I Played FarCry with Pixel Shader 3.0

[hovz]

i agree that nv40s implementation of shader 3.0 is too early to use effecitvly without killing performance, but those pics DO look good.

[freak77power]

Originally Posted by hovz

while i admit 25 fps isnt optimal and ever since nv30 i tend to prefer ati, i have to admit those pics are a clear improvement. how can u say those pics dont look good? im suprised u said far cry looks better than stalker. how about far cry v CS and doom 3. i know they only showed the xbox version, but u must have previously seen the pc version because u obviously have connections. what about half life v doom3.

Of course they are improvement over PS1.1, what we actually saw with NV3x. But, for me it's not. I'm having that image quality since I owned Radeon 9700Pro and now Radeon 9800XT...Once your eyes get used to, it's actually nothing special

But, I like the way NVIDIA pushes industry. The introduced PS3.0, and it will force ATI to do with next product line. PS3.0 brings a lot....
I wish I see some games with thousands instructions, huge complexity

[hovz]

its an improvement over 2.0 too. displacement mapping is a hard to miss visual feature. it looks much better than the standard textures used in the 2.0

[PoorGuy]

Those pics better be splashed on every NV40 box. nVidia needs to market the hell out of those superb pics.

[CaiNaM]

Originally Posted by freak77power

NV3x cards never run PS2.0...but PS1.1 in Far Cry.

umm.. wrong.

Originally Posted by freak77power

R3xx does not support PS3.0 but it runs Far Cry PS2.0 twice as fast as NV3x using PS2.0 as well.

and to think you just said nv3xx never runs ps2 in far cry.. so r3xx runs ps2 twice as fast as the ps2 the nv3x doesn't run? hmmm....

Originally Posted by freak77power

But real difference between PS2.0 and PS2.0 in Far Cry is none...The same image quality...

now that's an amazing statement.. let me think about that for a bit... so you're trying to get me to believe ps2 is the same a ps2?

Originally Posted by freak77power

The only difference is FP32 vs FP24 but human eyes can't tell difference at this level of shader complexity.

but you just said there is no difference.. so there's no real difference, but the only difference is the one that isn't there?

Originally Posted by freak77power

Some people don't see it, but X800XT simply eats NV40 in Far Cry.
1600*1200 FSAA4x AF8x X800XT give playable frame rate for this game, NV40 can't even start it...

jeesus.. so this last statement we should simply take at face value based on the logic of your previous statements?

[CaiNaM]

Originally Posted by hovz

i agree that nv40s implementation of shader 3.0 is too early to use effecitvly without killing performance, but those pics DO look good.

how can you agree with something with no basis in fact? true, what you say may end up to be the truth, or close to it (or it may not), but how the hell can we make those judgements when we haven't seen any implementation of sm3 or how it performs?

i like the fact it's included, as that's what encourages developers to use new features, but i'll withold judgement on how it performs or how we may or may not benefit from it until there's some actual data...

[hovz]

lol canium, u have to admit he is right about the last statement

[hovz]

i said i agree, meaning its my opinion that nv40 will turn out to be slow when running shader model 3.

[jimmyjames123]

i said i agree, meaning its my opinion that nv40 will turn out to be slow when running shader model 3.

Based on what, your thoroughly unscientific analysis here?

SM 3.0 is supposed to help improve performance in certain areas vs SM 2.0. Crytek said as much, that their SM 3.0 add-on will be primilarly to improve performance over SM 2.0. Image quality in FarCry between PS 2.0 and PS 3.0 will be very similar.

I suggest waiting for DirectX 9.0c to come out, waiting for the FarCry SM 3.0 add on to come out, and waiting for some non-buggy Forceware drivers before jumping to conclusions about the NV40's performance in FarCry.

[ClosetFanBoy]

Originally Posted by jimmyjames123

Based on what, your thoroughly unscientific analysis here?

SM 3.0 is supposed to help improve performance in certain areas vs SM 2.0. Crytek said as much, that their SM 3.0 add-on will be primilarly to improve performance over SM 2.0. Image quality in FarCry between PS 2.0 and PS 3.0 will be very similar.

I suggest waiting for DirectX 9.0c to come out, waiting for the FarCry SM 3.0 add on to come out, and waiting for some non-buggy Forceware drivers before jumping to conclusions about the NV40's performance in FarCry.

wow - something that made sense.

[CaiNaM]

Originally Posted by hovz

lol canium, u have to admit he is right about the last statement

heh.. i was on a roll and it was difficult to stop

but getting back to that 'last statement'.. i'm not sure how legitimate it is at this point.. 1600 4xaa/8xaf the pe was about 30% faster than the ultra (49fps vs 39.4 fps)..

keep in mind tho that this is on pre-release hardware and beta drivers, with serious bugs like not being able to run with hyperthreading enabled - with no sm3 support. it may or may not be reflect the situation in a month or so when the cards are actually available.

obvious the r420 is a great card; mine will be here monday

i'm just saying it might be a bit early to write nvidia off just yet, that's all.

[CaiNaM]

Originally Posted by hovz

i said i agree, meaning its my opinion that nv40 will turn out to be slow when running shader model 3.

i know. my point was you agreed to a statement someone else made as fact which has no basis in any data.