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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-28-03, 01:25 PM   #85
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

hu fair enough, i was given the impression that it was only avalable in opengl at this point. funny though, i did a seach google for "ps 2.0 extended" and only came up with one result, that being an nvidia pdf.
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-03, 01:29 PM   #86
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

There's absolutely no such thing as "Pixel Shader 2.0" in OpenGL.
__________________
"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, 01:32 PM   #87
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

I was pretty sure it was just "ps 2.0" in DX9 without any "extended" mentioned in there...could you back that up please?
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-03, 01:38 PM   #88
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...rs/Shaders.asp
__________________
"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, 01:53 PM   #89
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
There's absolutely no such thing as "Pixel Shader 2.0" in OpenGL.
i was speaking about the availability of such functions, not nomenclature. regadless, now that you present that link i do remeber hearing the small contrivcy over the disssion to include 2.0 extended and 3.0 in dx9.
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-03, 02:24 PM   #90
tamattack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 159
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
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.
As a consumer, would you care if Doom III is compiled from C vs. C++ source? No, you just care if the game runs as promised. What's the difference here?

Put another way: Why do you care if I use 5 words to describe something which takes you 15?
tamattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-03, 02:27 PM   #91
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...rs/Shaders.asp
Thank you Chalnoth. I was wrong, there are indeed "ps 2.0 extended" listed in the DX9 specs. You are correct.
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-03, 02:25 AM   #92
hithere
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
I think that Futuremark's "sticking with the standards to remain neutral" is flawed. They should optimize for all video cards, not the standards.
"All video cards" have not been produced yet, just as all games have not yet been produced. Nvidia's and ATi's offerings may differ greatly over the next year and a half...how good would their benchmark do if it were running code optimized for a certain make of card, then a future card received no such optimized code and performed poorly, even though it was more than capable of handling the challenge of future games? As far as I can tell, using a proprietary HLSL only colors the results in favor of one company, and at that, only the current generation of card offerings from said company. How the heck are they supposed to help people make a decision about a card purchase in 2004 using a benchmark that favors cards manufactured in November of 2002? Would they offer "updates" to the benchmark, as if all the games that were produced in the interim would have been cg-patched every time nvidia decided to release a new card?
And what do they say about the lower precision modes the FX favors? Is it a valid comparison between cards that aren't producing the same visual effects?


Regardless of whether or not it were true, Futuremark would risk
being regarded as favoritizing nvidia if it were to use cg to develop their benchmark...and for what? Optimization for a card that isn't out yet, and hasn't shown its true colors (FX), or would you rather it showed your Ti4600 in a better light (as if it can compete with the 9700)? What disservice are they doing consumers here?

And your suggestion about having it be "the lowest shader version possible" seems outdated...isn't this supposed to be a forward-looking benchmark? We have benchmarks for all lower versions, do we need another one?

Last edited by hithere; 03-01-03 at 02:36 AM.
hithere is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-03, 10:49 AM   #93
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

i also have to wonder how many games are writen is straight directx and run well across the range of current hardware so no effort is put into optimizing for various cards. i don't think you can call those games flawed for that can you?
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-03, 08:03 PM   #94
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 tamattack
As a consumer, would you care if Doom III is compiled from C vs. C++ source? No, you just care if the game runs as promised. What's the difference here?

Put another way: Why do you care if I use 5 words to describe something which takes you 15?
A\ I am a consumer and I deeply care if the source was compiled from C or C++.

B\ Using 15 words instead of 5 to say the same thing is usually done to confuse people.
__________________
"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 03-02-03, 12:52 AM   #95
Cotita
Nvidia God
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 341
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
A\ I am a consumer and I deeply care if the source was compiled from C or C++.

B\ Using 15 words instead of 5 to say the same thing is usually done to confuse people.
Really?, can you tell if a game was develped in C or C++?
__________________
Sometimes I hate being right everytime.
Cotita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-03, 09:13 AM   #96
legion88
WhatIfSports.com Junkie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
I think that Futuremark's "sticking with the standards to remain neutral" is flawed. They should optimize for all video cards, not the standards.

You make it so obvous that you want coders to write their applications to give NVIDIA an advantage. We all know that you are trying to hide your PR by including such general terms like "all" but we know better.

You as a programmer would already know that the purpose of using an API is to make programming for a particular type of hardware (i.e. video cards) a whole lot easier. The purpose of an API is to allow programmers to code for these variety of hardware without having to test every single possible variety (e.g. "all video cards").

We also know that optimizing for "all video cards" is 100% dependent on how good the programmer is. As already mentioned to you, just because Joe Cool Programmer (JCP) knows how to program NVIDIA cards very efficiently, it does not follow that he can do the same with other cards from ATI, SiS, Matrox, or S3. It does not even follow that a current NVIDIA efficient code would even work efficiently with future NVIDIA products.

As already mention, you are no longer just benching video cards, you are also gauging how well JCP knows how to efficiently program different current video cards. And every programmers' skill level are different. Why do we want to measure their skill level? What's the purpose of 3DMark2003?

We, including you, also know that the relationship that JCP has with NVIDIA, ATi, and others will also influence how efficient to code is. A better relationship increases the likelihood that the code would be as efficient as possible. So, now we are also gauging how good JCP's relationship is with the various video card companies. We all know that the assumption here is that NVIDIA has an advantage with this.

And what is the purpose of benchmark programs like 3DMark2003? I noticed that a certain someone keeps making these general comments (that don't even work for general cases, either) while completing ignoring the purpose of 3DMark2003.

The purpose of 3DMark2003 was never to gauge how well FutureMark can optimize their code for NVIDIA versus ATI versus S3, etc. The purpose of 3DMark2003 was to gauge how well various video cards can perform (referring to the graphics portion of the suite of tests, of course) on an even playing field.

Your use of "flawed" is in itself flawed. It is like saying that bus drivers are "flawed" because all they do is drive buses. If you refuse to accept the purpose of benchmarks, then don't call it "flawed". It is only flawed if it does not live up to its purpose.

Last edited by legion88; 03-02-03 at 09:21 AM.
legion88 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 02:50 PM
Popular Surveillance Cameras Open to Hackers, Researcher Says News Archived News Items 0 05-15-12 06:30 AM
nCore Schedules Popular Multicore Programming Course for Houston News Archived News Items 0 05-14-12 06:00 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:21 AM.


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