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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-02-04, 05:21 PM   #13
-=DVS=-
.:. Lafiel .:.
 
-=DVS=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Outerspace
Posts: 3,009
Talking Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Nothing new here , FX never did well in DX9 , thats why we had Flamy thread about FX Failure it does good in DX8 , but DX9 even 9600 outperforms 5950 , situation is reverse in Doom 3
__________________
.:. Lian Li X500FX .:. i7 2600k .:. PNY GTX 680 .:. Corsair DDR3 8GB .:. Silverstone 800W PSU .:. Asus P8P67-M Pro .:. Crucial M4 SSD 512GB .:.
-=DVS=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 05:59 PM   #14
Demirug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 131
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
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?
Yes, the mixed mode is gone. Maybe it will come back but I did not believe this. NV40 do not need it and the NV3X are forced to the DX81 mode by default.
Demirug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 07:43 PM   #15
grimreefer
Registered User
 
grimreefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 549
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Quote:
Originally Posted by -=DVS=-
Nothing new here , FX never did well in DX9 , thats why we had Flamy thread about FX Failure it does good in DX8 , but DX9 even 9600 outperforms 5950 , situation is reverse in Doom 3
well, normally, a 5950 is equal to a 9800pro(when running fp16, with all optimizations)
a 5950 slaughters a 9600 in farcry...
yet it doesnt in hl2
both are dx9
plus, i remember seeing different results where the 5950 does really good in hl2
(they mentioned they forced dx9.0, buts still looked like dx8.1, ring any bells?)
grimreefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 07:51 PM   #16
-=DVS=-
.:. Lafiel .:.
 
-=DVS=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Outerspace
Posts: 3,009
Thumbs up Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Yes but it does need optimizations to run competatively , probably runs Far Cry in lower precision DX8 mode anyways , remember last years investigations were FX line had lower quality then Radeon line.

Anyways i don't care FX line is dead we have 6800 now , discussing this would be pointless, we should be happy we have two strong companys , who are not gonna die any time soon
__________________
.:. Lian Li X500FX .:. i7 2600k .:. PNY GTX 680 .:. Corsair DDR3 8GB .:. Silverstone 800W PSU .:. Asus P8P67-M Pro .:. Crucial M4 SSD 512GB .:.
-=DVS=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 08:10 PM   #17
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...

I've never really had a play with the late models of the FX series, but as I say, if simple FX DX 9.0 performance can't explain this problem, it really could be that it's trying to emulate some SM 2.0b functions. Once again, I stress that I don't know how well an FX5950 should perform when doing full precision shader calculations under the SM 2.0 spec, but if it really should be that much better than the 9600 under such conditions, then something like that could EASILY explain it. Any of you remember running NV30 emulate back in the day? Well it'd be like that, only possible somewhat faster as nowhere near as much would be emulated.
__________________
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, 10:01 PM   #18
Raqia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 26
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subtestube
I've never really had a play with the late models of the FX series, but as I say, if simple FX DX 9.0 performance can't explain this problem, it really could be that it's trying to emulate some SM 2.0b functions. Once again, I stress that I don't know how well an FX5950 should perform when doing full precision shader calculations under the SM 2.0 spec, but if it really should be that much better than the 9600 under such conditions, then something like that could EASILY explain it. Any of you remember running NV30 emulate back in the day? Well it'd be like that, only possible somewhat faster as nowhere near as much would be emulated.
Wasn't Shader Model 2.0 only amended w/ 2.0b functionality w/ ATI's most recent R420 based cards? I'm pretty sure the NV35 has Shader Model 2.0+ which has more hardware capability than the 9600's 2.0 in DX9... I still hope they bring back mixed mode, but I suspect that nVidia will release a shader replacement driver a month after the game is released that'll bring down the performance delta.
Raqia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-04, 10:11 PM   #19
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...

You could easily be right - I'm very capable of making mistakes
__________________
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, 11:20 PM   #20
Arraso
Brasil!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6
Send a message via ICQ to Arraso
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

NV35 supports SM2.0"a"
Arraso is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-04, 11:27 PM   #21
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...

I'm aware that the NV35 supports 2.0a... but I was under the (possibly mis)apprehension that the R3xx supported 2.0b. As I say, I'm happy to admit that I could easily be wrong.
__________________
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 09-03-04, 01:48 AM   #22
Demirug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 131
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

shaderprofile (pixelshader)

R3XX: 2.0
NV3X: 2.0 + 2.A
R420: 2.0 + 2.B
NV4X: 2.0 + 2.A + 2.B + 3.0

2.A supports more options than 2.B. The only reason why NV3X do not support it is the higer number of available tempregister. But in normal cases on a NV3X you need less tempregister for the same job as on a R420.

shaderprofile (vertexshader)

R3XX: 2.0
NV3X: 2.0 + 2.A
R420: 2.0
NV4X: 2.0 + 2.A + 3.0

profiles are only suporteted from the shadercompiler that is part of the SDK (not the runtime).

There are 3 versions of this shadercompiler

DX9 SDK: 2.0
DX9 SDK 2003: 2.0 + 2.A
DX9 SDK 2004: 2.0 + 2.A + 2.B + 3.0

The shadercompiler get an HLSL shader as input and give you an asm shader as output. Different profiles results in different shaderversions for the runtime.

profile 2.0 -> version 2.0
profile 2.A -> version 2.X
profile 2.B -> version 2.X
profile 3.0 -> version 3.0

For everything that can do more than 2.0 but less than 3.0 the runtime have only one version 2.X. If the chip support this version it have to tell the runtime all the 2.X options that are useable.

Back to topic.

The shaders for the DX9 path of the source engine are written in HLSL and compiled from valve before the give it to us. Valve use the DX9 SDK 2003 compiler and only the 2.0 profil. nVidia suggests that you should use the 2.A profil for NV3X chips.
Demirug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-04, 03:04 AM   #23
Arraso
Brasil!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6
Send a message via ICQ to Arraso
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

"nVidia suggests that you should use the 2.A profil for NV3X chips."

And did Gabe make this?

I think that we need a "Humus" for the green force Maybe you Demirug...
Arraso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-04, 04:24 AM   #24
Demirug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 131
Default Re: GeForce FX 5950 and Source DX 9 performance...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arraso
"nVidia suggests that you should use the 2.A profil for NV3X chips."

And did Gabe make this?
Yes, Valve did this for the "mixed mode" but this "mixed mode" is not in the current version of CS:S and the VST.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arraso
I think that we need a "Humus" for the green force Maybe you Demirug...
I am not want to be "green" or "red". As I am not working for one of the two sides in this war I have the right to make what ever I want.
Demirug 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 08:20 AM.


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