SM3.0, vertex texturing with benchmark...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Terra said:
Vertex texture IS a part of SM3.0:
Linky:

As for OpenGL, there is a reson for the "Open" in OpenGL...it's an open standard ;)

Terra - But hard to code for a missing feature in "SM3.0 done right"...
Click to expand...

Its an optional part.

The link you dropped doesnt even use VTF. So trying to say that NV cards are faster than ATi cards, because of it, is silly. Again, vertex texture fetch is not on in the benchmarks you dropped. So again, you're attempt at this arguement has failed, again.
 
Unoid said:
Terra just got owned.! Terra = liberals, fallguy = conservitives, and conservitives won the electrion BOOYA!

ALso let me guess, Terra is from Denmark, I bet hes an anti-American liberal. Yes or no!?
Click to expand...

That would be a no.
I have no religion, and I love the the verdict from Dover banning ID form the school, but I am all for the free market, I am for the war in Iraq(former UN-soldier myself) ect.
Only thing I dislike about the US is that you viloate the spiririt of your constitution by eg. letting people swear on the bible in a court of law.

Terra - Funny how peole resort to attacking me, insted of delivering valid counterargumentation...
 
fallguy said:
Its an optional part.

The link you dropped doesnt even use VTF. So trying to say that NV cards are faster than ATi cards, because of it, is silly. Again, vertex texture fetch is not on in the benchmarks you dropped. So again, you're attempt at this arguement has failed, again.
Click to expand...

So why are ATI's card not able to run PF in SM3.0 but have to fallvack to SM2.0? ;)

Terra - Again, if ATI hadn't said "SM3.0 done right" I wouldn't even have a case ;)
 
^eMpTy^ said:
And to ATi... this is what happens when you don't push the technological envelope...by the time you catch up...all the PS3.0 software out there is optimized to run on your competitors hardware...
Click to expand...

Scccchhh...you should now better than to post facts in this thread ;) *L*

Terra...
 
I want my 6800GT to run ATI's Toyshop Demo so I can see what everyone is amazed at.

..........but it can't......... :eek:
 
nobi125 said:
I want my 6800GT to run ATI's Toyshop Demo so I can see what everyone is amazed at.

..........but it can't......... :eek:
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that Pacific Fighters was a NVIDIA-demo? :)

Terra...
 
Terra said:
I didn't realize that Pacific Fighters was a NVIDIA-demo? :)

Terra...
Click to expand...

Not that I'm an ATI !!!!!! (look to my video card), but it's pretty clear that the game was written when only Nvidia's cards supported shader model 3.0. That's probably why ATI's cards can't run it right.

But ya, the SM 3.0 mode on PF might as well be an Nvidia Demo :p

Also, ATI shouldn't be saying "Shader Model 3.0 done right" when it doesn't support every feature of SM 3.0

Anyways, is there even a way to get my card to run the Toyshop demo? (I wasn't joking around before.....I was bummed out when i found out it wasn't going to let me see it)
 
It's been discussed (it's a few pages in in this thread at Beyond3D: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24254) and a programmer from ATI said that they tested the brick wall (and only the brick wall, no rain, no other shaders, no car, etc) on a 7800GTX and it ran at 12.5 fps, due to very heavy use of Dynamic Branching. Another post in the thread from ATI confirmed that it won't work on any Nvidia hardware, since the demo uses special texture formats available only on the X1K (or something like that). Be sure to read the entire thread, there's a whole bunch of info.
 
nobi125 said:
But ya, the SM 3.0 mode on PF might as well be an Nvidia Demo :p
Click to expand...
Nope, PF is actually a game and people play it. Water effects are awesome with SM3.0 compared to SM2.0 and overall performance is much better with NVIDIA card. If you read numerous PF forums you actually notice that many people choose their GFX-cards to play this game. Pacific Fighters (and other IL2 games) are not small names when it comes to flight simulators.
 
Terra said:
So why are ATI's card not able to run PF in SM3.0 but have to fallvack to SM2.0? ;)

Terra - Again, if ATI hadn't said "SM3.0 done right" I wouldn't even have a case ;)
Click to expand...

*sigh* for the last time

If PF was coded not to be card specific...and it is card specific, it wouldn' thave to fallback.

I dont know why you don't understand that.
 
Netrat33 said:
*sigh* for the last time

If PF was coded not to be card specific...and it is card specific, it wouldn' thave to fallback.

I dont know why you don't understand that.
Click to expand...

The game isn't so much card specific as it is optimized for the only PS3.0 hardware that existed when it was written. If ATi had PS3.0 hardware when PF was being developed, this wouldn't be an issue...so I wouldn't try to spin it as the game is biased towards nVidia as much as I would say that this is what ATi gets for being late to the PS3.0 party...
 
^eMpTy^ said:
...so I wouldn't try to spin it as the game is biased towards nVidia as much as I would say that this is what ATi gets for being late to the PS3.0 party...
Click to expand...

This is the second developer (that I know of) to do something like this though (Splinter Cell:CT with no SM2.0 path anyone? ATI had to make the path themselves and ubisoft put it in a patch). However I think in this case, since ATi didn't have a sm3.0 card I guess the developer presumed that ati would follow nvidia's implementation of sm3.0 on their hardware (and who can blame them? ATi are pretty terrible for keeping in touch with developers).

BTW consider before flaming me (just saying it for insurance) that I do normally sway to the red side on most arguments, but I'm just trying to be realistic.
 
tornadotsunamilife said:
This is the second developer (that I know of) to do something like this though (Splinter Cell:CT with no SM2.0 path anyone? ATI had to make the path themselves and ubisoft put it in a patch). However I think in this case, since ATi didn't have a sm3.0 card I guess the developer presumed that ati would follow nvidia's implementation of sm3.0 on their hardware (and who can blame them? ATi are pretty terrible for keeping in touch with developers).

BTW consider before flaming me (just saying it for insurance) that I do normally sway to the red side on most arguments, but I'm just trying to be realistic.
Click to expand...

And I usually sway towards the green side...I think in this case though, it's pretty clear that there's not really anything wrong with ATi's implmentation...it's just that everyone wrote games for nVidia hardware since it was the only game in town...
 
ATi are pretty terrible for keeping in touch with developers
Click to expand...

Yep, this is definately something which they'll have to improve.

Seriously, i'm a European, so i don't know, but are Canadians bad in good PR/publicity? :D A good example is the Farcry HDR+AA beta patch i have. It runs good, looks awesome and could have been a big seller for the X1K range.
But what is Ati doing? They sleep. If they have any idea about what good PR is they had to be sure that this Farcry patch was available at X1K launch. I'm sure Nvidia would have.
 
^eMpTy^ said:
And I usually sway towards the green side...I think in this case though, it's pretty clear that there's not really anything wrong with ATi's implmentation...it's just that everyone wrote games for nVidia hardware since it was the only game in town...
Click to expand...


And this is exactly why PS2.0 games ran faster on the older ATI vrs nv3x/nv4x back then too. Not because of some rummor ATI dealings just becase back then ATI was much better/faster at PS2.0 work when the developers were doing games like Farcy/HL2, ect
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top