Anyone else wondering if 6800 Ultra is really the 6800?
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
Joe DeFuria said:
I agree and disagree
Sure, the R3xx core is a very good foundation to build from. But i personally think it's pretty weak if they don't support SM3.0. After all, it's nothing like PS 1.4 which was pretty much defined by ATI and was also a defined after the hardware was released.
Just as i think it's weak that Nvidia doesn't support higher modes of MSAA, although i consider not supporting SM3.0 to be a much bigger problem.
Bjorn said:Joe DeFuria said:
I agree and disagree
Sure, the R3xx core is a very good foundation to build from. But i personally think it's pretty weak if they don't support SM3.0. After all, it's nothing like PS 1.4 which was pretty much defined by ATI and was also a defined after the hardware was released.
Just as i think it's weak that Nvidia doesn't support higher modes of MSAA, although i consider not supporting SM3.0 to be a much bigger problem.
I agree as I said above ATI not supporting SM3.0 will be a huge marketing nightmare after how they bashed NVIDIA last generation on the PS 2.0 support. The situations are very comparable.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Bjorn said:
Or Ps 1.1 which was pretty much defined by nVidia? Or 2.0 which was pretty much defined by ATI?
I honestly don't see ATI's non-support of PS 3.0 as that much of an issue. Obviously, it's better to have it than to not have it. It could be a significant issue if in addition to that, ATI's PS 2.0 performance isn't as good as nVidia's.
Well, I see them as different problems. Practically speaking, One is a problem of not being better "out of the box." The other is potentially a problem of not being as "future proof" down the road. Each a problem in it's own way. I don't think either one is a bigger problem than the other marketing wise. They both have "AA" checkboxes, and they both have "DX9 support" checked off.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Stryyder said:
And I have to ask again...where did ATI bash nVidia on DX9 feature support, rather than performance?
{Sniping}Waste
Regular
surfhurleydude said:
Remamber that the 5700U has external power and can draw more watts.
The RV360 only has the AGP for its power and it OC much better when you volt mod the core. The problem is you need a better cooler then the stock one to keep up with the heat.
Stryyder said:Bjorn said:Joe DeFuria said:
I agree and disagree
Sure, the R3xx core is a very good foundation to build from. But i personally think it's pretty weak if they don't support SM3.0. After all, it's nothing like PS 1.4 which was pretty much defined by ATI and was also a defined after the hardware was released.
Just as i think it's weak that Nvidia doesn't support higher modes of MSAA, although i consider not supporting SM3.0 to be a much bigger problem.
I agree as I said above ATI not supporting SM3.0 will be a huge marketing nightmare after how they bashed NVIDIA last generation on the PS 2.0 support. The situations are very comparable.
Couldn't agree more. ATIs failure to support SM3.0 is IMHO really going to hurt. Now would be the ideal time to take avantage of CPU bound conditions and where as NVidia concentrated on bringing their architecture up to date albeit with perhaps slightly antiquated FSAA and AF I don't see ATI improving either FSAA, AF or bringing new features?
A speed bumped R360 just doesn't cut it to me as a gamer nor developer and with OEMs being fickle I don't see them amassing either. Surely the whole concept of 12-18 month product cycles was to ensure you could get both new features and performance?
Of course this all could be a moot point if ATI have an ace up their sleeves
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Bjorn said:
By ATI, or the developer? And isn't that particular feature now being touted by nVidia as well?
It appears that this more a vindication of Valve's stance on MRT, than it is ATI bashing nVidia for a feature ATI "claims" is significant.
I'm not going to make any conclusions on how PS3.x compliant the R42x will be until it arrives. Some rumors say it will be 32bit floating point, others say 24, some say one feature will be suppported, others say different ones are. Right now pretty much all we have is a bunch of unrealiable rumors.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Seiko said:
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
The list of games that will have PS 3.0 support this year is about 3 times longer than the current crop of PS 2.0 games.
From a developers point of view it seems like PS 3.0 is the way to go if you really want to get the best performance out of your shaders. The ability to simply disregard parts of the shader can save lots of resources and increase performance.
It will be interesting to see if these games that come out will show any actual increase in performance over PS 2.0 versions. If they do show a real increase in performance and developers pick up on it, ATI could be in a world of hurt on this.
It will be interesting to see the performance differences in the newest games. We got through the development cards(9800,5900) and now are onto the meat of the DX9 game.
From a developers point of view it seems like PS 3.0 is the way to go if you really want to get the best performance out of your shaders. The ability to simply disregard parts of the shader can save lots of resources and increase performance.
It will be interesting to see if these games that come out will show any actual increase in performance over PS 2.0 versions. If they do show a real increase in performance and developers pick up on it, ATI could be in a world of hurt on this.
It will be interesting to see the performance differences in the newest games. We got through the development cards(9800,5900) and now are onto the meat of the DX9 game.
The real question is whether or not PS 2.0 will become a deflection point with game developers. I think nVidia certainly wants it to be, what with their NV3x's poor performance with 2.0 shaders and their support of the 3.0 model with their NV4x parts. But I think Intel's new integrated graphics and the market share of ATI's R3xx chips won't allow it. Regardless, it's a shame ATI doesn't support 3.0, just as it was a shame nVidia's FP performance has been so poor, pre-NV4x.
