: Thermalright Silver Arrow.
1st Storage: Kingston V100 SSDNow128GB SSD
2nd Storage: Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB
Dazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-03, 07:55 AM   #24
aapo
Registered User
 
aapo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Finland
Posts: 273
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk The question is, could they have made better effects by using more PS2.0 instead of using PS1.x.
In benchmark, which has an objective to test DX9 performance, this is not relevant. If it were a game, it of course would be crazy to use PS2 shaders too often.

The only problem with simple PS2.0 shaders in benchmarks is that they can easily be replaced by PS1.X shaders in the drivers, thus falsily improving performance. If I remember right, there once was a certain benchmark - wait it's name was 3dsomething03 or something like that - where the benchmark makers used too simple PS2 shaders that could have been replaced by a dishonest vendor.

But I bet it isn't easy to find a situation where you really need PS2 shaders. You all have seen the HL2 benchmark screenshots, and there is a minimal difference between DX9 and DX8 - which tells us that DX8 shaders are at least almost as good as DX9. If I've understood right, the only effect that can't be done properly with DX8 in HL2 is the high dynamic range light effects, because like the name says, there needs to be high range of intensity values in the shader code, which only DX9 FP numbers can offer.

I bet this is why things are generally more shiny and the water is 'brighter' in DX9 effects, there is more dynamic range available. But in the HL2 screenshot the DX8 actually looked better to me, the water was too shiny in DX9. In AquaMark3 the scenery with Radeons looked better and it had more dynamic range judging by the screenshots, IMHO, so mebbe the real DX9 is good for something after all.
__________________
no sig.
aapo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Monitors found but no configuration suitable bluephile NVIDIA Linux 4 08-31-02 06:53 AM
no screens found + BusID ?? orion NVIDIA Linux 2 08-24-02 08:34 AM
GeForce4 Owners: Need your TV Encoder & Board Info... please! ScuzziOne NVIDIA Linux 1 08-01-02 04:00 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.