Beyond3D Forum

Randell · 17-Jul-2002, 16:55

http://voodooninja.50megs.com/A2.jpg

taken from Rage3d where this ad appears in Septembers PC Gamer.
Apparently

Dave Baumann · 17-Jul-2002, 16:59

Mmmmm, they are quick to adopt the 'VPU' terminology.

phynicle · 17-Jul-2002, 17:03

hmmm don't like the sound of only 9.0

Randell · 17-Jul-2002, 17:03

aye I thought that, assuming V means Visual an not say Visual.

They are also promoting the 9000Pro as the fastest GPU arent they? Which would make sense then.

9000 - fastest Radeon GPU
9700 - fastest Radeon VPU

Doomtrooper · 17-Jul-2002, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveBaumann

Mmmmm, they are quick to adopt the 'VPU' terminology.

Is GPU and VPU a trademark ??

Randell · 17-Jul-2002, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by phynicle

hmmm don't like the sound of only 9.0

err right, so you subscribe to the DX9 will be splintered into DX9 and DX9.1 again do you? On a DX version that isnt even out yet?

Is that what you mean?

Doomtrooper · 17-Jul-2002, 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by phynicle

hmmm don't like the sound of only 9.0

Yes I wish it said DX 19...but of course DX9 will have to do since DX 9.1 is not even released yet

pascal · 17-Jul-2002, 17:09

Well, DX 9.0 will probably be the lowest comon denominator for DX9 games

phynicle · 17-Jul-2002, 17:10

hey i don't really mind the direct x 9 part
but would've been better if it sed direct x 9.X

Teasy · 17-Jul-2002, 17:19

If there is a DX9.1 I don't think there will be any big changes over DX9, not like their were for DX8.1 over DX8. DX8 was sort of a faliure, with some devs complaining about the limited pixel amd vertex shader support, so they brought out DX8.1 to fix that. But I doubt that will happen with DX9. Pixel/Vertex shader 2.0 will likely be as good as it gets until DX10.

Dave Baumann · 17-Jul-2002, 17:22

Quote:

But I doubt that will happen with DX9. Pixel/Vertex shader 2.0 will likely be as good as it gets until DX10.

I wouldn't be betting any body parts on that prediction Darren.

Fin · 17-Jul-2002, 17:29

Quote:

*ATI's Radeon 9700 128MB DDR compared with Nvidia Geforce 4 Ti4600 128MB DDR, as measured by Unreal Performance Test v918 and 3DMark 2001 SE.
Tested on the following system: P4-2.4 GHz CPU, Intel 850e (?) chipset 512MB PC800 memory, Windows XP Pro with ATI driver v.Alpha1 and Nvidia driver v2832. Resolution 1024*768 and 1280*1024.

[/quote]

Randell · 17-Jul-2002, 17:38

would that be tested by anandtech?

Teasy · 17-Jul-2002, 17:38

Quote:

I wouldn't be betting any body parts on that prediction Darren.

Nah, but it just seems sensible to me. MS have to stop somewhere for a decent amount of time or support for a good form of pixel shaders will never come from devs. The pixel shader tech in DX8 was obviously not good enough in allot of dev's opinions so it was changed in DX8.1 quite quickly to make it more adequate. But once 2.0 is out with DX9 it should be more then adequate, in which case it should be left like that at least until DX10. So that devs don't have a situation were they have one card supporting only 2.0, that they have to make sure runs the pixel shader ops in their game, and another card with 2.1 (or whatever) that they also need to support in their game to get the best out of that card. I just think their should be a standard pixel shading technique for a littlewhile so that devs have a chance to get their heads around it before they suddently have pixel shader 2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4 thrown at them.

Chalnoth · 17-Jul-2002, 22:41

1. Higher-level shading languages will make differentation between hardware designers easier.

2. We don't yet have any evidence as to whether or not the R300 will be truly a "DX9" part, provided you define this as follows:

A true DX9 part is one that is comprehensive, that includes everything truly important about DX9. If ATI has left out anything important that causes developers to just want to use the same codepath for the R300 as they use for DX8 cards, then the R300 is not a DX9 part.

I suspect that the R300 will be considered a fully-DX9 part, but that the NV30 will just be better (And it had better be...considering it's coming out later).

I further suspect that the R300 will be a very high-end part for its lifetime, meaning it will have little impact on the market as a whole for this fall.

Personally, I'm much more interested in how the R300 performs FSAA/anisotropic and PS/VS than its performance.

T2k · 17-Jul-2002, 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fin

Quote:

*ATI's Radeon 9700 128MB DDR compared with Nvidia Geforce 4 Ti4600 128MB DDR, as measured by Unreal Performance Test v918 and 3DMark 2001 SE.
Tested on the following system: P4-2.4 GHz CPU, Intel 850e (?) chipset 512MB PC800 memory, Windows XP Pro with ATI driver v.Alpha1 and Nvidia driver v2832. Resolution 1024*768 and 1280*1024.

[/quote]

Qoute from where?

SanGreal · 17-Jul-2002, 23:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by T2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fin

Quote:

*ATI's Radeon 9700 128MB DDR compared with Nvidia Geforce 4 Ti4600 128MB DDR, as measured by Unreal Performance Test v918 and 3DMark 2001 SE.
Tested on the following system: P4-2.4 GHz CPU, Intel 850e (?) chipset 512MB PC800 memory, Windows XP Pro with ATI driver v.Alpha1 and Nvidia driver v2832. Resolution 1024*768 and 1280*1024.

Qoute from where?

The advertisement. Its on the right hand side. Its the explanation of the asterix next to "Fastest"

MuFu · 17-Jul-2002, 23:55

I was told that the plan always to forge ahead with the launch, even if DX9 was delayed; Orton was very keen to beat nVidia to market by a few months. They were confident that any minor problems could be patched over in software after the specification was finalised. I'm sure they have as good an idea of concrete DX9 specs as anybody though, seeing as they were heavily involved in its development. Same thing goes for AGP 3.0 which is supposedly still in "draft" form.

MuFu.

Tahir2 · 18-Jul-2002, 00:01

AGP 3.0 is not in 'draft' form. It is finalised... KT400 and NF2 both are AGP 3.0 compliant - INTEL finalised the spec many moons ago.

To be fully DX9.0 compatible you can assume it is also concrete [in specs at least] too.

Remember the rumours that occured last year about DX8.0 being late? It was not.
I even remember rumours that DX7.0 was going to be late. It was not.

MuFu · 18-Jul-2002, 00:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by misae

AGP 3.0 is not in 'draft' form.

Ah, ok. Sorry, I was just going by this: http://www.intel.com/technology/agp/agp_draft9.htm

Quote:

This draft version of the AGP Specification 3.0 (“Draft Specification”) may be downloaded and reproduced only for your internal review and comment to Intel. This document is NOT the final version of the Specification and is subject to change without notice. A modified, final version of this Specification (“Final Specification”) when approved by Intel will be made available for download at this Web Site.

MuFu.

jvd · 18-Jul-2002, 00:20

I can just see it now . Ati only supports 9.0 and nvidia supports 9.1 and everyone will change thier arguements.

Fin · 18-Jul-2002, 00:31

from the screenshot

Ascended Saiyan · 18-Jul-2002, 00:48

From what I can see from the ad it says fully Directx 9 compliant & that must be what it', all of this ranting about pigs flying & gremlins messing with the technical aspects of airplanes in the early days,in other words stop making rumours that are not based at least on facts instead of this worthless ranting.

Anyway enough of my ranting,if they plan a paper launch tommorow I suspect there will be a lot of .PDF's to download tomorrow since most of us still have no idea what the full features of Directx 9 are.

T2k · 18-Jul-2002, 02:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvd

I can just see it now . Ati only supports 9.0 and nvidia supports 9.1 and everyone will change thier arguements.

Hmm... DX9.1? Neither 9.0 isn't finished but NV for example in early September will know the next step? Ahem...

phynicle · 18-Jul-2002, 02:23

they know what it need to be direct x 9 or 9.1 compliant
just because the software ain't finished doesn't mean that the hardware isn't finished as well
company get the know-in way before so they can start designing the chip

17-Jul-2002, 16:55	#1
Randell Senior Daddy Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: London Posts: 1,869	Time to scotch those R300 isnt fully DX9 rumours? http://voodooninja.50megs.com/A2.jpg taken from Rage3d where this ad appears in Septembers PC Gamer. Apparently

17-Jul-2002, 16:59	#2
Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh... Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 12,990	Mmmmm, they are quick to adopt the 'VPU' terminology. __________________ Expand. Accelerate. Dominate. Tweet Tweet!

18-Jul-2002, 00:01	#19
Tahir2 Itchy Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: United Queendom Posts: 2,859	AGP 3.0 is not in 'draft' form. It is finalised... KT400 and NF2 both are AGP 3.0 compliant - INTEL finalised the spec many moons ago. To be fully DX9.0 compatible you can assume it is also concrete [in specs at least] too. Remember the rumours that occured last year about DX8.0 being late? It was not. I even remember rumours that DX7.0 was going to be late. It was not. __________________ Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so - Douglas Adams

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
An interesting take on the performance duel at ExtemeTech	cthellis42	3D Hardware, Software & Output Devices	20	22-Aug-2003 10:28
Gamasutra article about Splinter Cell (PS2)	Deepak	Console Technology	26	23-Jul-2003 05:13
NV30 processor result evangelism	demalion	3D & Semiconductor Industry	27	28-Apr-2003 19:08
Time Computers Chooses ATI For Its Premium Systems	Dave Baumann	Press Releases	0	09-Dec-2002 17:05
GDC and the Eternal Question: Where is DX9?	Dave Baumann	Beyond3D News	0	22-Mar-2002 20:12

17-Jul-2002, 17:03	#3
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	hmmm don't like the sound of only 9.0

17-Jul-2002, 17:09	#8
pascal Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Brasil Posts: 1,790	Well, DX 9.0 will probably be the lowest comon denominator for DX9 games

17-Jul-2002, 17:10	#9
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	hey i don't really mind the direct x 9 part but would've been better if it sed direct x 9.X

17-Jul-2002, 17:19	#10
Teasy Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Newcastle Posts: 4,568	If there is a DX9.1 I don't think there will be any big changes over DX9, not like their were for DX8.1 over DX8. DX8 was sort of a faliure, with some devs complaining about the limited pixel amd vertex shader support, so they brought out DX8.1 to fix that. But I doubt that will happen with DX9. Pixel/Vertex shader 2.0 will likely be as good as it gets until DX10.

17-Jul-2002, 17:38	#13
Randell Senior Daddy Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: London Posts: 1,869	would that be tested by anandtech?

17-Jul-2002, 22:41	#15
Chalnoth Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,679	1. Higher-level shading languages will make differentation between hardware designers easier. 2. We don't yet have any evidence as to whether or not the R300 will be truly a "DX9" part, provided you define this as follows: A true DX9 part is one that is comprehensive, that includes everything truly important about DX9. If ATI has left out anything important that causes developers to just want to use the same codepath for the R300 as they use for DX8 cards, then the R300 is not a DX9 part. I suspect that the R300 will be considered a fully-DX9 part, but that the NV30 will just be better (And it had better be...considering it's coming out later). I further suspect that the R300 will be a very high-end part for its lifetime, meaning it will have little impact on the market as a whole for this fall. Personally, I'm much more interested in how the R300 performs FSAA/anisotropic and PS/VS than its performance.

17-Jul-2002, 23:55	#18
MuFu Chief Spastic Baboon Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Location, Location with Kirstie Allsopp Posts: 2,258	I was told that the plan always to forge ahead with the launch, even if DX9 was delayed; Orton was very keen to beat nVidia to market by a few months. They were confident that any minor problems could be patched over in software after the specification was finalised. I'm sure they have as good an idea of concrete DX9 specs as anybody though, seeing as they were heavily involved in its development. Same thing goes for AGP 3.0 which is supposedly still in "draft" form. MuFu.

18-Jul-2002, 00:20	#21
jvd Naughty Boy! Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: new jersey Posts: 12,731	I can just see it now . Ati only supports 9.0 and nvidia supports 9.1 and everyone will change thier arguements.

18-Jul-2002, 00:31	#22
Fin Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 16	from the screenshot

18-Jul-2002, 00:48	#23
Ascended Saiyan Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 100	From what I can see from the ad it says fully Directx 9 compliant & that must be what it', all of this ranting about pigs flying & gremlins messing with the technical aspects of airplanes in the early days,in other words stop making rumours that are not based at least on facts instead of this worthless ranting. Anyway enough of my ranting,if they plan a paper launch tommorow I suspect there will be a lot of .PDF's to download tomorrow since most of us still have no idea what the full features of Directx 9 are.

18-Jul-2002, 02:23	#25
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	they know what it need to be direct x 9 or 9.1 compliant just because the software ain't finished doesn't mean that the hardware isn't finished as well company get the know-in way before so they can start designing the chip

Beyond3D Forum

Welcome, Unregistered.