Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > NVIDIA Legacy Graphics Cards

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-02-04, 03:43 AM   #1
Raqia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 26
Default GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Firing Squad recently updated their article about GeForce FX performance with the Half Life 2 engine:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ife2/page5.asp

and in almost all cases, the 5950 has lower performance than even the ATI 9600 Pro! I'm quite surprised by this since the FX is superior both in theory and practice...

What could explain this besides perhaps the issue of using a full-precision floating point format?
Raqia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 04:41 AM   #2
ChrisRay
Registered User
 
ChrisRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Ho boy, I'm sensing a flame thread occuring. I'll reply further tommorrow. Guys keep it civil.
__________________
|CPU: Intel I7 Lynnfield @ 3.0 Ghz|Mobo:Asus P7P55 WS Supercomputer |Memory:8 Gigs DDR3 1333|Video:Geforce GTX 295 Quad SLI|Monitor:Samsung Syncmaster 1680x1080 3D Vision\/Olevia 27 Inch Widescreen HDTV 1920x1080

|CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.5 Ghz|Mobo:Asus M3n HT Deluxe Nforce 780A|Memory: 4 gigs DDR2 800| Video: Geforce GTX 280x2 SLI

Nzone
SLI Forum Administrator

NVIDIA User Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members
ChrisRay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 07:59 AM   #3
svetli_pp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 137
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

The reason why FX cards are so slow in DX9 Source is Valve. I am sure they do their dirty "little" tricks to promote ATI which badly needs it after devastating Doom3 benchmark results. But.... considering HL2 will be out around the release of HL3 and that DX8.1 path is almost indiscernible to DX9 I think everything is similar to last year HLbenchmarking fuss. ATI needs it and it gets it -> after all Valve are very obligated for selling their game with XT series without having game at all. So lets wait and see when HL2 is around and 7800Ultra maybe how everything will settle down
svetli_pp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 08:14 AM   #4
WarheadMM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 170
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raqia
Firing Squad recently updated their article about GeForce FX performance with the Half Life 2 engine:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ife2/page5.asp

and in almost all cases, the 5950 has lower performance than even the ATI 9600 Pro! I'm quite surprised by this since the FX is superior both in theory and practice...
What could explain this besides perhaps the issue of using a full-precision floating point format?
and what benchmarks were YOU reading?? All the benchmarks i seen the 9800pro kicked the FX 5950 in the butt in DX9
__________________
A7N8X Deluxe REV 1.04
AMD 2500+
Asylum 5900 (480/980)
1 GB PC 3200
Windows XP Pro SP1
WarheadMM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 08:28 AM   #5
Subtestube
Anisymbolic
 
Subtestube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,365
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

He's comparing it to a 9600 Pro, not a 9800 Pro. No-one's arguing (yet) that the high end Radeon isn't faster than the high end GF FX. As to why the FX 5950 is doing worse than the 9600 Pro, I'd guess that HL2 actually requires the extensions to SM 2.0 basic that ATi implemented in that line. Hence, the GF FX series will be emulating them, and that's sloooooow. Just a guess, but it would explain the problems. Basically, unless someone goes through and write some FX specific shader substitutes, it may be that the FX series video cards will never compare with the Radeon 95xx+ series video cards in the specific case of HL2. I'm not a developer that has any association with anyone important, so this is all guesswork, and I have no evidence to back any of this up!

Heh.
__________________
Dr Possible: Core 2 Duo E6400 on Gigabyte GA-965P-DS4. Galaxy GeForce 7600GT. 2GB Corsair XMS 2 DDR2-6400 RAM (CL5). ATi Theatre 550 Pro. Windows XP MCE. All stored in Piano black Antec Sonata II, with a broken door.

Mobile: ASUS M2400N, Pentium M 1.5 GHz. 512 MB DDR RAM. Intel EXTREME graphics. Windows XP SP 2 / Ubuntu 5.10.

Ridiculous DOES not have an 'e' in it. It comes from "ridicule" and has less than nothing to do with the colour red.
Subtestube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 08:37 AM   #6
Demirug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 131
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

The real FPS valves for the DX9 Path on an NV3X are even lower than the values you can see at FiringSquad. The Water is not transparent on an NV3X it is simply not there. If I fake my NV35 deviceid in an NV40 deviceid the water is back and the FPS are lower than before. Someone else use an NV3X id with a R3XX Chip and the water disappeared again. Looks like a strange engine bug.

btw: I got a nice speed improvment (up to 50%) after I activate partial precision (FP16) on all shaders. Maybe there are some more % possible if someone make the shaders more NV3X friendly. But with more than 2000 shaders this is not a job for a weekend.
Demirug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 11:26 AM   #7
{Sniping}Waste
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 264
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Its not a engin bug. The DX9 path is very heavy in DX9 shaders. The 5XXX FX is much slower in DX9 shaders then the ATI 95XX and up. Most of the DX9 games out now have littil DX 9 shaders so the proformans hit is not to bad on the 5XXX FX cards but Source is heavy use of DX9 shaders so the 5XXX FX speed will be slow and thats why the defalt setting is DX8 path for the 5XXX FX
Now the 6XXX FX is another story and should be fast in the DX9 path.
{Sniping}Waste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 11:57 AM   #8
Demirug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 131
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

{Sniping}Waste, I am not saying that the low speed is an engine bug. I was talk about the missing water.

I am know that the DX9 path makes heavy use of 2.0 shaders. I have a large file with all shader on my harddisk.

The low speed is a result of the general PS 2.0 problem that each GF5XXX have. But the bad optimized shaders make it more badly.
Demirug is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-04, 02:13 PM   #9
Raqia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 26
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demirug
btw: I got a nice speed improvment (up to 50%) after I activate partial precision (FP16) on all shaders. Maybe there are some more % possible if someone make the shaders more NV3X friendly. But with more than 2000 shaders this is not a job for a weekend.
This is a pretty interesting finding, were you using 3D Analyze? Also would someone bench the DX9 path under the 4x.xx detonators? I'd like to see if nVidia really has a better compiler w/ the 5x.xx + Forcewares or if it's all shader replacements...
Raqia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 02:44 PM   #10
Demirug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 131
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raqia
This is a pretty interesting finding, were you using 3D Analyze? Also would someone bench the DX9 path under the 4x.xx detonators? I'd like to see if nVidia really has a better compiler w/ the 5x.xx + Forcewares or if it's all shader replacements...
No, I did not use "3DAnalyze".

I am using "DX-Tweaker". It is a D3D debug and diagnostic tool I am currently develop for my company. One of the plugins for the "DX-Tweaker" can add partial precision flags on any shader. There are plugins for other jobs like change cardids or caps. I will stop here because I am allready offtopic.
Demirug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 02:44 PM   #11
Lfctony
Registered User
 
Lfctony's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Larnaca, Cyprus
Posts: 4,152
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Quote:
Originally Posted by svetli_pp
The reason why FX cards are so slow in DX9 Source is Valve. I am sure they do their dirty "little" tricks to promote ATI which badly needs it after devastating Doom3 benchmark results. But.... considering HL2 will be out around the release of HL3 and that DX8.1 path is almost indiscernible to DX9 I think everything is similar to last year HLbenchmarking fuss. ATI needs it and it gets it -> after all Valve are very obligated for selling their game with XT series without having game at all. So lets wait and see when HL2 is around and 7800Ultra maybe how everything will settle down
Erm, right. So they are using dirty tricks to make the FX cards slower, because the 6800 cards are faster in Doom3, yet they don't touch the 6800 cards. Yep, makes perfect sense.
__________________
Fafnir: Intel Core 2 Quad 6600@3.2Ghz|eVGA 780i SLI|PNY GTX480 |Kingston DDR667 4096MB|WD Black Caviar 500GB|Seagate SATA 250GB|Seagate SATA 200GB| Seagate SATA 160GB|OptiArc AD-7173S DVDRW|Nec 3351 DVDRW|Creative X-FI XM|LG Flatron W2261V|Logitech X-530|Thermaltake Armor|Amptac 850W SLI PSU|Logitech G9 Mouse|Xigmatek HDT S-1283 CPU Cooler|Windows 7/FW 257.21

PS2 - Wii - Xbox - Xbox360 - PSP - GC - PS3 Owner

Boycott Starforce...

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
Lfctony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 04:20 PM   #12
Edge
3d animator for hire!
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,564
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

At first I was a bit suprised, but then I remembered that the Source stress test is almost entirely shader limited. Obviously, the FX series has poor DX9 performance, but in most cases this doesn't have that big of an impact in-game since it's only a small part of the rendering procedure. But this benchmark does confirm my early suspictions: that the Source "benchmark" concentrates almost entirely on DX9 shader effects and is a fairly poor way to judge how the actual game will perform. Look at the HUGE gap between DX8 and DX9 modes with the FX cards: what games have anywhere near as big a performance hit on the FX series when going from DX8 to DX9 mode? Even Farcry only has at most a 40% hit when using DX9 mode on FX cards with full precision.

BTW, what ever happened to Valve's "mixed mode" that they used in Half-life 2 for FX cards? Did they totally abandon that idea after last year's E3 or something?
Edge 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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 PM.


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