Beyond3D's review of the VisionTek XTASY GeForce4 MX440

[SirPauly]

I respect Reverend very much..... and offered my view and thought his view was too blanketed.

To offer Dot3 will place EMBM in the coffin is offering a blanket view toward the future ... and this product is not about the future but more-so for existing titles, imho, because it doesn't even have programmable features, so having EMBM as a fall-back for titles that offer Shaders is even more important and never mind the 40 + existing titles that the EMBM feature can be enjoyed now.

Let's take a title like Incoming Forces.... it will offer Shader support and EMBM for the products that offer EMBM.

You want me to dismiss this as a consumer?

Or just ignore and downplay the EMBM feature as not needed and dead and sweep it under the rug?

Sorry, if it bothered anyone.... and if it does.. find a flaw in my mind-set here.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-27 17:32 ]</font>

 

[pcchen]

I don't know how many developers are willing to write an EMBM fallback for their pixel shaders. At least I don't want to do that unless my boss insists.

In my per-pixel lighting formula, most materials use dot3 for diffuse and PS 1.1 for specular. For cards which don't support PS 1.1, I'll kill specular and let DOT3 to do the diffuse works. It is possible to use EMBM to mimic the specular but it is not going to be easy, and the light spot position is likely to be very wrong for some extreme case.

 

[MPI]

I can't _believe_ you used F1 2001's replay function to test it and then go on that "real" gameplay argument.

The replay playback has *NO-THING* to do with actual gameplay!! The Max Payne cutscene has 10 times more relevance to actual gameplay than that replay crap. Not only is the replay captured at 15fps(IIRC, maybe it was 10), the performance is WAY, WAY worse than what you actually see in the game. No wonder I couldn't relate to the numbers. A rig like that should *easily* average 60-80fps on F1-2001 in any resolution below 2048x1536 at any setting. Plus that you're playing windowed in the GUI environment. ISI/EA botched the replay function. BADLY.

Furthermore, it's not completely true that F1 2001 doesn't have any kind of benchmarking function. It does have an framerate counter as of the last and final patch. It's activated by Ctrl-F.

 

[SirPauly]

But this developer is offering programmable features and EMBM.


Incoming Forces with EMBM:

You may feel it isn't worth the effort but they did. That is my only point and a cutting-edge title an owner of a product with EMBM can enjoy and one that doesn't can't.

 

[pcchen]

Perhaps. It depends on how you look at these things.

From the screenshots you provide, it looks like they design the engine with EMBM in mind (the important thing is the reflective bumpy water, which DOT3 can't help). However, my perspective on designing my engine is to provide (nearly) correct lighting on any object, what EMBM can't really do much good. I believes that's also what Doom3 is aiming at.

I can't speak for most developers in the world. But I suspect that many developers prefer easy and proven lighting model than optimizing for specific light position/direction and object.

 

[SirPauly]

It depends on point-of-view.

I see your point looking at it from a developer.

My point-of-view is as a consumer since I am the one buying the games and buying the 3d hardware.

And having an EMBM feature with existing titles and a few cutting edge titles with this feature certainly shouldn't be downplayed as much as it is because the GeForce4 MX doesn't offer EMBM, imho.

I didn't hear anyone downplay EMBM with the GeForce3 launch or the GeForce 3 TI launch months ago including a 199 MSRP GeForce3 TI-200. Because it had EMBM? Didn't hear anyone talking the praises of Dot3 over EMBM then.

Just an observation.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-27 20:22 ]</font>

 

[pcchen]

Well, actually, DOT3 vs EMBM was discussed at DX7 era. There were already a lot of talks at that time. The reason why no one talks about EMBM when GF3 launched is, of course, the introduction of pixel shaders.

Of course, if a feature is used by a game which is important to you, the feature should be important. However, saying "It is a shame GF4 MX not supporting EMBM" is still debatable, since many people (consumers or developers) do not appreciate this expensive feature.

 

[SirPauly]

Pcchen,

Here is nVidia's official response:

EMBM is not supported since we never specifically implemented an EMBM unit.

I agree.

EMBM is actually very difficult to develop for, and produces a variety of artifacts (which is why you see little content using it).

Funny, 40+ titles that exist is little content and yet have artifacts, too.

I am a consumer now reading this.. this is downplaying 101. But, for the mis-informed... they will accept this as face-value and that is a shame. Where was Reverend to set the record straight and offer a balanced view? He didn't... so he obviously agrees with nVidia here, imho. That is why I voiced my view.

EMBM is implemented as a subset of the more correct and much more useful general dependent texture functionality of the pixel shader in GeForce3 and GeForce4 Ti.

EMBM lives on as part of pixel shaders as Humus mentioned.

Your quotes:

Well, actually, DOT3 vs EMBM was discussed at DX7 era. There were already a lot of talks at that time.

And, to some degree right now in the DirectX 8.1 era.

The reason why no one talks about EMBM when GF3 launched is, of course, the introduction of pixel shaders.

True, because the product had the ability to offer EMBM.

Of course, if a feature is used by a game which is important to you, the feature should be important.

True, but where does one get this info? I have to buy a programmable chip to get correct EMBM from nVidia and they're saying there is little support and the ones that do have artefacts so-to-speak.

What does a consumer do?

I can take the word of nVidia, right?

However, saying "It is a shame GF4 MX not supporting EMBM" is still debatable

I never said; is a shame... I said downplaying EMBM.. and if your read nVidia's official response in Rev's review and if you agree with it... fine. I don't and shared my view. The MX product has strengths and a fine choice.

since many people (consumers or developers) do not appreciate this expensive feature.

Well, if they only read nVidia's response... I would agree, but, if objective info was offered... well, I don't know.

And please, what do you mean by expensive feature?

The Kyro2 is not an expensive product so why would you consider it an expensive feature?

The Matrox product is not expensive.

The ATI Radeon 7000 to 7500 is not an expensive product.

Why would you imply to me that the EMBM feature is an expensive feature and clearly it isn't?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-27 22:01 ]</font>

 

[Doomtrooper]

As the old saying appears to go, if it's not designed, implemented, hyped to no end, by the big NV it's not a worthwhile feature. My opinion is simple, if the card can't do PS effects at least give it some old inferior &amp; expensive eye candy features like what EMBM seems to be labelled as :rollseyes:





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doomtrooper on 2002-02-28 02:15 ]</font>

 

[Reverend]

Sigh... first of all, I'm not "lost" as echo puts it.

SirPauly, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by using the word "balance" when what I gather from your quotes has more to do with an apparent "turnaround" on my part.

In any case, on to my explanations :

I did not sweep EMBM under the rug nor ignore it nor downplay it. I mentioned in my review that it is missing in the GF4 MX and offerred my thoughts on why NVIDIA did not include it. I also offerred Tony Tamasi's words to give the public NVIDIA's own views on why it is not in the GF4 MX. I did not comment on Tamasi's words because I didn't have the time to verify the authenticity of his claims. I do not remember reading any GF4 MX reviews that mentions the lack of EMBM other than my own. The fact that I mentioned this in my GF4 MX review and not before is simply because I never had prior MX cards (GF2) - I noticed its absence in the GF2 MX, gave it a thought, dismissed it and thought about perhaps it would be in the next el-chepo card from NVIDIA. There were no GF3MX cards. Now, in the second "iteration" of MX cards from NVIDIA, it is again missing... and so I did mention it. Hope this is understood with regards to my POV regarding "MX", EMBM and why I chose to mention it in my GF4 MX review and not before.

As for my apparent "DOT3 and EMBM" position-turnaround (and yes, echo, I do know the difference), perhaps I typed a little too quickly in that reply of mine in this thread... I was thinking of DOT3, EMBM and per-pixel effects all at the same time when I typed my reply. As for my "per-pixel effects will put EMBM in a coffin", I stand by that statement. "Per-pixel effects" doesn't mean DOT3 and only DOT3. DOT3 *can* produce effects approaching EMBM *for its specific implementation*... it's like "Think of EMBM... I can use DOT3 to produce results similar to EMBM". Please understand this.

I probably confused you, SirPauly, and I apologize for not being as elaborate as I could.

Regarding F1 2002 and my using the replay - I ran a lap while having FRAPS enabled. I looked at the FRAPS counter (this is easy because I don't really need to have my eyes on the road all the time since I enabled all the driving aids). On finishing the lap, game saves a replay of it. I play back the replay. The real-time FRAPS framerate readout is very close between the replay and when I was actually racing. Granted, this could simply be due to the very presence of the "window" but the entire replay GUI is 3D accelerated and since I felt that the "window" itself is "large enough" to be representative, I used the replay. Your comments about a rig like mine easily managing 60-70fps ay all rez below 2048x1536 - is that based on a GF4 MX or based on whatever vid card you have in your machine? Perhaps you'd like me to test again on either a GF3 Ti200 or GF3 Ti500 or GF4 4600Ti?

 

[Reverend]

Whoa, I take back what I said re F1 2001, actual gameplay and replay - replay is absolutely not indicative of actual gameplay performance. MP1 is correct - actual gameplay framerates are way up compared to replay.

I have no idea what happened during my review of the GF4 MX (see my most previous post re my observations of actual gameplay performance more or less equal to replay performance).

I will make another addendum in my review stating so. Sorry for misleading folks regarding the GF4 MX's performance in F1 2002 (or rather, regarding F1 2001's performance on the GF4 MX). I can't actually (well, I can but as a matter of my own policy, I won't attempt to correct my mistakes by changing the review) edit the review but in future articles using the GF4 MX I will use FRAPS while running a test drive in the game (this is simple and won't result in uncertainty since if you enable all the driving aids, your car never goes off the track!).

Sorry guys! Absolutely my mistake (although I don't know why, dammit!).

 

[SirPauly]

Per-pixel Lighting then would afford the next feature of the GeForce2, and that is Dot-Product Bump Mapping (DPBM).

At no time in that past review was there anything negative about EMBM -- just the positives of Per-pixel lighting and Dot3. That's what I mean by balanced.... no unfair shots, imho.

Your GeForce4 MX review:

Even though you didn't say the negative views on EMBM; it was nVidia's PR..... you didn't offer another point-of-view and left that PR impression for your readers. It has always been the downplaying of features unfairly is when I speak up.

And I read your views here in this thread and when you said EMBM will be placed in the Coff'n... that told me enough; you agreed with nVidia, imho. Didn't hear about the amount of titles now, the nice effects in certain titles and future releases. But, all I did hear was excuses why it's no big deal over-all and talk of the future with per-pixel lighting and Dot3.

And why I shared my views to you. It isn't about if Dot3 and per-pixel lighting is better or worse... because it doesn't change the amount of titles that offer the EMBM feature.

If close to 50 titles is little support, well, I love how nVidia defines little?

They are hyping Incoming Forces at their web-site for programmable features and that's right.. it has EMBM as well.

Ironic, quite frankly.:smile:

I hope you understand where I am coming from. I apologize to you for being a rude ass. But, I speak my mind and if I have something to say I usually say it to the person poster face to poster face, so-to- speak.

I did not comment on Tamasi's words because I didn't have the time to verify the authenticity of his claims.

Well, his PR views were slanted a little bit toward nVidia.:smile:

He couldn't say well we didn't feel EMBM was worth the added cost and leave it at that.....he had to downplay EMBM and spin it to; EMBM has to be correct EMBM and only our G3/G4 Shaders allow this. So nVidia can sell programmable GeForce 3/4 chips if the consumer wants or desires this correct EMBM feature, imho.

That is PR.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-28 04:59 ]</font>

 

[pcchen]

I think I have to make some points clear...

First, I said that it is not worth it to have EMBM in GF4 MX, is because someone said it is very important to have it, just in this thread. That's the main reason I reply in this thread, because I don't agree with him.

Second, I don't care what NVIDIA said. That's not my point. I like DOT3 not because NVIDIA has it. Actually I learnt about DOT3 from 3Dlabs first. Later when I read about EMBM, I found it is designed for a specific job (reflective bump mapping) and restrictive. So I like DOT3, and dislike EMBM. It has nothing to do with NVIDIA, nor NVIDIA's PR.

Third, EMBM IS expensive. To implement EMBM, you need a 2x2 matrix multiplier for each pixel pipeline, and a dependent texture access engine. Furthermore, you need the ability to address three textures. If you don't care about performance, you can do it cheap. However, if you want efficiency as, say, Radeon, you'll have to put a lot of works on it.

From my point of view, GF4 MX supporting four textures (without pixel shader) will be better than GF4 MX supporting EMBM.

 

[Reverend]

pcchen, your posts in this thread illustrates the basic problem of the mindset of a programmer and that of a non-programmer(=the public, the buyers of vid cards).

I am caught in between when doing reviews and responding to comments about any of my reviews.

 

[Mephisto]

There is nothing wrong with asking why Nvidia did not spend money to develop a DX6 compliant core for 2002, IMHO it is just wrong to let them do without taking the reader back to the real world.

The point is that you left an intentionaly missleading propaganda statement ("artifacts", "little support") uncommented. As a reader, I come to the conclusion that you agreed with what this missionary was able to sermonize in your review. I really hope it is because of the "lack of time", as you said, and not because you really agreed with what Tamasi claimed.

As for the "Dot3 can approach EMBM" thingy. True, for bump mapping it can, it can even dot it better. But that's not the point. EMBM can do different things Dot3 can't do at all or only with nasty hacks. EMBM and Dot3 basicly are different things for different effects, downplaying one because a card has the other is wrong IMO. It's not a desaster if a card has no EMBM, but spreading the impression that it is no drawback at all is not good..

As for the rest of the review, it was quite good.

 

[Galilee]

On 2002-02-28 04:32, SirPauly wrote:
If close to 50 titles is little support, well, I love how nVidia defines little?

You have to consider what types of games are on that list (42). 90% of them are more than two(some one) years old, and most of them I have not even heard about. So we are left with 5-6 games IMO. Even these are pretty old (DungeonKeeper 2, Drakan, Carmageddon).

You keep mentioning Incoming Forces. Well, okay. One game. One game that might be worth playing.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Galilee on 2002-02-28 10:31 ]</font>

 

[Mephisto]

So which feature does not have "little support" then according to your definition, Galilee?

Dot3? Evolva, what a reference, it is almost two years old too! May be ATI and ImgTec should cut out Dot3 support because there is so little support for it up to now and because the titles supporting it aren't top selling games or because me myself am not playing these games?

Or cube environment mapping? Colin Rally 2, any other? One game? Wow!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mephisto on 2002-02-28 10:45 ]</font>

 

[SirPauly]

First, I said that it is not worth it to have EMBM in GF4 MX, is because someone said it is very important to have it, just in this thread.

I never said it was a very important feature to have in this product. To others it may be but without objective info... how would they know? I said the product was a nice choice. However, I raised points why EMBM shouldn't be downplayed so strongly because the product doesn't have EMBM.

There is a difference there.

That's the main reason I reply in this thread, because I don't agree with him.

What don't you agree with what I actually did say? If you actually ask me what I think of the GeForce4 MX, well, I would tell you later in this post.

Are there 40 + titles created by developers that offer EMBM?

Isn't a newer release title named; Incoming forces offer EMBM created by a developer?

Your views are noted and appreciated but what can you offer that makes these points I raised meaningless... and should just agree with the downplaying of EMBM in general by nVidia? The PR was aimed at me the consumer. Not you the developer.

Second, I don't care what NVIDIA said. That's not my point. I like DOT3 not because NVIDIA has it.

Take a step back and look at it as a consumer. Why does it have to be a pissing contest between Dot3 and EMBM? I enjoy products with Dot3. I enjoy products with EMBM. You don't seem to understand my points..... you want to talk 3d and the programming aspects -- yet responding in a review that was aimed at the consumer like me...... not a developer like you.

Actually I learnt about DOT3 from 3Dlabs first. Later when I read about EMBM, I found it is designed for a specific job (reflective bump mapping) and restrictive. So I like DOT3, and dislike EMBM.

Fine... that is your view but again doesn't dismiss the EMBM titles that exist and a nice title like Incoming forces.

It has nothing to do with NVIDIA, nor NVIDIA's PR.

Agreed, it seems to me a contest between Dot3 and EMBM. And not my point at all.

From my point of view, GF4 MX supporting four textures (without pixel shader) will be better than GF4 MX supporting EMBM.

My mind thinks this way..... it doesn't support EMBM.... and nVidia dowplayed EMBM too strongly considering the titles and the OTHER products that exist that support the hardware.

I respect your views on EMBM and Dot3... I don't have any problems with them.

Now this is what I think of the GeForce4 MX and just my opinion:

I think it is a fine product and not supporting programmable features and EMBM would be too expensive for nVidia to add here.

They are offering EMBM through their programmable shader feature as mentioned and it would cost too much for nVidia to offer this in this product and it's price range, imho.

EMBM is a nice feature but losing ground and is now part of Shaders in general. So nVidia offers the consumer nice speed, Accuview AA, and some other features with a solid price to make up for EMBM and programmability and if the consumer wants these features, well, they offer another line of GPU's.

Nice MX product, and nVidia and partners will price them right to sell.

My point is: EMBM was downplayed strongly because nVidia doesn't want the consumer to know that other products that are not programmable offer EMBM and want to offer an illusion the only way you can really enjoy correct EMBM in the few titles(so they claim) that support it is by buying a programmable GPU from nVidia. In other words make the point of EMBM in this product meaningless for the consumer and not even worth a thought to consider when considering this lower price range of GPU. That is what PR is for, imho.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-28 11:56 ]</font>

 

[SirPauly]

The list is the list. You didn't know about Echelon and thought enough of it to post and say, "what game is that?" Cool game, imho, and mentioned from another poster.

Who am I to know AS FACT what other people know and like? I can offer an opinion in some areas.

To dismiss the information because you may like nVidia is not objective.

I raised Incoming Forces because it is being hyped with programmable features by nVidia at their Web-site... and yet it has EMBM support. I think it is ironic to say the least.

That's just not Carmageddon but Carmageddon TDR 2000. A lot of these titles gamers have and sold well.... and some are still on the shelves now.

And some are not included like F1-2000 and why I said close to 50 if someone wants to take the time to find out how many have some levels of EMBM.. the number doesn't sound too unreasonable. Don't confuse being even with hyping EMBM or slighting the GeForce4 MX. If you want to dismiss the information that is offered.... dismiss it. If you think what nVidia's PR said is fair... that is your right.

I will just respectfully disagree.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SirPauly on 2002-02-28 12:47 ]</font>

 

[pcchen]

On 2002-02-28 11:25, SirPauly wrote:
What don't you agree with what I actually did say? If you actually ask me what I think of the GeForce4 MX, well, I would tell you later in this post.

I think my first direct reply to you is for your argument about EMBM as a fallback to DX8 PS. I think it is possible only if your shaders was "upgraded" from a EMBM setup.

If your setup is more general and want to use EMBM to mimic specular lighting when DX8 PS is not available, it is likely that many troubles may appear.