ATi is ch**t**g in Filtering

Is this joker high or am I?

 

Maybe it's a combination?

 

Not yet, the kids are still up...Nicktoons Friday Night tonight.

I'm still trying to figure out if the guy was serious or just out and out trolling. I'm leaning towards trolling as I can't see anyone 'cept maybe BB or DP silly enough to post that up without a winky.

 

Wow, this is the dumbest post I've ever seen.

You have a problem with PS 2.0? Why, because Nvidia didn't invent it?

I've got news for you, PS 2.0 is more important that 3.0 in the scheme of things. And I can guarantee you that there will be more PS 2.0-supported games than PS 3.0... and that the ones that support 3.0 will also support 2.0.

I can also guarantee you that you won't be able to visually see a difference in games with 3.0 over 2.0 for some time. Why can I guarantee these things?

1- User base: there are not enough PS 3.0 cards out there for developers to even consider making PS 3.0 exclusive games. Hell, every new game for the next 2 years will still have a DX8 path built in. User base dictates how many units you sell, and the biggest user base will be DX8 cards for some time to come.

2- PS2 vs PS3 features: increased programmability od PS 3 does not = must have visual features. For the next year and some, PS 3.0 might give the 6800 a speed bump, but PS3.0 exclusive visuals? You wish. Not going to happen for a long time mate, and I'll tell you why: it comes down to user base again. As a developer, you're going to have to code for PS 2.0 for years to come to be able to sell to all of the DX9 cards out there. If you bother to code PS 3.0 after coding it for PS 2.0 already, it will look identical, you're doing it as a marketing feature for Nvidia... nothing more.


The bottom line is, from a technical standpoint, PS 2.0 is more powerful compared to 1.0 than 3.0 is compared to 2.0. We can see, yes, it took 2 years from the 9700's into for developers to release 2.0 games... you think the developers will just drop the installed DX9 user base and force people to buy 6800-based architecture? The market drives the software, except in very rare cases, and I don't see a PS 3.0 exclusive game like Doom33 on the horizon.

You talk about wanting a lack of bias but you've authored the most rediculously Nvidia-slanted drivel I've ever seen.

Your points are as ludicrous as they are improbable.
.

 

Except when comparing the NV40 to the R420, you have to compare more than just the pixel shader. In parcticular, FP filtering and blending is a huge step, one that can significantly change how games look on the NV40 vs. R420.

 

But just to play devil's advocate, 3Dc already can make a huge difference to games, and is even released as an open standard. It also takes very little work to take advantage of, and I wouldn't be surprised if it catches on very quickly.

 

True, but my point remains that it will be some time before a developer invests much time and effort into a feature that can only be seen in <1% of video cards available.

I'm not arguing that the advanced features of the NV40 are useless; far from it.
What I *am* arguing is that the X800 series is very, very far from useless, and will remain a powerful and contemporary card for at least a year, probably more.

Honestly, we're all crystal balling it at this point. But to say Ati or Nvidia has let us down with this generation is rediculous. Both cards have gobs of power, I'll be very surprised if an owner of either card will be dissatisfied in a year.

Wether PS 3.0 garners a massive development revolution that delivers exclusive effects within a reasonable time period *is* the question. PS 3 is inevitable, just like PS 2 is inevitable, and PS 4 will be inevitable... the point it, PS 2.0 will not be obsolete for quite a while, nor will 3.0 be must-have for at LEAST 6 months, probably over a year.

We'll see, but for anyone to conclude at this point that the R420 has "bad feature support" and that ps 2.0 is "useless and non-existant" is unbelievably shortsightedly stupid.
.

 

It's just a compression format. It won't have any more impact than S3TC did. It'll be used, but it's a performance enhancement, not the quality enhancement that ATI is pushing.

 

It can be a performance enhancement yes, but in this case people will probably choose to quadruple the side of their normal maps (double dimensions) at the same memory requirements. This is trivial to do since normal maps are almost always generated and the resolution is arbitrary. Thus you will have better quality lighting, reflections, etc. on everything without doing much work at all.

Of course you can use it to lower memory requirements instead (or as well), but with the huge amount of memory on cards nowadays that won't be nearly as important as the quality.

They've already released shots of Serious Sam 2 using 3Dc and the difference is pretty impressive.

 

Which is part of the point. SM3 makes things easier. So, they may not spend much time, but it doesn't need much time. Besides, more SM3 video cards will be coming out this year.

Well, a few weeks ago, we were talking about how PS 2_b was most likely the compiler target for the R420. Or, at least, I was saying that. All the FanATIcs were pooh-poohing and saying, "Oh, it may not have PS3, but it'll have the best features of PS3!" Come on. Not one ATI fan went out and said, "Sure, it'll just have those features, but that's okay." Now it's okay??

 

That only happened once with S3TC. Do you think it will really be that common with 3Dc? This is a step forward, yes, but you won't see 3Dc-only textures in games (at least, not commonly: it may happen once or twice....).

 

This is circular. Disagree with me if you like on the ramp-up time for SM 3.0, but you have to admit that they're not going to abandon PS 2.0. They can't. Too much of a user base to abandon it. And if they're going to program for 2.0, the only thing they're going to use 3.0 for (until there is an appreciable Nv40 user base) in the next year is token effects at the behest of Nvidia.

But In the end, we'll see if it makes a real impact on game development in the next year, I'm guessing no.

I'm a bit of an Ati fan myself I guess (but I've had excellent Nvidia cards in the past and will be happy to buy again if they offer the best hardware in my price range) but I certainly don't applaud Ati for abandoning next gen tech until the r500. As a matter of fact, I think the 6800's PS and VS 3 is a very compelling reason to consider the card, if you're looking to buy video hardware once every 2 years.

Having said that, the r420's shaders do seem to have more raw power than the Nv40's. So longevity isn't as cut and dry as people would argue. Remember than in Far Cry, the Nvidia cards are still running fewer 2.0 shaders than the X800, and the X800 is still besting it. We'll see what the PS 3.0 patch can do for it, but until then we're guessing.

There are other factors for sure, like the long-term success of openGL, etc, etc... but all I'm saying is, the r420 is not a bad card. Neither is the 6800. And if you bought either, you'd very likely still be happy in a year.

After a year, who knows? It's all speculation. But I wouldn't be surprised if Nv40's PS 30 "miracle" turns out to be on equal footing with the r420 more than a year from now because of other factors.

It really depends on where the developers take the software.
.

 

Whoa!!!! I'll need to use this as my signature....specially the "It won't have any more impact the S3TC did"....I'm amazed that ATI is doing so little marketing around this feature - if your statement is true...

AFAIK there is only one current important graphics platform that doesn't have S3TC - which is the Sony PS2..Needless to speak of the texture quality on PS2

S3TC had a tremendous impact.....

Shows that you know very little about 3Dc...It is ZERO performance improvement over S3TC...3Dc is only a quality improvement..You can compress normal maps using S3TC at the same or even better compression ratios...but some normal maps will look like crap with S3TC and 3dc format addresses that issue AFAIK..there is enough written about 3dc on different sites and discussed in beyon3d forums too..

 

Can you show me where he said it would be a preormance enchancement OVER S3TC? Also if you go read a slight modification to S3TC ( DXTC5 alpha channel compression ) you can get very similar results to 3DC as ATI has stated in a white paper.

 

3dc is a new compression format..Chalnoth said "it's a performance enhancement"...Isn't it logical to assume that the comparision is with the existing compression formats ie;S3TC?

The slightly modificed DXTC5 does produce better quality than S3TC but is still lower quality than 3Dc across the board...speaking in terms of metrics like MSE etc

 

Though we have yet to see the difference in an actual game.

 

No since generally ATI is marketing it against no compression. Also ati is market Parralex mapping as old normal bump mapping which is also a load of fud since parralex mapping uses hieght maps not normal maps.

 

It is funny how ATI fans have back flipped with respect to giving respect to the card that supports the latest and future shader formats. I remember a lot of praise for ATI and sm2.0, ATI took the technology leap and brought to the market a new way to do graphics. This time around you guys can’t accept and applaud nvidia for doing an amazing job of pushing shader technology further and adding lots of features that will push the boundaries and ways we do visuals.

There’s a big fud campaign by ATI do dismiss sm3, nvidia did the same with sm2. Just disappointed that people can’t read between the lines and see what’s really going on. A company shouldn’t be praised for being slack and or falling behind, people hammered nvidia and rightly so and look what happened, they came back stronger, ATI’s been coasting along without much pressure, people should be putting heat on em for the deceptive games they’ve been playing and lack of features and dx9 support. Supporting a company that isn’t doing the best it could possibly doing isn’t going to get you better cards, these guys are competing for your dollars, make work for it and offer genuine advancements and quality.

 

No. The comparison is vs. uncompressed textures. I'm basically stating that it's not all that useful to use S3TC for normal map compression (since that compression assumes color data).

And no, I don't think S3TC had a tremendous impact. It is useful, and has been widely-adopted, but end users really haven't seen much difference in using them.

 

Support for SM 2.0 was support for the baseline of DX9, hence the praise. They still support DX9 and there's no sign of DX Next, so SM 3.0 is a step up, but certainly not the change 1.4-2.0 was, hence the difference in reactions this time around. Let's not presend all SMs are equal.