Visual differences between Pixelshader 2.0(b) and 3.0...

T

Terra

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
2,786
I just fell over this little "show and tell" display regarding the visual differences between PixelShader version 2 and 3 in real world games:

PixelShader Version 2 And 3 Compared

I know it's from Tom's, but dosn't alter with the fact that games are starting to show differences between the 2 versions.

Terra - And thus making the SM/PS 3.0 cards a more futurepsoof invesment if you like IQ in games...
 
Well techincally they could have added the same IQ in a PS2.0 path, just it would take extra passes and more work via the developer....
 
Whoa, I never realised that AOE's water looked so good...

I want an X1800 :(
 
Jbirney said:
Well techincally they could have added the same IQ in a PS2.0 path, just it would take extra passes and more work via the developer....
Click to expand...

And hence lower preformance...as you would use more passes to achive the same effect...

Terra...
 
You'll also note that for black and white 2 it shows it the same (Pixel shader 2.0b) like the ongoing debate has been.

As to AoE III you have no idea what the programmer may have included or not included. (I'm thinking of Splinter Cell 3 and how the developer choose to leave out parallax mapping for ps 2 cards)
 
Netrat33 said:
You'll also note that for black and white 2 it shows it the same (Pixel shader 2.0b) like the ongoing debate has been.

As to AoE III you have no idea what the programmer may have included or not included. (I'm thinking of Splinter Cell 3 and how the developer choose to leave out parallax mapping for ps 2 cards)
Click to expand...

Look at the pics...they say it all, no matter how much you want to to be alike...

Terra - And thus the "SM3.0 is not visual better than SM2.0" in today new games died...
 
Hmmm, that's funny. The pictures I saw showed a difference between a straight 2.0 and 3.0, but when 2.0b was utilized they looked the same.
 
Un4given said:
Hmmm, that's funny. The pictures I saw showed a difference between a straight 2.0 and 3.0, but when 2.0b was utilized they looked the same.
Click to expand...

Look again then on the AOE screenshots

I will now quote the text for you, you must click the link in order to see the pics, as I won't steal Tom's bandwith:

PICTURE 1:
Setting the PixelShaders to "Low" in Age of Empires III deactivates shadows.

PICTURE 2:
The "Medium" setting allows simple shadows.

PICTURE 3:
On the "High" setting (PixelShader 2 und 2.0b), shadows are reflected in the waves.

PICTURE 4:
"Very-High" (PixelShader 3) shows all details and additionally makes the water transparent.
Click to expand...

Terra - I don't hope you are trying to say that those pics look the same? :rolleyes:
 
Granted it shows how SM3.0 wasn't just a speed boost but I think it has all happened too late, what is the real need for SM3.0 games when SM4.0 seems to eb just around the corner?
 
Terra said:
Look again then on the AOE screenshots

I will now quote the text for you, you must click the link in order to see the pics, as I won't steal Tom's bandwith:



Terra - I don't hope you are trying to say that those pics look the same? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And the Black & White picture shows that 2.0b, like 3.0, can make the water more transparent. It would seem what we are talking about here is what the developer implemented and not totally a limitation of the shader itself. While 2.0b may not do it as efficiently, and possibly due to speed restrictions that option wasn't made available to earlier shader models.

Just looking at the AoE benchmarks would seem to indicate that the 6xxx series cards just aren't fast enough to run the game with the settings used to take the screenshots. Until you get into the 7xxx and X1xxx series cards, there is insufficient power to utilize SM3.0 effectively. This is something many have been saying all along.
 
tornadotsunamilife said:
Granted it shows how SM3.0 wasn't just a speed boost but I think it has all happened too late, what is the real need for SM3.0 games when SM4.0 seems to eb just around the corner?
Click to expand...

Until there is SM3.0 hardware, developers won't have any hardware to code on/for...

Terra - I predict this trend will show itself even more in the future...
 
Un4given said:
And the Black & White picture shows that 2.0b, like 3.0, can make the water more transparent. It would seem what we are talking about here is what the developer implemented and not totally a limitation of the shader itself. While 2.0b may not do it as efficiently, and possibly due to speed restrictions that option wasn't made available to earlier shader models.

Just looking at the AoE benchmarks would seem to indicate that the 6xxx series cards just aren't fast enough to run the game with the settings used to take the screenshots. Until you get into the 7xxx and X1xxx series cards, there is insufficient power to utilize SM3.0 effectively. This is something many have been saying all along.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, this is not a FPS, the +60 frames per second dosn't apply to these games in the same manner...

Terra...
 
Terra said:
Until there is SM3.0 hardware, developers won't have any hardware to code on/for...

Terra - I predict this trend will show itself even more in the future...
Click to expand...

Yes but next-gen there will be SM4.0 cards, I'm trying to say how short lived SM3.0 cards have been
 
Terra said:
Until there is SM3.0 hardware, developers won't have any hardware to code on/for...

Terra - I predict this trend will show itself even more in the future...
Click to expand...

There is SM 3 hardware out there... and has been since the 6800* line... ?
 
Terra said:
Look again then on the AOE screenshots

I will now quote the text for you, you must click the link in order to see the pics, as I won't steal Tom's bandwith:



Terra - I don't hope you are trying to say that those pics look the same? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Did you LOOK at B&W2's though? It's the same (2b and 3)

Edit: Un4given already said what I was saying.
 
MrGuvernment said:
There is SM 3 hardware out there... and has been since the 6800* line... ?
Click to expand...

Yup, but guess how long it takes for programmers to develop new engines? ;)
And they can't begin untill they have hardware to test on/code for...

Terra...
 
It looks like developer laziness to me vs. actually any visual difference. This was also shown in FarCry, 2.0b and 3.0 were exactly the same visually.

2.0b being slower is valid, but the fact is on the last generation cards where nvidia had sm3.0 and ati only 2.0b, the ati's had superior shader performance and could do the more complicated 2.0b shaders just as fast as nvidia could do sm3.0 (again, this was shown in farcry with nvidia picking up speed in sm3.0 but still being slightly slower than ati running 2.0b). Therefore, it's only an issue if the developers get lazy (which appears to be the case in one game, but not others).
 
tornadotsunamilife said:
Yes but next-gen there will be SM4.0 cards, I'm trying to say how short lived SM3.0 cards have been
Click to expand...

There won't be any development of SM4.0 games until the developers have SM4.0 hardware.
You think there will be any SM4.0 titles at the G80 launch? ;)

Terra...
 
bobzdar said:
It looks like developer laziness to me vs. actually any visual difference. This was also shown in FarCry, 2.0b and 3.0 were exactly the same visually.

2.0b being slower is valid, but the fact is on the last generation cards where nvidia had sm3.0 and ati only 2.0b, the ati's had superior shader performance and could do the more complicated 2.0b shaders just as fast as nvidia could do sm3.0 (again, this was shown in farcry with nvidia picking up speed in sm3.0 but still being slightly slower than ati running 2.0b). Therefore, it's only an issue if the developers get lazy (which appears to be the case in one game, but not others).
Click to expand...

Crytek said that SM3.0 only where an ADD-ON, and it only had to do with speed increase, not IQ...
So you point is mute...

Terra - FarCry has never been native SM3.0...
 
Terra said:
Crytek said that SM3.0 only where an ADD-ON, and it only had to do with speed increase, not IQ...
So you point is mute...

Terra - FarCry has never been native SM3.0...
Click to expand...

But any game that has been SM3 has been the same visually UNLESS the developer left something out so far.

For example. Splinter Cell chaos theory looked the same EXCEPT for HDR. Parallax mapping was available later when a patch for pixel shader 2 was released.

No one, so far, knows if the developers of AoEIII simply didn't have time no care to add it or planning to add it. Which is so far the ONLY game to have difference in IQ when using PS2b and PS3.

Edit: besides...after about almost 2 years, the SM3 games....pretty weak amount...SM3 being pretty much a buzzword.
 
Netrat33 said:
But any game that has been SM3 has been the same visually UNLESS the developer left something out so far.

For example. Splinter Cell chaos theory looked the same EXCEPT for HDR. Parallax mapping was available later when a patch for pixel shader 2 was released.

No one, so far, knows if the developers of AoEIII simply didn't have time no care to add it or planning to add it. Which is so far the ONLY game to have difference in IQ when using PS2b and PS3.

Edit: besides...after about almost 2 years, the SM3 games....pretty weak amount...SM3 being pretty much a buzzword.
Click to expand...

^^ Bingo.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
is fear not SM 2.0B?
Click to expand...

Possibly. but not 3. And it's finally using the full power of 2 and crippling many machines.
 
Fact is no matter how much you try and blame the developers, the moon or my trained spelling penguin games are starting to show a differnces between SM2.0 and SM3.0...

Terra - Like it or not...
 
Terra said:
Then it didn't look the same...

Terra...
Click to expand...

Silly me. I thought you were actually trying to have a real debate then your usual trolling. :rolleyes:

With how much and how long you've talked and acted like you know alot about the methods of HDR and SM2 and 3, this shouldn't have to had been explained to you.

You're turning you're own legit thread into a fluff piece.
 
Terra said:
Fact is no matter how much you try and blame the developers, the moon or my trained spelling penguin games are starting to show a differnces between SM2.0 and SM3.0...

Terra - Like it or not...
Click to expand...


But between 2.0b and 3 it's still yet to be scene

Which is what everyone was screaming at ATI for not supporting 3 but they saying they still have 2.0b. And Crytek even saying how 2.0b should carry just as long.
 
Even though HDR technically dosn't have anything to with SM3.0, the fact is that that the only cards that have true HDR(FP16 HDR) are also all SM3.0 cards:
6800's
7800's
X1800's

Terra - Like it or not...
 
Netrat33 said:
But between 2.0b and 3 it's still yet to be scene

Which is what everyone was screaming at ATI for not supporting 3 but they saying they still have 2.0b. And Crytek even saying how 2.0b should carry just as long.
Click to expand...

Please take a look at the AOE screenshots again, please...

Terra - Now who is the one "trolling" :rolleyes:
 
Terra Give it up....
I understand what your saying, and the fact is only SM3.0 hardware will run these games in that detail but the problem does not lie with SM2.0b its with Devs. None the less I think SM4.0 games will be out next year and the year afterwards. SM3.0 was just fluf, its done we are moving on allready.
 
Terra said:
Please take a look at the AOE screenshots again, please...

Terra - Now who is the one "trolling" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

YOU! You're a troller. YOu don't even acknowledge B&W2 screen shots!

suddenly you're bring HDR support into SM3. Why don't you bring ultrashadowing while your at it :rolleyes:


whatever I'm done with you.
 
Terra -
sm2.0b and sm3.0 are capable of the EXACT same effects and visual quality.
2.0b requires more passes to achieve the same effect, however.
sm3.0 offers NO visual quality enhancements over sm2.0b. Period.
Only PERFORMANCE increases are available in sm3.0. The differences in visual quality in those screenshots is because the software was not coded to use all the available bells and whistles in sm2.0b.
Thats it. Thats the reason. Period.
 
I think the effects are really quite oustanding already. SM 2.0b does everything other than particle effects really, really well.

Water is the only place where it *may* or may not be lacking a bit, but that can be remedied more with Vertex shaders and/or a physics hardware card to calculate overlapping waves. That and of course realistic fire and smoke, which will probably need SM 4.0 (still have yet to see the realistic little flickers and whirlwinds of good smoke) but then again in that case, it might be better put to a physics engine.
 
ZenOps said:
I think the effects are really quite oustanding already. SM 2.0b does everything other than particle effects really, really well.

Water is the only place where it *may* or may not be lacking a bit, but that can be remedied more with Vertex shaders and/or a physics hardware card to calculate overlapping waves. That and of course realistic fire and smoke, which will probably need SM 4.0 (still have yet to see the realistic little flickers and whirlwinds of good smoke) but then again in that case, it might be better put to a physics engine.
Click to expand...
sm2.0b can do the same particle effects the same way that sm3.0 can. It just may not do it as efficiently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top