Published on 25th July 2005 by
Originally Posted by DarkedgeHmm so HDr is only avaliable with shader model three is it? ... the Radeon 9800s can do HDR
Nvidia has done fine job in brainwashing people that shader model 3 is essential - show me one game that uses a shader that contains anything like the length that will only run on 3.0 .
Nvidia didn't do 2 beacuse ATi did the Dx work on it with MS - 99% of actual games programmers will admit that shader model 3 is not needed at the moment.
You got your charts from Nvidia didn't you..
Originally Posted by bigzHDR with a floating point blend is not possible on a Radeon 9800, because the Radeon 9800 does not support a 16-bit Floating point frame buffer. You can do bloom and use less effective methods of HDR without an FP16 frame buffer though.
Shader Model 3.0 is not essential, but it makes little sense buying a card that doesn't play every available game with all details (including HDR) turned on IMHO. Show me a game that is shipping and supports HDR on cards without the ability to do an FP16 blend... Half-Life 2 will support HDR without FP16 frame buffers, but the technology is not shipping at the moment.
Originally Posted by MistaPiBut you did say that HDR was SM3.0 exclusive. Furthermore, as far as I know, FP blending and filtering is not a part of SM3.0. GeForce 6200 does not support this, but it is still a SM3.0 compliant part.
FP blending and filtering is great, but unfortunately does it have a huge performance hit and it breaks AA. I for one take AA over HDR and its performance hit.
As for SM3.0, it does not bring much in todays games. Theres only one game SM3.0 have better quality over non-SM3.0 HW and thats because it lacks a SM2.0 fallback. For the GeForce 6-series I don't think this ever will be a big deal (from a consumer standpoint), because I believe (and as game developers has comment) the shaders must become alot more complex before we really see any real benefits and I strongly doubt the 6-series will be up for these games.
The way I see it pure fillrate, geometry rate and general performance is more important this generation for todays games and the future and ATi is the stronger suite here for the high-end (leaving out the "next gen"/7800GTX).
Originally Posted by bigz
May I ask what video card(s) you have?
HDR at 1600x1200 looks considerably better than 1600x1200 4xAA in Far Cry on a pair of 7800 GTX's, for example. The improvements in FP16 blending on the 7800 GTX make FP blended HDR a reality.
R300, R350, R360, R420 are all the same kettle of fish - there's nothing that really stands out in R420. You could say 3Dc, but that was the only thing that was being discussed at R420 launch. No games use it yet.
ATI have the fastest 'last generation' card, I don't dispute that. But, the fact of the matter is that the performance differences between the two is not massive and many would take features over performance when the gap is very small - much like the 40,000+ Steam users who have a GeForce 6800-series part.
Originally Posted by MistaPiI believe FarCry 1.3, Tribes Vengeance and Sid Meier's Pirates! support 3Dc. And according to a game developer 3Dc is expected to be the standard for normal map compression.
This is true for the most part in todays games, but the X8x0XT (PE) is ofen taking the lead in higher resolution and/or in games that is quite fillrate/shader intensive. I think we will see the fillrate and geometry rate advantage X8x0XT (PE) has will become more and more apparent in the future and in my opinion is that more important than SM3.0 and FP blending for these cards. X850XT is ~40% faster than 6800U in Battlefield2 with 4xAA and 1920x1440 res. (ref Anandtech). In any rate I dont agree to the article comment that there its little sense in buying a ATi card today.
Originally Posted by bigz
But can you play BF2 at 1920x1440 with 4xAA? I don't think you can from my experiences, considering a 7800 GTX SLI is only just about playable at 1600x1200 4xAA with most details turned to 'High'. Some of the maps are less intensive, but in order to play the whole game without issue I don't think that 1920x1440 is a realistic resolution to be playing the game.
Originally Posted by MistaPiI am not saying its playable, I was just trying to make a point. We may see similar performance difference in other future games at lower and more playable resolutions/settings.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
2nd September 2014
29th August 2014
© Copyright bit-tech