5700, 5600, 9600 'Pure' DX9 Performances

If you are going by the multisample buffers exposed by the API then that would be a perfectly correct comparison as far as the API definition is concerned (control panel is outside of the specification and technically anything could be going on there - as it does with filtering). Its seems that most reviewers do compare 4X to 4X anyway - what you go to here is IQ differences.
 
DaveBaumann said:
Thats what I was saying - in both cases.

I guess we agree then. That mixed mode vs FP24 can certainly be an apples to apples comparision, as long as the IQ is the same.
 
jb said:
MikeC said:
As you know Halo is a game and not a synthetic benchmark and contains a command line variable that supports a pixel shader 2.0 code path. Have you by chance tested performance in Halo using this code path with either the GeForce FX or Radeon 9800?

FX'es when running halo drop down to a mix precsion mode. So while its a valid comparison, its not an apple to apple one.

Thanks, I didn't know that and should update my preview. Do you think I should also mention that I didn't notice any difference in the graphics when playing Halo on either graphics card.
 
MikeC said:
Thanks, I didn't know that and should update my preview. Do you think I should also mention that I didn't notice any difference in the graphics when playing Halo on either graphics card.


MikeC was not trying to be an a$$ just point out a fact that is not well known. If you took the time to look at both closely (water and other areas were DX9 is used) then its a very valid comparison and yes you should note both.
 
@jp

What do you mean with "mix precsion mode" on the gffx? Do you mean partial precison 2.0 shaders? If someone is interested I can include an additional option in 3DA - "force high precision pixel shaders" which can remove the partial precision hints...

Thomas
 
tb said:
@jp

What do you mean with "mix precsion mode" on the gffx? Do you mean partial precison 2.0 shaders? If someone is interested I can include an additional option in 3DA - "force high precision pixel shaders" which can remove the partial precision hints...

Thomas


Tommy,

in ET article on Halo Benchmark they had this to say:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1354537,00.asp

Most of the game's shader effects have been rewritten, utilizing a variety of code paths to support everything from fixed-function graphics pipelines to the latest 2.0 shaders in DX9. This makes it an interesting graphics test, if only because there are so few games that utilize 2.0 shaders at all. In the 2.0 shader path, Halo does utilize partial-precision hints, allowing GeForce FX cards to operate using faster 16-bit floating point operations

If you think such an option will add value to your tool (which is pretty cool BTW), then go for it :)
 
Most of the game's shader effects have been rewritten, utilizing a variety of code paths to support everything from fixed-function graphics pipelines to the latest 2.0 shaders in DX9. This makes it an interesting graphics test, if only because there are so few games that utilize 2.0 shaders at all. In the 2.0 shader path, Halo does utilize partial-precision hints, allowing GeForce FX cards to operate using faster 16-bit floating point operations

Okay, I added the option and released 3DA 2.26.

I thinks halo's rendering path are working like this:

- max. ps2.0 present: it will use ps2.0, ps1.4 and ps1.1, all effects visible
- max. ps1.4 present: it will use ps1.4 and ps1.1, certain effects will be missing or look different
- max. ps1.1 present: it will use ps1.1, certain effects will be missing or look different
- max. ff present: it will use ff to do some pixel shader like effect, certain effects will be missing or look different

Maybe it uses some ff stuff even with ps present, but that's just a speculation.

Thomas
 
From the "Microsoft Halo PC Technical and Performance FAQ
October 6th 2003, v1.02" :

1.1.1 What are the different rendering code paths supported by Halo PC?

Halo support 4 different rendering code paths:

Pixel shaders 2.0 (DirectX 9.0)
In this code path, you are making absolutely no compromises on the visual quality of the game. You are seeing everything as best as possible, as engineered by our team. All the effects are in their most demanding form (as complex of a calculation as necessary to generate the best visual result possible).

Having said this, for many simple effects, even if you are running PS2.0, the game will automatically use a 1.4 or 1.1 shader because the visual result is exactly the same.

Pixel shaders 1.4 (DirectX 8.0)
When running in PS1.4, you are compromising only a subset of effects. Specifically:
- No bumped mirrored surfaces
- Some video effects are two-pass


Pixel shaders 1.1 (DirectX 8.0)
PS1.1 is probably the most widespread pixel shader version currently. When running in the PS1.1 rendering code path, the visual compromises are (in addition to the PS1.4 compromises):
- No model self-illumination (excluding some specific environmental models)
- No animated lightmaps
- Fog calculations are triangle based, not pixel based
- No specular lights


Cards that support Hardware T&L (fixed function - DirectX 7.0)
This is the most basic rendering code path for Halo. When running in that mode, you have to accept many visual compromises but are still getting a compelling Halo visual experience. The compromises are:
- No shadows
- Simple active camouflage effect
- No glows or flares
- Very basic fog, water and lighting

http://halo.bungie.net/site/halo/features/hpcperformancefaq.html
 
Back
Top