Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Rumor Mill

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-22-02, 02:31 PM   #13
Uttar
Registered User
 
Uttar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,354
Send a message via AIM to Uttar Send a message via Yahoo to Uttar
Default

Actually, i think Derek's forgetting something: Cg is open source. If ATI wants to optimize it for their cards, nV won't stop them. If someone wants to make Cg work with Matrox card and got a lot of time on his hands, nV won't stop him.

IMO, even if what Derek says is kinda true, when whatever thing being worked on with Cg will be released, Cg will have matured and will be much more stable.

And it really surprises me he says Cg crashes ATI hardware - i never heard of that.


And the "no need to write something that complicated" is IMHO truly incorrect. Yes, there's no need to. But the point of this whole architecute is to GROUP MULTIPLE VS INTO ONE using branching & loops!

And that enables better batching, thus resulting in higher performance.
In Other Words, if you consider you could group many VS into one, the NV30 doesn't have that much power. It might even need more.


Uttar
Uttar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-02, 05:00 AM   #14
Nutty
Sittin in the Sun
 
Nutty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,835
Send a message via MSN to Nutty
Default

It seems to me, you dont know much of what you're talking about.

Quote:
The NV30 raytracing power is explained at all, so it's better to simply suppose it won't be used by devs for a while.
The NV30 does not do raytracing. You can force it to do it, by encoding polygon ray intersection tests into the vertex/fragment programs, but it's still basically a scanline rasterizer.

Quote:
The Pixel Shader of the NV30, said simply, has amazing raw power but no big advancement from PS 1.4 beside it got a lot more instructions.
Utter rubbish. The Nv30 supports pixel shader 2.0. The current batch of gf3/gf4's have very limited dependant texture read operations. Whereas with pixel shader 2.0, they are completely general and very flexable.

Quote:
Pixel Shaders, however, could rapidly become less usefull by Vertex Shaders because as there are more and more polygons in models, Vertex Shader quality is nearly as good as the Pixel Shader one.
Again this is wrong. Bump-mapping, and advanced lighting effects all are done on the fragment level. This isn't gonna change simply because we have more polygons in models.

Some other stuff you say seems right tho.
Nutty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-02, 10:25 AM   #15
nutball
International God of Sex
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: en.gb.uk
Posts: 655
Default

Thank you nutty, you put into words what I couldn't calm down enough to type.
__________________
Got nuts?
nutball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-02, 12:31 PM   #16
Bigus Dickus
GF7 FX Ti 12800 SE Ultra
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 651
Default Re: Understanding CineFX - MUCH more than the R300

Quote:
Originally posted by Uttar
However, the R300 is doing a lame attemp to fix the Vertex Shader problem: maximum 4 loops and each having a maximum 256 instructions.

nVidia way is better: maximum 256 loops and each having a maximum of 65536 instructions.

Uttar
Erm... what?

The CineFX papers had a mistake claiming a maximum of 1024 static instructions for the NV3x vertex shaders. This has been corrected, and is now claimed to be 256 instructions for the NV3x VS.

Each loop having 65536 instructions? LOL, someone has been hitting the crack pipe pretty hard.

In case you were confused about the pixel shaders as well...

R300 = 255 loops * 255 instructions per loop + 1 last instruction = 65026 instructions total.
NV3x = 256 loops * 256 instructions per loop = 65536 instructions total.

The CineFX claims about the R300's swizzling, registers, flow control, and constants were innaccurate as well.

Methinks this thread title is quite humorous.
Bigus Dickus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-02, 11:21 PM   #17
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default

without looking at performance ,but only at imagequality
the biggest diference between Nvidia cineFx in Nv3x and
Radeon9700 is in the maximun Pixel shaders colors precision and not in vertex shaders.



Both cards RADeon9700 and Nv30 support up to 128bits internal colors ,
but only Nv30 support true 128 bits all times ,all the way to the framebuffer ..
while radeon9700 only do 96bits ...

Nv30 can do much longer pixel shader programs in a single pass
without a loss in image quality .
Nv30 can keep the precision all the way at 128bits! its is much more flexible ,more accurate and more powerfull in its pixel shaders ..

a side note ATi demos used 64bits , very rare ,maybe it was too slow when using more than 64bits colors presision .

Ati cannot claim real time cinematic quality at least not with
what they have show in their tech demos ,even the Lord of the ring demo was far by a mile from the real movie .

thats why im real interested to see Nv30 CineFX in action
maybe this means nothing in the near future for us gamers ,but
for the profesional 3d artist Nv30 could mean heaven on earth ..

this next table shows the key diferences between ati and Nvidia
directX9 cards ..

http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2002q...s/index.x?pg=5


i think JC comments in Nvidia CIneFx's presentation say its all..


--------------------------------------------------------------
"Nvidia is the first of the consumer graphics companies to firmly understand what is going to be happening with the convergence of consumer realtime and professional offline rendering. The architectural decision in the NV30 to allow full floating point precision all the way to the framebuffer and texture fetch , instead of just in internal paths , is a good example of far sighted planning. It has been obvious to me for some time how things are going to come together, but Nvidia has made moves on both the technical and company strategic fronts that are going to accelerate my timetable over my original estimations.

My current work on Doom is designed around what was possible on the original Geforce, and reaches an optimal implementation on the NV30 . My next generation of work is designed around what is made possible on the NV30."

------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow! .YOu never know ,but i have never seen JC so entusiast and optimistic by any new tecnology since Geforce3 ,when in the past he stated that any Gamedeveloper should run!! and buy one!! hehe
my all time favorite quote ever made ,indeed..

Last edited by Nv40; 09-23-02 at 11:41 PM.
Nv40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-02, 10:16 AM   #18
Bigus Dickus
GF7 FX Ti 12800 SE Ultra
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 651
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nv40
without looking at performance ,but only at imagequality
the biggest diference between Nvidia cineFx in Nv3x and
Radeon9700 is in the maximun Pixel shaders colors precision and not in vertex shaders.

Nv30 can do much longer pixel shader programs in a single pass
without a loss in image quality .
A picture is worth a thousand words. Show me a pair of pictures where one was rendered at 96 bit precision, and the other at 128 bit precision, and show me the visual difference. Go ahead... I'm waiting. I don't think Pixar even renders movies at 128 bit precision, but 96 and downsamples to 64 bit for frame storage after rendering.

Quote:
Nv30 can keep the precision all the way at 128bits! its is much more flexible ,more accurate and more powerfull in its pixel shaders ..
I'll give you more accurate. Now you explain how it is more flexible or more powerful. That's right, the NV30 is only some vague paper specs right now, and you don't know. Doesn't stop you from spreading FUD though.

Quote:
this next table shows the key diferences between ati and Nvidia directX9 cards ..
That table from tech-report is from August 9th, and is simply wrong. NVIDIA supplied their "best guess" as to the R300's capabilities, and it turned out that the R300 was much more powerful/flexible than NVIDIA had believed. Why don't you find some source from, say, the last month or so?
Bigus Dickus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-02, 12:05 PM   #19
Uttar
Registered User
 
Uttar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,354
Send a message via AIM to Uttar Send a message via Yahoo to Uttar
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nutty
It seems to me, you dont know much of what you're talking about.



The NV30 does not do raytracing. You can force it to do it, by encoding polygon ray intersection tests into the vertex/fragment programs, but it's still basically a scanline rasterizer.



Utter rubbish. The Nv30 supports pixel shader 2.0. The current batch of gf3/gf4's have very limited dependant texture read operations. Whereas with pixel shader 2.0, they are completely general and very flexable.



Again this is wrong. Bump-mapping, and advanced lighting effects all are done on the fragment level. This isn't gonna change simply because we have more polygons in models.

Some other stuff you say seems right tho.
NV30 Raytracing: I think you're right on that, nVidia is being very vague. Probably only an "advanced" instruction allowing for it to be less of a performance penalty ( 85% instead of 99% maybe, hehe? ) . I guess i should look at the NV30 PS raytracing example in nV SDK one of those days.

Pixel Shader stuff: Really, really sorry - my mistake. I shouldn't have compared it to PS 1.4 but to VS 1.1 . It's basically VS 1.1 for Pixels i think + a very little specific stuff.

Advanced Lighting/Bump-mapping: As i said, i'm a 2D in 3D programmer, so i really didn't think about the bump-mapping part.

But i fail to understand your point with "advanced lighting".
AFAIK, that's only per-pixel lighting. And my very point is that PS will become less usefull ( but still usefull in specific cases such as your excellent bump-mapping example ) - not useless.

Per-Pixel lighting, IMO, has a huge performance cost for a small gain in very high polygon count model compared to vertex lighting. So it should become an option to enable it or not i think.


So, yes, you do have a very interesting points and i'm sorry i did several mistakes.

Now, time for another quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Nutty
Erm... what?

The CineFX papers had a mistake claiming a maximum of 1024 static instructions for the NV3x vertex shaders. This has been corrected, and is now claimed to be 256 instructions for the NV3x VS.

Each loop having 65536 instructions? LOL, someone has been hitting the crack pipe pretty hard.

In case you were confused about the pixel shaders as well...

R300 = 255 loops * 255 instructions per loop + 1 last instruction = 65026 instructions total.
NV3x = 256 loops * 256 instructions per loop = 65536 instructions total.

The CineFX claims about the R300's swizzling, registers, flow control, and constants were innaccurate as well.

Methinks this thread title is quite humorous.
One word: AUGH. Typo.
Here's what i said:
"nVidia way is better: maximum 256 loops and each having a maximum of 65536 instructions."

Here's what it should have been:
"nVidia way is better: maximum 256 loops and each having a maximum of 256 instructions."

So yes, i did a HUGE mistake here. Have you never had a typo?

So, you're saying the R300 has 255 maximum loops? That really surprises me. Can you show me a document which proofs what you advance?


Uttar

EDIT: You're saying the NV30 is nothing but vague paper specs.
Well, err, i may sound lame to link this but...
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1711&p=8

There, you can see a NV30 running on a IKOS box at a few Khz. So it's AWFULLY slow, but it works!

Now, let's just hope the real version is faster

Last edited by Uttar; 09-24-02 at 12:10 PM.
Uttar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-02, 12:49 PM   #20
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Thats not the NV30. Thats an emulation unit made up of FPGAs not the same thing you will have on your video card. Yes the logics the same but no reason to get excited about it until its in a form that we can use...
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-24-02, 01:19 PM   #21
Uttar
Registered User
 
Uttar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,354
Send a message via AIM to Uttar Send a message via Yahoo to Uttar
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jbirney
Thats not the NV30. Thats an emulation unit made up of FPGAs not the same thing you will have on your video card. Yes the logics the same but no reason to get excited about it until its in a form that we can use...
Yeah, i know it's nothing more than an emulation. But it proofs it actually runs on emulation, which proofs it isn't only some vague paper specs.

Sure, it's not a NV30, but if that's bug free, it's highly likely the final product will be bug free. Only big question: is it bug free?


Uttar
Uttar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-02, 02:51 PM   #22
Bigus Dickus
GF7 FX Ti 12800 SE Ultra
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 651
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Uttar
Now, time for another quote:



One word: AUGH. Typo.
lol, and another one. I'm not nutty.

Quote:
So, you're saying the R300 has 255 maximum loops? That really surprises me. Can you show me a document which proofs what you advance?
My information came from beyond3d's review and those guys generally know their stuff, so I tend to believe them (much more so than tech-report, anand, tom, et. al).

Quote:
EDIT: You're saying the NV30 is nothing but vague paper specs. Well, err, i may sound lame to link this but...
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1711&p=8
Yes, and does that IKOS simulator tell us anything at all about the specs of the NV30? That was my point... as of right now, the only specs people have are very vague at best, being mostly rumor, heresay, and wild imagination, combined with some more vagueness from the CineFX papers. I think vague paper specs fits quite well, don't you? I'm not saying the NV30 is only a vague paper spec (though it mostly is), but rather the NV30's specs are vague... a bit of a difference.
Bigus Dickus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-02, 03:43 PM   #23
Nutty
Sittin in the Sun
 
Nutty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,835
Send a message via MSN to Nutty
Default

There are fundamental reasons why lighting at the pixel level is better than at the vertex level.

Imagine having polygons as small as a pixel. The amount of bandwidth required to transfere all those polygons will be enormous.

Imagine trying to create shadow volume silhouettes from models that have polygons the size of a pixel? Very time consuming, and you'll also get lots of cracks and errors.

You'll also get lots of depth errors and fragment flashing just through normal rendering using such small polygons.

There are many other reaons why using very small polys is not the way to go.

A better solution is something like patches etc.. but it's still nicer to light at the fragment level.
Nutty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-02, 03:57 PM   #24
Uttar
Registered User
 
Uttar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,354
Send a message via AIM to Uttar Send a message via Yahoo to Uttar
Default

Not saying lighting at the pixel level is not better.

What i'm saying is that IMO, with tommorow 5000+ polys models ( see SWG, AC2 ) , lighting at pixel level doesn't look *much* better and can rarely justify the cost.

But that's just my opinion - maybe some people will think it look a billion times better. That's their choice, and i respect that choice.


Uttar
Uttar 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
Understanding the Bulldozer Architecture through the LINPACK Benchmark News Archived News Items 0 06-26-12 12:30 PM
Enhance Max Payne 3, Diablo III with GeForce R300 Drivers News Archived News Items 0 05-22-12 07:30 PM
ATI R300 & nVidia NV30 - Different visions Uttar Rumor Mill 6 09-06-02 12:19 PM
Stop saying the NV30 will cost more than the R300! Uttar Rumor Mill 20 09-03-02 01:21 PM
WOOT R300 at 400 mhz already!!! druga runda Other Desktop Graphics Cards 28 08-22-02 11:22 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:42 AM.


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