Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

DukeNukem said:
why?
With CG you can stick to the standard but give NV cards a better optimization.
Click to expand...

Not totally - For example, Cg is still lacking Pixel Shader 1.4 support.

As I see it, the only use for Cg is for developers who want to compile to both DirextX and OpenGL (and lets be honest, there aren't many of those!). For everything else the DirectX 9 HLSL is the way to go.
 
Hanners said:
Not totally - For example, Cg is still lacking Pixel Shader 1.4 support.

As I see it, the only use for Cg is for developers who want to compile to both DirextX and OpenGL (and lets be honest, there aren't many of those!). For everything else the DirectX 9 HLSL is the way to go.
Click to expand...

well you are right but really PS 1.4 wont make it into the gaming market.
Simple reason for that. Nvidia did not push it and ATI has not enough market share to set own standards.
That is business.

You will see PS 2.0 games - still long way to go or PS 1.1 or 1.3.
So it makes not much difference.
 
DukeNukem said:
well you are right but really PS 1.4 wont make it into the gaming market.
Simple reason for that. Nvidia did not push it and ATI has not enough market share to set own standards.
That is business.

You will see PS 2.0 games - still long way to go or PS 1.1 or 1.3.
So it makes not much difference.
Click to expand...

There are already a fair few titles that use Pixel Shader 1.4 (albeit sparingly) - UT2003 and Doom 3 (using the R200 patch) spring to mind. It has a big advantage over PS 1.1-1.3 because it drastically reduces the amount of multi-passing required.

If anything, it may well be more widely used once DirectX 9 parts are readily available acorss the board, seeing as all PS 2.0 hardware can execute PS 1.4 code.
 
would'nt a game like Half-Life 2 which uses shaders in thier textures, run bad on the GeforceFX ?

also do they use 32 or 16 FP in games UT2003, ect ?
if they use 32 FP one would think the GeforceFX has better image quality.

reviews should focus more on image quality as ATI and NVIDIA are using different settings.
 
Re: Re: Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

Re: Re: Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

For DX 9 games that follow the specs (IE FULL FP PERCISION) the nV3x cards blow chunks. HOWEVER there is no denying the fact that the NV3x cards are excellent at DX 8.1

Hanners said:
Well, the 5900 is a good product. I agree that some of the reviews haven't been particularly well written, and of course there is the whole nVidia cheating scandal to put into the equation.

In general though, the 5900 Ultra is at least the equal of the 9800 Pro - Better in some respects, worse in others, but overall a pretty even match-up.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Re: Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

Re: Re: Re: Nivida should change slogan "the way we want it reviewed"

Yeuemmaimai said:
For DX 9 games that follow the specs (IE FULL FP PERCISION) the nV3x cards blow chunks. HOWEVER there is no denying the fact that the NV3x cards are excellent at DX 8.1
Click to expand...

True, but the Ti4x00 series is excellent at DX8 too. The FX series is marketed and sold as DX9.0 compliant hardware, remember?
 
DukeNukem said:
Well how can they say such thing?
Because its a fact!
ATI's low end offering is not competetive.
The FX5200 is better than the 9000 and 9200, costs the same or lower price and gives you DX9 as a gift with no extra money to pay for it.

http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/Budget_Roundup/index.php
Click to expand...


Ummmmm its better because they slapped a DX9 rating on it?? If you can't play it, you can't play it. Just because [N]ivida's PR machine says it is so don't make it right. I believe they said something about cineimatic rendering (but only if you turn everything off) or something like that.
Obviously for you the PR machine is doing its job.:hmm:
 
Socos said:
Ummmmm its better because they slapped a DX9 rating on it?? If you can't play it, you can't play it. Just because [N]ivida's PR machine says it is so don't make it right. I believe they said something about cineimatic rendering (but only if you turn everything off) or something like that.
Obviously for you the PR machine is doing its job.:hmm:
Click to expand...
Exactly.. cinematic rendering must mean 24FPS to nvidia i guess. The fact is the only DX9 things the FX5200 will ever be able to run properly (or 'partially' properly) will be nvidias demos.
 
I'm impressed that Firingsquad is using their own in-house demo for benchmarking.. keep things clean...

NVidia probably loves those clipped planes in those demo benchies... :)
 
Well my measly old 8500 gets 9k+ on 2k1se with my 2000+ and my top score on 3DMark 2k3 is 1396. And I heard on NVnews that the GF4MX440 gives the GFFX 5200 a run for its money

And those benchmarks look nothing like the ones i've been reading over the rest of the net.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top