NV30 Doom 3 alpha scores

[silence]

i can see the future......in 5 years nv30 and r300 won't have enough power to load your desktop wallpaper ,so all this fuss is really pointless

[Hellbinder]

Silence..

and if i remember correctlly JC said that nv30 is twice as fast as r300 when it uses it's path.so we will prolly see even better results when the game and nv30 hit the shelves.

Then i guess you need to learn to ******* Read then eh???

The Nv30 is 1/2 the speed of the R300 when it runs ARB2 like the R300 does. It *GAINS THE SPEED BACK* when it runs its dedicated path, which i happen to know is only 12bit Fixed Function for vertex processing and 64bit floating point color. Vs 96bit floating point color, and 128bit Vertex processing on the R300.

Meaning that in the end, the Nv30 is and i quote *SLIGHTLY* faster than the R300 in most cases, with the R300 being faster in some. With the Nv30 running in a lower Precision accross the board. AND having the added benefit of 175mhz core advantage. That is BEFORE we even take AA or AF into the equation.

Where you even came up with the idea that the Nv30 is Twice as Fast is beyond me...

You guys need to do yourselves a favor and forget about these Alpha numbers now. Otherwise you are going to be really dissapointed again when the final game comes out and the GFFX is not 10-15 FPS faster. They are literally neck and neck. With any AA turned on at all the GFFX gets Trounced.

You can Quote me on that last statement if you want.

[silence]

Originally posted by Hellbinder
Silence..

Then i guess you need to learn to ******* Read then eh???

The Nv30 is 1/2 the speed of the R300 when it runs ARB2 like the R300 does. It *GAINS THE SPEED BACK* when it runs its dedicated path, which i happen to know is only 12bit Fixed Function for vertex processing and 64bit floating point color. Vs 96bit floating point color, and 128bit Vertex processing on the R300.

Meaning that in the end, the Nv30 is and i quote *SLIGHTLY* faster than the R300 in most cases, with the R300 being faster in some. With the Nv30 running in a lower Precision accross the board. AND having the added benefit of 175mhz core advantage. That is BEFORE we even take AA or AF into the equation.

Where you even came up with the idea that the Nv30 is Twice as Fast is beyond me...

You guys need to do yourselves a favor and forget about these Alpha numbers now. Otherwise you are going to be really dissapointed again when the final game comes out and the GFFX is not 10-15 FPS faster. They are literally neck and neck. With any AA turned on at all the GFFX gets Trounced.

You can Quote me on that last statement if you want.

hey........i knew about ARB2 and got that right when i read what JC wrote, but if i understood incorectlly about nv30 using it's own path i appologize and thnaks for update.
i really thought that nv30 was twice faster when using it's own path......

no hard feelings?

[zakelwe]

I can understand Hellbinders comments and agree with them, but of course nvidia have quoted these figures themselves, and they must have had JC's approval I guess.

Of course that stirs up yet more of a hornets nest again as the game is not to be released for X months from the present and nobody knows what the performance will be. I guess nv35 will be out and therefore FX performance will only be relevant to the people who bought it.

So a moot point indeed ?

Originally posted by silence
hey........i knew about ARB2 and got that right when i read what JC wrote, but if i understood incorectlly about nv30 using it's own path i appologize and thnaks for update.
i really thought that nv30 was twice faster when using it's own path......

NV30 path makes NV30 perform twice as well as NV30 using the ARB path i think. or something along those lines.

[Chalnoth]

If the PS 2.0 results that we've seen coincide with the ARB2 results, then the performance is all over the board, and is definitely low compared to what the hardware should be capable of. I seriously doubt it's a 16-bit vs. 32-bit float issue (at least, not all of it).

And Hellbinder, the NV30 OpenGL path doesn't "just" support INT12 and half-floats. Otherwise there'd be no GL_NV_float_buffer extension.

Regardless, it still remains to be seen just how much quality is lost by going for FP16. I really don't think it will be noticeable for the vast majority of operations.

[swanlee]

This is just so hypocritical of anyone to defend these bench marks.
All the fuss about 3dmark not being accurate and yet a pre-alpha version of a game that won't be out for months is now being used as a bench? From JC's updates the code has changed so much since then these bench's are completely useless.

[Kruno]

Originally posted by silence
hey........i knew about ARB2 and got that right when i read what JC wrote, but if i understood incorectlly about nv30 using it's own path i appologize and thnaks for update.
i really thought that nv30 was twice faster when using it's own path......

no hard feelings?

He replied to you in a rude manner and you thank him? I would tell him to **** off.

If he can't accept the fact people make mistakes then he should piss off.

[randsom]

ya know, this whole thing of which card will run d3 faster, is fairly pointless, if the game was coming in may this would be a diiferent story, but the games been pushed back to late oct/early nov(which means a christmas release), there are much faster cards on the horizon.i dont how many of you are hardware junkies like me, but ill bet that by oct/nov neither of these cards will be in my box.

[kyleb]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
He replied to you in a rude manner and you thank him? I would tell him to **** off.

If he can't accept the fact people make mistakes then he should piss off.

well being rude is obviously not the best way about things but spreading false information isn't to cool either; i imagine silence understands this and that is why he simply thanked Hellbinder and didn't tell him to **** off. at least thats how i would have played it were i in his shoes.

[John Reynolds]

Originally posted by Chalnoth
Regardless, it still remains to be seen just how much quality is lost by going for FP16. I really don't think it will be noticeable for the vast majority of operations.

True, but such scores should never be compared against each other. Completely unfair benchmarking.

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by John Reynolds
True, but such scores should never be compared against each other. Completely unfair benchmarking.

No more unfair than benchmarking 24-bit vs. 32-bit.