First FP16HDR + AA benchmarks?

I don't know, HDR using float precision is massively costly for performance. I'm sure Far Cry is beautiful at 16x12 with HDR and 4xAA but I can't play a shooter with frame rates that low.
 
John Reynolds said:
I don't know, HDR using float precision is massively costly for performance. I'm sure Far Cry is beautiful at 16x12 with HDR and 4xAA but I can't play a shooter with frame rates that low.
Click to expand...

Dropping down a peg is pretty nice though.
 
Yeah it's the exact same situation with X1800's that it was the 6800's, they offered new eye candy but at a performance loss, however I remember a lot of 6800 owners thought that lowering the resolutions for 30fps was 'acceptable' so I wonder if people's tunes will change now...
 
It appears that ATI is not fast enough with their current cards to play a game with HDR and AA at anything but low/mid resolutions. No surprise, I didn't expect that they could. I would have been amazed though. Unfortunately for now, unless you are pretty much limited by an LCD to such a low resolution (1280x1024 on Far Cry which is an old game), ATI's implementation for FP16 HDR+AA is about as useless as SM2.0 on an FX card.
 
kcthebrewer said:
It appears that ATI is not fast enough with their current cards to play a game with HDR and AA at anything but low/mid resolutions. No surprise, I didn't expect that they could. I would have been amazed though. Unfortunately for now, unless you are pretty much limited by an LCD to such a low resolution (1280x1024 on Far Cry which is an old game), ATI's implementation for FP16 HDR+AA is about as useless as SM2.0 on an FX card.
Click to expand...

I agree performance is nothing special right now but I bet they can make a 'hotfix' for the programmable MC for the future
 
kcthebrewer said:
It appears that ATI is not fast enough with their current cards to play a game with HDR and AA at anything but low/mid resolutions. No surprise, I didn't expect that they could. I would have been amazed though. Unfortunately for now, unless you are pretty much limited by an LCD to such a low resolution (1280x1024 on Far Cry which is an old game), ATI's implementation for FP16 HDR+AA is about as useless as SM2.0 on an FX card.
Click to expand...

1280x1024 is a low resolution now eh :rolleyes:
 
Netrat33 said:
1280x1024 is a low resolution now eh :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
it is compared to 1720x1320=2270400 vs 1280x1024=1310720, ur seeing almost twice the pixels, the whole game looks much more detailed especially models at long range distances.
 
kcthebrewer said:
It appears that ATI is not fast enough with their current cards to play a game with HDR and AA at anything but low/mid resolutions. No surprise, I didn't expect that they could. I would have been amazed though. Unfortunately for now, unless you are pretty much limited by an LCD to such a low resolution (1280x1024 on Far Cry which is an old game), ATI's implementation for FP16 HDR+AA is about as useless as SM2.0 on an FX card.
Click to expand...


That's if you consider 1280x1024 a "low" resolution.
 
Malogato said:
That's if you consider 1280x1024 a "low" resolution.
Click to expand...

I consider 1280*1024 a low res myself, after using 1600*1200 for a year, i wouldnt touch anything lower. All i need to see from those benchmarks is that with HDR on, the X1800XT isnt playable at 1600*1200, even with only 2x AA and 4x AF.
 
DarkBahamut said:
I consider 1280*1024 a low res myself, after using 1600*1200 for a year, i wouldnt touch anything lower. All i need to see from those benchmarks is that with HDR on, the X1800XT isnt playable at 1600*1200, even with only 2x AA and 4x AF.
Click to expand...

You're also talking about HDR WITH AA on. Turn it off then.

I swear though..people and their grips about lowering resolutions is laughable these days.
 
To all you guys bitching about 1280x960 being a low resolution, play some game at 640x480 with no AA for 6 hours, then go back to 1280x960 and 4xAA.

/Has been making an anti-aliasing related proof-of-concept demo, and using 320x240 all of the time for testing
//800x600 looks amazing by comparison.
 
Netrat33 said:
You're also talking about HDR WITH AA on. Turn it off then.

I swear though..people and their grips about lowering resolutions is laughable these days.
Click to expand...

I was qurious at to when you had a "change of heart"?

Because here you say something else:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1027302991&postcount=30

First off, In my opinion, After seeing this...I think openEXR HDR "sucks". Granted two different games (farcry being the only game with openexr right now) one on an island and one in the dark. But I think this HDR looks sooooo much better (probably the AA what is doing the 'edge' in my opinion).
Click to expand...

So now OpenEXR HDR is "acceptable" without AA because it can run on ATi cards? :)

Terra..
 
1280x1024 / 4xAA / 8xAF + HDR = 40,6 fps on the X1800XT.

Not great but definately playable. :cool: And now let's wait for a 4xAA hotfix. :D
 
Malogato said:
That's if you consider 1280x1024 a "low" resolution.
Click to expand...
It is a medium res and it is somewhat playable for an almost 2 year old game, that is a failure of a feature. If you are going to successfully introduce a new feature, make sure it is playable on old games, especially the first one you are introducing it with. Because if it isn't fully playable on old games, it sure as hell won't be playable on new games (which is why I related it to the SM2.0 on FX cards).

That said, the issue may be resolved with a new driver. Or we will need to wait and hope with the crossfire benchmarks...
 
kcthebrewer said:
It appears that ATI is not fast enough with their current cards to play a game with HDR and AA at anything but low/mid resolutions. No surprise, I didn't expect that they could. I would have been amazed though. Unfortunately for now, unless you are pretty much limited by an LCD to such a low resolution (1280x1024 on Far Cry which is an old game), ATI's implementation for FP16 HDR+AA is about as useless as SM2.0 on an FX card.
Click to expand...

Far Cry may have came out March 2004, but it is still one of the more visually impressive games, that has a good SP storyline to boot
 
Well, at least it's available as an option. And there's always <cough>future</cough> Crossfire solutions that might make HDR + AA playable at higher resolutions.
 
Terra said:
I was qurious at to when you had a "change of heart"?

Because here you say something else:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1027302991&postcount=30



So now OpenEXR HDR is "acceptable" without AA because it can run on ATi cards? :)

Terra..
Click to expand...

Um..no. Which is funny that you posted that too seeing how I'm talking about HDR and AA. See that quote was back with the 6800 series which you had to lower your resolution to get it playable. The 7800 series corrected that in where at least you can crank up the resolution (1600x1200) minimizing the jaggies.

the X1800 you can lower the resolution but enable AA making up for being a lower res. If the performance hit is too much, raise the resolution but turn of AA.

Edit: Also go back to see how I've given praise to the 7800 series for making the HDR actually worth while. Why don't you go back and see the posts that you've given the x1800xt any praise.
 
John Reynolds said:
Well, at least it's available as an option. And there's always <cough>future</cough> Crossfire solutions that might make HDR + AA playable at higher resolutions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, true that. We still havnt seen the X1800 XT in Crossfire setups yet. So actually it maybe pretty playable at a 1600 x 1200 res. Im hoping on the 5th, when ATI launches the X1800 XT, they will also release Crossfire for the X1800's as well.
 
Btw, it seems that Beyond used hdrrendering 7. If you use 2 (looks better imo, not so overdone) then I think 1600x1200/2xAA is playable on the XT. 2 is cheaper perfomancewise.

When i had a 6800GT, hdrrendering 7 wasn't playable @ 1280, but 2 was (except in some later levels).
 
Cypher19 said:
To all you guys bitching about 1280x960 being a low resolution, play some game at 640x480 with no AA for 6 hours, then go back to 1280x960 and 4xAA.

/Has been making an anti-aliasing related proof-of-concept demo, and using 320x240 all of the time for testing
//800x600 looks amazing by comparison.
Click to expand...

try playing at 2048x1536 on 2xAA, u'll never go back to 1280x960 again lol. And btw 640x480 is so.... 7 years ago
 
In Far Cry, HDR WITH or WITHOUT AA isn't worth the performance hit. It is a FPS, framerate is critical. Plus on nVidia cards it doesn't work with FSAA so the HDR is totally useless in Far Cry for nVidia cards. In Far Cry, a lot of the time I have a hard time noticing it is even enabled other than the lack of AA. There is another game that I suspect is using OpenEXR though, in AOE 3 HDR does not work on the X800 series cards, and when Shader Quality is turned up to highest and bloom is turned on in AOE 3, FSAA no longer works properly on nVidia cards. This along with the massive performance hit and the fact it is a nVidia The way it's meant to be played game, leads me to believe it is using OpenEXR. In AOE 3 it makes a huge visual difference and it is worth the performance hit.
 
tornadotsunamilife said:
I agree performance is nothing special right now but I bet they can make a 'hotfix' for the programmable MC for the future
Click to expand...


Its not really a MC problem, its a problem with Fillrates/bandwidth. FP16 format, pushes the memory usage up like crazy, the buffer size when using HDR FP16 increases anywhere from 20 mb to 120 mb or more depending on resolution. This is the same situation the the nv40's had. If you see the performance hit with HDR the % hit is extremely similiar to the hit with the first HDR patch that was released with Far Cry on the nv40's. That hit was never really reduced. Only way to reduce it at that time was is drop the page flipping that was happening by dropping resolution.

Now with the GF7's, nV might have added more cache in thier pixel shaders, to reduce the effect of HDR or any other post rendering effects. This is just speculation of course.
 
gtx4u said:
try playing at 2048x1536 on 2xAA, u'll never go back to 1280x960 again lol. And btw 640x480 is so.... 7 years ago
Click to expand...

I play CS:S at 1600x1200 with 4xAA, which might as well be the same as 2048x1536 with 2xAA. I'm saying you should do it so that you can better appreciate how good 1280 looks. If you plan on sticking to 2048x1536 forever, you're going to be in for a rude awakening in the next year, my friend.
 
^ I tried to put that in a post but I just couldnt for some reason. Brain dead ATM I guess Thanks though!
In reality gaming at such a high resolution for a long duration with the same card is not going to happen anytime soon without reduced Visuals. No card made today or tomorow will be able to play the top games at such a high resolution at max everything forever.
I would love for that not to be true though. Also 1280x1024 istn that bad I love that resolution. Sure I would rather 1920 x1200 or 1600x1200 but at the moment I can live without it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top