I Played FarCry with Pixel Shader 3.0

[hovz]

probly sounds dumb, but what is 1 af???

[jAkUp]

That is just the setting in game... the lowest you can set the AF to is 1. I never quit the game, everything is read from the ingame options.

[hovz]

so then it was 2x af? ill ask the question evrybody wants to but no one has yet. were there any games running on both ati and nvidia hardware, and if so compare them. also how do the graphics in doom 3, stalker, half life 2, and other top games compare to far cry

[jAkUp]

Im not sure what FarCrys "1" setting actually does... maybe somebody can answer this for me...

hmmm... well there was really no game that was running on ati, as well as nv hardware. But there were plenty of 6800/x800's running. I got to play Leisure Suit Larry, Magna Cum Laude at the ATI booth, and got a free keychain.. pretty neat game. I can say however that ATI as well as Nvidia games both looked very good. It seemed games were taking sides, they were either on ATI side, or nVidia side.

As for doom3, the only verison they were showing was the xbox version. Stalker looked very impressive, but to me, I still think FarCry had better graphics... I dunno what it is. Don't get me wrong, Stalkers graphics are nice, but I still think FarCry has the upper hand.

Half Life 2 looked good again, the only thing new was Counterstrike source, which is basically counterstrike redone with the source engine. They had redone the Map Aztec. And that was pretty cool. As far as Half Life 2 graphics, its really not much that you havent seen... The character models look extremely impressive though, easily the best I have seen in a FPS.

It does however, look VERY interactive. At one point a guard chucked a grenade at the person playing, and before it detonated, the player picked up the grenade with the gravity gun and threw it back at the merc, exploding it in his face. Pretty cool

[freak77power]

It's nothing special, looks as same as PS2.0. Personally, I can't play the game having 25FPS, and really Far Cry with AA2x looks crappy...

PS3.0 is not worth now. Yes, it's nice feature but NV40 is not good PS3.0 performer.

[RickCain]

Originally Posted by freak77power

It's nothing special, looks as same as PS2.0. Personally, I can't play the game having 25FPS, and really Far Cry with AA2x looks crappy...

PS3.0 is not worth now. Yes, it's nice feature but NV40 is not good PS3.0 performer.

Why buy a 500.00 card to get 25fps running 1280x1024 w/ 2xAA and 1X AF? Seems like the cats out the bag so to speak....

[freak77power]

Originally Posted by Ady

Well that's basically what the Crytek guys already said. It can be done on sm2 and sm3. You're right that it would be too slow on nv3x, i'm pretty sure it would just be way too slow on a R3x0 too.

I hope this gets released somehow.

NV3x cards never run PS2.0...but PS1.1 in Far Cry. R3xx does not support PS3.0 but it runs Far Cry PS2.0 twice as fast as NV3x using PS2.0 as well.
But real difference between PS2.0 and PS2.0 in Far Cry is none...
The same image quality...
The only difference is FP32 vs FP24 but human eyes can't tell difference at this level of shader complexity.

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...

[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 half life 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.

[freak77power]

And as I said before NV40 performance in PS3.0 for this game is close to performance of r360 in PS2.0. I don't think that NVIDIA will let situations where X800XT has double performance of NV40.

This video is just good marketing thing, and it shows goodies of PS3.0.
But, PS3.0 has to wait for a year or more...

[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...