Panajev2001a
Veteran
from FiringSquad's review...
does it means that the RADEON 9000PRO has a single VS 2.0 compatible Vertex Shader ???
does it means that the RADEON 9000PRO has a single VS 2.0 compatible Vertex Shader ???
Ati 9000PRO...Vertex Shader 2.0 ?!???????????
- Thread starter Panajev2001a
- Start date
Panajev2001a
Veteran
Can anyone confrim ? call me silly or something ? 
Panajev2001a
Veteran
thanks that helps so much
so I have to guess their review is THAT wrong... the thing is that with 1 single Vertex Shader with a bit higher clock, the 9000 is able to stay quite close to the 8500...
so I have to guess their review is THAT wrong... the thing is that with 1 single Vertex Shader with a bit higher clock, the 9000 is able to stay quite close to the 8500...
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Ati 9000PRO... what's up with the Vertex Shader ????????
Ahh, this would explain why ATI has rationalised the naming of the Radeon 9000.. They are pulling an nvidia a la Geforce 4 MX... by borrowing *some* next generation technology they can manage the name upgrade. hehe. There is a heck of a differance IMHO between calling a gf2 a gf4 and a Radeon 8500 a Radeon 9000 but that is MO. I still don't like the deceptive nature of the naming but if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander.
In a potential answer to your question the Radoen 9000 is a Radeon 8500 cut down with 1 TMU as opposed to 2. This is the first mention borrowed VS 2.0 that I have heard myself so.. The Radeon 9000 is actually a DX 8.1 card but as a result it carries many similairities with a DX 9 card.(Well it does far more so then a DX 8.0 card anyway.) I may be wrong but at least I gave it a shot for ya.
Panajev2001a said:
Ahh, this would explain why ATI has rationalised the naming of the Radeon 9000.. They are pulling an nvidia a la Geforce 4 MX... by borrowing *some* next generation technology they can manage the name upgrade. hehe. There is a heck of a differance IMHO between calling a gf2 a gf4 and a Radeon 8500 a Radeon 9000 but that is MO. I still don't like the deceptive nature of the naming but if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander.
In a potential answer to your question the Radoen 9000 is a Radeon 8500 cut down with 1 TMU as opposed to 2. This is the first mention borrowed VS 2.0 that I have heard myself so.. The Radeon 9000 is actually a DX 8.1 card but as a result it carries many similairities with a DX 9 card.(Well it does far more so then a DX 8.0 card anyway.) I may be wrong but at least I gave it a shot for ya.
Panajev2001a
Veteran
thank you for the reply
what I think they did ( and I hope they do also in the future ) is to take away die-area consuming features like the second shader and the second TMU in each pipeline and go another route to gain back part of that power lost and even increase in some areas and fall a bit short in others...
Faster clock, better texture caching, optimized Vertex Shader... this can help without making the chip too big... and the die-area saving means quite a lot of $$$ saved on the overall price of the card...
what I think they did ( and I hope they do also in the future ) is to take away die-area consuming features like the second shader and the second TMU in each pipeline and go another route to gain back part of that power lost and even increase in some areas and fall a bit short in others...
Faster clock, better texture caching, optimized Vertex Shader... this can help without making the chip too big... and the die-area saving means quite a lot of $$$ saved on the overall price of the card...
Panajev2001a
Veteran
well if they borrowed it from the 9700... either the 9700 doesn't have VS 2.0 or the 9000 has a VS 2.0 compatible Vertex Shader
I think you are reading way too much into that.
There is no reason that the phrase couldn't have a host of implications that don't necessarily mean a VS 2.0 compliant shader...and that is even if that was an ATi engineer saying that. To try to read that much detail into a second or maybe third hand phrasing of what ATi indicated seems "silly" .
Given what was said there and in another preview, there is no reason to just assume that they simply didn't update some unspecified abstract principle of the design to what is done on the R300 instead of taking all of the VS "2.0" architecture and migrating it into the R200. Doesn't even make sense for the target of the RV250 to even try for VS 2.0...it seems to me like it would be wasted silicon for the target market.
There is no reason that the phrase couldn't have a host of implications that don't necessarily mean a VS 2.0 compliant shader...and that is even if that was an ATi engineer saying that. To try to read that much detail into a second or maybe third hand phrasing of what ATi indicated seems "silly"
.Given what was said there and in another preview, there is no reason to just assume that they simply didn't update some unspecified abstract principle of the design to what is done on the R300 instead of taking all of the VS "2.0" architecture and migrating it into the R200. Doesn't even make sense for the target of the RV250 to even try for VS 2.0...it seems to me like it would be wasted silicon for the target market.
Panajev2001a
Veteran
well, yeah maybe I read too much, but I still like the idea of a more optimized architecture... even if with some resources reduced... like they did with the 9000 compared to the 8500LE...
As far as I can make out so far they've used a cut down and streamlined version of the vertex shader from the R300 to make the VS in the R9000 et al.
BoardBonobo said:
Yes, that is my understanding as well. The 9000 did inherit a lot from the development from the R300... It's pixel shader unit is supposed to be significantly more efficient than the 8500 version of it as well. However, I do not believe that the 9000 will be much more compliant than the 8500 from a VS/PS standpoint since I think it's unlikely it has the extra registers and such to accomplish the newer functionality. I've not yet confirmed that yet though.
My guess is that where Radeon 8500 had 2 Vec4 processors for each of the Vertex Shaders Radeon 9000 may use the Vec4 in parallel with a Scalar processor in it one vertex shader thus making it more efficient in scalar ops.
Panajev2001a
Veteran
that would be neato... they should ALWAYS make budget cards like that...
well they saved in resources that used a lot of die-area in the chip and gained back some performance by improoving the VS and the PS unit... plus this card has the smoothign feature for the video streams...
The work Ati did on the 9000PRO makes me interested on bying it as my next budget card...
Is there any real difference between 9000 and 9000PRO ?
The news about drivers being improoved is good too
well they saved in resources that used a lot of die-area in the chip and gained back some performance by improoving the VS and the PS unit... plus this card has the smoothign feature for the video streams...
The work Ati did on the 9000PRO makes me interested on bying it as my next budget card...
Is there any real difference between 9000 and 9000PRO ?
The news about drivers being improoved is good too
AFAIK, just speeds.
In the two reviews I've read so far, the R9000 Pro is getting trounced by the Ti4200. Until Aniso get used as per normal, but that seems to be fixed now in the latest dets.
Reviews are here:
Firing Squad
Personal Computer world
Reviews are here:
Firing Squad
Personal Computer world
Is there anything that uses pixel shader programs instead of intense multitexturing? It would seem that would be necessary to compare the efficiency enhancement of the 9000 series parts. How about the "advanced" pixel shader test in 3dmark?
For vertex shading efficiency, does the 3dmark nature test offer a good analysis of vertex shader effectiveness, or is there perhaps still a lot of multitexturing preventing that test from being a good indicator?
How about codecreatures...I've seen it implied that the 9000 has more vertex processing power than the 8500?
I also hope the "Pro" extension is a clear break from the "LE" and "no LE listed in name but it is an LE" syndrome, and this seems pretty likely.
EDIT: clarity
For vertex shading efficiency, does the 3dmark nature test offer a good analysis of vertex shader effectiveness, or is there perhaps still a lot of multitexturing preventing that test from being a good indicator?
How about codecreatures...I've seen it implied that the 9000 has more vertex processing power than the 8500?
I also hope the "Pro" extension is a clear break from the "LE" and "no LE listed in name but it is an LE" syndrome, and this seems pretty likely.
EDIT: clarity
If you check the Firing Squad review you'll see the relative performance in the nature test.
BoardBonobo said:
Yep, I noticed that, I'm seeking clarification as to whether the nature test is a good indicator of vertex shader performance (I'm pretty sure it doesn't use much pixel shader functions really...what besides the water?) or whether it uses multitexturing to such a degree that the 9000 would suffer regardless of the VS being more efficient than on the 8500.
