Will 3DMark03 ever become popular?

[kyleb]

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!

[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?

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

[Hellbinder]

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??

[Kruno]

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?

[Chalnoth]

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.

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.

[tamattack]

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)?

[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.

[Sazar]

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...

[kyleb]

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.

[Chalnoth]

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.

[Chalnoth]

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"?