Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-27-03, 09:02 AM   #73
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

there are more benefits than just the number of instructions, but none that can be done without visual diffferences; which would destroy the whole point of 3dmark!
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 09:37 AM   #74
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

I think the primary benefits would be seen by moving to VS 2.0 extended (while keeping the visuals the same), for 3DMark03. That is, it has been shown that per-vertex branching can help with skinning.

As for visual differences, 3DMark01 had an "advanced pixel shader test," didn't it?
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 05:38 PM   #75
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
I think the primary benefits would be seen by moving to VS 2.0 extended (while keeping the visuals the same), for 3DMark03. That is, it has been shown that per-vertex branching can help with skinning.

As for visual differences, 3DMark01 had an "advanced pixel shader test," didn't it?
i guess in that case you'll have to wait for 3dmark03SE
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 06:04 PM   #76
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
I think the primary benefits would be seen by moving to VS 2.0 extended (while keeping the visuals the same), for 3DMark03. That is, it has been shown that per-vertex branching can help with skinning.

As for visual differences, 3DMark01 had an "advanced pixel shader test," didn't it?
It makes NO SENSE to move or support PS 2.0 *extended*. Becuase its not any kind of an industry standard. Its just some extra junk Nvidia tossed on their card for marketing purposes.

PS 2.0 *extended* is not a recognized and accepted DX9 Standard. Its a hybrid bastard child of Nvidias own creation. You cannot make comparrisons to PS 1.4 with this, because PS 1.4 *IS* a recocnized Standard and *included* within the DX8.1 and DX9 spec.

What there is iincluded is PS 2.0 and PS 3.0

You want 3dmark03 to add support for more DX9 shader features? Then it needs to be PS 3.0 not some half backed shader support that *ONE* IHV dreamed up trying to do their own thing.

I am all for adding more PS DX9 features to 3dmark03. But lets make them Conform to Microsoft and the rest of the industries *RECOGNIZED* Standards. Like more diverse PS 2.0 tests, or even better PS 3.0 tests. After all the R400 is a PS 3.0 card. The Nv35 might be as well.

It is pretty obvious that the Nv30 is only going to be released in limited quantities before they move to the Nv35. Why Screw up an industry standard benchmark for the sake of one Ill Concieved, poorly executed, limited release product??
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-03, 08:34 PM   #77
Kruno
TypeDef's assistant
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,641
Send a message via ICQ to Kruno Send a message via AIM to Kruno
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hellbinder
It makes NO SENSE to move or support PS 2.0 *extended*. Becuase its not any kind of an industry standard. Its just some extra junk Nvidia tossed on their card for marketing purposes.

PS 2.0 *extended* is not a recognized and accepted DX9 Standard. Its a hybrid bastard child of Nvidias own creation. You cannot make comparrisons to PS 1.4 with this, because PS 1.4 *IS* a recocnized Standard and *included* within the DX8.1 and DX9 spec.

What there is iincluded is PS 2.0 and PS 3.0

You want 3dmark03 to add support for more DX9 shader features? Then it needs to be PS 3.0 not some half backed shader support that *ONE* IHV dreamed up trying to do their own thing.

I am all for adding more PS DX9 features to 3dmark03. But lets make them Conform to Microsoft and the rest of the industries *RECOGNIZED* Standards. Like more diverse PS 2.0 tests, or even better PS 3.0 tests. After all the R400 is a PS 3.0 card. The Nv35 might be as well.

It is pretty obvious that the Nv30 is only going to be released in limited quantities before they move to the Nv35. Why Screw up an industry standard benchmark for the sake of one Ill Concieved, poorly executed, limited release product??
Any chance of you backing up everything you have said?
__________________
"Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Mr. Anderson" - Elrond LOTR
Kruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-03, 12:16 AM   #78
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hellbinder
It makes NO SENSE to move or support PS 2.0 *extended*. Becuase its not any kind of an industry standard. Its just some extra junk Nvidia tossed on their card for marketing purposes.
BS. Look at the specs. "PS 2.0 extended" also supports other functionality that nVidia does not support.

And how in the world can you make the distinction that PS 1.4 is a standard while PS 2.0 extended is not? They're both posted quite clearly on the MSDN website.

Quote:
You want 3dmark03 to add support for more DX9 shader features? Then it needs to be PS 3.0 not some half backed shader support that *ONE* IHV dreamed up trying to do their own thing.
Again, the parallels to PS 1.4 are just too obvious here.
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-03, 11:04 AM   #79
tamattack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 159
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
Again, the parallels to PS 1.4 are just too obvious here.
So why do you sound like you support one (PS2.0 Extended) but not the other (PS1.4)?
tamattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-03, 11:34 AM   #80
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

espesaly sence 1.4 was adopted by microsoft well after the release of dx8 while 2.0+ poped up right along side dx9 which is the obvious reason not backed by microsoft yet. it seems to me that microsoft is being very reasonable in this situation, however i can't see how you could claim the same Chalnoth.
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-03, 11:37 AM   #81
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by kyleb
espesaly sence 1.4 was adopted by microsoft well after the release of dx8 while 2.0+ poped up right along side dx9 which is the obvious reason not backed by microsoft yet. it seems to me that microsoft is being very reasonable in this situation, however i can't see how you could claim the same Chalnoth.
damn now I need to do more reading

I was just about caught up on pixel shaders when you lot went off on this stuff..

/me heads back to the library to bury his sorrows in old fashioned/dust covered books...
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-03, 11:55 AM   #82
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

and man i need to start working harder to fight my dyslectia, i swear i proof-read that but now that i read it again it looks really bad.


anyway, i am glad you at least could read my comments well enough to find them of interest Sazar.
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-03, 12:13 PM   #83
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by tamattack
So why do you sound like you support one (PS2.0 Extended) but not the other (PS1.4)?
It's more that I don't support the fact that 3DMark03 uses PS 1.4 more often than any other shader on DX9 hardware.
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-03, 12:15 PM   #84
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by kyleb
espesaly sence 1.4 was adopted by microsoft well after the release of dx8 while 2.0+ poped up right along side dx9 which is the obvious reason not backed by microsoft yet. it seems to me that microsoft is being very reasonable in this situation, however i can't see how you could claim the same Chalnoth.

PS 2.0 extended is included in DirectX 9. How in the world can it possibly not be "backed by Microsoft"?
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth 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
The Most Popular Linux News Of Eight Years News Archived News Items 0 06-06-12 01:50 PM
Popular Surveillance Cameras Open to Hackers, Researcher Says News Archived News Items 0 05-15-12 05:30 AM
nCore Schedules Popular Multicore Programming Course for Houston News Archived News Items 0 05-14-12 05:00 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:16 PM.


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